Slashdot Mirror


GMO Wheat Found Growing Wild In Oregon, Japan Suspends Import From U.S.

An anonymous reader writes "NPR reports that an Oregon wheat farmer found a patch of wheat growing where he did not plant. After RoundUp failed to kill the plants, he sent them to a lab for testing. Turns out the wheat in question is a GMO strain created by Monsanto but never sent to market. Oregon field trials for the wheat ended in 2001. 'Nobody knows how this wheat got to this farm. ... After all such trials, the genetically engineered crops are supposed to be completely removed. Also, nobody knows how widely this genetically engineered wheat has spread, and whether it's been in fields of wheat that were harvested for food.' The USDA is currently investigating and says there is no health-risk. Meanwhile, Monsanto has released a statement and Japan has suspended some wheat imports from the U.S. 'The mystery could have implications on wheat trade. Many countries around the world will not accept imports of genetically modified foods, and the United States exports about half of its wheat crop.'"

679 comments

  1. It's still under investigation by ranulf · · Score: 5, Funny

    We'll have to wheat and see what their report says...

    1. Re:It's still under investigation by P-niiice · · Score: 0

      did you really have to italicize that?

    2. Re:It's still under investigation by bdleonard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Italicize wheat?

    3. Re:It's still under investigation by ranulf · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, but it's an ingrained habit now...

    4. Re:It's still under investigation by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      We'll have to wheat and see what their report says...

      As my pappy used to say: If you are corn-fused, you might be standing in a wheat field. Then he was killed by a thresher.

    5. Re:It's still under investigation by hamburger+lady · · Score: 5, Funny

      i can barley contain my laughter.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    6. Re:It's still under investigation by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Funny

      That was terrible. Maybe you corn try again?

    7. Re:It's still under investigation by ranulf · · Score: 5, Funny

      I seed what you did there... I'm all ears.

    8. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wood be a good idea if weed end this thread.

    9. Re:It's still under investigation by Kavafy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You spelt that wrongly.

    10. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a very rye sense of humor. I oat to smack you.

    11. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      peas stop! your weeding me out.

    12. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, should get a Nobel prize for that one. You're out standing in your field.

    13. Re:It's still under investigation by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 4, Funny

      lettuce see how long we can drag this out

    14. Re:It's still under investigation by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is rapidly going a-rye.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    15. Re:It's still under investigation by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      obviously whoever owns the land where the wild wheat is growing should be sued. It makes perfect corporate sense.

    16. Re:It's still under investigation by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I oat to smack you.

      Don't be so bulghur.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:It's still under investigation by acedotcom · · Score: 0

      i dont think we can potato this much longer!

      --
      they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
    18. Re:It's still under investigation by moronoxyd · · Score: 2

      ... maw?

      I hope it was a thresher maw. There's no shame in being killed by one of those monsters.

    19. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something something milo something something.

    20. Re:It's still under investigation by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Listen here meow.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    21. Re:It's still under investigation by yagu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Carrot.

    22. Re:It's still under investigation by coinreturn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      0/10. Wheat and wait do not remotely rhyme. Go away, karma whore.

      It's called a pun, dipshit.

    23. Re:It's still under investigation by mdm42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's not how it's spelt!...

      --
      New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
    24. Re:It's still under investigation by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Funny

      Italicize wheat?

      Well, wheat is pretty important in making pasta, and Italy is pretty well-known for their - aww, forget it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    25. Re:It's still under investigation by trazom28 · · Score: 2

      What we Oat to do is warn people about this pun-ishment.

      --
      {} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
    26. Re:It's still under investigation by scarboni888 · · Score: 3, Funny

      All the way down tomatoes!

    27. Re:It's still under investigation by shikaisi · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. That's enough of the corny jokes.

      --
      No left turn unstoned.
    28. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every now and the one of these pun threads crops up on Slashdot.

    29. Re:It's still under investigation by thaylin · · Score: 0

      not according to the dictionary: : the usually humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more of its meanings or the meaning of another word similar in sound Since they do no sound the same, and there is no second meaning of the word that is the same as wait, it is not by definition a pun, dipshit

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    30. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a serious note, I'd be interested in how it managed to reproduce. Alas, oat sex is blocked by my firewall.

    31. Re:It's still under investigation by Phairdon · · Score: 1

      Obviously this subject has bread some interest

      How many comments can we harvest from this fielded subject?

    32. Re:It's still under investigation by Cypher,+Lou · · Score: 1

      Time for obligatory movie reference: "Life will find a way"

    33. Re:It's still under investigation by JeanInMontana · · Score: 1

      <quote><p>It wood be a good idea if weed end this thread.</p></quote>

      LOL it really wood.

      --
      *Think globally~Dream universally*
    34. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, try not to puntificate.

    35. Re:It's still under investigation by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      not according to the dictionary: : the usually humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more of its meanings or the meaning of another word similar in sound Since they do no sound the same, and there is no second meaning of the word that is the same as wait, it is not by definition a pun, dipshit

      Your own quote says similar in sound, not identical in sound. If you can't hear the similarity of wheat and wait, then you either have a fucked up brain, accent, or just no sense of humor.

    36. Re:It's still under investigation by David_Hart · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stick.

      Oops... Sorry... That's not what farmers grow, that's what Monsato uses against farmers. I'm surprised that Monsato didn't immediately sue the farmer for illegally growing their product, even though he didn't plant it.

    37. Re:It's still under investigation by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      Yes, he oat to be awarded for his efforts.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    38. Re:It's still under investigation by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean your poppy?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    39. Re:It's still under investigation by Shagg · · Score: 1

      They plan on suing the wheat for it's illegal existence.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    40. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called an off rhyme, actually.

    41. Re: It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You breader not stop..

    42. Re: It's still under investigation by jstrauser · · Score: 1

      Corny

    43. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still trying to ketchup with the conversation

    44. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it.

      I mean, I get all the wheat-related puns. I just don't get how a cat was introduced.

    45. Re:It's still under investigation by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Beat me to it. The farmer is clearly violating Monsanto's patents, even though he didn't plant the stuff.

      [seriously now]
      This is why all the current court rulings on Monsanto's stuff are insane.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    46. Re:It's still under investigation by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Are there any more puns romaine-ing?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    47. Re:It's still under investigation by perry64 · · Score: 1

      You really shouldn't say that without removing your sunglasses as you do.

    48. Re:It's still under investigation by Bazzible · · Score: 1

      Here we go agrain!

    49. Re:It's still under investigation by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      He should preemptively sue Monsanto, for contaminating his field.
      From what I know of Monsanto, it seems like he will get sued by them sooner or later. Seems to me that he should get there first.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    50. Re:It's still under investigation by TheTerseOne · · Score: 1

      i dont think we can potato this much longer!

      Don't you carrot all how annoying this is to most people?

      --
      "Newspapers: A tiny little part of the internet, printed out yesterday, and delivered to your house"
    51. Re:It's still under investigation by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Super Troopers.

    52. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let him be, brother. Some scorn even a kernel of fun, as if the germ of laughter would blow their hearts away like chaff in the wind. These people always go against the grain, even when it could enrich their bleached and baked lives.

      Wonder bread.

    53. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peas, Peas stop!

    54. Re:It's still under investigation by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      I bet a lawsuit is not farro way.

    55. Re:It's still under investigation by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Hominy more puns can we come up with?

    56. Re:It's still under investigation by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Monsanto immediately claimed ownership of all the wheat grown in the US, as every field might have some of their GMO wheat planted on it.

      They are currently investigating whether any wheat exported since their trial was planted is other countries, as a precursor to seizing the wheat crop worldwide.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    57. Re:It's still under investigation by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Why are you being so milletant? Had a teff week? I'm amaized you took the time to reply. I quinoa-t for you to score my puns. Emmer really funny, in my opinion.

    58. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah all these puns are really beginning to chaff!

    59. Re:It's still under investigation by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      lettuce see how long we can drag this out

      Stop! Stop! STOOOOOOOPPPP!!

      If aliens ever blow up this planet, they will likely point out this thread as justification.

    60. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We Americans are just reaping what we're sowing, I guess.

    61. Re:It's still under investigation by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      We'll have to wheat and see what their report says...

      Then he was killed by a thresher.

      Isn't that the penalty for gluteny?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    62. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geeze, talk about needing to be punished!

    63. Re:It's still under investigation by sneakyimp · · Score: 2

      Enough of this rye humor!

    64. Re:It's still under investigation by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's quadrotriticale!

      --
      ~X~
    65. Re:It's still under investigation by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Beat me to it. The farmer is clearly violating Monsanto's patents, even though he didn't plant the stuff.

      [seriously now]
      This is why all the current court rulings on Monsanto's stuff are insane.

      AFAIK all the current court rulings on Monsanto's stuff involve farmers deliberately using Monsanto's seeds without a license. You can disagree with those rulings but don't imply they're something they're not.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    66. Re: It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually every other pun left the pun word in, so it's cornect to do wood and weed. Ryet?

    67. Re:It's still under investigation by zhongquo · · Score: 1

      Everyone is getting carrot away.

    68. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your god damned pun thread back to reddit where it belongs.

    69. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read your post and did I laugh?

      Hoe Hoe Hoe!

    70. Re:It's still under investigation by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Well, could be deaf. My deaf friends have a hard time getting puns.

    71. Re: It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monsato owns all your puns

    72. Re:It's still under investigation by bill_tvm · · Score: 1

      Lets them farmers get done with wheat, and sow some seeds of rape

    73. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that it is not wheat but "Quadro Tritikaley". Where is Chekov when you need him?

    74. Re:It's still under investigation by metaforest · · Score: 1

      I think you've gone against the grain.

    75. Re:It's still under investigation by realaven · · Score: 1

      F@ck Monsanto. I hope they all die in a fire.

    76. Re: It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously missed his joke... the pun was definitely there...

    77. Re:It's still under investigation by petteyg359 · · Score: 1

      This hull thing has gone a-rye.

    78. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dude isn't infringing. A few plants on fallow land isn't infringing. No judge would grant Monsanto an injunction to have those few plants removed, and as long as the guy doesn't grow a field of that wheat Monsanto can't sue for damages.

      In the future, unless Congress gets its act together, courts will inevitably be forced to give farmers a remedy for intrusive plants under a negligence theory. For example, if a super-wheat invades a farm and the farmer just can't get rid of it no matter what he does, he'll be able to sue the crap out of Monsanto.

      The problem with the law now is that there have been so few cases, the cases that have made it to appeals courts are mostly of farmers who had a pre-existing relationships with Monsanto and GMO seeds, and so courts are suspicious of people trying to game the system (in a manner not authorized by Congress, a la plant patents). When courts are unsure about how things will develop over time, the safe bet is always to apply the letter of the law.

      In time there'll be an equilibirum reached that isn't so anti-farmer. That's no excuse for Congress not to reign in the patent regime, but sadly that's unlikely to happen.

    79. Re: It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look folks, if you don't like, just grain and bare it. Woohooo! Two in one!! Just the bear facts, peas. Ooooh, that's a grizzly thought.......

    80. Re: It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if the pope is involved, lettuce spray......... Amen

    81. Re:It's still under investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stick.

      I'm surprised that Monsato didn't immediately sue the farmer for illegally growing their product, even though he didn't plant it.

      Give it a minute. They will sue, and then he will have to try and prove he did not plant it.

    82. Re:It's still under investigation by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      Why was the farmer outstanding in his field?

    83. Re:It's still under investigation by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      You mean, a lawsuit is not furrow awhey?

    84. Re:It's still under investigation by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      Such cereal humor, one row after another!

    85. Re:It's still under investigation by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      Give 'em a thrashing!

    86. Re:It's still under investigation by YaddaMinski · · Score: 1

      And be sure to sue the birds and bees.

    87. Re:It's still under investigation by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      ...sift the wheat from the chaff?

  2. Postapocoliptic Nightmare by localman57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Create Genetic Engineered Crops
    2. Crops perform better than natural crops, crowding them out both in the marketplace, and in the wild.
    3. Profit!
    4. Engineered crops later found not suitable for human consumption
    5. Famine.

    1. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seems you got that wrong. They are fine for human consumption but some Luddites are worried that their god didn't create the crops so they won't buy them or eat them. So they starve with plenty of food available.

    2. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by SargentDU · · Score: 5, Interesting

      or those so called Luddites don't like Monsanto's sueing farmers for having their wheat in their fields when the farmers had nothing to do with that happening, causing all kinds of bad feelings for Monsanto from many in the farming communities. Now their wheat is growing in the wild. Is Monsanto going to sue the County it is growing in too, or just the farmer on whose land it is found?

    3. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how so many people just say "this thing is fine..." without having any actual knowledge of the long term effects. Look through history, people have said "this thing is fine" until the second they realized it caused major problems.

    4. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now their wheat is growing in the wild. Is Monsanto going to sue the County it is growing in too, or just the farmer on whose land it is found?

      In this case, it's genuine contamination since it's a version they never released. So Monsanto did a field test, after which they were supposed to destroy all of the plants. Now a bunch of years they find that version out in the wild. I'm pretty sure in this case Monsanto couldn't sue.

      If this doesn't point to the fact that this stuff is going to contaminate everything, I don't know what will. I'm of the opinion that unless you grow this stuff under a friggin' dome, it's going to cross-contaminate stuff, simply because wind and insects have been pollinating plants for millions of years and are quite good at it.

      And then there's the whole using this shit as food aid and expecting starving farmers in Africa to not keep seeds for next year because of the license agreement they know nothing about.

      Hubris and "what could possibly go wrong".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously this farmer broke into a Monsanto lab, stole the seeds, and then planted it in his farm. This is the ONLY plausible scenario that could have happened.

      Signed,
      Monsanto Legal Dept.

    6. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In this case, it's genuine contamination since it's a version they never released. So Monsanto did a field test, after which they were supposed to destroy all of the plants. Now a bunch of years they find that version out in the wild.

      If that's the case then we don't know if it is safe for human consumption, do we? We don't even know if it's environmentally safe. In fact, if Monsanto did destroy all of it and it came back then we're staring in the face of the first seeds of the Zombie Apocalypse: Zombie Wheat

    7. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1

      If the farmers found that their plants were roundup proof, used roundup for weed control, and sold the wheat -- then yes, apparently monstanto can win that case. That's not at all the case here.

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    8. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That it still to be seen. From what I understand Japan, one of the more technically advanced countries on Earth btw, you need many and longitudinal studies (a scientific viewpoint). They are waiting a few generations to see what happens to the rest of us.

      In this instance it is Japan that is taking the reasonable and scientific route. We are taking the profit before before everything route.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    9. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if they are fine for human consumption, then why didn't Monsanto sell them?

    10. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's impossible to avoid cross contamination with wheat. Like most grasses, it releases its pollen into the wind and any plant of the same (or close enough) species it falls on will be a hybrid.

    11. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Cenan · · Score: 1

      I love how ACs come out of the woodwork to spout their "wisdom".

      Look through history, people have said "this thing is fine"

      Yeah, and "they" have also said that about alot of other stuff and bad stuff has yet to happen for it.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    12. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is Monsanto going to sue the County it is growing in too, or just the farmer on whose land it is found?

      Meh, whichever one coughs up more money when we tell them to is fine by us. Oh, wait, can we do both? Oooo, yeah, that's what we'll do! And the state, too! Oregon should've known better than to exist where our seeds were falling!

      Lovingly,
      Monsanto

    13. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      "Lead, it just tastes good" - Romans

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    14. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In this case, it's genuine contamination since it's a version they never released. So Monsanto did a field test, after which they were supposed to destroy all of the plants. Now a bunch of years they find that version out in the wild.

      If that's the case then we don't know if it is safe for human consumption, do we? We don't even know if it's environmentally safe. In fact, if Monsanto did destroy all of it and it came back then we're staring in the face of the first seeds of the Zombie Apocalypse: Zombie Wheat

      In this case, it's genuine contamination since it's a version they never released. So Monsanto did a field test, after which they were supposed to destroy all of the plants. Now a bunch of years they find that version out in the wild.

      If that's the case then we don't know if it is safe for human consumption, do we? We don't even know if it's environmentally safe. In fact, if Monsanto did destroy all of it and it came back then we're staring in the face of the first seeds of the Zombie Apocalypse: Zombie Wheat

      We don't know if any new wheat mutant is safe. At any time, nature could have come up with a highly toxic variety. People have kept crops safe for thousands of years by planting edible wheat and destroying the stuff that tasted bad or made people sick. The only danger is that it's possible for a company like Monsanto to produce and sell large amounts of bad crops before it has been thoroughly tested for safety.

    15. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      At the bare minimum...

      If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this? If nothing else, why don't we at least label foods as GMO, so the consumer can decide?

      Hell, Bloomberg and others want lables on every french fry that comes out of a fast food joint, why is there so much pushback on the more raw ingredient foodstuffs?

      We're gonna start labeling meat from source to shelf, why not GMO foods?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by operagost · · Score: 2

      If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this?

      Because that would be jumping on the bandwagon?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    17. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. For a different perspective, lots of other countries have official religions. Doesn't mean it'd be right for us to repeal the 1st amendment and adopt one ourselves.

    18. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      4. Engineered crops later found not suitable for human consumption
      5. Famine.

      You are probably completely on board laughing at 9/11 conspiracy theorists, UFO tinfoil hat wearers, illuminutties, etc. but buy into GMO scares, driven by lawyers and talking head book sellers looking for profit?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this? If nothing else, why don't we at least label foods as GMO, so the consumer can decide?

      Honest answer? I'd say the lobbyists who represent this industry have successfully convinced people not to, and a prevailing tendency to favor corporate profits over risks unless there is absolute proof of them (as in "it hasn't been proven dangerous, so we'll assume it isn't"). Kinda like agent orange or thalidomide.

      The companies who make GMOs don't want labeling for that, and have so far fought to prevent it being mandatory.

      The companies have far more clout with lawmakers, and have fought this kind of thing tooth and nail.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    20. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't want to ban GMO foods. I want two things:
      1) First sale kills patent-rights. No more suing people for growing it if they've unknowingly bought it from a third party who legally purchased it.
      2) Label it, so those who are worried about it can avoid it.

    21. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by c · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously this farmer broke into a Monsanto lab, stole the seeds, and then planted it in his farm.

      Worse, he applied RoundUp to unlicensed plants, and they survived. Instant patent violation.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    22. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Why? Monsanto. That's why.

      We can't let people get in the way of corporate profits.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now their wheat is growing in the wild. Is Monsanto going to sue the County it is growing in too, or just the farmer on whose land it is found?

      In this case, it's genuine contamination since it's a version they never released. So Monsanto did a field test, after which they were supposed to destroy all of the plants. Now a bunch of years they find that version out in the wild. I'm pretty sure in this case Monsanto couldn't sue.

      If this doesn't point to the fact that this stuff is going to contaminate everything, I don't know what will. I'm of the opinion that unless you grow this stuff under a friggin' dome, it's going to cross-contaminate stuff, simply because wind and insects have been pollinating plants for millions of years and are quite good at it.

      And then there's the whole using this shit as food aid and expecting starving farmers in Africa to not keep seeds for next year because of the license agreement they know nothing about.

      Hubris and "what could possibly go wrong".

      This is part of what bothers me about GM crops. Maybe they really are safe for consumption. The companies that make them tell me they are. But When they demonstrate that they can't keep their test crops contained, I start to worry about unintended consequences.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    24. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Well, it did kill the bacteria leading to cleaner water.

      Short term consequences vs long term consequences.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    25. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      At the bare minimum...

      If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this? If nothing else, why don't we at least label foods as GMO, so the consumer can decide?

      Because we worship at the altar of Mammon.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    26. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      2. Crops perform better than natural crops, crowding them out both in the marketplace, and in the wild.

      Of course GMO crops perform better. That and higher yields is the entire point. Most food plants no longer exist in the wild anyhow. Certainly not in any form most of us would recognize. They have all been cross bread and manipulated for thousands of years for size, taste, etc. even without GMO. Don't get me wrong. I find what Monsanto does rather scary. They claim these crops are sterile, and yet they are not. Now we have plants that were suppoed to be contained that were not. I find their business practices appalling.

    27. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1, Informative

      Whereas just randomly eating whatever you find in the wild is more reasonable ? Seriously.

      I dare you to read about one 100% natural thing found on wheat. Claviceps purpurea (also called the mother of wheat). This is what will happen to anyone who eats wheat found in nature, and what used to be a rather common "disease" (it's not a disease, it's more accuratly described as poisoning), known as "St. Anthony's fire" (ignis sacer in old medical texts), because the Anthony in question got the "St." part by caring very well for the victims of eating wheat and rye.

      Symptoms: Eating natural wheat infected with moederkoorn will induce severe vasoconstriction that doesn't go away. Net effect : blood leaves your extremities and doesn't return until the poison subsides. The effects of that are : every small scratch will experience gangrene, making amputation a necessity. Larger doses (not large at all by the way, a loaf of infected bread can generally be expected to contain more than the LD50 dose) causes hallucinations and attendant irrational behaviour, convulsions, and even death. Other symptoms include strong uterine contractions, nausea, seizures, and eventual unconsciousness. Needless to say, this is a VERY painful way to go.

      "Natural" wheat don't you love it ?

      Just wait until you hear about what apples can do.

    28. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by codeButcher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People have kept crops safe for thousands of years by planting edible wheat and destroying the stuff that tasted bad or made people sick.

      The people that plant this stuff do not seem to be the same people that eat it these days....

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    29. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Worse, he applied RoundUp to unlicensed plants, and they survived. Instant patent violation.

      Except these unlicensed plants are from a lab strain which was never released, and which Monsanto was supposed to have destroyed the plants after their tests.

      If anything, Monsanto has some 'splaining to do, and all of their claims that it couldn't possibly cross-contaminate other crops needs to be looked at much more closely.

      Because if these plants got there on their own, this essentially means that all of those people worrying their fields could get pollenated without them doing anything have been right all along, and the people poo-pooing that have probably been lying.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    30. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the cases of most of the lawsuits that Monsanto's filed it's been one of genuine contamination as well- but they sued anyway.

      The stuff's nowhere near as "controlled" as they'd like for you to believe.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    31. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you conveniently side-stepped the fact that we now have zombie wheat, a staple of a healthy zombie diet.

    32. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by betterprimate · · Score: 2

      Johnsongrass is a good example. Except, since this wheat is GMO, it'll be a lot harder to control.

      At face value, I would favor regulation only allowing GMOs to be grown within a dome.

    33. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think Monsanto should be sued for contaminating the environment with GM plants not approved for production.

    34. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by dpilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not necessarily against the ides of GMOs, but neither am I unconditionally for them, either. Really, like most things in life the answer needs to be, "It depends."

      I remember reading a news item about inserting a Vitamin A gene into rice, and that seems like a really nifty idea.

      On the other hand, most of the GMO stories in the US seem to be about convenience, patents, shelf life, and such - with nothing to say about taste, nutrition, or safety. Basically in the US it's all about supply-side convenience. For instance, most of the Monsanto discussions center on Roundup-Ready - basically giving the crop the ability to tolerate higher dosages of chemicals.

      I will acknowledge that supply-side convenience can result in lower prices for customers, but I would still feel better of at least SOME of the GMO stories in the US talked about making the food better in some way other than cost.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    35. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Holi · · Score: 1

      No they are not sterile. Please stop listening to the hysterical and ill-informed. Monsanto owns the patent for the "Terminator" gene but does not use it in their products.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    36. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I cannot speak for all Luddites. But I know that many are not worried about which god or goddess did or did not put an official OK on Monsanto's "exploit anything for profit" behavior.

      Some Luddites, as well as many who are not Luddites, are concerned that maybe the junior grade biologists at Monsanto are not pumping new genes into a specific species as they claim to be doing. Maybe, just maybe, the Universe is not actually built according to the abstract classification scheme of species, genus, order, class, family, phylum, kingdom that was set up in the 1750s and has been in a state of near constant revision ever since. Biology researchers (the true scientists, not Monsanto engineers) have found so many different and equally valid ways to define the taxonomy that the structure can at best be described as an arbitrary set of imaginary boxes that we can imagine will hold every living thing in just one box, with never a thing existing across the imaginary box walls.

      In truth, all that can be said is that Monsanto is introducing new genes into ecosystems. Not into an imaginary box in an imaginary classification scheme, but into something very real, very complex and as yet mostly not understood that can and does respond in ways that cannot be anticipated, considering the current state of our ignorance.

      Back in the day when DDT was the miracle that was going to put an end to malaria and many other god-given pests and diseases, no one anticipated that the ecosystem would respond to attacks on mosquitoes by incorporating DDT into the defense systems of grasshoppers and locusts, and making egg shells so thin that American eagles almost went extinct. The same kind of limited reasoning that led to spraying DDT on every marsh and pond in the country is behind the Monsanto effort to make a profit off of genetically modified crops.

      And that is what some Luddites, as well as many others who are not Luddites, are worried about.

      --
      Will
    37. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that all of those farmers sued by Monsanto can point to this instance and claim it isn't their fault since Monsanto can't contain the spread of GM strains of their products?

    38. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      As it's safe, it's only a temporary problem until the patent expires. Then everybody will switch to it and Monsanto will have to switch to something better.

      Repeat ad nauseum. A couple of hundred years go by and suddenly Kirk is shipping quadra-trita-caelene to a starving planet. Meanwhilr, Slashdotters bitch that they should've shipped quadra-quinta-caelene, those god damned greedy corporations!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    39. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Convector · · Score: 1

      You've been moderated +5 Funny, but I fear this scenario is EXACTLY what is going to happen.

    40. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So more than mere patent violation. Theft! He's a wheat pirate!

    41. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by tom17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder if this would work. Would it be possible to treat some plain non GMO wheat with a low dosage of Roundup such that only, say. 50% of the wheat died. Use the surviving wheat and repeat this process. If the yield of surviving wheat increases with every generation, you have started the selection for Roundup resistance. You can then up the dosage until, finally, you end up with fully Roundup resistant wheat without breaking any patents.

      You would need to ensure that you have ZERO GMO crop in there in the beginning as that would just survive and proliferate. The Monsanto DNA is probably so widespread that is not being there is pretty unlikely.

      Of course, Monsanto would then claim that your Roundup resistant crop MUST be their IP. The only way to test this would be to do a DNA analysis and hope that whatever mechanism the selection pressure came up with is not the same as the Monsanto mechanism.

      Even then, if it is the same mechanism, you are still not infringing the patent. I wonder how that would go down in court.

    42. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This luddite is not so much worried about that, as s/he about the reports of gut-rot (ok, gradual degradation of various internal organs) probably due to the toxic insecticide molecules expressed by the plant.

    43. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by mdm42 · · Score: 1

      Much as I loathe Monsanto and all they do, I hate to have to inform you: Wheat is, under norm circumstances, a self-pollinating species.

      --
      New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
    44. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Znork · · Score: 1

      Personally I have no objection to GMO crops per se, although I consider the particular application of engineering herbicide resistant strains that are intended to be drenched in herbicides during normal use to be a particularly dubious idea that should probably be banned from the human food chain. Not because it's GMO, but because it's subjected to and creates incentive for excessive use of herbicides.

      However, we're talking about Monsanto. Considering their corporate history, I suspect that if they researched two strains of wheat of which one gave people cancer and the other one was more profitable, they'd market the carcinogenic one. The company is the posterboy for corporate death penalty. As long as they exist and remain a significant player in the field of GMO I fully support bans against GMO foods. Not because GMO foods can't be safe, but because Monsanto isn't.

    45. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Teun · · Score: 3, Informative
      Nothing wheaty about the fungus Sordariomycetes.

      It's a fungus that sometimes lives on wheat and some other grasses, it's not the wheat itself that's dangerous.
      In other words; you don't have a clue what you're talking about

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    46. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by pnutjam · · Score: 5, Funny

      WHOA! Labeling a product for transparency in the market place? Are you some kind of commie, the free market should... wait... what?

    47. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by guttentag · · Score: 1

      Seems you got that wrong. They are fine for human consumption but some Luddites are worried that their god didn't create the crops so they won't buy them or eat them. So they starve with plenty of food available.

      You misunderstand. The problem is that technophiles, Luddites, atheists, zealots and everyone in between are worried they will be compelled to worship and pay tithes to this new god Monsanto if they buy or eat Monsanto's grain. Whether they already have a god or not, that's a lot of commitment to ask for eating some bread.

      Others see Monsanto more like the fictional crime lord Lao Che (who trades Indiana Jones a diamond for the ashes of the emperor of the first Manchu Dynasty and then poisons Jones's drink so he can "sell" him the antidote in exchange for the diamond), concerned that if they buy and eat Monsanto Che's poison grain, they will be compelled to buy and eat Monsanto Che's antidote for the rest of their lives.

      Still others see Monsanto as a biological patent troll. Monsanto releases its identifiable GMO wheat into the wild, it spreads naturally and mixes with natural un-patented wheat, and then Monsanto sues everyone who has a trace of their Monsanto wheat in their wheat. It's sort of like using a crop duster to spray liquified radioactive shit all over other people's farms and then claiming they stole your fertilizer because their crops are radioactive. Not only is it disingenuous, but the edibility of the innocent farmers' crops is now questionable.

    48. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      It warms my heart to notice you needed to post that point of view anonymously.

    49. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only in the same way that gun-shot victims are 'bullet pirates'.

      As in, it's the total opposite.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    50. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or those luddites are aware than monocultures are incredibly susceptible to catastrophic collapse when exposed to a pandemic against which it has no defense.

      Or they are aware than pesticides have a nasty habit of affecting biological systems in ways that are not immediately noticable and build up over time, and genetically engineering our food supply to contain those pesticides until there are 40 or 50 years of rigorous scientific study for each one is a fucking terrible idea.

      Or they are aware that engineering an intentionally sterile crop as the default for human consumption places a single corporate entity in a position to hold the entire world hostage.

      I am not against genetic engineering, but it needs to be handled with all due caution, and Monsanto isn't. As evidenced by this release of GE lifeforms into the environment, and well, everything else they do.

    51. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      don't like Monsanto's sueing farmers for having their wheat in their fields when the farmers had nothing to do with that happening

      Could you cite actual, neutrally-verified cases in which that happened?

      Because all the big cases we keep hearing about (Percy Schmeiser, or the recent SCOTUS case) involve farmers who carefully and deliberately selected the Monsanto seeds for re-planting.

      Which leads to the puzzling situation in which hordes of anti-GMO folks worldwide rush to defend (and in some cases fund) enthusiastic GMO planters!

    52. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      They are fine for human consumption but some Luddites are worried that their god didn't create the crops

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

      There are legitimate concerns with GMO, like, say, the concern mentioned by parent (unexpected mutation, succeeds better in the wild, crowds out other crops, but is less than suitable for human use). The same sort of concerns apply to hybrids (see Africanized Bees), but at least there you can have some degree of confidence that the traits will have existed naturally before; so Africanized bees arent immune to smoke or Raid. These crops, however, are immune to RoundUp (which im gonna guess isnt something that could happen with just hybridizing).

      The same sort of concern applies with system patching / updates. Jumping on the "newest" and "best" isnt always a good idea until its had a long period of testing. Non-GMO stuff generally fits that bill; we know how wheat grows, how it spreads, how to control it, etc. GMO crops can be more of an unknown.

    53. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Sorry. but that wont get you around a GMO patent. They patent the biological function, so even naturally occuring variations are in violation. The only advantage you would have is that it will likely take more than 20 years to get a reliable selective breeding program off the ground and that will require monsanto to slightly tweak their patents before resubmitting them and screwing you again.

    54. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      That sounds a lot like ergotism, which has nothing to do with where you get the wheat / rye from and everything to do with the fungus that has infected your stockpile.

    55. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure in this case Monsanto couldn't sue.

      You must be unfamiliar with the U.S. legal system.

    56. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly do not know what "Luddite" means. Are people trashing Monsanto's crops, equipment or property? No, they are not. You pathetically call people concerned about GMO contamination and patent locked seeds it instead.

      There is no shortage of food. There is no need to increase crop yield. The world produces far more food than it can consume, particularly grains, which is why we're trying to find ways to burn it and use it as fuel. It has nothing to do with food any more. The only lack of food is in third world countries, and that's more about distribution and the West not giving a shit about black countries unless they have oil.

      Monsanto crops are all about being able to sell Monsanto chemicals.

    57. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the history Oregon has with other genetic engineering companies releasing invasive species into the wild.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    58. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're only hearing the most shrill and dumbest concerns. GMOs are as healthy as natural food, yes, that appears to be the case. It's the economics that worry me. A lot of us who are opposed to monsanto find the legal bullshit to be annoying, but the real apocalypse nightmare is the monoculture.

      Due to economics, and monsanto's efforts, everyone switches to one strain of a food staple, the cheapest one obviously. GMO is clearly cheaper and has a huge competitive edge over natural. If we don't regulate it, whatever strain of corn is the most robust and cheapest, only insane farmers would plant anything but that one. Everyone switches to that best strain of corn, otherwise they wouldn't be competitive and would lose the farm, to be replaced by someone who DOES use that corn. We've already switched to most of our diet coming from corn, again due to economics and business and government 69ing each other. Corn is basically all we eat, and it could be all the exact same strain of corn. It works out for everyone until a bug arises that really loves that strain of corn. Suddenly, nearly all of our food is under attack. The cost of burning all the fields out there and replacing it with a new crop would be ruinous to the economy, and depending on how fast such a problem advances, may not be sufficient to avoid food riots.

      Monsanto has no financial incentive to diversify, farmers have no financial incentive to diversify, we're the ones who need to tell them to diversify, but we don't, therefore government has no incentive to make them diversify. No one is thinking long-term.

      It's not unprecedented that we allow a monoculture to get established and have it bite us in the ass either. GMO isn't required for such a scenario to take place, but it does help it since we've allowed monsanto to basically have a monopoly on GMO, and because GMO has such a competitive edge over natural.

      Really makes me hate the idiots whining about frankenfoods: it takes all the attention away from the important issues and focuses it on paranoia. "Mad scientists are trying to give you cancer through your veggies!" is a lot more sexy than ecology mixed with economics.

    59. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      If that's the case then we don't know if it is safe for human consumption, do we?

      Yep, to the same degree that we don't ever know if a new wild strain is safe for human consumption.

      People, look at this as good news. This means that patented genes are in the wild, doing their own thing and the patent being infringed by mother nature herself. Confirmed by USDA, an authority courts can't merely blow off without looking silly.

      The fact this happens, is a great reason why either gene patents ought to be abolished, or at least the patents in this particular genotype ought to be invalidated.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    60. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are taking the profit before before everything route

      I see what you did there.

    61. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Most of the people I know that oppose GMO's are atheist.

    62. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This farmer should sue Monsanto for contaminating his field. After all, it's the approach Monsanto themselves have been using on the famers for years.

    63. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Which is why it is insane that these GM plants are patentable in the first place, let alone the fact that patent holders can sue everyone who grows the same thing downwind.

    64. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this?

      Because Monsanto is an American corporation that spends a lot of money on bribing politicians. It's euphemistically called "lobbying" and "campaign contributions".

    65. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this?

      Because they're wrong or their reasons are not appropriate to the US agricultural environment? Some are banning on the basis of absurd health-based reasons that are demonstrably untrue. Others are concerned about local wheat (etc) production being affected by a lack of suitable self-sustaining cross pollinating plants - a laudable concern, but not relevent to the US farming industry.

      If nothing else, why don't we at least label foods as GMO, so the consumer can decide?

      Because food labelling should be appropriate and helpful. To the end consumer, there is no benefit to knowing whether the food was GMO or not, and such a "warning" would be grossly misleading and would undermine other, more legitimate, labelling that might actually be helpful.

      Farmers? Sure, they need to know if their seed is GMO, and if so what, exactly, the seed is designed to do (or not designed to do but does as a side effect) because such a thing does affect their business and their planting model. But when the food finally hits the plate, it's dead. It's genetically slightly different from other foods you've had before, but no more than "the same" foods from two different regions would be. It will have roughly the same properties.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    66. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget all the libertarians who think that making companies label something as GMO is TYRANNY!

    67. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Ken+D · · Score: 2

      Commerce has proven time and time again, that not only can't they adequately plan for problems that they anticipate happening, i.e. their disaster contingency plans fail when used, e.g. Monsanto's GMO wheat crop destruction plan obviously failed. But they also fail to identify all the actual problems in advance, and therefore they weren't planned for.

      Some of these problems are blindingly obvious and yet completely ignored. For example, a class of flame retardants is determined to be too toxic and is banned, and is replaced with another chemical without testing it for toxicity. Said chemical is later determined to be even more hazardous than the chemical it replaced. Who'd have thought that two chemicals with similar desirable properties might also have similar undesirable properties, right?

    68. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that those Luddites don't like the increase in round-up pesticides in the soil that roundup-ready crops lead to, and the associated environmental damage.

      I'll eat the freak crops (In the US we all are without a choice anyway,) but the compounding damage is going to cause a lot of other long term problems.

    69. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And don't forget all the libertarians who think that making companies label something as GMO is TYRANNY!

      Which is ironic, because you'd think that consumers being able to choose the products they want based on their own set of criteria would be one of their core values.

      But apparently the free market only means companies are free to sell us what they want, not for consumers to decide what we want.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    70. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the part where some GMO grain is higher in gluten and some people are allergic. Or the part where some GMO soy has a gene switched on that makes it more susceptible to viruses. http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

    71. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Consider the Cane Toad. Introduced deliberately to Australia in order to combat the native Cane Beetle that was a pest to Sugar Cane growers. As an invasive species it's causing massive damage to the native ecosystem.

      If that can happen with naturally occurring species that are simply moved from one continent to another. How can one possibly imagine that introducing new species, this time genetically modified ones, on a frequent basis, can possibly be a good idea. The intentions might be good, but the repercussions are often a surprise.

      This story simply confirms it. A GM wheat species that was supposed to have been eradicated a decade ago is growing wild. Once a genie is out of a bottle it can't be put back.

    72. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Natural systems have evolved over tens of thousands of years and have achieved very delicate balances. The symbioses that have arisen between various species are complicated and slow moving.

      We have numerous examples showing the disastrous consequences resulting from importing a species of plant or animal to a non-native environment. Now, we have these GM species which have no natural habitat and properties that did not result from evolution of the species in concert with other species. I don't know how you can be so cavalier about the *possibility* of something going drastically wrong.

      I'm not a genetic engineer, but I know that plants produce various toxins as a natural defense mechanism. Who's to say that cross-pollination of GM species with natural species couldn't produce a prolific strain of food crop that was unpalatable, or even inedible for humans?

    73. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Informative

      Too late.

      Many non-GMO plants have already become heavily contaminated by GMO strains.

      In the US, all three of canola, corn, and soybean are near-universally contaminated. You can no longer find non-GMO canola in Canada due to cross-contamination.

      GMO-contaminated wheat is rapidly joining the ranks.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    74. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      No they are not sterile. Please stop listening to the hysterical and ill-informed. Monsanto owns the patent for the "Terminator" gene but does not use it in their products.

      What part of "They claim these crops are sterile, and yet they are not." did you not understand?

    75. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Back in the day when DDT was the miracle that was going to put an end to malaria and many other god-given pests and diseases, no one anticipated that the ecosystem would respond to attacks on mosquitoes by incorporating DDT into the defense systems of grasshoppers and locusts, and making egg shells so thin that American eagles almost went extinct

      AARGH! Not this old chestnut again.

      American eagles almost went extinct because people shot them all. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with DDT. The whole idea is nonsensical. Eagles are birds of prey. They do not eat insects. They eat mammals. Specifically, they eat mostly rabbits and prairie dogs, neither of which eat many insects, so DDT or DDT-like molecules aren't even present in the food chain of the eagle, let alone in what they eat directly.

      This peculiar idea that DDT thins eggshells is nonsense anyway. It all stems from a lone, unreproduced flawed study of chickens being fed huge overdoses of DDT and NOT being fed sufficient calcium to maintain normal shell thickness. Then a mawkish book called Silent Spring was written and paranoia ran rampant. DDT doesn't thin eggshells, even of insectivores. What it does do is exert massive selection pressure on insect populations, until the population becomes DDT-resistant, at which point DDT becomes basically useless.

      It's been claimed that the real reason to ban DDT is racism. DDT kills mosquitoes. Mosquitoes carry malaria. The populations most affected by malaria are brown people. The argument against that claim is that DDT does become ineffective after about a decade of heavy spraying. I haven't heard of much to substantiate the claims of racism, but given the proof that American drug laws were specifically formulated to be racist, by publicly racist people, it wouldn't surprise me if the DDT production ban was similarly motivated.

    76. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 2

      Right now, Monsanto's GM wheat is RoundUp resistant, but how long before it requires RoundUp or something else. Monsanto has been working on a terminator gene that would kill the plant if a chemical is not applied at regular intervals. So that gene, through cross-pollination, is spread to non-GM wheat. Followed by a shortage of the gene-therapy spray or chemical and famine becomes a very real possibility. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx - Paraphrase "Monsanto would never ever use this technology... unless it became profitable... we are using it now and not telling anyone."

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    77. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Perhaps I shouldn't have said follow along and ban them.

      But I do support fully, the labelling requirements so that the US consumer has the option of where to spend their $$'s....if they want GMO, fine. Just make it easier to make an informed decision.

      I'm usually VERY opposed to the govt intervening on what you can and cannot consume, and I'll still support that here. But I do want to KNOW what I'm potentially purchasing, and that seems reasonable and fair.

      Labeling laws haven't hurt seafood sales or production, it shouldn't hurt for the same on our produce!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    78. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      " destroying the stuff that tasted bad or made people sick"

      And still failed due to the advent of gluten allergies....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    79. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by ideonexus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but this urban legend that Monsanto sues farmers for cross-pollination with their crops simply has to die already. I saw the film "Food Inc" and completely bought into the horror stories of Organic Farmers being sued out of business for cross-pollination, but then those same farmers took the case to court and the Judge threw the case out because the farmers could not produce one single example of this ever happening. Here's the Court Transcript, and the defense makes a pretty strong argument pages 33-36:

      23 ...the notion that Monsanto's campaign, so to speak, against farmers -- which, by the way, by their count, over 15 years has amounted to 144 lawsuits brought, every single one of them against farmers who wanted, affirmatively were making use of the trade, and spraying herbicide over the tops of their crops without signing a license, without paying Monsanto the royalty for the use of its intellectual property -- the notion that that terrorizes people who have no desire to use it whatsoever is perhaps belied most significantly by Mr. Ravicher's inability to cite anything other than a movie called Food, Inc. or a CBS report to demonstrate what they can't demonstrate, which is if this were a ubiquitous threat, you would expect that there would be some plaintiff in this case who would say, "I am an inadvertent user. I have it and it's inadvertent. I have it in my fields and Monsanto has sent me a letter or Monsanto has called me and said, 'You are in patent jeopardy.'"

      When you go to court to sue a company for unfairly suing innocent farmers who's crops were inadvertently cross-pollinated with patented GMOs, you better be able to produce at least one single example of this happening. When I read this transcript, I realized the Organic Seed Growers Association and all this anti-GMO stuff is really just anti-Science Neo-Luddism. As nerds we should be concerned with veracity and not fall into the trap all the muggles fall into of condemning technology and believing all the scientifically-unsupported horror stories about it simply because it's new and different.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    80. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by abigsmurf · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe there hasn't been a single incidence so far of a farmer being sued for genuine accidental pollination.

      The big headline grabbing court cases of poor innocent farmers have been one of two things:
      using or buying seed when they, or the seller have signed an aggreement saying that they will not use or sell and seeds from crops they bought from Monsato.
      Deliberate pollination followed by selective breeding to ensure their entire crop is basically growing Monsanto owned GM crop.

    81. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I hadn't already commenting, I'd be modding this up. Oregon should sue Monsanto and require that they pay for wheat testing for the entire industry.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    82. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Sorry. but that wont get you around a GMO patent. They patent the biological function, so even naturally occuring variations are in violation.

      So far several weeds have naturally evolved resistance to glyphosate (the herbicide in Roundup). But they have done so using a completely different mechanism than the GMO "Roundup-Ready" soybeans sold by Monsanto. Glyphosate works by inhibiting an enzyme involved in the synthesis of aromatic amino acids (tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine). Basically, Monsanto's plants contain a modified version of the enzyme that is unaffected by glyphosate, while the weeds just produce lots of extra enzyme and swamp the glyphosate. If your breeding program resulted in the weed-like mechanism, I don't think it would be covered by Monsanto's patent.

      At least in the case of soybeans, a breeding program is pointless, because Monsanto's patent expires next year.

    83. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part that really bothers *me* about GM is that a corporation owns the seed and the farmer can't reuse what he's grown, while industrialisation of farming has bred out nutrition in favour of yields.

    84. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another possiblility is that these countries rely on food shortage to control their citizens and an abundance of food doesn't really serve their purposes. Evil doesn't solely reside in capitalism.

    85. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      That's not because we intrinsically hate labels that help people make informed decisions about what they eat. It's because (1) we think if consumers who don't want to eat GMOs are serious, they'll refuse to buy food unless there's a seal of approval from a trustworthy private organization that has real standards, and (2) when a government that's in Monsanto's pocket inevitably comes up with a shitty labeling system it will crowd out the possibility of such private organizations developing because people will falsely believe it's a solved problem.

      It's fair enough if you disagree, but don't assume bad faith.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    86. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and "they" have also said that about alot of other stuff and bad stuff has yet to happen for it.

      Yes, but look at the risks. You're releasing a self replicating life form into our food supply. If it's proven to be harmful, too fucking bad, it's not possible to contain. Do the risks outweigh the benefits?

    87. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the plus side, the nightmares from the moederkoren ergotism will greatly improve your painting skills! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jheronimus_Bosch_023.jpg (warning: painting not suitable for prudes or people with mental illness)

    88. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by crtreece · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Do you believe I have a right to grow non-GMO crops, and save my own seeds? If so, how do you propose to keep nearby GMO versions from contaminating my crops?

      Depending on the crop, nearby could be defined in miles/kilometers.

      --
      file: .signature not found
    89. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

      I see you conveniently side-stepped the fact that we now have zombie wheat, a staple of a healthy zombie diet.

      GRRAAIINNNSSS!!!!!!

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    90. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because food labelling should be appropriate and helpful. To the end consumer, there is no benefit to knowing whether the food was GMO or not, and such a "warning" would be grossly misleading and would undermine other, more legitimate, labelling that might actually be helpful.

      Ah, the "because I know what's good for you" argument.

      "Need to know" is appropriate for keeping secrets, not for selling things to people.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    91. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least 114 farmers have been sued by Monsanto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff_or_appellant some (admittedly biased) sources claim 410 farmers have been sued by Monsanto. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/19/1607161/monsanto-supreme-court-hearing/ It's possibly true and highly likely. Monsanto is by far the single largest seed producer in the world. It amazes me that tech companies get hammered for antitrust when this juggernaut gets a bye.

    92. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I don't necessarily like Monsanto, the reason RoundUp ready crops are successful is because you can use less pesticides/herbicides to control the land and insects, which leads to higher yields. It's theoretically supposed to be significantly better than the lower yielding, most toxin dependent strains that existed prior.

    93. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And it doesn't help that the opponents of GMO are often anti-science nutcases who believe vaccines cause autism (go read naturalnews.com for a while). These are people who will never, ever admit that GMO could possibly have any good qualities, and seem more interested in punishing Monsanto than in helping people be more healthy.

      For example, California recently had an election over whether to require GMO labeling on food. I voted against it because the law was designed to make the labeling in a way to deter customers from wanting it. Their goal was to keep people from buying GMO. If they had required instead that "uses GMO" be placed at the end of the ingredients list or something, where people who want to can find it, and those who don't care aren't harassed, then I would absolutely vote for that.

      Overall people spend way to much time focusing on what they shouldn't eat (don't eat fat! don't eat carbs!, but both of those are critical macro-nutrients), but instead focus on making sure you get enough good things: enough vegetables, enough good fats, enough protein, so your body can rebuild itself. Get vitamins. If you're missing building blocks, that's when you have trouble. My diabetic friend's doctor recently told her to focus on making sure she got enough iron, and when she focused on that instead of limiting carb intake, she needed less insulin.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    94. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What worrys me most is that if they're so set on selling GMO that's supposedly safe for consumption, then what do such companies have against labeling food products as containing GMOs? If it's supposed to be safe and good for everybody, then why try to hide it and cover it up?

      Now that's the kind of thing Monsanto does that raises some big questions.

    95. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by ideonexus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technical nit-pick. They are not "introducing new genes into the ecosystem," they are taking genes that already exist in the wild and adding them to a species' genome. Believe it or not, this happens all the time all over the place naturally thanks to viruses, bacteria, and allows for artificial transduction in laboratories. Most of the time, they aren't even doing this, instead they are knocking out existing genes, removing them from the genome to produce desired results.

      But on a broader level, I appreciate what you are trying to say, but your argument that GMOs are dangerous because we don't fully understand the ecosystem also applies to hybridization (which has been going on for 10,000 years), artificial selection, pharmaceuticals, any moden farming technique, any chemical we add to our environment--even as a byproduct of our lifestyles, and pretty much any technology anywhere. There is no rational reason to single GMOs out as Frankenstein's monster, especially with scientists all over the world monitoring their effects--which 25 years of research have found to be pretty benign.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    96. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Which is why they shouldn't have been conducting this research outside. I know that it's terribly expensive to properly control it, but who knows what's going to happen when you have random GMO strains contaminating each other. One gene might not be a problem on its own, but who knows what happens when 2 or 3 or 6 different genes interact.

    97. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      DDT is a chemical designed to be toxic.

      GMOs are given genetic traits that make them bigger, require less water or make them hardier against certain chemicals or pests. None of these things are inherently toxic.

      Genetically modifying a foodstuff is basically doing dozens (or even hundreds) of generations of selective breeding in a single step. Even with selective breeding you could, in theory try and breed an apple less prone to bruising and be successful, only to find that the genes that affect bruising also control the levels of cyanide in apple pips and you've now got a deadly strain of apples cross spreading its pollen everywhere. It doesn't happen because genetic traits are very specific an unintended consequences are obscenely unlikely.

      There's also a lot of opinion that the DDT ban has causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) and that rather than a kneejerk reaction completely banning it, it just needed tighter controls ensuring safe usage.

    98. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      On that basis, perhaps GM crops getting out of control of their creators is a good thing. If they can't control it, they can't realistically argue they "own" it, and hopefully future court decisions would take that into account.

    99. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More proof that all you have to do on /. is bash religion, no matter how incorrect you might be, and it's an automatic insightful mod.

      When are you kids going to grow up, anyway?

    100. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Shagg · · Score: 1

      If the farmers found that their plants were roundup proof, used roundup for weed control, and sold the wheat -- then yes, apparently monstanto can win that case.

      Which itself is quite ridiculous.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    101. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I will acknowledge that supply-side convenience can result in lower prices for customers, but I would still feel better of at least SOME of the GMO stories in the US talked about making the food better in some way other than cost.

      Here you go. It's probably a hoax, though (been hearing about it for a long time yet I still don't see it in grocery stores).

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    102. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So insightful. You sit there and call everyone a Luddite yet you can't even get your facts straight. So proud, so pompous, so arrogant. The DDT myth is still being spouted to this day by people like you because it fits your AGENDA, period. In fact it has been proven that DDT was not the cause of egg shell thinning or was it ever a reason for the decline in any of the raptor species. The 1960s study used as proof of egg shell thinning has been completely debunked. The "scientist" or more correctly "political scientist" in that study fed captive eagles DDT in their food. Egg shells thinned. Wow! We know the cause! It turns out he fed the eagles food with so little calcium in it, there was no physical way for the bird to properly form eggs. A non-typical diet for any raptor. But hey, as long as it fits your agenda.

      In fact it was the 1940 Bald Eagle Protection Act that turned the species around from it's 1920-1940 population lows. At that point DDT use was actually still increasing dramatically, yet by 1960 there were already 25% more eagles than 1940. By the time DDT was banned in 1972 there were more eagles than the late 1800s.

      Now if you want to discuss health effects that are real concerning chemicals and GMO plants let's do that. I will not listen to a political hack that spouts lies just to make himself appear more authoritative.

    103. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Wookact · · Score: 0

      Monsanto is French, and they get away with more here in the US then in their home country.

    104. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      It's been claimed that the real reason to ban DDT is racism. DDT kills mosquitoes. Mosquitoes carry malaria.

      DDT isn't banned for use against malaria. Interesting that you're trying to make our that you're so knowledgable about DDT and yet you didn't even know that...

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    105. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by J'raxis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because food labelling should be appropriate and helpful. To the end consumer, there is no benefit to knowing whether the food was GMO or not, and such a "warning" would be grossly misleading and would undermine other, more legitimate, labelling that might actually be helpful.

      Indeed. Mandatory labelling requirements on food are about letting people know about its nutritional content (e.g., ingredients and the "nutrition facts" box) for people who are on restrictive diets, and warning people about ingredients or aspects that are known to be unsafe for certain people (e.g., allergy warnings). These requirements are based on known, scientific health claims. Someone on a no-cholesterol diet because of a heart attack has to know if there's cholesterol in something. Someone with a nut allergy has to know that the food wasn't processed on a machine that could be contaminated with peanut oil from other products.

      There is also regulation as to what companies can optionally print on their packaging for marketing purposes (e.g., claiming a food is "organic"). But this is just about keeping marketing labels honest: The FDA isn't supporting any assertions that "organic" or "chocolate" is a healthier claim than in-organic or mere "chocolate-flavored," they're just making sure that the labels aren't fraudulent.

      Allowing producers to slap "organic" on a product, in order to appeal to the crowd that buys such products, is entirely different than requiring a label that says something isn't "organic."

      There are no meaningful differences between GM foods and non-GM foods. For the purpose of the ingredients label, it's all "wheat" or "corn" or whatever. GM doesn't cause allergies or any other known negative reactions in people. The only thing that such a label would do is play into the irrational, nearly superstitious fears that many people have against this modern technology. The government may as well mandate printing horoscopes on the labels.

    106. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      The GMO food may be safe, but the literal tons of pesticides and insecticides sprayed on the field probably are not.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    107. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by the+biologist · · Score: 3, Informative

      DDT leads to a thinning of eggshells in raptors, but not chickens/sparrows/crows/dugs/etc., via its metabolite DDE. There were LOTS of studies on this topic back before the general scientific consensus had been reached. Researchers stopped studying this topic because they lost interest in it.

      Bald Eagles eat primarily fish. The particular fish eat primarily other fish and bugs. Perhaps you're thinking of Golden Eagles, which do primarily eat mammals on the size range of rabbits and prairie dogs. I don't know what an "American Eagle" is.

    108. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by caseih · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's simply not true. No one was ever sued because it was merely contamination. In the original case, the farmer discovered volunteers from a previous crop growing, and knowingly cultivated them and multiplied seed from these volunteers knowing they had the gene in them and then planted a crop from that. Even if you feel the patents should be bogus, the farmer knowing profited from unlicensed use of the patents. Besides the IP issues, there was also the issue of breach of contract. The contract with Monsanto stated very clearly that the farmer could not keep back any of the crop for the purpose of planting for seed, or selling for seed. I the court case, the farmer claimed as his defense that he never did any deliberate infringing. But the court found that the farmer was acting deliberately.

      Now, had the farmer simply let the volunteers grow and harvest them along with the rest of his canola on his farm and sold it into the food market, there'd have been no court case. I hope you can see the distinction here. One action is not only illegal but dishonest (due to the contract). The other action is not.

      The most recent case of RR soybeans, too, involved deliberate infringing.

    109. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The publicity around the case focused on whether Monsanto would be held responsible for “genetic engineering crop contamination”. This issue was, in explicit fact, not considered by the courts. The patent infringement finding was based solely on the determination that Schmeiser had collected crossbred seeds, and then replanted and harvested them the next year. No punitive damages, costs of the technology use fee, or legal fees were awarded to Monsanto, as the Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 in Schmeiser's favor that his profits were exactly the same with or without the presence of the Roundup Ready Canola."

      You shouldof read the wiki you linked to, as it totally destroys your argument !

    110. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Why did this crop NOT go to market? Now that it's out there in the wild, potentially contaminating all sorts of publicly consumed crops, its Monsanto's responsibility for full disclosure on the make-up and testing done on this crop and cleanup and removal of any contaminated crops - at their expense, including compensation for any farmer who has lost productive yield.

    111. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the companies that make GMOs crops. It's the entire grain distribution system. They would have to start segregating GMO grain from non-GMO grain and that would be a huge pain in the ass as well as lots of added costs of building separate storage facilities.

    112. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the round-up immunity gene is from a caterpillar. There is no way natural selection will create a frakenwheat.

    113. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I feel strongly against additional labeling on something that has been through our regulatory process, especially when anyone who cares can just buy "organic" labeled products. If there is a real danger in these foods, we need to fix our regulatory process.

      And if you are going to label something that has no demonstrable harm, don't you then need to label things that have some science behind it? There's a certain amount of irony in selling a steak with a label warning about the feed containing something that is probably harmless, only to take it home and grill it, which then makes it a mutagen. (Grilled veggies would suffer the same fate.) Mustard and coffee are known mutagens. Organic products can be treated with "naturally-derived" pesticides (how's that for an arbitrary distinction?), each of which are obviously bio-active. You would have a multi-page MSDS on every pear.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    114. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patens also cover things that haven't been released.
      Monsanto is 100% in its right to sue the farmer for having those crops on his field and him spraying it with roundup, and he should win according to patent law.
      However the farmer can sue Monsanto for containmenating his fields, he wouldn't have been able to claim containmenation with other crops, but since these crops are not natural, i.e. Monsanto claimed ownership on them. This means Monsanto is in the wrong as well.

      I guess both law suits in the end will cancel each other out. Except for that Monsanto is a giant who can game the legal system.

    115. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAH best joke in thread!!

      Now give me a napkin to get the coffee off my desk you insensitive clod!!

    116. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by meerling · · Score: 1

      In fact, if Monsanto did destroy all of it and it came back then we're staring in the face of the first seeds of the Zombie Apocalypse: Zombie Wheat

      They failed to destroy all of it. It's been known for a very long time that plants use a variety of distribution techniques for their seeds, especially of the animal distribution variety. Since the 'test field' wasn't in a sealed building, some critters got in and carried seeds someplace else. It was obvious that would happen.

      The surprising thing is that it was spotted and identified as such. It must have been a roundup ready variant. If it had been another strain, I doubt the farmer would have recognized it as being different.

      Zombies need not apply. :)

    117. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It ain't French. It was founded in St. Louis over 100 years ago. It is as American as genetically-engineered apple pie.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    118. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Engineered crops later found not suitable for human consumption
              5. Famine.

      You are probably completely on board laughing at 9/11 conspiracy theorists, UFO tinfoil hat wearers, illuminutties, etc. but buy into GMO scares, driven by lawyers and talking head book sellers looking for profit?

      I wouldn't say Famine. I would say "Diseases X, Y, Z increase dramatically.". Things like pancreatic cancer or something else related to digestion that *used to* be very rare.

      One example would be autism. No one ever thought about autism having anything to do with antibiotics either. Today, some people are finally connecting the dots. Suddenly, the autism "pandemic" (it is starting to be one), is starting to make sense. Then again, it is still not "sexy" to look at gut bacteria - still money is spent on useless gene sequencing and other "high-tech" solutions. It's like people lost ability to reason and figure out that genomes don't change over 1 or 2 generations.

      Another example is diabetes. Diabetes in Native American population is much higher eating grain products vs. European population. The reason is Europeans *evolved* with grain over *thousands* of years. Organisms evolve to eat food. Food doesn't evolve to get eaten. So if you poison food with anything, the organism has to evolve to eat it. For GM stuff, I think that the insects, having 10s to 100s of generations each year, can adapt a little faster to any GE poisoned food. We, on the other hand, are probably not willing to pay the price to adapt to any poison in the food.

      There was some research on GM food, though there isn't much money to actually pay for such research. Few years ago, identical rats were fed GM corn and non-GM corn for a while. They were generally all OK, with the exception that by 3rd generation, rats eating GM corn became sterile.

      The bottom line, no one knows IF GM foods are safe. They are presumed safe, then released to the real lab knows as the world. It is unethical to experiment on humans, but someone thought it is ethical if the entire population is experimented on. That it is A-OK!

    119. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Gluten allergies affect a small amount of people. What Monsanto does is intended to affect everyone on earth. If/when one of their test goes horribly wrong - we all suffer. Well - everyone EXCEPT the people with gluten allergies, because they aren't eating the stuff anyway.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    120. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Wrong answer. The correct answer would have been, "Because Monsanto owns a large number of American lawmakers and judges."

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    121. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OR even simpler , wether rightly or wrongly most people are scared of it and dont want it. THAT's FUCKING market forces at work people.

    122. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Wait - huh, wut? Thalidomide? I was just considering Sonic for a nice refreshing thalidomide milkshake!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    123. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by kheldan · · Score: 1

      5. APOCALYPSE. EXTINCTION-LEVEL EVENT.

      Fixed that for you.


      This public service announcement brought to you by your friends at the Umbrella Corporation

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    124. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Uhhhhhh - your idea sounds like the shits. For the sake of fairness, I want to verify what I think you said.

      At the bottom of the list of ingredients, you want a disclaimer that some or all of the ingredients might be GMO? Really?

      So, I go get a can of nasty assed pasta, tomato, and beef byproduct, similar to Chef Boy-ar-Dee. It's got all kinds of ingredients in it. How am I to know whether the GMO is the wheat, the tomatoes, the beef, or what?

      I'd rather have a list of actual ingredients, please.

      Tomatoes, GMO wheat, beef byproduct, artificial colors and flavorings, GMO corn syrup and so forth.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    125. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite part of the news release is 'The detection of this wheat variety does not pose a food safety concern. '

      Meaning, this wheat was never approved, and we just found out about this, and we're not yet sure exactly what's going on, or how we got to this point, but we can definitively state that the detection of this wheat does not pose a food safety concern.

      We strongly recommend against eating this wheat, however...

      -jlc

    126. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget all the libertarians who think that making companies label something as GMO is TYRANNY!

      Which is ironic, because you'd think that consumers being able to choose the products they want based on their own set of criteria would be one of their core values.

      But apparently the free market only means companies are free to sell us what they want, not for consumers to decide what we want.

      The Libertarian fallacy is that the market is informed. However, the market also dictates that the producers should not inform the consumers of anything that would adversely affect profits. Indeed, forcibly suppress such information. So there's an inherent conflict.

      In the ideal Libertarian world, everyone is equal and whoever works hardest wins. In the real world, you've got something more akin to the anteater and the anthill. More ants, but the anteater is bigger and inherently equipped to consume ants while being essentially immune to retaliation from the ants. Instead of a long, sticky tongue, the corporations have lawyers.

      Most ideologies fail when carried to extremes. Libertarianism is just one that tends to fail more comically, since ostensibly it is good for both sides. Communism and Capitalism only have to worry about one side to concern themselves with.

    127. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      Which reminds me of a Dr. Katz episode where I think he was seeing Denis Leary, and they had a potato famine skit. It was pretty damn funny. They were talking about how they didn't like corn and all starved.

    128. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      Why wasn't there national coverage of the march on Washington about GMO foods? Because most USians don't give a shit as long as the food tastes good, and there is plenty of it.

    129. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, start writing and calling all politicians. Have your friends and family do it, also. Have their friends and family do it. If enough people did it, it would be passed in two weeks. Screw corporate America, its time to take back Govt for the People by the People.

    130. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Monsanto should be sued to kingdom come for
        1. irrevocable damage against nature and
        2. due negligence of being unable to contain their contaminated seeds.

      To bad the general public are bunch of pussies for wanting justice.

    131. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new wheat overlords.

    132. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      In other words: "free market when I say so! Free market good!" And what's one of the tenets of free market capitalism? Informed customers. However, in this case, you're arguing that people SHOULD NOT BE INFORMED, and then doing mental gymnastics to do a piss-poor job of justifying it.

      It makes it impossible to even have a discussion with libertarians because you move the goalposts CONSTANTLY and won't even admit that you routinely violate your own core principles when it suits you.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    133. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by stanlyb · · Score: 0

      So, if i put label on poison saying: WARNING, POISON, this would deter you from eating it?
      LOL man, you are an idiot.
      And did you vote YES for returning the murdering of prisoners?
      NO, don't answer me, it was rhetorical question.

    134. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it doesn't help that the opponents of GMO are often anti-science nutcases who believe vaccines cause autism (go read naturalnews.com for a while). These are people who will never, ever admit that GMO could possibly have any good qualities, and seem more interested in punishing Monsanto than in helping people be more healthy.

      Not to mention that they don't a damn thing about farming other than the BS a gardener at their local farmer's market tells them (often to justify the ludicrous prices).

    135. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by stanlyb · · Score: 0

      Asbest, does not cause the most nastiest helath either.....oh, but they found out later that it is not entirely true....
      MAN, you ara an idiot, i just wonder, do you believe that god created the world? 3476 years ago? Yes? Oh, i knew it, another moron....

    136. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by meerling · · Score: 1

      those complex natural defense mechanisms don't come out of thin air.
      GMOs won't have those, unless they were engineered to have those.

    137. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by meerling · · Score: 1

      Some of the seeds Monsanto sells are either 'Terminator' crops, or sterile hybrids, but by no means all of them.
      Please note that they've sold various sterile hybrids for a very long time before the 'Terminator' variety was developed, so they are two different things.

    138. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      And at some airless planet. Mars for example. So if at some point we would have to nuke the dome, no one would complain.

    139. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Canada are actually one step forward. Now they have GMO salmon........That's why i do buy salmon from as much far away from Canada as possible.

    140. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      If my reason for not wanting to consume GM foods is that I've been visited by people who traveled back in time to warn me about them, that's my business. It's not up to you to judge the "rationality" of decisions that affect only me.

      Certain religions impose dietary restrictions on their practitioners. That might be deemed irrational or superstitious, but it's up to the individual to decide.

      If GM crops live up to all of these promises about being cheaper to produce, more sustainable, etc. and with no negative side effects, then I'll be wasting my money on more expensive products produced with non-GMO crops. That should be my choice however.

      Actually, that gave me an idea. A lot of the Pagan religions have a deep affinity with nature. I refuse to consume GMOs because they are an affront to my sect of Paganism.

    141. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      And in another original case in Canada, it was as the gp said, cross contamination, not intended one.

    142. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strategic denial against an enemy. Finally, an anti-GMO person whom I can respect and admire. :-)

      Please remember that landmines are forever, though. After Monsanto is crushed to death, their houses burned, their wives raped, their wells poisoned, their farmland salted.. I don't want to find a bunch of anti-GMO laws still sitting around.

      Let's all work together on this, to do it right.

    143. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Applekid · · Score: 1

      And don't forget all the libertarians who think that making companies label something as GMO is TYRANNY!

      Which is ironic, because you'd think that consumers being able to choose the products they want based on their own set of criteria would be one of their core values.

      But apparently the free market only means companies are free to sell us what they want, not for consumers to decide what we want.

      It's only ironic because it's a strawman argument to begin with.

      I would argue that if the product label says "flour", it refers to a power made from one or more specific species of wheat selected from the set of all wheat possible by nature. GM wheat was not created by nature, so it's not wheat it's wheat*. By knowingly selling flour* made from wheat* instead of flour made from wheat, yet labeling it as flour, you're committing fraud.

      A free market, complete with free information (which obviously must be legislated: otherwise we would refer to it as "anarchy"), would have both flour and flour* on the shelves. Maybe not in the same quantities, maybe not at the same price, but they'd be there.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    144. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Another possiblility is that these countries rely on food shortage to control their citizens and an abundance of food doesn't really serve their purposes. Evil doesn't solely reside in capitalism.

      When I think food shortage, I don't exactly think of countries like Japan or those that are part of the EU. Maybe I simply haven't heard of the latest famine in a 1st world nation?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    145. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      ...but only for vegan zombies since they only eat graaaaains....

    146. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by gravious · · Score: 1

      Yeah? Complete hokum sir.

      They may be nutritionally similar but the point of some GM stuff is that it is crippled in some way. I don't give a rat's ass about the nutritional content of this modern technology but I do care about patenting gene sequences or farmers having to go back every year to purchase new seeds or whatever trickery these companies are up to. It would be one thing if they are just making better grain or better rice. But they're not just doing that, we all know that they're trying to extract profit all along the food pipeline. I think the consumer should know whether a foodstuff is GM so that they can, if they so choose, be able to avoid sanctioning agri-business tactics they do not ethically agree with. It is _false_ that there are no meaningful differences between GM foods and non-GM foods.

      Horoscopes? Give us a break.

      --

      Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
    147. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered why farmers without a contract to Monsanto haven't counter-sued for infecting their crops and making them unusable.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    148. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does, 10000000 times slower.
      Do you happen to know that even now, after 10 of thousands years of cow milk consumption, a big part of the population is UNABLE to digest the cow milk???
      And just recently there was found a link between "eating" pesticides and Parkinson. I wonder, just wonder, why americans are so fat, sick, and got funny diseases, unlike the rest of the world......Oh, of course, because they eat GMO.

    149. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      LOL, man, did you just ate something GMO which made yo sooo delusional? Try again, and check HOW actually these genes are introduced the GMO food, and exactly what kind of genes are selected for these purposes....I just wonder, are you vegetarian? Yes? LOL, not anymore. Everytime you eat veggi, you are actually eating something fishy :D

    150. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Zombie Apocalypse: Zombie Wheat

      Monsanto confirmed as the real-life version of the Umbrella Corporation.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    151. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      I suspect he is using Windows 8, and that's why he is so.....upset :D

    152. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I'm simply disagreeing that the government is the most reliable institution to provide that sort of information. For example, Certified Humane has a special seal of approval that is meant to help consumers who eat things like eggs and meat make the choice to only buy from providers who treat the animals involved in a reasonably humane fashion. One could argue government could mandate this, but given the influence of agribusiness on politicians and bureaucrats, that solution is not realistic. Fortunately, we see that this private labelling system can do the same job to provide information to those who want it.

      Now, you evidently disagree that non-profit groups are ideal for this, and if that's the case, well, we're each entitled to our own observations. But come on, does that really mean that either of us are doing mental gymnastics, making unreasonable justifications, moving goalposts, or violating core principles (routinely or otherwise)?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    153. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by suutar · · Score: 1

      There's been something mentioned recently about the grain itself being fine, but the Roundup that sticks to it being bad for intestinal flora.

    154. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so why do they get a patent then?

    155. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      and Kirk will get in Tribble for that...

    156. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      This was pretty close as far as Apples... I'm glad that we have more variety today than 30 years ago... for a long time it was Red, Golden and Granny, that was it... I hope that more variety stays around, if only for different flavors/textures... Then again, as a diabetic I'm avoiding a lot of wheat/grains/starches in general.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    157. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by george14215 · · Score: 1

      Because food labelling should be appropriate and helpful. To the end consumer, there is no benefit to knowing whether the food was GMO or not

      Sure there is. A consumer may not want to support a particular supply chain, in this case one that starts with Monsanto seeds. In the same way that a consumer may not want to support an item not made in the U.S.A. Or clothing made in factories in Bangladesh. Or paper products made from deforestation of virgin forests. A consumer has the right to understand the supply chain that produces the product that they're buying.

    158. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be such a bigot. From what I have seen, none of these non-GMO Luddites are the ones you have stereotypically targeted.
      Don't be so self-absorbed. Not every incident is devised to satisfy your own, personal bigotry.
      Don't let the facts get in your way. It might mean you have to actually think.

      From what I have seen, all sorts of people (on all the extremes) dislike/hate/protest/avoid Monsanto and its products.

    159. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no meaningful differences between GM foods and non-GM foods. For the purpose of the ingredients label, it's all "wheat" or "corn" or whatever. GM doesn't cause allergies or any other known negative reactions in people. The only thing that such a label would do is play into the irrational, nearly superstitious fears that many people have against this modern technology. The government may as well mandate printing horoscopes on the labels.

      The irony of this statement is that you have no proven (critiqued) scientific study to back this claim.

      In reality we should all stop eating wheat and corn products not proven to come from organic sources which means we need to stop eating both.

    160. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This type of contamination on non-Monsanto-crop fields with Monsanto-crops appears to be part of their business plan. It has been a very successful strategy for Monsanto.

    161. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by gymell · · Score: 1

      We have two species of eagle here in North America. Bald eagles are primarily fish eaters and so DDT most definitely found its way into their food chain by runoff into waterways. Of course shooting is still an issue, but lead poisoning is probably the main reason for human-caused mortality they face today.

      And by the way, "bird of prey" does not automatically mean "mammal eater." Many birds of prey eat fish, amphibians, birds and yes, even insects. Look up osprey, barred owl, peregrine falcon and American kestrel ... learn your raptor facts before dismissing other people's comments as nonsensical.

    162. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hi, that's the whole purpose of horticulture. deliberate selection of traits you like. This fellow bought seeds from a grain elevator, for grew them and selected traits he liked. He then got sued because Monsanto cant contain its self-replicating technology. where does this end when Monsanto crops cross-pollinate with virtually all crops these days?

    163. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Several reasons:
          - Monsanto is American, and therefore are in a good position to influence US government
          - There have been several attempts to label stuff, but companies like Monsanto have been able to put a stop to it. - http://ens-newswire.com/2013/05/24/u-s-senate-bars-gmo-labels-as-march-against-monsanto-revs-up/
          - I am guessing that in other countries the population either cares more about their food or have more influence over their governments?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    164. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by penglust · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that Libertarianism is based on the concept of "everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others". Where have I heard this before?

    165. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      I feel strongly against additional labeling on something that has been through our regulatory process, especially when anyone who cares can just buy "organic" labeled products. If there is a real danger in these foods, we need to fix our regulatory process.

      That would be great if "organic" actually meant it did not contain any GMOs. That is not currently the case.

      Right now, Monsanto claims it's not their job to ensure the food is safe for consumption, that's the FDA's job. And the FDA says it's Monsanto's job. NOBODY is properly testing this stuff, and frankly I'd like to know if, for example, the corn I'm buying is legally considered a pesticide as well as a food product. I'd like to know if it's the kind that's been shown to grow massive tumors in mice. Right now there's literally no way for me to know. I think GMOs have great potential to improve human health and food security if done right; and the potential to cause extreme, apocalyptic levels of destruction if done wrong. We're not near either extreme right now, but we're definitely on the 'wrong' end of things.

    166. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      If people want to make a choice, then surely they should have the necessary information to make that choice? Also, a product that prides itself in not using GMO plants should have the right to label it? If companies like Monsanto are so afraid, why are they preventing other companies communicating something like this?

      Fixing the regulatory process is hard, when the entities that are meant to be regulated are often in collusion.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    167. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not accurate in all cases where Monsanto sued farmers for growing Monsanto-crops without a license. The MainStreamMedia has covered this subject off and on for decades. Specific farmers, that have made an choice to plant non-Monsanto-crops, have been forced to license Monsanto-crops when a small portion (5%) were found to be growing that were proven to be Monsanto-crops. This is even though some of these farmers carefully documented their use of non-Mansanto-seeds and the Monsanto-crops were either proven to be or accepted to be cross contamination. (One reported case was proven that the farmer "next door" was overly aggressive in sowing this Monsanto-seed and actually seeded the non-Monsanto-crop-famer's field.) Once a farmer were forced to pay Mansanto's licensing fees, they were bound to the licensing agreement to pay Monsanto for years. Check it out--Monsanto's practice started before Al Gore's Internet.

    168. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most GMO seeds are engineered to not produce seeds. So the only contamination you would need to worry about is from any GMO crops that are growing in your fields and not the accidental harvesting of their seeds for the future year.

    169. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Usually a lack of money- but our Attorney General here in Oregon has a strong record of going after companies that spread invasive species (more of a problem on the coast though, when cargo ships dump ballast that may have traveled from as far away as China with Zebra Muscle or Green Crab spores inside).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    170. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Well, there were also millions of dollars spent to defeat that bill by food congomerates, with very little funding supporting it. And the campaigns against it were full of such blatently fraudulent "facts" that it's frankly outrageous that none of the companies behind them were taken to court. They said labeling will add $X to your food bill, where $X was the estimated cost to produce products, in the current market, without any GMO ingredients. So first they were lying by implying that GMO labeling is the same as a GMO ban, which it clearly isn't. These companies redesign their packaging every couple months, clearly it's not that expensive to just add something to the label. Then they lied again by assuming that increased demand for non-GMO crops wouldn't reduce the cost. With all the propaganda and misinformation surrounding that vote, it's no surprise it failed -- what's surprising is how far it actually got in spite of all that.

    171. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      As with many things, the problem is speed - i.e., how quickly do we introduce genes that do completely different. You're not going to get BT corn via cross-pollination. You're not going to get glow-in-the-dark food through cross-pollination. You can, however, do almost anything you want via gene manipulation.

      I'm glad that GMO food so far has had little nefarious side-effects. That said, I'd like to keep an eye on it, and would like to be able to identify which plants were created by direct gene manipulation, and which ones were created through cross-pollination. Oh, and I would like scientists to check the work of other scientists to make sure no one screws up and introduces some wild toxin into the food supply.

      But for some reason, there are a shit-ton of people out there who seem to think that that's just too much regulation, and that poor Agribusiness will just go under if we do that.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    172. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that some GMO crops are required to be legally registered as pesticides? Also, look up the results of testing on Bt corn -- it's on our grocery shelves, yet it's been demonstrated to cause massive tumors, at least in mice. And then there's the fact that Monsanto has recently issued statements claiming it's not their responsibility to ensure their products are safe for human consumption, claiming that's the FDA's job -- while the FDA releases statements claiming it's Monsanto's responsibility.

      Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all GMO is bad. But I think I have a right to know when untested toxic chemicals are being put in my food. I can refuse to get a vaccine if I think the risk is greater than the reward; so why shouldn't I have the same right with GMO foods?

      Nobody is calling for a ban; you can still buy them. Splenda has been shown to cause obesity; Aspartame has been linked to anal seepage; both taste like crap; and both are required to be mentioned on the label. They can't just say it contains sugar and put in splenda instead. But yet, somehow, those products still exist. Somehow there are still places where it's hard to find any products WITHOUT one of those two. Requiring that it be declared on the ingredients list isn't going to prevent them from being produced. Just because you think all GMOs are great doesn't give you the right to force me to eat them.

    173. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaahhaa awesome!

    174. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect it would be infringing their patent, because patents are not about how you arrived at something, it is about the end result - and I suspect Monsanto has patented a particular gene sequence (or molecular change).

    175. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      If there's no difference, why are some GMO crops legally considered pesticides? And why has Bt corn (already being sold) been proven to cause tumors in mice? Nobody tests this stuff. Monsanto says the FDA should; the FDA says Monsanto should. Truth is, we don't know yet if they're safe. And personally, I think I should have the right to not be used as a lab rat for such experiments.

    176. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He mentioned other carriers (rye) in his comment; and the fact that this regularly hit people that eat wheat is sufficient to say that eating wheat is dangerous, even if it is not the wheat itself. (It's not the old meat that's dangerous, it's the poisons that the bacteria in the meat release that's dangerous...)

    177. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that such a label would do is play into the irrational, nearly superstitious fears that many people have against this modern technology.

      Japan suspended importation of wheat that might be GMO. Your argument is that Japanese society and government are technophobes? You might want to rethink that one.

    178. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      In the case in Canada (Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser), yeah, the guy cultivated it knowingly. But it was initially acquired through cross-contamination...meaning he never saw or agreed to the Monsanto license. Yet the court ruled that he was bound by its terms anyway.

      You putting a product on my property, without my knowledge or consent, should not automatically bind me to whatever agreement you sell it under. And once it's on my property, I should have the right to do whatever I want with it -- including harvesting and re-planting the seeds, because I never agreed not to.

    179. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bio-accumulation. Eagles don't eat insects, but they eat the animals that eat the insects, thus they still get a dosage of it.

      I live in south east Wisconsin, it's only in the last 2 years that hawks, vultures and eagles have started making a comback in this area, ask any old timer, they will tell you that they used to be rather plentiful, then after a few years of DDT their numbers took a nosedive and it has taken decades for them to come back from the brink.

      GMO is not worth the risk due to the complete lack of testing and oversight. It's all about shortterm profit for the company. It's no different then the companies that are trying to buy up water rights around the world, they know that fossile fuels are ontheir way out and they are having their pos prohibition maffia moment, the real money is in food and water since everyone needs food and water forever whilst energy sources can be swapped out.

    180. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Urza9814 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not QUITE suing for contamination, but they HAVE tried to take legal action to affirm that they can't be sued by Monsanto once their crops get contaminated:
      http://www.osgata.org/osgata-et-al-v-monsanto/

    181. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you believe I have a right to grow non-GMO crops, and save my own seeds?

      Sure, go ahead and knock yourself out on your hobby.

      Farmers generally don't save seed for next years crops. Why? Because what they've been planting for the last 50-60 years are hybrid varieties which produce sterile seed. The ones that need to worry about this stuff are registered seed growers, but they already work with the seed companies on these sorts of things. These are the guys that Monsanto would be suing for growing a crop in a field that is positioned to be pollinated by a Monsanto GMO crop and then selling it to a competing seed dealer.

    182. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youtube: David vs Monsanto

    183. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Schmeiser WAS a terrible precedent though. The guy didn't buy the seeds, they contaminated his farm. He then collected and replanted them. The judge ruled that it infringed on Monsanto's IP because they require farmers to agree not to replant the seeds when they buy them. But Schmeiser never bought the seeds, he never agreed to that license, he just replanted a crop he found growing wild on his field.

    184. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "unintended consequences" Like HalfLife....Ahhhhhhhhhhh

    185. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      So explain to me why it's legal for Monsanto to sue a farmer because the guy that farmer bought (or, in the case of Schmeiser, unintentionally received) the seed from violated an agreement he had with Monsanto? In what other industry can you do that? That's like Microsoft suing you because the PC you bought from Dell had a pirated copy of Windows on it. Even if you know it's pirated because it's throwing up registration windows, YOU aren't the one who installed it, you bought the thing legally, so why is it your problem?

    186. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      GMOs are given genetic traits that make them bigger, require less water or make them hardier against certain chemicals or pests. None of these things are inherently toxic.

      Monsanto's Bt corn is registered with the US government as a pesticide. Not the crap they spray on it -- the corn ITSELF is a pesticide. If you think that's "not inherently toxic", I suggest you go look up the definition of pesticide. The entire POINT of that particular variant of GMO corn is that it was modified to produce toxins.

    187. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, start writing and calling all politicians. Have your friends and family do it, also. Have their friends and family do it. If enough people did it, it would be passed in two weeks. Screw corporate America, its time to take back Govt for the People by the People.

      Don't forget to toss a couple million greenbacks in the envelope with your letter. And make sure your friends and family and their friends and family each toss i a couple million as well.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    188. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      But I do support fully, the labelling requirements so that the US consumer has the option of where to spend their $$'s....if they want GMO, fine. Just make it easier to make an informed decision.

      I much more support "GMO-free" labeling, like we have "organic" labeling.

      GMO is a useless term since it's so vague. It can mean everything from plants with built-in pesticide to a change in a chromosome that leaves the end-food unaltered but increases yield. We've been "genetically modifying plants for thousands of years, and there's nothing wrong with GMO on the face of it, but there could be something wrong with specific genetic modifications.

    189. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's strange that the farmer took any action against the wheat at all. Around here they just let it grow, and I can't really think of a reason not to. Maybe he was worried about the wheat depleting the soil, but it would have to be a pretty big patch of wheat.

    190. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by dpilot · · Score: 1

      My impression was that RoundUp-Ready mean that the crop plant was itself resistant to RoundUp, and therefore could tolerate higher doses. In other words, more herbicide, not less.

      I'm also under the impression that plants are much more promiscuous with their genes than animals, and there are already RoundUp-Ready weeds.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    191. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Why wasn't there national coverage of the march on Washington about GMO foods? Because most USians don't give a shit as long as the food tastes good, and there is plenty of it.

      Or perhaps there is the possibility that Monsanto and any other groups involved in development of GMO foods have enough political and financial power to make providing any significant amount of coverage a bad choice for any of the major news outlets?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    192. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's even funnier that GRAIIIINS!

    193. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and why is there a market for these GMO crops? Because it allows the farmer to use no-till farming methods that keep more organic matter from the previous crop on top of the soil to reduce soil erosion and reduce the amount of fuel used. They should just not give a rat's ass about their soil or the cost to produce a crop (to hell with greenhouse gases too!) and there wouldn't be these RoundUp Ready GMO crops.

    194. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If people want to make a choice, then surely they should have the necessary information to make that choice?

      It's up to them. They can be "safe" and buy organic right now without doing any research at all. If they want to buy conventional products, they'd need to do some research - but it's a good bet that anything containing soy, rapeseed (Canola), or corn is GMO. I do not think it is the government's job to make sure that everyone is educated about their pet cause.

      Also, a product that prides itself in not using GMO plants should have the right to label it?

      I think that is a fine idea. A voluntary "Contains no GMO" label is fine.

      If companies like Monsanto are so afraid, why are they preventing other companies communicating something like this?

      They are afraid that their product will have a stigma attached to it. That doesn't mean we need to let them have their way.

      Fixing the regulatory process is hard, when the entities that are meant to be regulated are often in collusion.

      Agreed. But the solution is not to slap meaningless labels all over stuff at the producer's expense. It's the same issue as the crazy San Francisco idea of labeling cell phones with their power output.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    195. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      2) Label it, so those who are worried about it can avoid it.

      You haven't been paying attention. For years, Monsanto has been suing farmers when they find evidence of their GMO crops in that farmer's field. Ever heard of bees? They propagate pollen from one field to another. Also, how about reading the article on which you are commenting? This farmer didn't even plant the GMO wheat that was growing in his field. How the hell are you supposed to avoid it?

    196. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for joining the give or take one million others who abuse the word Luddite (member of a paramilitary organization of artisans afraid that the rising industrialization would replace them by unskilled labor) as a derogatory term.

      The only real modern Luddites are probably those protesting that their jobs are sent overseas. To the extent they take up arms beyond posting in discussion threads...

    197. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they are aware that engineering an intentionally sterile crop as the default for human consumption places a single corporate entity in a position to hold the entire world hostage.

      That's been the case with most hybrid crops planted in the industrialized world for the last 50-60 years. The people who are complaining about that don't know a damn thing about farming. It is as if they bitching about not being able to buy a breeding pair of mules.

    198. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      I feel strongly against additional labeling on something that has been through our regulatory process, especially when anyone who cares can just buy "organic" labeled products. If there is a real danger in these foods, we need to fix our regulatory process.

      Remember cigarettes? They went through the regulatory process.

      And if you are going to label something that has no demonstrable harm, don't you then need to label things that have some science behind it? There's a certain amount of irony in selling a steak with a label warning about the feed containing something that is probably harmless, only to take it home and grill it, which then makes it a mutagen. (Grilled veggies would suffer the same fate.) Mustard and coffee are known mutagens. Organic products can be treated with "naturally-derived" pesticides (how's that for an arbitrary distinction?), each of which are obviously bio-active. You would have a multi-page MSDS on every pear.

      I find it ironic that you are placing your faith in 'the regulatory process' and then arbitrarily taking issue with another form of regulation. Perhaps you should be more specific about what regulation is good and what is bad.

      As for 'demonstrable harm,' how about Colony Collapse Disorder (i.e., the mass bee die-offs). Seems to me that harm has been demonstrated [albeit only indirectly against humans] but the source of harm has not yet been found. The point of labels is to help a consumer make wise choices according to their own judgement and conscience, possibly to avoid or prevent such harm. The labels need not be onerous. Personally, I like knowing the nutritional content of things I eat and am grateful for that type of regulation.

      And lastly, what about flavor. Ever noticed how tasteless modern tomatoes are? Seems to me that mass agriculture, driven by an entirely understandable desire to maximize profit, has been sacrificing quality for quantity for years. Imagine a GMO tomato which has no "demonstrable" harmful effects on one's health but which, through natural forms of dispersion such as bees or even the wind, totally contaminates my delicious heirloom tomato crop with some kind of uber-dominant strain of tasteless MonSanTomato. Is this not "demonstrable harm?"

    199. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sneakyimp · · Score: 2

      I like the gist of your argument, but legislating that things be labeled and consumers properly informed ignores the dynamics of the GMO crops in nature and also the legal tactics of Monsanto. Read the article synopsis we are all commenting on. These crops cannot be contained and will propagate. Monsanto is suing (and bankrupting) farmers whose crops contain their patented gene. The problem is bigger than one of labelling. They need to ban patents on genes.

    200. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That would be great if "organic" actually meant it did not contain any GMOs. That is not currently the case.

      Where did you get your information? US and Canadian "Organic" labelled foods must not be GMO.

      From USDA:

      Excluded methods. A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.

      NOBODY is properly testing this stuff,

      If you believe that to be the case, then you should be demanding that the regulatory agencies do a better job. They are supposed to be insuring the safety of our food supply.

      I'd like to know if it's the kind that's been shown to grow massive tumors in mice.

      It was rats, in a single study. If everything that caused tumors in rats were labeled, the label would be almost meaningless.

      Don't get me wrong, I think that paper was reason for concern, and it's not all that fantastic to think that eating an herbicide might have health effects. At the same time, if there is evidence that the product is unsafe in humans, it should be removed from market - not simply labeled. If you want to be prudent and avoid the product in the study, that is a simple matter of sticking with organic corn - non-GMO corn is probably close to non-existent in conventional products.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    201. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by andydouble07 · · Score: 1

      Which is why non-kosher foods are required to to labeled as such... Oh wait

    202. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Tweezak · · Score: 1

      And then there's the whole using this shit as food aid and expecting starving farmers in Africa to not keep seeds for next year because of the license agreement they know nothing about.

      Except that most of the seeds that monsanto's Roundup-Ready crops yield are sterile and will not germinate for subsequent generations forcing farmers to buy new seed for every planting. It appears this mechanism did not work in the wheat found in Oregon because this stuff clearly re-grows year after year (probably the reason it was never marketed). Problem is...it's franken-wheat that we can't kill - not with Roundup at least. Maybe crossbow or some other toxic defoliant. Odds are good the cure will be worse than the disease.

    203. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      For the sake of argument, consider this scenario:
      * Monsanto makes patented crop of wheat
      * Between the crop granting higher yields and Monsanto suing farmers whose crops contain their patented strain (which farmers might not have even planted this strain), Monsanto becomes a seed monopoly for wheat seed.
      * Monsanto tweaks their GMO recipe such that their wheat crops produce little no seed at all. This is hardly a leap. They already sue farmers who fail to pay a license fee every year.
      * Wheat industry becomes highly consolidated and everyone is sucking the Monsanto dick, paying every year for seeds to grow wheat which doesn't yield any seeds to plan next year's crop.

      Surely this scenario bothers other people too?

    204. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Aspartame has been linked to anal seepage

      You sure? Perhaps you were thinking of Olestra.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    205. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

      Other symptoms include strong uterine contractions, nausea, seizures, and eventual unconsciousness. Needless to say, this is a VERY painful way to go.

      Especially if you're a male!

    206. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      The reasoning in parent post is fatally flawed. It says that we should ignore one potential danger that could be easily prevented because, heck, life is full of all kinds of dangers that cannot be prevented.

      Go ahead and store that open can of gasoline in your basement, since you've got flammable clothes in the closets, flammable exposed beams, and even a pilot light burning under the water heater. What could possibly grow wrong?

      The only benefit of Monsanto's GMO is profit for Monsanto. This is so clearly obvious: if you removed the profit by prohibiting the patenting of genes (and therefore undercutting Monsanto's ability to charge for licenses), they would be producing very little "Round-Up Ready" seed. They are not like an agricultural University that develops new strains to benefit everyone. Monsanto is in it strictly for the easy money.

      --
      Will
    207. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Acron · · Score: 1

      Still no studies proving GMO in any way cause damage to human beings. So far everything I have seen is a sad, clearly luddite mentality that "technology bad". Calling the death penalty "murder" is symptomatic of poor logical skills on your part. That implies the state does not have the right to terminate the lives of it's citizens, which is poor reasoning, given the many things I suspect we will find you support the government passing laws to do. For example, deciding not to have a death penalty for murder means removing one factor that encourages people not to murder others, which in part contributes to more people being murdered. Government makes many decisions that impact how many people will live or die. Setting a speed limit is defacto determining one of the major factors in how many people die in car accidents. When the state sets the speed limit, they defacto decide how many people will die.

    208. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by tom17 · · Score: 1

      OK then, sue 'Nature' for developing the same thing (With a little help lol).

      Seriously, when natural processes end up creating something, can someone really claim prior art?

    209. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

      I don't know what an "American Eagle" is.

      He's the one with the tear falling from his eye w/the crumbling WTC buildings in the background...

    210. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Remember cigarettes? They went through the regulatory process.

      They were regulated for the quality of the tobacco, but tobacco itself was not put through safety tests (obviously).

      I find it ironic that you are placing your faith in 'the regulatory process' and then arbitrarily taking issue with another form of regulation.

      I have to place my faith in the regulatory process. I cannot inspect the slaughterhouse that I buy my meat from by myself. I am not equipped to measure mold toxins in my juice. I have no way to check for harmful microbes in my fresh vegetables. I cannot tell whether a farmer used a dangerous insecticide. If the regulatory process is letting unsafe stuff make it to the grocery store, then I am 100% certain that I want the process fixed, because I depend on it.

      arbitrarily taking issue with another form of regulation.

      There is nothing arbitrary about it - I oppose requiring producers to affix labels that have no scientific value. It adds cost and accounting issues with no demonstrated value. It wastes regulatory time and money as the regulators make sure that this meaningless gesture is being followed properly. And for all that, there is already a "non-GMO" label: "organic".

      As for 'demonstrable harm,' how about Colony Collapse Disorder (i.e., the mass bee die-offs). Seems to me that harm has been demonstrated [albeit only indirectly against humans] but the source of harm has not yet been found.

      I fully support taking action to stop CCD once we know the cause. GMO stickers will not help bees.

      The point of labels is to help a consumer make wise choices according to their own judgement and conscience, possibly to avoid or prevent such harm.

      How can you call a choice based on zero scientific evidence "wise"? In any case, any consumer so inclined is likely already buying "organic".

      Personally, I like knowing the nutritional content of things I eat and am grateful for that type of regulation.

      You'll notice that those labels are only required for manufactured foods. I'm 100% in agreement with you on those labels - we have no natural ability to discern a good from a bad manufactured food, though they are pretty much all bad :)

      And lastly, what about flavor.

      Penn and Teller did a hilarious (but biased) episode of "Bullshit" on this. They quite obviously selected produce that would favor the conventionally grown product, but it was still funny and they made a solid point: organic can be just as flavorless as conventional. There's nothing inherent in a GMO regarding flavor.

      Imagine a GMO tomato which has no "demonstrable" harmful effects on one's health but which, through natural forms of dispersion such as bees or even the wind, totally contaminates my delicious heirloom tomato crop with some kind of uber-dominant strain of tasteless MonSanTomato. Is this not "demonstrable harm?"

      It certainly would be, but notice that you had to use the word "imagine". Tomatoes are probably a bad example since they self-pollinate, but your point is valid. The nice thing about demonstrated harm is that represents a valid lawsuit in civil court. Seed companies probably have a strong incentive to make their plants sterile in any case.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    211. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      You'd better stop eating anything if BT scares you.

      It occurs naturally in soil and can be used on organic certified veg.

    212. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Since we are picking nits,

      They are not "introducing new genes into the ecosystem," they are taking genes that already exist in the wild and adding them to a species' genome [halleyhosting.com]. Believe it or not, this happens all the time all over the place naturally thanks to viruses, bacteria, and allows for artificial transduction [wikipedia.org] in laboratories

      while arguably more correct, the above manages to gloss over completely that natural transmission of genes between species occurs within the homeostatic controls of the ecosystem, but the artificial transduction in the laboratory moves genes between species through pathways that may not be under any kind of natural control.

      The difference is similar to the competition of software on the Internet. Most software has to be harmless and add something to the general welfare or it simply goes extinct. But malware that hides within apparently good software can do a world of hurt. Such as crashing hundreds of centrifuges. (Which might not have been a bad thing, but what if that had been crashing dozens of electrical grid monitoring systems in some other country?)

      --
      Will
    213. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Hubris and "what could possibly go wrong".

      This is part of what bothers me about GM crops. Maybe they really are safe for consumption. The companies that make them tell me they are. But When they demonstrate that they can't keep their test crops contained, I start to worry about unintended consequences.

      Ever read the book, "Mutant 59: The Plastic-Eaters" by Kit Pedler and Gerry Davis?

      It's about a type of genetically engineered bacteria that feeds on (and destroys) plastic, reducing it to (organic) dust within two hours of exposure to the air. Initially used for specially constructed plastic soda bottles... (see where this is going?) For some reason, some of the dust remains active and mutates to be able to reduce most/all plastics to this new mutated strain and, since it's now air-borne, easily spreads *everywhere* ... including electrical insulation on airplanes...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    214. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I much more support "GMO-free" labeling, like we have "organic" labeling.

      Interesting point...sadly since it is so prevalent, you may have the best idea here, show was is NOT GMO, with the assumption that pretty much everything else is.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    215. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      It's depressing that there is no regulation before a debate can be invoked. My primary concern is that these GMO strains can become predatory and impact native, local ecologies long after companies like Monsanto are dead.

    216. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by jc42 · · Score: 1

      But apparently the free market only means companies are free to sell us what they want, not for consumers to decide what we want.

      Yeah; that's a good summary of the main "failure mode" of a free market system. This has been acknowledged by lots of economists, going back to Adam Smith. Sellers inherently want to maximize their markets, so if there's any chance that a specific bit of information about a product will harm sales to any small part of the population, a seller naturally hides that information. There's a natural imbalance between sellers and buyers, with the sellers knowing more about the product than prospective purchasers know.

      About the only way that's been found effective at providing purchasers with information is legal punishments if sellers don't provide the information. Check ingredient labels where you live, and compare what they say with local government regulations. You'll generally find that the labels only tell you what the laws require; anything not explicitly required by law is usually omitted. In a true free market, you would have no information about ingredients at all, on the ground that such information would limit sales to people with "irrational" dislike of some ingredients. We've read variants of that argument here to explain why GMO ingredients shouldn't be (required to be) listed.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    217. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      This is the attitude that allows corporations to keep buying politicians. Corps have tons of money, that's right, but they can't vote. If enough people in the US (or any country for that matter that allows free elections), would actually get off their lazy asses, and hold politicians accountable, corporate money wouldn't mean shit to them. A politician can only take money when he's holding office. If he gets voted out by the people, then the corporation has to go about buying new politicians.

      It's not that hard to write your congress people a weekly letter and let them know how you feel. If just 50% of the people would do this, politicians would start acting right. Hell, it would probably only take a vocal minority to make it happen. If 10% of the people are pissed off enough to write, then I can imagine the aides will tell him that its more like 50% of the people.

      I challenge you to try it, if you don't believe me. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly apologize.

    218. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Idiot, there are also no studies proving that GMO does not do damage to human beings.

    219. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      There is nothing arbitrary about it - I oppose requiring producers to affix labels that have no scientific value. It adds cost and accounting issues with no demonstrated value. It wastes regulatory time and money as the regulators make sure that this meaningless gesture is being followed properly. And for all that, there is already a "non-GMO" label: "organic".

      It seems arbitrary to me inasmuch as you require "scientific value" and fail to acknowledge that GMO is in fact distinct (or was at one time) AND genetically distinguishable from naturally occurring strains of wheat. Or is that not the kind of 'scientific value' you are talking about? The idea of 'scientific value' is in the eye of the scientist/beholder and you've hardly provided any concise definition of 'scientific value.'. As for the cost issues and regulatory time wasted, I would argue that regulating tobacco quality without realizing that it gives you fucking cancer is a waste of time and money. On the other hand, food producers no doubt once claimed that providing nutritional information was expensive, onerous, and a "waste of time." I disagree entirely.

      As for the 'organic' label, you'll note that the USDA regulates certain phrases (e.g., 'free-range' and 'cage-free'). Why not add GMO free? That sounds voluntary and not particularly harmless -- until you consider that containment of GMO crops is not really possible, which is the thrust of the original article what we are all commenting on.

      I fully support taking action to stop CCD once we know the cause. GMO stickers will not help bees.

      You and I agree that CCD is bad, but here you assert that we don't know the cause of CCD and also assert that GMO will not help bees. Strictly speaking, you cannot assert this. This suggests that you somehow have a crystal ball to know that GMO strains are not the cause of CCD. I know I sound like a Luddite here but not without reason. It took a very long time for people to acknowledge that tobacco is bad for you. I would hardly be shocked if GMO had problems too.

      Penn and Teller did a hilarious (but biased) episode of "Bullshit" on this. They quite obviously selected produce that would favor the conventionally grown product, but it was still funny and they made a solid point: organic can be just as flavorless as conventional. There's nothing inherent in a GMO regarding flavor.

      P & T do everyone a great service by dispelling ignorance, but just because a food is labelled 'organic' doesn't mean it tastes better or that it's even grown ethically. On the other hand, a GMO crop that is 'pest resistant' or more likely to completely fill an ecosystem than a strain that lacks such an advantage. I have no proof for thinking so, but I can't imagine that Monsanto spends a great deal of effort cultivating rare strains of heirloom tomatoes or boutique strains of wheat that have superior taste. The old myth that everyone will have brown eyes in 50 years comes to mind.

      It certainly would be, but notice that you had to use the word "imagine". Tomatoes are probably a bad example since they self-pollinate, but your point is valid. The nice thing about demonstrated harm is that represents a valid lawsuit in civil court. Seed companies probably have a strong incentive to make their plants sterile in any case.

      I'm glad you've touched on non-scientific aspects of this discussion because they are entirely relevant. 'Demonstrated harm' as a legal concept is somewhat different and not nearly as tidy as "scientific value" inasmuch as Monsanto has been bankrupting farmers who grow crops if they don't pay up their Monsanto license but happen to have Monsanto genes in their crops. Given that they have such high market share AND that you must pay them every year for the privilege of using their seeds, it suggests a problematic future from a legal and economic standpoint.

    220. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? They only have the one current model of iphone! Compare that to a billion androids!

      Sorry, couldn't resist. Yeah, I agree. I'd like to know who decided that red delicious, the worst apples, were the only type of red apples one could sell in stores. Honeycrisp and jazz were mind blowing when I first encountered them, to the point where I was angry I hadn't had them before five years ago. Corn is one thing, you don't eat it raw, and most of the time you're not eating it without a lot of processing. I can understand why there's little demand for variety in corn. But apples? I don't understand.

    221. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by jc42 · · Score: 1

      If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this?

      Because they're wrong or their reasons are not appropriate to the US agricultural environment? Some are banning on the basis of absurd health-based reasons that are demonstrably untrue. ...

      Actually, the primary fear isn't with health or cross-pollination or anything biological. If you investigate the various bans in importing GMO grains, you'll find that most of them actually ban only unmilled GMO grains. In particular, a number of countries have blocked the importing of unmilled grain in food aid shipments, while allowing milled grain.

      This is a hint at the actual fear, which has been discussed openly in most of these countries: If they permit importing whole GMO seed, there is a serious prospect that some of the seed will be planted locally. This will be followed by the owners of the GMO patents (most notably Monsanto, but also several other international corporations) will respond with legal actions that bankrupt the local farmers. The worst-case scenario, which is widely considered the most likely scenario, is that the big international GMO corporations will end up owning most of the country's farmland.

      Note again that this fear has nothing to do with biological or health problems. It is purely a legal/political problem, brought about by the current international patent system.

      And yes, the US is considered a major source of this threat. But it isn't really the US alone; the US is merely the largest source of threats to local agriculture based on patents on DNA.

      And grains are the major crop involved, for the simple reason that grains are wind pollinated, so it's not possible for farmers to prevent cross-pollination with their neighbors' farms. Traditionally, this was an advantage, since this tended to spread the genes of the most "successful" (by human standards) varieties. But in the advent of DNA patents, this advantage has turned into a serious threat to the livelihoods of grain farmers around the world.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    222. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you support Monsanto?

    223. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by jc42 · · Score: 1

      [Monsanto] ain't French. It was founded in St. Louis over 100 years ago.

      Heh. I was tempted to reply to the poster of the claim that Monsanto is French by suggesting that they're actually a giant international corporation with no loyalty to the French or any other government, nation or people. Now I can respond to the claim that they're American in the same way.

      Monsanto doesn't have our interests at heart; they have their officers' and stockholders' interest at heart. Many people here on /. have explained not only why this is, but why it's Right in our theoretical regulation-free market, which would be best in this best of all possible worlds, y'know. So I won't go into that. I'll just suggest that you consider it when reading about their actions.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    224. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " There is no rational reason to single GMOs out as Frankenstein's monster,"

      Yes, there is. The people behind the monster have consistently used strong-arm tactics and legal harassment to do business. They are quite literally using extortion as a business model. People that have no morals are the monster. The things they do are morally wrong. You seem to have dismissed the connection between the product and the people that make it, and more importantly, their motives.

      Get rich, and control the world's food supply, as I see it. But, hey, it's science so it must be good for us, right?

    225. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      GMO foods are potentially dangerous in several ways. DNA is one way, but the idea that Roundup Ready only kills bad stuff is the most dangerous.

      Just like they did with DDT, we are dumping Roundup over everything. We don't even pretend to understand the long-term effects of that decision but "good for the economy/Monsanto".

      I guess when it comes to chemicals I am a little bit paranoid.

    226. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      If there's no difference, why are some GMO crops legally considered pesticides?

      [citation needed]

      And why has Bt corn (already being sold) been proven to cause tumors in mice?

      [citation needed] If you mean Seralini's study, that's hilarious.

      Nobody tests this stuff.

      BWAHAHAHA!

      Truth is, we don't know yet if they're safe.

      Conventionally bred crops and other plants have NO testing for safety and can and have been harmful. GMO food, OTOH, goes through a variety of tests to show a reasonable level of safety. Why wouldn't a company do this? You think that companies would be ok with insufficient testing that might allow a dangerous product to hit the market, opening them up to a large scale class action lawsuit that could potentially kill that company off?

      And personally, I think I should have the right to not be used as a lab rat for such experiments.

      You're right; that's why these experiments are done. Using actual lab rats.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    227. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I would argue that if the product label says "flour", it refers to a pow[d]er made from one or more specific species of wheat selected from the set of all wheat possible by nature. GM wheat was not created by nature, so it's not wheat it's wheat*.

      And biologists might argue that that's absurd, because wheat wasn't created by "nature", but rather by millennia of human selection. Wheat is a different species than its wild ancestor; it's an "artificial" (i.e., human created) species than can't survive in the wild without human assistance. Similarly with the other major grains, which are all very different from their wild ancestors, are are artificial in the same sense.

      This isn't to say that criticisms of Monsanto are wrong, of course. But making bogus biological arguments really doesn't advance the cause, because actual scientists are likely to speak up and point out the technical errors in such bogus arguments.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    228. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already happened. In 2004.

      While not the pinnacle of investigative journalism, Wired magazine had an article about cocaine growers in Columbia selecting and nurturing those coca plants that survived the DEA's widespread aerial spraying of Roundup.

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/columbia.html

    229. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, this also brings Monsanto's claims of deliberate action in all other cases into question. Much of their argument has always been to the effect of "well, it didn't plant itself there", but perhaps it could have.

      Meanwhile, thanks to Monsanto's roundup ready canola, there are a fair number of roundup ready weeds in the wild as well.

    230. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sjames · · Score: 1

      There's a LOT of conjecture behind those "facts". Monsanto CLAIMS that the infringement was knowing because the only way a crop could resist Roundup would be if it was a Monsanto crop.

      However, since then, it has been PROVEN that conventional breeding techniques can and have produced non GMO, non-Monsanto crops that resist roundup just as effectively. So indeed, the farmer COULD reasonably have believed that is what happened.

    231. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      You can use more Roundup, but that's instead of using other, more toxic herbicides. Compared to some other herbicides, Roundup is relatively benign.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    232. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sjames · · Score: 1

      At this point, since it is Monsanto's fault, they should lose all right to sue for any crop that has shown contamination and they need to pay damages for lost value to every farmer since there are now markets that will not buy their potentially contaminated crops.

    233. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the consumer, for some reason, decides they don't like wheat harvested on a Tuesday, they have every right to make that decision. That's supposedly how the free market works. Funny thing though, the majority of free market zealots don't seem all that enanmoured of the consumer side of the free market.

    234. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big GMO fan, but the average consumer isn't exactly a genius.
      If I slapped a big red label on diary products saying "Warning! Contains fluid derived from live animals", there is a reasonably large percentage of the population that would scream and refuse to buy it.
      I can understand not wanting to label everything. Someone might make the opposite argument: "if it was safe, why are they labeling it?"

    235. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, they carefully selected for crops that showed roundup resistance. Monsanto CLAIMS that only their patented genes and GMO techniques could do that and so the farmers were 'pirating' their patented seeds, but other research has proven that roundup resistance CAN be created by breeding between non-Monsanto crops, and so it is quite possible that the farmers believed they had done exactly that.

    236. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sjames · · Score: 1

      It has been done. In fact, nature has done it with a few varieties of weeds.

    237. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      It certainly is "not inherently toxic" to humans, as humans are not insects, don't have alkaline guts, and the Cry proteins are incapable of harming humans in the same way that they kill insects by their very nature. I suggest you actually learn something about the very issues you are trying to argue before you suggest others to look up definitions. Simply saying "OMG pesticide!" shows how unfamiliar you are with the entire topic that you're trying to argue, so why should anyone listen to anything you've said at all?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    238. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      You clearly do not know what "Luddite" means. Are people trashing Monsanto's crops, equipment or property? No, they are not.

      Yes they are.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    239. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, you are banned from LOL usage.

    240. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I presume by now you've checked your belief out and realise you're wrong. So I'll say nothing more about it.

    241. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where do you draw the fucking line when eventually you can't find a damn fucking thing to plant that doesn't infringe? Monsanto apologists like you are a fucking laugh a minute. Do the world a favor and go..........

    242. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Which is why they shouldn't have been conducting this research outside. I know that it's terribly expensive to properly control it, but who knows what's going to happen when you have random GMO strains contaminating each other. One gene might not be a problem on its own, but who knows what happens when 2 or 3 or 6 different genes interact.

      According to this Forbes articlehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2013/05/31/illegal-genetically-modified-wheat-found-in-oregon-farm-should-we-be-worried/ , the Roundup Ready wheat program was discontinued 9 years ago, which suggests that this wheat may have survived in the wild that long or longer, in which case it may be widespread. If that has happened, it's a good bet that most volunteer wheat is GMO.

    243. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... I don't think you're understanding what the primary product of a crop of wheat is in the first place. The whole point of growing wheat is to get the grain (aka seeds) of the plant for food. Yes, you can get straw from wheat too but it's a near zero value byproduct.

    244. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to sue Monsanto for their shit growing in his field.

    245. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      We don't know that yet. We have one find of wild contaminated wheat ever.

    246. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by bjwest · · Score: 1

      Most GMO seeds are engineered to not produce seeds. So the only contamination you would need to worry about is from any GMO crops that are growing in your fields and not the accidental harvesting of their seeds for the future year.

      This, my friends, is our American Education System in full swing...

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    247. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      fail to acknowledge that GMO is in fact distinct (or was at one time) AND genetically distinguishable from naturally occurring strains of wheat.

      The same can be said of every mutation we have bred into all of our crops. Corn is so different from it's naturally occurring parent plant that we had trouble settling the matter scientifically until genetic testing became available. All of those vastly different heirloom tomatoes you are so fond of have the same parent plant as the flavorless globs of red that populate the store shelves - and you can identify them genetically.

      The idea of 'scientific value' is in the eye of the scientist/beholder and you've hardly provided any concise definition of 'scientific value.'.

      Science is not "in the eye of the beholder". Science is a method of discovery. By no scientific standard can you make a case for distinctly labeling GMOs. And I'd argue that if you could build such a case, you shouldn't be selling them at all. If Roundup-ready corn ever shows problems beyond a single rat study, yank that crap off the shelves. Or if it turns out to be the Roundup and not the GMO, stop letting them spray Roundup all over food crops.

      You could, and people do, make the "abundance of caution" case, but it is impossible to prove with absolute certainty that any food is safe. I don't think 90 day rat studies are sufficient, so I agree with the anti-GMO crowd that regulation and standards need to increase. That said, GMO soybeans have been on the market for almost 20 years now and I've not seen a single study implicating them in any kind of health issue. Coffee, on the other hand, is the subject of many a questionable study and it has an active ingredient with known health implications. Why is your bar higher for GMO than for coffee?

      until you consider that containment of GMO crops is not really possible, which is the thrust of the original article what we are all commenting on.

      I agree that this is a serious development. They might need to completely overhaul the way they do testing of unapproved products. Then again, it might be a "Willy found a bag of seed in his truck" kind of thing. But it is very important that we find out what happened.

      Strictly speaking, you cannot assert this.

      Fair enough, but the same thing applies to your trying to pin it on GMOs. There is no evidence in that regard - and a cursory experiment would be simple and cheap.

      more likely to completely fill an ecosystem than a strain that lacks such an advantage.

      I don't think there are many (any?) food crops that will fill any ecosystem. We've bred them for traits that suit us, not their environments. Fallow fields quickly go to weeds and brush. I seriously doubt we'll ever be able to outdo billions of years of natural selection, no matter how good our genetic engineering is.

      Monsanto has been bankrupting farmers who grow crops if they don't pay up their Monsanto license but happen to have Monsanto genes in their crops.

      That statement is true but misleading. All of the court cases I'm aware of involve a farmer spraying his field with Roundup and then replanting the surviving plants - all the time aware of what he was doing. Now, I happen to be fairly anti-IP law, so I find the fact that this business model is encouraged by our laws to be somewhat infuriating. But I have to admit, these farmers were actively trying to find a loophole, not just innocent victims of Monsanto.

      Perhaps more frighteningly, I'm imagining a scenario where we've been growing 'seedless' wheat for years that displaces the naturally-reproducing wheat. Aside from the dangers of a single company dominating supply to seeds, what happens when the seed supply gets interrupted? The Irish Potato Famine is a great case study for what happens when a stable crop fails.

      Yes, we do have somethi

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    248. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Sometimes people need to step back and answer the question: why do we need corporations? Followed by: what is the minimum amount of regulation we need to do to enable that? I think they are too powerful currently - either over or under regulated, depending on your frame of reference. From the perspective of a free market with no government regulation (and thus no corporations), there is too much power granted to the corporations - too much regulation or interference in the free market.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    249. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Fix the problem of labeling being punitive instead of informative, and the bill would have passed.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    250. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      What does one /reported/ and /confirmed/ find typically mean? There are no singularities in nature.

    251. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can't even write a coherent paragraph!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    252. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have a list of actual ingredients, please. Tomatoes, GMO wheat, beef byproduct, artificial colors and flavorings, GMO corn syrup and so forth.

      That's fine with me. And improve your reading comprehension.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    253. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the US government has to do now is sue Monsanto for contamination. "It got out accidenatly". Now that's what all the farmers said, and got sued by Monsanto anyway. So now Monsanto says "It got out accidentally" and the US government should sue Monsanto for twice the total amount Monsanto has sued local farmers for the last 20 years. Their crap has damaged global wheat exports, pay or die!

    254. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      At the bare minimum...

      If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this?

      Because the countries banning GMO food are doing so because the tech wasn't invented there.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    255. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're absolutely right. Every ingredient of every packaged food should list every possible attribute on the label, just in case I completely irrationally decide for myself - despite scientific evidence to the contrary - that a food isn't good for me, no matter how ridiculous.
      For example, if I decide that I won't eat any food that contains ingredients manufactured within 20km of a facility that processes peanuts packaged by black people between 3-6pm GST on a Tuesday after a full moon, then the clearly the food should be labelled with all those attributes. If you refuse, then clearly it's because you're keeping secrets from me about my food, and you think you know what's good for me.

    256. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Deluvianvortex · · Score: 1
      that is not what roundup ready does. Roundup ready crops don't tolerate higher dosages, they don't process the glyphosate at all. In effect, they eat it but they don't use it, so they just discard it as waste. This allows for lower dosages of herbicide.

      I read wikipedia for an hour to make sure I got that right.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPSP_synthase#Herbicides

    257. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      "They are fine for human consumption but some Luddites.."

      I have one word for your opinion/claim.. BULLSHIT!!

      Given the paltry amount of controlled scientific testing, the near continuous modification of Monsanto's herbicide formula(without additional testing), and the ever increasing amounts of herbicide usage. Is a formula for a biological/ecological disaster..

      I suspect Monsanto will soon be guilty of is perpetrating genocide on large portion of an unsuspecting population. All one can hope for, is that society learns from this lesson, and hands out death penalties/ asset forfeitures to all involved.

      I'm scientifically trained, and I avoid consuming any products derived from GMO'd plants. Off the list so far are soy, and dent corn(processed corn products). I might have to start growing my own sweet corn soon..

    258. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      What does one /reported/ and /confirmed/ find typically mean? There are no singularities in nature.

      It proves that GM wheat is out there. It doesn't tell you how common it is.
      But the way American farmers use glyphosate, they're heavily selecting the wild wheat population to be dominated by the GM kind.

    259. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he didn't sign any contracts.

      That the plants on his farm that he cultivated were his neighbors.

      He cultivated them by spraying roundup on them.

      End result; he got sued because he knowingly grew a plant someone else contaminated his land with.

    260. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Create Genetic Engineered Crops

      2. Crops perform better than natural crops, crowding them out both in the marketplace, and in the wild.

      3. Profit!

      4. Engineered crops later found not suitable for human consumption

      5. Famine.

      Seems odd the Americans refuse to see the dangers of GMO when everyone else sees it.
      Maybe it's the water.

    261. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by celle · · Score: 1

      "Is Monsanto going to sue the County it is growing in too, or just the farmer on whose land it is found?"

      Now it's time for Monsanto to be sued by everyone. Countries and Class actions allowed and Monsanto isn't allowed to shell company/bankruptcy away from this. Sue and break them for contaminating the worlds food supply and lets kill a few execs as well just for 'examples' of why they should have been more careful.

    262. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      Seems you got that wrong. They are fine for human consumption but some Luddites are worried that their god didn't create the crops so they won't buy them or eat them. So they starve with plenty of food available.

      Let the market decide who eats and who starves. And let that market be dominated by one company. And let the courts support their decisions of life and death. amen

    263. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      I mean to say... maximum profits do not occur when the whole world is fed. Starvation create great demand.

    264. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and you never know what the future holds. People largely believed cigarettes to be completely safe in earlier generations. Who's to say it won't happen with this as well? Not saying we shouldn't experiment, but keeping it under control should be a huge priority, so that if it is found dangerous, we could eradicate it. Too late now though, right?

    265. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is funny, because none of those plants can be found naturally. Granted, they weren't created using modern genetic engineering, but they're all extremely sophisticated examples of artificial selection, and not that much different from our rather primitive genetic engineering.

      Look around you. You're sitting in an artificial, constructed world. Humans have engineered the crap out of the environment. There's nothing new about GMO in the grand scheme of things. It's just another technology. Artificially selected plants and animals have been contaminating the environment for millennia; that GMO plants will do it is nothing new (although Congress critters and Monsanto apologists were smoking some crazy sh*t to believe GMOs could be prevented from escaping).

      We need to worry less about escaping wheat and more about, e.g., savings frogs. If a particular kind of GMO wheat kills frogs (or bees, for that matter) prove it, fix it, and move on to the next task. There are no easy solutions, just the thankless task of ecological bandaids within the context of human advancements.

    266. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the companies that are saying it, it's also independent scientists and [mostly independent] regulators. And that's what matters. GMO plants are safe for consumption, period.

      There are other downsides, particularly regarding environmental contamination, and invariably there'll be unintended consequences. Monsanto will always try to downplay them, and everybody else should keep them honest.

      Also, it's not like our environment is some pristine pond. Virtually the entirety of the North American continent is infested with invasive species, including human engineered plants and animals. It's unlikely that any plant you see outside your window right now is native to your area. There's almost no native forest left, and we basically terra-transformed an entire landscape in the Midwest (from over a billion acres of prairie to over a billion acres of farmland and grazing land). Most of what people think is "natural" landscape is actually man made. A majority of the forest land in the Southern US is planted!

      That's not an excuse to allow Monsanto to dump their genes all over the place, but it puts things into perspective. It's sort of like a whore worrying about losing his/her virginity; it's misplaced anxiety.

    267. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there's no reason to give a shit what the third world thinks.

    268. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Labeling doesn't necessarily create transparency.

      Take, for example, the Prop 65 (1986) "toxic" notice requirements in California. They're posted everywhere. Playgrounds, parks, buildings, airports, gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants. At this point they're background noise, at best; at worst they allow truly hazardous and contaminated places to hide in plain sight.

      "GMO" would be even worse, because unlike "toxic" there's no science to even suggest that GMOs are harmful for consumption. At least "toxic" is bad by definition, even if what's labeled toxic isn't in reality.

      If you support GMO labeling, then there's no reason not to support similar sorts of mandatory labeling, such as "this water fountain used by blacks and latinos".

    269. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ever happend to "It hasn't been proven safe, so we will assume that it isn't" notion?

    270. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Wheat can self-pollinate, but that doesn't mean that every bit of wheat out there is self-pollinated. In the wild, some of your wheat will cross-pollinate with other plants; if there are GMO wheat plants nearby it will cross-pollinate with those. As a result, we are finding patented GMO DNA in organic wheat that never had any direct connection with Monsanto; the farmers retained seed that had cross-pollinated with GMO wheat in neighboring farms.

    271. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget "don't eat salt".

      For years the medical profession has been telling people to cut back on salt because salt raises blood pressure, and high blood pressure is bad for people; therefore lowering blood pressure by reducing salt intake should reduce the death rate from hypertension. There is only one problem - a recent study strongly suggests that it's not true; reducing salt intake to the levels advocated by the anti-salt activists appears to increase mortality. Reducing high blood pressure with drugs does appear to decrease mortality, so don't stop taking your high blood pressure meds.

    272. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Along those lines is also saturated fat, which was long considered bad because high-levels of saturated fat in the blood correlate with heart disease.

      Unfortunately, there's no evidence of a correlation between eating saturated fat and having high-levels of saturated fat in the blood.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    273. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      If my reason for not wanting to consume GM foods is that I've been visited by people who traveled back in time to warn me about them, that's my business. It's not up to you to judge the "rationality" of decisions that affect only me.

      It certainly is if you are demanding I be forced to label my products to your preference. Your demands make it affect me.

      Certain religions impose dietary restrictions on their practitioners. That might be deemed irrational or superstitious, but it's up to the individual to decide.

      Indeed! And, does the government mandate that non-kosher foods be labeled non-kosher? Nope! Although producers who want to appeal to Jews who follow kashrut law are free to label those foods as being kosher, and they do.

      You made my point for me. Thanks.

      If GM crops live up to all of these promises about being cheaper to produce, more sustainable, etc. and with no negative side effects, then I'll be wasting my money on more expensive products produced with non-GMO crops. That should be my choice however.

      And it is! Buy things that producers willingly label "organic" rather than force everyone to comply with your choices.

      Actually, that gave me an idea. A lot of the Pagan religions have a deep affinity with nature. I refuse to consume GMOs because they are an affront to my sect of Paganism.

      Good for you! Then don't eat them. See previous paragraph.

    274. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      So you want the government to mandate that these companies label their food so you can more easily boycott them. Rather than do the research and figure it out yourself.

    275. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Do you have a study that proves GM is unsafe? If you're going to assert that something needs positive government intervention---regulation or banning---you provide the proof that such is necessary. The burden of proof should like on the accuser.

      On the other hand, if you're the type of person that just assumes something is unsafe because it's new and hasn't been proven otherwise... that's pretty much what I was getting at with my "irrational fear" point. You automatically fear something because it's new, or unknown, or recently invented. Irrational.

    276. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      [W]hy has Bt corn (already being sold) been proven to cause tumors in mice? Nobody tests this stuff.

      Have there been follow-up studies in humans? Mice aren't humans. Saccharin was once feared because it caused bladder cancer in rats. Follow-ups showed that rats have unique bladder proteins that humans don't have, which interacted with the saccharin to cause cancer. Humans aren't rats, either, and, we having no such proteins, no such cancer has been demonstrated in humans. (And, predictably, there are plenty of people who still insist saccharin is unsafe.)

      And personally, I think I should have the right to not be used as a lab rat for such experiments.

      Sure you do. Buy products from companies who want to sell to people like you, companies that voluntarily label their products as organic, rather than demanding that everyone label their products to comply with your choices. Your rights end where you start infringing on others'.

      If there's no difference, why are some GMO crops legally considered pesticides?

      I can't even parse the logic here. Because some GM crops are pesticides, GM corn isn't (nutritionally) equivalent to non-GM corn?

    277. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by haruchai · · Score: 1

      What is the name of this farmer? Because if you're referring to Percy Schmeiser, you've got your facts and outcome wrong

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

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    278. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Logically -- and scientifically -- the only way to claim that "there are no meaningful differences between GM foods and non-GM foods" is to have people GM foods for a *very* long time and to observe no signs of harm from the GM foods.

      There is no absolutely, positively, no other way.

      Without that, you need accept that there is a certain level of risk with GM foods that may show up in years to come. Then the question is, do the perceived immediate benefits outweigh possible large, hidden, and delayed costs? Sometimes, the answer may be yes (e.g. people starving and no non-GM food can be made -- don't know if that's a real case though). Most of the time however I suspect the answer will be a clear no.

    279. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is mentioned since "controlled" doses of contaminated wheat were used in the middle ages as an abortion drug. Controlled should be understood to be ... well ... a relative term.

    280. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you somehow deny that eating natural wheat, which may or may not be infected (visual clues are not necessarily present, and if you don't inspect the wheat and just make bread out of it, you won't notice at all), is horrendously dangerous ?

      This is like a theoretical objection to the statement. In a perfect world, it would be correct, and wild wheat would be perfectly safe, absent other species on the planet. The wheat you're likely to encounter in practice, or "natural" wheat, has a non-negligible chance of being lethal poison (since it's not possible to keep the fungus away from the wheat, you have to kill the fungus when it's on the wheat, or just throw away any infected crops). But yes, it's "not the wheat", technically true. Now go out, eat random wheat, and see if it kills you or not. >2000 years of history (Romans mentioned this disease) says sooner or later you'll die from poison you ingested along with the wheat.

    281. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and by slightly I mean like chimps and humans are only slightly different... after all what's 5% genetics between friends?

    282. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      So, people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Contrary to evidence and ideals of free market ideology and the democratic process.
      Gotcha loud and clear...

    283. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by kobach · · Score: 0

      For those that don't know, the EPA does consider it a pesticide: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/pip_list.htm

    284. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem whatsoever with any development of GM crops. And when we've got everything working perfectly in Biosphere 2, then we'll consider using them on Biosphere 3 and onwards. Great!

      Uh, hang on - we've deployed them in Biosphere 1? In *production*? The *only* biosphere? The one we don't really understand yet?

      Aw crap.

    285. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a dickhead you are.

      Sorry, I was writing a well-argued post ... but I thought "why waste my time?" - You think you're right. Fine. Whatever. They're banned im my country - a democracy, not the US - and that's just the way I want it to stay. I bet you think your code works first time too?

    286. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There are no meaningful differences

      Manufactured by an industry sector I think is markedly shortsighted and driven by greed. I should be able to choose not to have my dollars support them if I so choose.

      That's a pretty huge difference. And if the public don't want them - screw them. Why lie?

    287. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

      This is precisely my concern!

    288. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure in this case Monsanto couldn't sue.

      Of course they can sue.
      If they do, they will win. Farmers in Eastern Oregon do not have the cash to fight a lawsuit against an entity with unlimited funds. All Monsanto has to do is stay in the fight long enough for the farmer to go broke.

      This farmer's life just got fucked. He should have burned the crops and kept his mouth shut. Sadly.

    289. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      At the bare minimum...

      If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this? If nothing else, why don't we at least label foods as GMO, so the consumer can decide?

      Hell, Bloomberg and others want lables on every french fry that comes out of a fast food joint, why is there so much pushback on the more raw ingredient foodstuffs?

      We're gonna start labeling meat from source to shelf, why not GMO foods?

      Because Monsanto has more money and power than we do.
      Our government is for sale to the highest bidder, and we have all lost.

    290. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Except these unlicensed plants are from a lab strain which was never released...

      The evidence says that in fact they HAVE released it... apparently unwillingly.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    291. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Yet script kiddies should not be allowed to randomly cut/paste kernel code fragments, compile it, and sell the binary as "Linux"?

    292. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy, so good!

    293. Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      For me its simple I avoid those grains (and soybeans) Win. Even better, Monsanto is killing the vegans. Win win (primary diet consists of soybeans)

  3. Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act signed by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/

    The Senate is considering repealing, I'm sure this will add fuel to the fire. But as it stands Monsanto is imune from liability.

  4. Copyright? by MrMickS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, has the farmer been sued by Monsanto yet for copyright infringement?

    --
    You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    1. Re:Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely because Monsanto seems to be a law firm that just happens to sells seeds!

    2. Re:Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patent infringement. Maximum copyright penalty would be $150k - Monsanto wants the phat cash so they go for patent infringement cases.

    3. Re:Copyright? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, but the governments are preparing a full frontal assault on all market participants that are NOT selling GMOs.

      That's what the bills are that are supposed to force food sellers to 'clearly label' their products as GMO or not, all that nonsense.

      It's nonsense because nobody CAN legitimately state that their food absolutely does not contain ANY GMO material. How can you say that? How can anybody say that?

      The best one can do is say that he TRIES to keep GMOs out, but from point of view of gov't and legislation and lawsuits this is not going to fly, so it will cause even more distortion and destruction of the competition in the food market and will promote more monopolisation, and it's all in the hands of governments.

    4. Re:Copyright? by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      150k per grain is just damn too high!

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    5. Re:Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely because Monsanto seems to be a law firm that just happens to sells seeds!

      No, Monsanto is a Poison company that started getting into the food business. But their primary focus is still poison. Did you know they own both Coke and Pepsi?

    6. Re:Copyright? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...it's all in the hands of governments.

      Which are all in the hands of business. Hence the monopolization

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Copyright? by Teun · · Score: 1
      Until the time an irresponsible USofA legalised GMO seeds this would have been possible...

      Now we have to live with the stuff but can at least try to minimise it's impact on naturally grown crops and their products.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    8. Re:Copyright? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Which are all in the hands of business. Hence the monopolization

      - the governments first have to know that they have the power that is not explicitly granted to them, powers not authorised to the governments, and it's not businesses that give governments these types of power, it's the mob that votes for politicians specifically because they promise to break the law and go above and beyond any legal authorisation to steal from minorities and subsidise the mob.

      Only when the government is emboldened by the mob, and enough time passes, which gives the governments enough argument for this status quo is when certain businesses can step in and use governments by bribing the politicians and even the process.

    9. Re:Copyright? by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, Monsanto is a Poison company that started getting into the food business. But their primary focus is still poison. Did you know they own both Coke and Pepsi?

      Really? Coke and Pepsi are publicly traded companies (KO and PEP, respectively, both on NYSE). And both of them have market caps more than double Monsanto's (NYSE: MON). Where did you read this assertion?

    10. Re:Copyright? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Oh stop! It is business and pirates that set up a government and appoint leaders. Nobody else has the resources.

      ...the governments first have to know that they have the power that is not explicitly granted to them...

      Their weapons and willingness to use them is all the power they need. Your fancy philosophies are great in the classroom, but they do not apply in the street.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:Copyright? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      and yet the USA was set up to be a free Republic, not a monarchy, with people who set it up explicitly limiting their own power in more ways than ANY previous OR subsequent government on this planet has ever done.

    12. Re:Copyright? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      and yet the USA was set up to be a free Republic...

      Pure show. The constitution put all the old rules back into place and protected all the old institutions. And right off the bat, you got the whiskey rebellion, and a little further down the line, the Aliens and Sedition Act.. Your 'free republic' is a sham, an illusion, its success (from a specific POV) notwithstanding.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:Copyright? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      It's another idiot who gets their news from Facebook:

      Here's the hoax that was floating around.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Copyright? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No, Monsanto is a Poison company that started getting into the food business.

      Ooooo, poison! Scary, Scary word!

  5. Market forces at work... by Geraden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    THIS may be the proverbial straw that breaks the back of big-business GMO.

    If farmers can't sell their wheat, then they will stop buying GMO seed. It's a perfect storm for the way market forces shape products and individual actions.

    1. Re:Market forces at work... by jythie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And, while the biotech industry has a serious lobby, the farm lobby is also pretty powerful. It would be interesting to watch evenly matched lobbies instead of the bloodbath we usually get.

    2. Re: Market forces at work... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      By market forces do you mean foreign powers regulations?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Market forces at work... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The issue of regulation is already one of the biggest problems for GMO. If Monsanto invents a new type of crop they need to get it approved for growing and for human consumption in every market. In the US it isn't so bad because there is just the FDA, but even in Europe it takes much longer and you have to convince many different agencies that it is safe. Then you have to start doing the rest of the world country by country.

      That's why Japan immediately halted these imports. Even if the FDA or whoever in the US says this stuff is okay to eat the are, of course, going to want to determine that for themselves.

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

      They're not buying GMO seed. They can't stop, because they never started in the first place. This is not something that Monsanto is selling for use. It is a lab strain that showed up in the wild.

    5. Re: Market forces at work... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      By market forces do you mean foreign powers regulations?

      Regulations are part of the market.

      Unless by "market," you mean "laissez-faire free-market," which would, by definition, be unregulated.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    6. Re: Market forces at work... by Geraden · · Score: 1

      I specifically refrained from saying "Free Market" or any derivative thereof.

      The regulatory environment is the field on which the market is set.

    7. Re:Market forces at work... by Geraden · · Score: 1

      That's true.

      Haven't Monsanto's patent claims hinged, at least partly, on the fact that their wheat has larger yields and thus give greater profits to the farmer?

      If a farmer is unable to sell his wheat crops, or if the price of his crop was damaged due to encroachment of GMO DNA into his crop, I wonder if he would be able to "strike first" at Monsanto, claiming damage due to Monsanto's negligent release of the strain!

      Again, I'm sure someone['s lawyers] will make millions...

    8. Re:Market forces at work... by rmstar · · Score: 1

      In the US it isn't so bad because there is just the FDA, but even in Europe it takes much longer and you have to convince many different agencies that it is safe. Then you have to start doing the rest of the world country by country.

      You forgot to mention that very few of these agencies want to approve it.

      Fact is, GMO seems creepy to lots and lots of people, so they don't want it. It does not help at all that Monsanto is a very creepy company that chose to deploy GMO in a particularly creepy way ("roundup ready"). Due to Monsanto, GMO crops are mainly associated with stuff that is right only according to the laws they more or less wrote themselves (with the aid of the WTO etc), but seems wrong to pretty much anybody else. So anytime a good excuse appears imports of GMO crops will be halted by many countries.

    9. Re:Market forces at work... by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      But the ones who buy GMO seed are having no difficulties, it is ones who do not that go bankrupt.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    10. Re:Market forces at work... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Just thank stockholders that Monsanto doesn't sell its patents to the likes of scan-to-email trolls. Then you'd plant what you buy at the grain elevator and the owners of the patent would come after you when your seeds do what they are made to do. Oh Wait!

    11. Re:Market forces at work... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The issue of regulation is already one of the biggest problems for GMO. If Monsanto invents a new type of crop they need to get it approved for growing and for human consumption in every market. In the US it isn't so bad because there is just the FDA, but even in Europe it takes much longer and you have to convince many different agencies that it is safe. Then you have to start doing the rest of the world country by country.

      That's why Japan immediately halted these imports. Even if the FDA or whoever in the US says this stuff is okay to eat the are, of course, going to want to determine that for themselves.

      Japan's reaction is ridiculous, and blatant protectionism. A tiny amount of GMO contamination in 2 billion bushels isn't a crisis.

    12. Re: Market forces at work... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The free-market does allow for damages and protections that modern liberals should take a look at. It's not an "anything goes" perspective. As a matter of fact big business (ie railroads and cattle barons) were against free-market protections for small farmers. You might find that you like those protections better than the top-down, micro-managed system we currently have in place.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    13. Re: Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regulations are part of the market.

      Unless by "market," you mean "laissez-faire free-market," which would, by definition, be unregulated.

      Which would also not include such government concepts as intellectual property.

    14. Re: Market forces at work... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The free-market has only one form of protection, and that is the protection for one with biggest guns against everyone with smaller ones. Testbed of extremist libertrarianism known as Somalia made this very clear.

    15. Re: Market forces at work... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      oh, more "we're so over-regulated" bullshit. It's hard to take it seriously when U.S. corporations have bulldozed the entire political structure and they're getting their way about EVERYTHING in congress. It's only the honest people following regulations at the moment and there aren't a lot of those in corporate america right now.

    16. Re: Market forces at work... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      No. Just that there is a much smaller market for GMO plants than for natural ones. No regulations needed for that.

      Regulation would be if market participants would have to accept GMO wheat if they don't want to.

      --
      bickerdyke
    17. Re:Market forces at work... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      US's reaction to mad cow disease was ridiculous and blatant protectionism. A tiny amount of sick cows in a huge flow of beef isn't a crisis.

      That road goes both ways.

    18. Re: Market forces at work... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and that's what is going on here... right now we have a new robber barron economy and these entities are for "free markets* ONLY when the outcome is in their favor. When the outcome is not in the favor their the first to go to Congress to get a new law.

    19. Re: Market forces at work... by gewalker · · Score: 1

      Is it not possible that some things are over-regulated, while others are under-regulated. Not only is it possible, it is virtually certain even if you have the utopian ideal of all regulators trying their absolute best to do it well. Given that regulators are people, we are certainly in worse shape than that.

    20. Re: Market forces at work... by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      Is it not possible that some things are over-regulated, while others are under-regulated.

      Possible, but not bloody likely in today's "I'm a congressman, please buy me!" environment.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    21. Re:Market forces at work... by The+Rizz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Japan's reaction is ridiculous, and blatant protectionism. A tiny amount of GMO contamination in 2 billion bushels isn't a crisis.

      TFA stated that Japan blocked imports of some wheat - specifically, wheat from the area the GMO infection was found in. They're not halting all imports, just those that are most likely to be contaminated - and will likely increase orders from other parts of the US to make up for it.

    22. Re: Market forces at work... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Well, that's why libertarians were against over-regulating in the first place. Once you start pushing winners and losers via regulatory system you should expect that corporations would come into the process like gang-busters. The whole premise behind flat-taxes and simpler regulation is to stop this in the first place.

      Flatter taxes, streamlined regulation removes corporate power. More involved, highly complex tax and regulatory schemes helps entrenched, connected businesses at the expense of the rest.

      Maybe you should look at the flat-tax and simpler regulation arguments again instead of simply dismissing them out of hand.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    23. Re:Market forces at work... by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      But the ones who buy GMO seed are having no difficulties, it is ones who do not that go bankrupt.

      Except that large parts of the world will not accept GMO imports, and the US exports a large amount of grain. How are non-GMO farmers going to go bankrupt when they have multiple large markets (including Japan and Europe) that GMO farmers cannot edge them out of?

    24. Re: Market forces at work... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No. Somalia is not a test case for libertarianism at all. Libertarians are not anarchists; nor are they for mob rule, nor even for caveat emptor. The rule of law, of a constitutional republic != Somalian mob rule.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    25. Re: Market forces at work... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Monsanto is very happy with their protections. Regardless of what market type you want to run, they have the cash to be the biggest bully around.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    26. Re:Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deaths from vCJD in contaminated cow meat: > 0
      Deaths from GMO-modified wheat: 0

      I'd go as far to say that *expected* deaths from GMO-modified wheat = 0.

      So no, that road doesn't go both ways. Or are you that stupid?

    27. Re:Market forces at work... by CowTipperGore · · Score: 5, Informative

      Japan's reaction is ridiculous, and blatant protectionism. A tiny amount of GMO contamination in 2 billion bushels isn't a crisis.

      How exactly is this blatant protectionism? Japan is the world's sixth largest importer of wheat and one of the US's largest customers. Japan's domestic wheat market accounts for 10% of their usage and there isn't much they can do to increase that. Your statement makes no sense.

      Not even the US has approved GMO wheat. Despite Monsanto's press release claiming that this particular gene has been tested and approved, this is not true in the organism in which it was found in Oregon. Monsanto's GMO wheat trials were canceled largely due to the world's largest wheat importers making clear that they would not accept GMO wheat.The EU has said it will begin testing US wheat and will reject any found to contain GMOs. Many nations still refuse to accept any GMO food imports.

    28. Re: Market forces at work... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      And the solution to please buy me is to reduce the congressman's power so as not to add the power of the government to the already powerful corporate interest.

      Flat taxes would go a long way to this; drastically reducing government involvement in picking winners and losers in the market (from CFLs to Solyndra) would also help; as would less micromanagement of the economy (example 100,000+ new diagnostic codes for doctors to enter in the ObamaCare law. Want to guess on the compliance rate for all these codes, guess the cost in time and patience entering said codes, want to guess the enforcement and legal costs due to faulty compliance. What a nightmare. The end result of micromanagement is a failed system. Anybody who's for Agile methodology, lean UX, iterative testing should be appalled by the ObamaCare fiasco.)

      Oh, an aside: do you know that health care software providers find it close to impossible to do iterative testing for new software due to government interference. You see the standard solution: invite doctors to lunch or dinner and have them test your software is AGAINST THE LAW. And you'll never get the bureaucracy to approve doctors taking time off from work to iteratively test your software pre-build. So. No testing, just guessing. Aren't these regulations great?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    29. Re: Market forces at work... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      It was government that created the legal structure for corporations and decided that they would be largely shielded from liability for their actions.

      As the OP pointed out, the free market allows for 'torts' (damages). Government has decided to grant special privileges to an elite few however, making them largely immune from such torts. The damages for which corporations are held responsible are rarely sufficient to be a deterrent against future malfeasance.

      Then suddenly, we need a bunch of new government regulations and bureaucracies to mitigate the negative consequences resulting from the fact that corporations have these special privileges?

      Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

    30. Re:Market forces at work... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      That's why Japan immediately halted these imports. Even if the FDA or whoever in the US says this stuff is okay to eat the are, of course, going to want to determine that for themselves.

      American response? Complain to the WTO about obstruction of trade, or something along those lines.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    31. Re: Market forces at work... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Regulations are part of the market.

      Except that many if not most are more about hurting competition than actual concern.

      Witness: Japan made importation of cheap rice difficult. Real reason? Protecting domestic farmers from competition by holding the entire population hostage to their higher prices.

      The regulatory "reason"? Seriously, the rice wasn't right for the sensitive Japanese stomach.

      In this case, these countries banning it claim unsafe. The real reason? The farmers don't wanna pay for it and want to keep cheaper competition out.

      So, a prediction, write it down if you dare: When these patents expire, these countries will allow it, suddenly claiming it seems safe now. I.e. the domestic muscular economic interests can now use it without paying for it and thus gain the efficiencies it brings.

      Quite probably, your brain will buy into that, that their Wise Leaders properly waited and only just then decided it was Safe.

      I predict.

      I do.

      I do.

      Write it down. If you dare. Politics is narratives, not science, only if you put blinders on.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    32. Re: Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, we fucking get it. You want flat taxes. It'll solve everything. Awesome, you've sold us. You can stop saying it now.

    33. Re:Market forces at work... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Most wheat exports aren't subject to GMO law, it's basically a form of protectionism for 1st world markets. GMO crops are simply more productive (and thus more economical) and more environmentally friendly, arguments against are based on fear-mongering, they're not going away.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    34. Re:Market forces at work... by Teun · · Score: 1

      But it is, compared to the laissez faire attitude of the US legal system on the subject, a very clear statement about how to trade with them.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    35. Re: Market forces at work... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      A failed dictatorship in a state which has been subjected to multiple invasions from foreign military forces is hardly a laboratory for libertarianism.
      You criticize libertarianism, but it is governments that have a habit of using their "big guns" to the greatest detriment. Conflict would occur in a libertarian system, but the resulting violence would be absolutely trivial compared to the epic amounts of death and destruction that governments have inflicted on the world.

    36. Re:Market forces at work... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'd guess that it would take about a minute for them to cease hostilities and ally to write a secret worldwide treaty overriding local food controls when it comes to GMOs, then start pushing it. Except that they undoubtedly began years ago.

    37. Re:Market forces at work... by guttentag · · Score: 1

      Even if the FDA or whoever in the US says this stuff is okay to eat the are, of course, going to want to determine that for themselves.

      Just because the FDA approves something doesn't mean you want to put it in your mouth. Take Olestra for instance. The FDA had been hesitant to approve it for years because of concerns about side-effects, loss of fat-soluble vitamins and unknown long-term health effects. They gave in to pressure and approved it one day before the patent expired, automatically extending the patent by two years. I thought Olestra disappeared about 10 years ago with "WOW" Chips, but it turns out it's still in Lays Light and Pringles Light chips... the FDA just stopped requiring the anal leakage warning label.

    38. Re:Market forces at work... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Japan's reaction is ridiculous, and blatant protectionism. A tiny amount of GMO contamination in 2 billion bushels isn't a crisis.

      A measured reaction along the lines of "Dear US government: please make changes to the regulation of your farm industry and monsanto," will at best make some people laugh. Maybe they could ask that the US change it's foreign policy towards Israel and eliminate carbon emissions while they're at it.

    39. Re:Market forces at work... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Evidence to mad cow disease being transmittable to humans: likely, inconclusive.

      Evidence that GMOs may be threatening to human life: possible, inconclusive.

      Possibility that mad cow disease will self replicate itself in the wild: highly unlikely.

      Possibility that GMO wheat will self-replicate itself in the wild: proven in the OP.

      Conclusion: Risk vs reward is far greater in latter case then in former. Or are you that stupid?

    40. Re: Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flat tax is so commie, tax everybody 100% and the state provides what you need.

    41. Re: Market forces at work... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Libertarians are not anarchists

      Except for those of them that are.

      The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for anarchism since the 1890s

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

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    42. Re: Market forces at work... by tqk · · Score: 1

      Unless by "market," you mean "laissez-faire free-market," which would, by definition, be self-regulated.

      FTFY. Colt Firearms made a mint facilitating that sort of thing.

      One assassin precipitated WWI, once all other related factors were in place. A few grains of lead in the right place can change our world.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    43. Re:Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan's wanting to protect their people must be, as you say, "blatant protectionism".
      I wish we here in the US had some blatant protectionism, instead of the blatant corporate abuse-ism we are increasingly subjected to..

    44. Re:Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in discovering this contamination we automatically assume that it has never happened anywehere else in the food chain ever, thanks fuck we're all morons.

    45. Re:Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stopping cows from spreading a disease is WAAAAY different, so your analogy is moot.

    46. Re:Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue of regulation is already one of the biggest problems for GMO

      Not in the U.S. From fas.org

      FDA is responsible for regulating the safety of GM crops that are eaten by humans or animals. According to a policy established in 1992, FDA considers most GM crops as “substantially equivalent” to non-GM crops. In such cases, GM crops are designated as “Generally Recognized as Safe” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and do not require pre-market approval

      Emphasis mine. It's the same but it's patent worthy.

    47. Re: Market forces at work... by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

      Economists use the term to mean forces of the market (supply and demand) as opposed to forces applied to the market.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    48. Re: Market forces at work... by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Do you work in health care IT? There is extensive testing done by nurses and doctors at all levels. I don't know where you get the idea that they can't test. The whole inviting doctors to a meal and test? Not sure why that's illegal, but most companies have doctors and nurses on staff that do the testing. As far as the new codes, there will be incentives to code things properly. I don't even need to pay that much attention to know that. Once they get used to using the new codes, it will become second nature and not take much thought. Or was the explosion of different area codes too much for society to handle to the point that we all gave up on using phones for any communication?

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    49. Re: Market forces at work... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Yes. Words / labels change. Just look at the word / label "liberal." Today it means socialism-lite. In the 18th and 19th C the word liberal stood for individualism and restraint of government action. Liberals then were promoters of "negative" rights (restrictions on govt action), today they champion "positive" rights (what government can do for you - health care, etc...).

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    50. Re:Market forces at work... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If farmers can't sell their wheat, then they will stop buying GMO seed.

      This already happened. Monsanto had no market for GMO wheat, so they didn't bother getting it approved. Eventually, Europeans will see that we've been eating GMO soybeans and corn for decades without any kind of health effects, and they might allow it. Or, more likely, someone will crossbreed the same traits using traditional methods and it will no longer be "GMO" since they mutation occurred on God's schedule.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    51. Re:Market forces at work... by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Get your facts straight. GMO crops are more productive in rural India mainly. In tests in the USA and other developed nations, GMO crops will have either higher yield, the same, or lower yield than traditional and hybrid crops. It's really a crapshoot depending on the exact strain used.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    52. Re: Market forces at work... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Not for outside vendors. Try creating a piece of software for hospital use, even if you have an existing contract, and see how difficult it is to get testing done. Sure large entities such as GE (IDX) and Cerner have workarounds but smaller companies which cannot do the inexpensive testing such as I described above have a great deal of problem in pre-build tests.

      And yes. I have first hand knowledge of this.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    53. Re:Market forces at work... by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Risk, who is risking? You or me? So if you wand to eat plutonium, does that mean that i have to eat it too? If you are an idiot, does that mean that we have to be idiots too?

    54. Re:Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the farmers in that area need to get a team of aspiring big chunk lawyers that want to float to the top of the legal cesspool to sue Monsanto for destroying their ability to sell their crops for top because of their contaminaion from Monsanto's GMO wheat.

    55. Re: Market forces at work... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The point of the flat tax is simplicity. Complexity leads to all sorts of problems including mistrust and the belief (true or not) that some are getting unfair advantages.

      Of course a 100% tax rate is "so commie", as you put it.But simplicity and transparency have its benefits.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    56. Re: Market forces at work... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Re the codes - the area code example wasn't a good one. Imagine the series of drop-down lists needed to comply. There is huge push-back among doctors and nurses with the existing "paper work." Do you think that adding bureaucratic complexity makes sense?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    57. Re:Market forces at work... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Or the other way around. If the other countries won't import any US wheat because of a fear that any wheat might have been cross pollinated, then there might be US farmers who say "can't sell it overseas no matter what, might as well buy the easy to maintain stuff that gives me high yields", and increases GMO seed purchase.

    58. Re: Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something tells me a flat tax would fix that . . .

    59. Re:Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not help at all that Monsanto is a very creepy company that chose to deploy GMO in a particularly creepy way ("roundup ready").

      What's creepy about "RoundUp Ready"? RoundUp is a very popular and effective herbicide that's been used for a long time. Crops that can survive being sprayed by it are very useful. That allows the farmer to just spray his fields to get rid of weeds instead of going through it with a cultivator, which causes the soil to loose moisture and increases potential for erosion. The only people who think it's creepy are the ignorant.

    60. Re:Market forces at work... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I do if plutonium spreads into the ecosystem used to grow my food. Why, you have some sort of a magical way to spot GMO from spreading? I think Monsanto would be very interested, seeing how they have this very problem!

    61. Re: Market forces at work... by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, the change in meaning of the word 'liberal' only occurred in the US (and Canada?). In the rest of the world, 'liberal' still means what you say it did in the 18th and 19th Century.

      I live in Australia but have a lot of American friends and family. It is always a pain in the ass explaining to them that the "Liberal Party of Australia" is actually the main conservative/right wing party here (with the Australian Labor Party being the main progressive/left party). You have to basically add a bit disclaimer about the different meaning of the word liberal in the US every time you talk about politics, otherwise they think you're saying the opposite to what you actually are. :)

    62. Re:Market forces at work... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Japan's domestic wheat market accounts for 10% of their usage and there isn't much they can do to increase that.

      They could switch to genetically modified wheat...

    63. Re:Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Japan's reaction is ridiculous, and blatant protectionism. A tiny amount of GMO contamination in 2 billion bushels isn't a crisis."

      One seed in a shipment might be all it takes to contaminate Japan's entire domestic wheat crop with GMO wheat. One seed . That one seed, upon maturity, can produce billions of pollen grains which then pollinate all the non-GMO wheat growing in the area. All the descendant wheat is now GMO as well. Remember, this wheat is not self-limiting in terms of sterility, otherwise it would not have survived since 2006 when that area of Oregon had some test plots planted.

    64. Re:Market forces at work... by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      In the US it isn't so bad because there is just the FDA, but even in Europe it takes much longer and you have to convince many different agencies that it is safe.

      Do not worry with that. Aspartame was approved in Europe just because the FDA believed it was fine (despite the studies on it being of really poor quality)

    65. Re:Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The farm lobby *is* the biotech lobby. There are no significant numbers of mom''n'pop farmers anymore.

    66. Re: Market forces at work... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      The change in meaning of "liberal" and "libertarian" are largely US phenomena.

      "Liberal" in the UK mostly means "centre-right", in Europe it means "economicaly liberal", closer to what most Americans would consider as "libertarian".

      "Libertarian", though rarely used, would mostly be understood as a synonym for Anarchist.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    67. Re: Market forces at work... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      thanks guys. Good to know.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    68. Re: Market forces at work... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Is it not possible that some things are over-regulated, while others are under-regulated.

      Possible, but not bloody likely in today's "I'm a congressman, please buy me!" environment.

      You are assuming that business will always encourage relaxation of regulations, but cagey lobbyists can encourage the crafting of regulations that benefit (or don't harm) their clients, but do but their clients' competitors at a disadvantage.

    69. Re: Market forces at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The corporations have "redefined" many capitalist terms. "Free market" did not refer to an unregulated marketplace where business could do what they wanted to do. The term "free market" meant that a person was free to enter into any type of business anywhere he wanted to. In the 1700's when Adam Smith wrote the capitalist bible "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", a person could not just decide to be say a blacksmith and open up a shop. There were restrictions of all kinds the most restrictive of which was the apprenticeship programs. A person also could not find out that the next town over was short of blacksmiths while his town had too many and move to that other town to open a blacksmith shop. "Free market" meant the freedom to enter into a market and not a market free of regulation.

      Adam Smith pointed out that businesses have two aims: to widen the market and to narrow the competition. He said that widening the market could be beneficial to the public, but that narrowing the competition was always against it and resulted in higher prices due to the monopoly established.

      He also said that any law or regulation of commerce proposed by the capitalist class should not be passed without being studied with not only the utmost scrutiny, but also the utmost suspicion because it comes from a class of men whose interests are never the same as the public's and often opposite to the public's interests and therefore to advance their interests they deceive the public into believing that the interests of the wealthy are the same as those of the rest of society.

      Nothing with regard to interests has changed since Adam Smith wrote his book. That is because profits are highest in poor countries (lower wages and rents) and lowest in rich countries (higher wages and rents) while wages and rents are higher in rich countries and lower in poor countries. In other words, the interests of the "job creators" are opposite to the rest of society.

      So, yes, they are constantly trying to get new laws and regulations passed that favor them and hurt their competition.

    70. Re: Market forces at work... by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Of course, if there were no regulations everyone behave impeccably. This has been proven time and again in places all over the world like...

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    71. Re:Market forces at work... by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      All that roundup is awesome for the environment I hear.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    72. Re:Market forces at work... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      But they DIDN'T buy the GMO. It infected the fields...

  6. Ethanol. by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 1

    Now the US can take all that wheat they can't sell and turn it to ethanol. Ethanol is a great idea I'm sure they will make tons of money.

    1. Re:Ethanol. by lxs · · Score: 2

      Ethanol is a great idea. Especially diluted to 5%-40% by volume and served in large quantities! Yes. It's Friday again.

    2. Re:Ethanol. by Krojack · · Score: 1

      And also feed our own starving people. I run into 1-2 a day begging for $1 or a hot-dog on one 1/4 mile street while walking. Our city isn't known for many homeless so I can only imagine what NY or something is like.

    3. Re:Ethanol. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      A dollar? Hell, in Philly the bums only ask for a quarter when they hold the door open for you. You must have high alcohol prices.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  7. heh by sociocapitalist · · Score: 3, Funny

    How long until Monsanto sues the state of Oregon?

    (and no I'm not serious)

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  8. Impact on Monsanto vs unlicensed farmer lawsuits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From what I understand Monsanto regularly successfully sues farmers found to have patches of their genetic intellectual property growing in their fields. If a product that never made it to market is self-seeding - does this not suggest that all of their previous success in arguing that their product should be controlled by the farmers fall apart?

  9. It was intentional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Monsanto wants all wheat to be cross bred with their patented GM version so they can collect royalties on all wheat.
    2. Economic terrorist hoping to create kaos in the farming industry.
    3. Wheat export competitor hoping japan and similar countries turn away from the US food source.
    4. Someone who owns wheat commodities hoping this increases its value.

  10. Nobody knows how? by Hatta · · Score: 2

    Someone should tell them that wheat pollen is distributed by the wind.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Nobody knows how? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      Someone should tell them that wheat pollen is distributed by the wind.

      But wheat seeds aren't to a great extent.

      So it's actually pretty serious if one is concerned about the crop going wild: It's apparently not male-sterile and cross-pollination can pass on the Roundup resistance to unmodified plants. This lands somewhere between a hassle and extra expense for farmers who aren't growing wheat and can't use Roundup to prepare their fields for other crops, and a potential disaster for farmers who are growing conventional who get their crop sales potential -- and thus value -- reduced by unwittingly, unintentionally and unwillingly producing GMO wheat.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Nobody knows how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it will be an even bigger problem for the US if the rest of the world says "screw you, we don't want your GMO, we're simply banning your crops".

      The US will bluster and whine that this isn't fair, they will threaten trade sanctions, and hypocritically go to the WTO. The WTO will point out that countries are free to determine what they want, and the US can suck it. Then they'll act like petulant assholes and force the issue another way.

      The US is massively out of touch with the rest of the world on this issue, and in the long run, this could basically cut them off from other markets.

      The rest of the world doesn't want your GMO any more than they want your stupid fucking IP laws.

      Keep fiddling while the empire burns.

    3. Re:Nobody knows how? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      The US is massively out of touch with the rest of the world on this issue, and in the long run, this could basically cut them off from other markets.

      The rest of the world doesn't want your GMO any more than they want your stupid fucking IP laws.

      Keep fiddling while the empire burns.

      Don't be too smug . Both the GMO crops and the IP laws are products of our corporations. And by "our corporations" I mean yours and mine. These are multi-nationals that aren't particularly interested in the survival of anyone's empire, or any given nation for that matter. So you'd be wise to not be "fiddling" wherever you are either, but keeping heat on your government not to cave. Because, I assure you the big corporations are working the other side in your country, too.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Nobody knows how? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      The rest of the world will also begin to go hungry.

    5. Re:Nobody knows how? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      You really need to read some history on Monsanto. They clearly don't give a rats ass about this fact.

    6. Re:Nobody knows how? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I know they don't give a rats ass. I was only pointing out how stupid their claims that "nobody knows how the wheat got there" are. Even a first grader could figure this one out.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Nobody knows how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Europeans pretty roundly rejected the last round of copyright push (ACTA). It was shot in the head and buried in Europe.

      Of course, it passed in Caanda and the US and various other lackies...

    8. Re:Nobody knows how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why do they want to ban GMO crops? It's not because of safety. It's so their agribusinesses catch up and can produce competing products.

  11. Re:Impact on Monsanto vs unlicensed farmer lawsuit by Geraden · · Score: 1

    Interesting point.

    It'll make someone ('s lawyers) millions, I'm sure!

  12. Re-heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long until Monsanto sues the state of Oregon?

    (and no I'm not serious)

    You are not serious. But they will be.

    1. Re:Re-heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, Oregon has a lawsuit against Monsanto. Was this wheat ever approved for consumption or was it just approved for growing? Either way Japan at least is not buying Oregon Wheat and the contamination is from a discontinued crop from *12 years ago*!?! Monsanto's fucked, Oregon is just the right mix of Portland Hippies and Rural Rednecks to kick those assholes square in the manjunk for this move - it's a bipartisan agreement. As much as I think people are irrationally scared of GMOs I definitely want to see them taken to task for this.

  13. Anti-GMO science deniers line up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take your best gratuitous science-free shots at Big Evil Corporation Monsanto.
    Get your best fear on about some completely innocuous strain of wheat that "got loose from the lab".
    Pretend like you never pretended before that the Apocalypse is really really really truly upon us THIS TIME. Believe like you never believed before all those other times the apocalypse was upon us.

    1. Re:Anti-GMO science deniers line up by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      all hail the legally-mandated monoculture food supply owned by a single company

      innocuous. you use that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

    2. Re: Anti-GMO science deniers line up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much the GMO that is the problem as much as it is the chemicals the crops are resistant of. Farmers plant GMO crops which are resistant to round up. The farmer then soaks the field with round up a couple times a season so nothing else grows. The crops soak up the round up and then are harvested. You then eat the food that is soaked in round up. I'm sure Monsanto studies show that round up is completely safe for human consumption. Why would they have any reason to mislead the public about the risks?

    3. Re:Anti-GMO science deniers line up by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      You don't think if an "innocous strain of wheat" can escape from a lab into the wild any strain of wheat could? Or is that impossible because Monsanto wouldn't hand "get out of lab" badges to agressive and unconsumeable strains?

      --
      bickerdyke
    4. Re:Anti-GMO science deniers line up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have any evidence that an "unconsumable" strain has in fact escaped from a test field? No?
      Then what are you complaining about?

    5. Re:Anti-GMO science deniers line up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if by "Lab" you mean "field where they grew/tested the wheat" then yes they gave them all "get out of lab" badges...where do you think monsanto grows their test crops? Biosafety level 4 facilities for growing wheat might be ideal, but Mon$anto didn't make billions of dollars to waste it building labs...open fields will do just fine.

    6. Re:Anti-GMO science deniers line up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all hail the legally-mandated monoculture food supply owned by a single company

      innocuous. you use that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

      If you are going to be patronizing, at least capitalize some letters!

    7. Re:Anti-GMO science deniers line up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, Monsanto shill.

    8. Re:Anti-GMO science deniers line up by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Since when does one need evidence to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt that plays on irrational superstitions about modern technologies?

  14. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by hij · · Score: 1

    I think that you have it backwards. Monsanto's modus operendi is to sue the farmers who have the impertinence to steal this technology from them and allow it to grow on their land. Normally a farmer who allowed these seeds to land on his property would be taken to court and made to pay the fees associated with using the seeds and then not allowed to use the seed without paying the license fees. Damn nature and her propensity to reproduce.

    --
    Believe nothing -- Buddha
  15. Deliberate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since Monsanto is not known for their honesty or ethics, I'm sure it was spread deliberately in an attempt to force the government to approve it.

  16. Wild animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Prosecute Monsanto for failing to keep its wild (animals) under control.

  17. Monsanto by design by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    It's obvious. Pollen from "real" Monsanto plants was cross contaminated with native/non-monsanto plants. This is a natural occurrence in nature when spread via bees, wind, etc. Monsanto is set to pretty much regulate the food supply through the courts once everything has been contaminated with GMO pollen.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Monsanto by design by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Do not worry, we will soon have killed all the bees and we can stop worrying about that one...

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  18. A little wheat scarcity... by Saethan · · Score: 2

    Some wheat scarcity would do good for my state (Kansas) ... down with GMO! Up with wheat prices!

    My only real issue with GMO is the company that designs it claiming infringement when it's their own damn plant's fault that it spread with the wind into another farmer's field.

  19. good time to mention by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This reminds me. To all you haters saying that the US does nothing but import and it's a suicidal economic structure, read that last line. We import cheap plastic crap and clothes and toys from China and export a gigantic supply of food around the world. Yeah, electronics' sourcing are a bit of a problem but other than that, our exports are quite important. That's why Monsanto should really stop fucking it up. I hope the government fines them the entirety of the lost sales.

    1. Re:good time to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to go too far off topic but I felt I needed to respond.

      Many people realize that we do export, and import. The general concern is that the US exports mostly unfinished goods, raw resources. We import lots and lots of finished goods. That's where the problem is, because taken as a whole, we're importing a lot more 'value' than we're exporting, and using up our natural resources to send somewhere else, rather than build with them right here.

      Anyway, enough of that topic. More on-topic, does anyone have an actual case of this company sueing a farmer for wheat growing in their fields, that they were unaware was there? I hate them but i've yet to see a case where the farmer wasn't trying to cheat the system by selecting seed from plants he wasn't supposed to be selecting from (weather that's wrong or not is up to you, frankly it makes sense to me, but its a legal wrong more than a moral wrong in my book.)

    2. Re:good time to mention by indy_bob_twobears · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "Monsanto Protection Act", referenced above in the link, http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/, prevents the governement for fining them for anything. This is precisely the type of incident the bill was written to protect them from. Funny that, isn't it?

    3. Re:good time to mention by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      This reminds me. To all you haters saying that the US does nothing but import and it's a suicidal economic structure, read that last line. We import cheap plastic crap and clothes and toys from China and export a gigantic supply of food around the world.

      Farming employs a dwindling and already miniscule amount of people in the US. While the US may continue to export things, it does not employ a large amount of people, which is the real concern of those noting the move of manufacturing from the US to other counties.

    4. Re:good time to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farmers have spent thousands of years cheating the system and planting the crops most likely to produce sustenance. Have you ever seen a poison ivy farmer? Suddenly saying that they can't because some paper exists somewhere deep in the bowels of the patent office isn't going to make much sense to them.

    5. Re:good time to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US manufactures far more than any nation, including China. The US isn't a large exporter of raw materials. You have no idea what you're talking about, and shouldn't discuss things you're ignorant of.

      Simply Google "Top US Exports." Oil is #2, Tin is #13, Iron is #20, and the rest of the top 25 are all farmed or manufactured goods.

    6. Re:good time to mention by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I think the OP's point was that we are creating and exporting staple products (food, fuel) and are importing discretionary items (toys, luxuries). If it all goes to hell in a handbasket, would you rather be the country producing food and gasoline* or the country producing cell phones and rubber ducks?

      *Gasoline was our biggest export last year, and with the advent of abundant NG sources (fracking dangers, notwithstanding) the rise of LNG exporting is expected.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    7. Re:good time to mention by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      I know I'm going to get modded to hell by GMO worshipers, but so be it:

      All of you that see (R) on the ballot and instinctively vote (D), and all of you that see (D) on the ballot and instinctively vote (R), this is the result: a government so corrupt that is passes laws protecting companies that are trying to kill you for profit.

      We still have a mechanism short of violent revolt to take our country back: vote third party. If you vote (D) or (R), you are saying that you support government corruption and have no self-interest. You lose NOTHING anymore by voting third party. Voting third party, at the very worst, makes you no worse off than you are now.

    8. Re:good time to mention by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      We import cheap plastic crap and clothes and toys from China and export a gigantic supply of food around the world.

      Yup, the US imports manufactured goods and exports agricultural products and raw materials (oil, coal).

      Sounds just like any other third world country.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    9. Re:good time to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell kind of definition of "food" do you use? Monsanto crap is "food" now? By that definition, heroine and iron bars are "food".

      The only US "food" you can get here (not USA), is the shit they *trick* you into buying. The shit hidden in the ingredients, after "larch's vomit" or that needs a special warning label (like Aspartame).

    10. Re:good time to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about having exports at all, it's about the trade balance. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

    11. Re:good time to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but the Monsanto patents are a Government-backed construct: Granted by the Government, and revocable by the Government (much like some countries do when they ignore medical patents to allow cheaper medicine - well within the rules of WIPO and WTO). Monsanto needs to walk a bit softer.

  20. Just goes to show how potentially dangerous this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can be. Fortunately, wheat is a benign plant. Something that's resistant to most herbicides and such misbreeds with a potentially and explosively invasive type of plant and all of a sudden we could have a pretty serious problem. Or how about genetically modified animals? Sometimes you just cannot predict what will result from genetic mixing.

    And once it's really out of the bottle and into the wild, there is no going back.

  21. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Also, for once an article needs a whatdidpossiblygowrong tag instead of a whatcouldpossiblygowrong one.

  22. patent not copyright by nten · · Score: 1

    Last I read, one of their patents is already past its date (2011), and the other is up next year. Monsanto has pubicly stated they will not fight this, which i can only assume means they will have some slightly different strain that will then be patented, and a new herbicide and or pesticide that isn't compatible with the old strain, while they stop producing roundup.

    That said, someone will produce roundup, and someone will continue to produce the old strains too. We might see a dramatic uptick in GM crops after next year.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:patent not copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Monsanto has pubicly stated

      I guess that statement was withdrawn because it violated decency rules. ;-)

    2. Re:patent not copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "stop producing roundup"

      Thankfully that's not an option, the patent on Glyphosate (herbicide in Roundup) expired over a decade ago. There are quite a few third party producers under a variety of names (Accord, Touchdown IQ, etc). As far as the "Roundup Ready" crops I'm sure that Monsanto will try try something after the patents expire, either they've been holding back on some genes to up yield for their next herbicide that they think will encourage farmers to switch. Or they plan on introducing some minor traits to their new crops and transferring their research funds completely to their legal department for lawsuits of any farmer that doesn't use their crops since as this incident proves those traits WILL end up in fields unassociated with Monsanto.

    3. Re:patent not copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while they stop producing roundup.

      HAHAHAHAHA you have to be joking. Either that or you live in the middle of the concrete jungle with nary a plant in sight.

      Trust me, they aren't going to stop selling RoundUp anytime soon. Every suburban garage in the US has a container of that stuff on hand for every spring when the weeds start coming up through the cracks and in the middle of the landscaping where they don't belong.

      Don't give me that weed-pulling lecture, either, because there are some weeds where you can't get the roots out of the ground. (Think crabgrass - long root; dandelions - embedded taproot; horsetail - rhyzome strand up to six *feet* long).

    4. Re:patent not copyright by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I don't have any in my suburban garage.

      Your landscaping was done incorrectly. Even then the solution is to cut the plants or pull the roots. Why should you getting rid of some out of place grass allow you to pollute our waters?

    5. Re:patent not copyright by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Common sense indicates that the repeated use of glyphosate would eventually give rise to "Roundup Ready" weeds through the mechanism of Darwinian selection. A quick Google search indicates that this has indeed happened. Presumably Monsanto intends to move on to the next poison once glyphosate is played out.

    6. Re:patent not copyright by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Trust me, they aren't going to stop selling RoundUp anytime soon. Every suburban garage in the US has a container of that stuff on hand for every spring when the weeds start coming up through the cracks and in the middle of the landscaping where they don't belong.

      These people are selfish bastards who are willing to contaminate the soil and groundwater for purely aesthetic reasons.

  23. Nature wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nature just showing us humans we cant control it. We really should not be tampering with genes, since we cant bossily predict how it effects our enviroment. There was movie comment: Life finds a way...

  24. Just wait by trum4n · · Score: 1

    next story will be about Monsanto suing this guy for not paying for a license...

  25. A consortium of farmers should sue Monsanto by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    and maybe this is the case I've been waiting to see:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3745109&cid=43711491

    >The organic farmer selling non-GMO crops who sues for damages
    >'cause his plants are cross-pollenated by a neighboring farmer using
    >GMO seeds who doesn't follow the guidelines for planting a barrier row
    >of non-GMO plants around the edges of his field.

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  26. Monsanto's statement by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their statement is basically "this is the first time this has happened and we're just as surprised as you are."

    Of course, all previous cases involved them blaming farmers for covertly planting the crops while the farmers insisted the seeds blew onto their land. (You know, how wheat evolved for thousands of years to spread.) In other words, this is the first time that they can't pin it on the farmer.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Monsanto's statement by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      "Thousands of years" should probably be "millions of years." Then again, millions of years IS some large value of thousands of years. (End rationalizing errors made while commenting when tired.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Monsanto's statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main case of a "farmer accidently raises Monsanto corn" is Schmeiser v. Monsanto.
      Schmeiser CLEARLY was in the wrong. Monsanto corn is easier to grow, takes less insecticide, so produces more corn.
      People purchase the seed because it works.

    3. Re:Monsanto's statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thousands (perhaps in some cases "Tens of Thousands") is an appropriate time for the mutation of a species of plant/animal to include/exclude significant traits in a selective breeding system. Just look at corn, what we understand as (field) corn DID NOT EXIST even 4,000 years ago. I think the earliest forms of corn were a grass with a large seed seed pod at the top. Over the past few thousand years of selective breeding & planting it has become the plant we know today. This has happened with animals as well, a few decades back a group in Russia tried to domesticate foxes. While attempting to weed out the aggressive tendencies they also changed the foxes pelt, breeding cycle and behavior.

  27. The same story again and again... by jcdr · · Score: 2

    Another new technology claimed to be totally safe and absolutely under control that yield a new unknown and unexpected effect. The human race will probably not survive long enough to his own errors to reach the level where his global conscience and individual action are compatible with the ecosystem of the Earth.

    Simply put: human fail miserably to manage process that span longer than a his own lifetime.
       

    1. Re:The same story again and again... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Humans fail miserably to manage processes that span longer than their own lifetime.

      That's possibly the best description of the modern man I've ever read.

  28. One day, I will piss by vikingpower · · Score: 0

    upon Monsanto's grave.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:One day, I will piss by cpghost · · Score: 2

      Careful then, doing so could grow some GMO weed...

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:One day, I will piss by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      No poison jet did ever wither

      more of devil's seed than mine

      the wine and beer that urg'd me hither

      do rush out of me as brine

      in which your pickled shame shall slither

      to oblivion's rock-faced shrine.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  29. Life is more tenacious than Monsanto is greedy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...

  30. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

    But as it stands Monsanto is imune from liability.

    Except that's not actually what the legislation does, but hey... FUD is always good, right?

    Really, section 735 just stops the judicial system from interfering with the regulatory process. This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the courts can't stop farmers from planting questionable crops. On the other hand, the courts can't be abused by farm-sponsored activists to slow down approval for crops that are tested and shown to be perfectly safe. Unfortunately, both of these situations happen routinely.

    The article you linked says that the provision "grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation". However, this statement is incredibly misleading. The provision protects Monsanto from the delays of litigation affecting their product's approval. They're still liable for anything they were last week, but now the court can't say "We don't know what's going on, so we're overruling the experts and banning the scary technology".

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  31. So Monsanto can be sued for damages, right? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Countries refusing American wheat has to hurt the bottom line for some farmers - and most farms are part of huge companies these days so finding a lawyer shouldn't be hard.

    Or did the government grant them immunity?

    Actually scratch that, without even checking I'll go with the government has granted Monsanto immunity to do whatever it likes.

  32. No mystery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fox News reports that a Kansas scientist explained it...it had been there see earl years and no one had noticed. I just have this thing about eating roundup.

  33. It is a simple liability case by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    Monsanto should simply be held fully responsible for any negative financial impact this might have on the American wheat industry. They, of course, should be able to pursue the recovery of funds from any negligent license holders, but the ultimate responsibility is theirs.

  34. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are missing the point...

    This wheat field was reported months ago and it has been under investigation for awhile to figure out what's been going on before it was reported to the public...

    While under investigation, Monsanto was tipped off that some of their GM wheat it is not legally able to be grown cross contaminated fields...

    Monsanto said oh crap and had a law crafted to protect themselves from being sued while public knowledge of this was being kept quiet..

    The same day as new protection act is signed it goes public that this field exists...

    Profit!

  35. Many medicene are BIo-engineered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What i'm amazed is that genetically engineered agro products gets so much attention, but medicine from genetically engineered microorganisms does not get any attention. Today most of our diabetes medicine comes for genetically modified microbes. I see no one objecting to that...

    1. Re:Many medicene are BIo-engineered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See this: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-7/Insulin.html.. All of our Insulin are manufactured from bacteria using genetically engineering methods...

    2. Re:Many medicene are BIo-engineered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that agro products are grown ion the free nature where they can spread, while medicine is produced in closed systems where with proper procedures you can contain the GM organisms. In addition, you don't take the GM organisms as medicine, you only take the specific substance. And thus there's little room for surprises (of course the substance itself can bear surprises, but that's no different from chemically produced substances, or even substances extracted from naturally occurring plants).

  36. Ideas for Monsanto's ad campaign. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Not just wheat. MONSANTO wheat.

    - If it looks like wheat and tastes like wheat, it's wheat. Just eat it and don't be a friggin' baby!

    - Man pulls up in limousine Excuse me, can you pass the Monsanto wheat?

    1. Re:Ideas for Monsanto's ad campaign. by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      When you don't know, its Monsanto!

  37. The Futility of Narrow Enforcement by anorlunda · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We are approaching the point where a grad student, or even a gifted high school student can cook up something genetically dangerous, then release it out his/her bedroom window.

    A politician (I think it was John Brennan) recently said something like this, "Society must learn to deal not only with radical groups, but also with individuals feeling isolated and discontented. By 2030, such individuals will be able to create world threatening pathogens at home." Sorry, I don't have the link to the source.

    I think he is right. It is futile to focus enforcement solely on those like Montsanto openly digging with genes. Millions of people are being educated in life sciences. We must look much deeper at what makes people like Timothy McVeigh so angry and alienated.

    The democratic system where the majority rules 100% of the time guarantees that there will be individuals who are on the losing side 100% of the time and whose voices are never listened to. How are they supposed to feel?

    1. Re:The Futility of Narrow Enforcement by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      why worry about that, when Monsanto does that crime with the full blessing of government puppets in its pocket?

      I hope more countries ban the frankenfood, companies like Monsanto and the governments that support them should be shunned and marginalized

    2. Re:The Futility of Narrow Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roundup is so much better for the environment than organic pesticides. At the very least, the good they've done the environment should be weighed against the general dislike of companies patenting things they invented.

    3. Re:The Futility of Narrow Enforcement by J'raxis · · Score: 2

      It's not just life sciences. Look at the uproar over printable handguns going on right now. The government's long-running attempts to mitigate the social problem of violence by regulating the supply of firearms is about to evaporate. Pretty soon the government won't be able to accomplish anything by targeting the few dozen gun manufacturers and few thousand retailers across the country, like they do now. Pretty soon any American who can afford a $1,000 printer will be able to make as many handguns as he wants, right at home.

      So I guess we'll get to see if the government responds by finally trying to deal with the actual cause of the social problem in question, or if they just go about banning things left and right, in (yet another) hopeless attempt at fixing a social problem by going after a symptom rather than the cause.

      I'm guessing they'll just try to regulate or ban the 3D printers.

    4. Re:The Futility of Narrow Enforcement by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      The democratic system where the majority rules 100% of the time guarantees that there will be individuals who are on the losing side 100% of the time and whose voices are never listened to.

      Why are you specifically down on democracy in this case? Do you have some other system that's shown a better historical track record of inclusively uplifting 100% of participants? Democracies have sometimes shown abilities for voting majorities to use their power to uplift, protect, and include minority voices --- just as they've been used to crush minorities. Other systems historically haven't been any better at this difficult problem, though they do sometimes allow tiny minorities to brutally oppress majorities instead of the other way around.

    5. Re:The Futility of Narrow Enforcement by anorlunda · · Score: 1

      Why worry? Because Monsanto is not doing their work in secret and Monsanto's goal is not to kill everyone on the planet.

      A nut modifying a flu virus might indeed be trying to kill everyone.

    6. Re:The Futility of Narrow Enforcement by toadlife · · Score: 1

      The government's long-running attempts to mitigate the social problem of violence by regulating the supply of firearms is about to evaporate.

      The goal of limiting access to guns is to curb gun violence, not violence in general. Non-gun-violence in general is unfortunate, but leads to death a fraction of the time gun violence does.

      So I guess we'll get to see if the government responds by finally trying to deal with the actual cause of the social problem in question

      I'm curious as to what you think that cause is.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  38. Wheat is wind-pollinated, how is this news? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    -1, Obvious

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  39. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    Nearly the exact same language was included in a draft Agriculture Appropriations bill in June 2012. If it's a defense from Monsanto, it's not due to a bit of wheat "reported months ago".

    Did you really think Congress would move that quickly, even for Monsanto's money? Ha! They're not nearly that competent.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  40. Re:Also ban computers, sanitation and the seed dri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who *cares* are wheat importing companies with rules around GM foods. Since the US is a *MAJOR* exporter of wheat they care a great deal when other nations wont buy the product. Heck, might be good for the Canadian wheat farmers...

  41. Monsanto corn rootworm issues too by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 1

    Heard a story on the radio (CBC) the other day about scattered incidents being observed in several states this year of Monsanto GMO corn crops with insecticide engineered in to stop rootworms losing effectiveness as the rootworms have developed immunity. So now farmers are paying more for their seed AND having to deal with the rootworms with traditional insecticides.

  42. How terrible... by Desirsar · · Score: 1

    We'll have to plant something more profitable than wheat, and the price of wheat will go up everywhere but here.

    1. Re:How terrible... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Opium. Coca. Cannabis.

      Real cash crops.

      (I don't recommend trying GMO canabis - you'd piss of many potential buyers)

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  43. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

    Every one of those cases that I've seen has involved someone who knew that they were using a Monsanto product and were fully aware of the patents at hand. I'm not fond of Monsanto's practice, but the farmers were on shaky legal ground to start with.

    In this case, one of Monsanto's (presumably patented) development products got out. I wonder if there's a case for invalidation based on negligent behavior allowing it out into the wild. Some level of doubt can be applied to products brought to market, but for those that never should have left a controlled environment, there may be other legal issues at hand.

    I also wonder if there's not a chance of this being a random mutation. Does Monsanto put markers in its products that could be used to determine this?

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  44. The Birds And The Bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nature finds a way.

  45. Re:Also ban computers, sanitation and the seed dri by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    Monsanto has a history of suing small farmers out of existence, including farmers that wanted nothing to do with Monsanto and wanted nothing to do with them but happened to have seeds or pollen of GMO plants accidentally make it onto their land. They are a predatory company that have arranged the "Intellectual Property" so that they can have a constant revenue from locked-in farmers. They could be considered a foreshadowing of how all corporate structures will work 20 years from now. I care *a lot* about that.

  46. Are they sure? by jmcharry · · Score: 1

    Weeds that have evolved glyphosate resistance have become a serious problem. Are they sure this wheat didn't evolve its resistance naturally?

    1. Re:Are they sure? by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. GMO resistant weeds use a variety of adaptations to minimize the effects of glyphosate. This one would just have to happen to develop the exact same genetic sequence as the Monsanto variety to be mistaken for it.

      It's probably some that didn't get destroyed after they stopped the tests and has been there all these years.

      Nowadays genetic matching is relatively cheap and fast, so you can do pretty definite matches to a known strain.

    2. Re:Are they sure? by Hartree · · Score: 1

      "GMO resistant weeds "

      Roundup resistant weeds, obviously.

      Too little coffee and cannot brain this morning...

  47. The REAL dangers of GMO by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This should show that the main risk of genetic manipulated plants is NOT that eating them may or may not be harmful , but that you might not be able to control their spread.

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:The REAL dangers of GMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but that you might not be able to control their spread.

      And that's a problem because?

    2. Re:The REAL dangers of GMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the strain is linkted to Monsanto's testing group, who should be comprised of they're best and brightest minds, I think we can drop the "might" now.

      If they can't stop it's spread, who can?

    3. Re:The REAL dangers of GMO by acoustix · · Score: 1

      ...but that you might not be able to control their spread.

      And that's a problem because?

      Jebus, you can't be THAT stupid can you?

      Biotech company creates GMO product
      Biotech company decides *not* to bring GMO product to market
      GMO product starts growing in the wild uncontrollably
      GMO product starts infiltrating food supply

      Now stop and ask yourself why the Biotech company decided not to take their very very very expensive research product to market.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    4. Re:The REAL dangers of GMO by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Mega corporation releases grain (corn, wheat, canola, etc) that can only be grown with their "unlocking" chemical.

      It infects all the world's grain.

      Farmers now need to pay a fortune to evil company in order to grow.

      Welcome new overlords.

  48. Hypocrites... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Seriously; Japan won't allow the import of GM'ed wheat, but this is the country that created square (seedless) watermelon?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Hypocrites... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      those are not GMO, they grow those inside a box-shaped transparent container

    2. Re:Hypocrites... by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Seriously; Japan won't allow the import of GM'ed wheat, but this is the country that created square (seedless) watermelon?

      That's done by growing them in a square box. Quite a different situation there as there is nothing in the genes that makes it square.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    3. Re:Hypocrites... by tgd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      those are not GMO, they grow those inside a box-shaped transparent container

      Seedless watermelon are genetically engineered. Maybe not with enzymes, but they're engineered. Just like all varieties of corn, or most other commonly grown food. You hybridize a plant, you are crossing genes -- at random. And we think random crossing of genes is safe? Viruses swap genes around. We think that is safe. Bacteria do it, and we think that is safe.

      Its ignorance, pure and simple, that people are concerned about "genetically modified" food. 15,000 years of agriculture has ensured that every plant and every animal that 99.999% of people eat were genetically modified. Period.

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

      Not sure if trying to be funny or just dumb, but square watermelon are just grown in clear acrylic cases. You can make your own box and grow your own square watermelon, it's quite fun.

    5. Re:Hypocrites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but this is the country that created square (seedless) watermelon?

      Through growing the melons in cubes, forcing them in square shape. No GM needed either for the seedless bit, just cross two types of watermelon that are far enough removed from each other genetically and they'll be seedless. It's the same principle that makes mules sterile.

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

      its still just a regular watermelon, they didn't genetically modify it to be square...its just grown in a square container. I am unsure if you are truly ignorant or trying to contrast by hyperbole....but its not getting the discussion anywhere positive

    7. Re:Hypocrites... by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      This. GMOs are just the next step in something we've been doing for thousands of years, just on a much smaller scale. Rather than blundering about with trial and error trying to make better plants, we finally have enough knowledge to tinker directly with their DNA to get what we want. Why is this a bad thing?

    8. Re:Hypocrites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      those are not GMO, they grow those inside a box-shaped transparent container

      Seedless watermelon are genetically engineered. Maybe not with enzymes, but they're engineered. Just like all varieties of corn, or most other commonly grown food. You hybridize a plant, you are crossing genes -- at random. And we think random crossing of genes is safe? Viruses swap genes around. We think that is safe. Bacteria do it, and we think that is safe.

      Its ignorance, pure and simple, that people are concerned about "genetically modified" food. 15,000 years of agriculture has ensured that every plant and every animal that 99.999% of people eat were genetically modified. Period.

      Why do I even bother to respond?

      15,000 years of agriculture involved, oh, crossing strains of corn with other strains of corn. Calling that 'genetic engineering' is arguably misapplying buzzwords, like calling me banging your mom 'genetic engineering.'

      Nowadays, we could transfer genes from, say, bananas or wolves or fish or HIV to a breed of corn. (Note: I don't actually do this for a living, I don't know what's possible, but this is what I've gathered. I'm assuming you don't do this for a living, either.) This is an entirely different thing, one where 'engineering' is slightly more applicable.

    9. Re:Hypocrites... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      The companies like Monsanto that are doing it don't care about health, they only care about making money in the short term.

      And you are mistaking "what we want" (safe nutritious food) with "what Monsanto wants" (money in the very near term and to hell with consequences)

    10. Re:Hypocrites... by MikeKD · · Score: 1

      This. GMOs are just the next step in something we've been doing for thousands of years, just on a much smaller scale. Rather than blundering about with trial and error trying to make better plants, we finally have enough knowledge to tinker directly with their DNA to get what we want. Why is this a bad thing?

      Because it's not true. Yes, we may have the knowledge to tinker directly with their DNA, but we lack the knowledge (and probably wisdom) to get only what we want.

    11. Re:Hypocrites... by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      The companies like Monsanto that are doing it don't care about health, they only care about making money in the short term.

      Do you think farmers thousands of years ago were breeding bigger and bigger ears of corn because they cared about health, or because they were trying to produce more food as quickly as possible?

      And you are mistaking "what we want" (safe nutritious food) with "what Monsanto wants" (money in the very near term and to hell with consequences)

      Actually, what most people want isn't "safe nutritious food" but "cheap tasty food." Like it or not, nutrition and safety isn't on most people's minds when they're shopping. People want food they like the taste of. And most people want money in the very near term too, just like Monsanto, and therefore what they want is cheap food. High-yield GM crops is one thing that gives us cheap loaves of bread and other vegetables.

      People who shop for food based on how "safe" it is is a niche market, and the fact that organic foods cost so much more goes to show this. And guess what? The people selling these foodstuffs want money too---otherwise they wouldn't be selling it. And they mark up their products because they know you'll buy them at the higher prices.

      I'm not defending everything Monsanto does. Their claims to "intellectual property" in the food they produce is an entirely separate issue, separate from the debate over GM safety. But to characterize Monsanto as being greedy money-grubbers as if this is somehow different than other producers and even most consumers, is patent nonsense.

    12. Re:Hypocrites... by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Do you think that the "trial and error" process of conventional artificial selection---crossbreeding, grafting, &c.---only gives us what we want? (What do you think the "and error" part refers to?) Do you think any process of invention or discovery only gives us what we want?

      See, this is what I mean about "irrational fears." Your worries over GM, causing you to apparently conclude that GM is a bad thing and unsafe, your attitude that it's "unwise" to engage in this kind of technology to begin with, is exactly what people like me mean when they call people like you "irrational" and "technophobic."

  49. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by The+Rizz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did you really think Congress would move that quickly, even for Monsanto's money? Ha! They're not nearly that competent.

    They are, however, that corrupt.

  50. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by The+Rizz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Also, for once an article needs a whatdidpossiblygowrong tag instead of a whatcouldpossiblygowrong one.

    I'd opt for a whatcouldpossiblygrowwrong tag.

  51. USDA by Frankie70 · · Score: 2

    The USDA is currently investigating and says there is no health-risk.

    I think USDA's charter is to say there is never any healthrisk in any food originating in the US.

  52. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hate to tell you this, but it's actually pretty common for Congress to pass bills into law *before* the text of the bill has been finalized. It's almost standard procedure for them to do it before anyone (including themselves) have had a chance to read the bill.

  53. You reap what you sow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now the reaper is reaping.

  54. mmmm by houbou · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a conspiracy theory and this wheat was literally "planted". If someone is playing the commodities stock and they knew, this could mean big money.

  55. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody think we ought to start shooting Monsanto's lawyers & VPs for the good of everyone?

  56. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 0

    For Monsanto, the meme has mutated: it is now

    What could possibly grow wrong?

    --
    Will
  57. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    DNA is the marker.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  58. You're implying that the seeds escaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I'm, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.

    .

  59. No one knows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plant grows, bird eats a seed, bird shits a seed, seed grows.
    Plant has a purpose, Bird has a purpose, Shit has a purpose and no one can figure this out?

  60. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Did you really think Congress would move that quickly...

    *cough* AUMF *cough* Patriot Act...

    When it comes to protecting power, congress can be 'faster than a speeding bullet'.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  61. Hormones in beef by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    What concerns me a lot more than GM grains is the crap they're putting into meat. It's enough of a concern that countries have taken to
    banning American-raised beef.

  62. Justice at Last! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    In a really weird turn of events this could be very good for the anti-GMO movement. Imagine:
    1. GMO wheat found in the wild in the USA (maybe Oregon wheat field...)
    2. Foreign countries ban USA wheat (maybe Japan, Russia, Europe...)
    3. Consumers boycott wheat.
    4. Walmart and other big sellers declare they are verifying that their products are GMO free (on the horizon...)
    5. Monsanto looks at its navel and implodes.
    Presto, magic, we're GMO free!

  63. Why is anoyone surprised? by kbg · · Score: 2

    It is obvious if you grow GMO plants outside they will eventually spread no matter how many precautions you take, this is just simple nature and evolution.

  64. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Teun · · Score: 1
    Roundup ready as a natural mutation, yeah right!

    Please note Roundup itself is not so innocent and it'll only be a matter of time before it is going to be banned at least in the EU.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  65. Life finds a way by LokiFoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Where have I heard this before? oh yeah:

    "The kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is." Dr. Ian Malcolm

    1. Re:Life finds a way by Hartree · · Score: 1

      "The kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible."

      Good to know. I'm sure the Passenger Pigeon, dodo and quite a number of other extinct species will be happy to know this and suddenly spring back into existence.

      Uh... We seem to have controlled some of them pretty thoroughly.

  66. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by tqk · · Score: 1

    Anybody think we ought to start shooting Monsanto's lawyers & VPs for the good of everyone?

    Whenever I see anyone advocating such things ("Off with their heads!", "Revolution!", "Up against the wall, muthafsckers!"), the first thing that occurs to me is, "You first."

    How revolutionary do you feel now, Anonymous Coward?

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  67. Where is it? by PsyMan · · Score: 0

    I am still waiting for someone to bring up a straw man here.

  68. U.S.A. exports wheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kinda off topic but - This line caught my attention: "United States exports about half of its wheat crop." I did not know that the United States of America exports wheat. The farmers must grow a lot of wheat to sell in the domestic and international markets. wow

  69. USDA investigates by asking the FDA by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone care to guess how the FDA determined that GMO foods are safe? They "consulted with experts." Those experts? Oh yeah.... Monsanto.

    And seriously, when the Dairy people keep telling the USDA people that we need more milk in our diet eat year, you have to be a little suspicious considering the source. And Monsanto claiming their stuff don't stink? Why should we expect any other answer?

    How are drug trials run? I suspect they are more rigorous and performed by independent testing people. Why has GMO foods gotten a pass on this process?

    1. Re:USDA investigates by asking the FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet we still have droves of backwards thinking idiots who fancy themselves as intellectuals because they immediately dismiss anything conspiratorial sounding that challenges their MSM constructed world view. Like the 6 corporations that control all print, radio and tv doesn't have a vested financial stake in the stories they are reporting on...

      To answer your last question, drug trials unfortunately aren't much better. The same systemic problem of regulatory capture and the "opportunity for profits to supercede health concerns". Have you seen the amount of class action lawsuit commercials against previously approved drugs on TV lately?

    2. Re: USDA investigates by asking the FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drug companies find their trials. It's actually a huge problem short term trials for drugs that can be used for years and no money or incentive to see long term effects of these drugs.

    3. Re:USDA investigates by asking the FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THe world-wide consensus is that GMO food is substantially the same as non-GMO food, so therefore, no safety testing is required beyond that needed to ensure that some allergenic protein isn't being produced. Because of this, human safety-testing of GMO food is basically a joke -- a way for scientists to perform unlimited numbers of small-null finding studies guaranteed to be published even though they are null-finding. More attention is paid to safety testing for farm animals because farmers are the direct customers of most GMOs, and farmers want to make sure that GMO feeds don't affect their commercial livestock adversely.

    4. Re:USDA investigates by asking the FDA by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      High quality RAW milk is excellent food! Pasteurized milk is garbage!!

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  70. Independently derived Roundup Ready (TM) by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Even then, if it is the same mechanism, you are still not infringing the patent.

    Really? That sounds like copyright, where how you created something is what matters to whether or not it's a derived work. With patents, a completely independent implementation is still infringing, if in the end, it's the same mechanism. It doesn't matter how you got there. If you breed (rather than synthesize) Roundup Ready, it's still Roundup Ready. No?

    ...

    The Roundup Ready patent has always struck a chord with me as a programmer, maybe because it parallels some things that happened to us. You could look at Roundup Ready as an interoperability requirement, something that is needed, in order to be functionally compatible with Glyphosate -- sort of like how you have to implement LZW to be able to read a GIF image.

    (I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy. There are various differences. The big one up until 2000, was that lots of GIFs were in the wild and they could come from anywhere, whereas Roundup was single-source due to its own patent. So the "need" to be compatible with Roundup was more dubious than GIFs. But when the Roundup patents expired, the situations became much more similar, and Glyphosate could be argued to be almost a defacto standard.)

    Since anyone is allowed to make or use Glyphosate, and it's pretty common and widely-deployed, its situation is a lot like a world where many users are sending you GIF images that you need to read, and the government is there, telling you that you're prohibited from doing so. I can sympathize with farmers a lot, when they say they ought to have the right to make plants which are compatible with a (now) non-proprietary weedkiller.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  71. Monsanto's master plan by endus · · Score: 2

    ...and so it begins.

  72. Wonder how that got there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty easy to hypothesize how the crops actually go there.

    1. Bird eats grain
    2. Bird flies away
    3. Enzymes on the grain prevent digestion, ends up in poop
    4. Plant grows

  73. protectionism??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan's reaction is ridiculous, and blatant protectionism. A tiny amount of GMO contamination in 2 billion bushels isn't a crisis.

    Yes, because Japan is a recognized world supplier when it comes to wheat production. Maybe you should look up the word 'protectionism'.

  74. WHOOOOOSH by Zinho · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, I love your analogy! I'm going to steal that and use it in future arguments, it's classic =)

    --
    "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    1. Re:WHOOOOOSH by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      No, I got the inherent sarcasm, but figured it had to be said. But do feel free to use it, it's under a BSD license. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:WHOOOOOSH by Deluvianvortex · · Score: 1

      its a good thing you didn't patent your phrase cause its cross pollinating forums now.

    3. Re:WHOOOOOSH by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Patent doesn't apply, just copyright. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  75. Court defense material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Monsanto themselves cannot contain their "test" wheat, how can anyone else contain the GMO.

  76. Agenda? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    The farmer sent samples of these curious plants to , a scientist at Oregon State University who has investigated other cases in which genetically engineered crops spread beyond their approved boundaries.

    This has to be called out since /. routinely scoffs at any study remotely connected to anyone who might benefit from the results. It seems from this that the folks involved in this discovery have their own agenda. I'm not saying the info should be discarded, just that there could be more going on than the article spells out. Let's keep an eye out.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Agenda? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the farmer sought out an expert with experience in exactly the area of knowledge he needed.

      And if the scientist is such an expert, it's very likely that he/she has contracted for Monsanto for exactly the same purpose.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  77. What is the mutation and how far has it spread? by generic_screenname · · Score: 1

    I would be interested to see the findings related to what this wheat was engineered to do, as well as how far it has spread. The 'gluten-free' diet has been gaining a lot of popularity lately, and a lot of people who do not have Celiac disease swear that avoiding grains like wheat makes them feel a lot better. I wonder if it is possible that this 12-year-old mutant strain is related to that sensitivity somehow?

  78. Booo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on Soulskill stop misleading readers by changing facts in your lead header so people will read your posts. Suspending is not the same as Suspending Some. Now if you excuse me I am going to go back to eating me GMO everything and not giving a flying fuck.

  79. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What experts? Monsanto's? GMO's are considered GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe). They do not undergo FDA testing. Apparently GMOs are pretty much the same as the natural variety so they are deemed safe by default. Of course they're not the same so much that you can't get a patent. Monsanto has everything set in their favor. I'm not against GMOs but Monsanto's control of the FDA and the regulatory process is just asking for trouble. Monsanto needs to make up their mind. Either GMOs are GRAS and therefore shouldn't be patent worthy or if they do deserve a patent then they should face FDA testing.

  80. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually most of the Coca plants grown in Columbia are Roundup resistant, but that's because planes have been spraying roundup on em for years and years.

  81. Remain calm! All is well! by ZipK · · Score: 2

    The USDA is currently investigating and says there is no health-risk.

    Remain calm! All is well!

  82. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by meerling · · Score: 1

    They'll snatch the money from your hand faster than you can see, but as to doing actual work, even if it was bribed and paid for, their fat asses don't waddle all faster than a snails pace at best. Not to mention, all the ones that didn't get paid off who try to slow things down as incentive for the delivery of their own Benjamin Salad.

  83. STEP 1: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Create patented GMO

    STEP 2:
    Let the winds and bees take them high and wide

    STEP 3:
    Sue those thieving little farmer bastards for trying to sell your patented wheat without a license.

    Lucky farmer caught on before they could spring their trap.

  84. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    That's sounds funny, since when the judge is no more...what, a judge?

  85. INS by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Except these unlicensed plants are from a lab strain which was never released, and which Monsanto was supposed to have destroyed the plants after their tests. If anything, Monsanto has some 'splaining to do, and all of their claims that it couldn't possibly cross-contaminate other crops needs to be looked at much more closely.

    No doubt, the sub-sub-sub contractor that was supposed to actually destroy the plants didn't quite understand the interpreter or the INS found them before they could finish.

  86. Lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Farmers in the US who had their wheat sales voided should sue Monsanto for negligence.

  87. 'organic' is bullshit by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 2

    'Organic' goes beyond genetic modification though. It attempts to classify pesticides and herbicides into "natural" and "unnatural" categories without really trying to measure their effect on either the environment or (in residue) on humans.

    Even more stupidly, it tries to do the same thing with fertilizer. This is very similar to herbalists who refuse to take chemical X but are happy to eat an unstudied plant extract that contains chemical X plus a whole lot of other unknown and untested junk. In the case of fertilizer, chemical X is nitrogen. Instead of focusing on the very real environmental (and health?) hazards of fertilization and designing an intelligent solution, certain methods are simply deemed unnatural and the downsides of fertilizing with manure (cost, carbon emissions, disease) are ignored.

    The anti-GMO aspect of the organic movement is just a symptom of a larger neo-Luddite movement, which is being greatly helped by Monsanto continuing to be an asshole.

    1. Re: 'organic' is bullshit by sjames · · Score: 1

      Fun fact, cocaine consumed by chewing the leaves is a mild stimulant barely more addictive than coffee. Not so when you extract it as a powder. In some cases that 'other junk' is what made chemical X in the herb safe to use. In others, it's what made it more effective. It is perfectly rational to prefer a form and mixture that has proven safe for decades or centuries over a form that is presumed safe and effective because that would be convieniant.

      Personally, I'm not all that concerned about the source of nitrogen, but that's my choice.

    2. Re: 'organic' is bullshit by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      I wager if you took the amount of cocaine contained in a single coca leaf and let it dissolve slowly under your tongue it too would also be a "mild stimulant barely more addictive than coffee." Do you know how many coca leaves you need to make a significant quantity of cocaine?

      Fun fact #2: In refined form nicotine is a very mildly addctive, mildly-if-at-all carcinogenic substance with great potential for medical usage. It's only when it's combined with the other crap in tobacco it becomes a nightmare. Even if you take the combustion out of the equasion, chewing tobacco is still considerably more dangerous and addictive than nicotine gum.

      In some cases of course the 'other junk' can have beneficial effects, but it could also harmful effects as well. There's no reason to assume one way or the other. With the refined chemical you at least know how much you're getting, whereas plant extracts often vary wildly.

      It is perfectly rational to prefer a form and mixture that has proven safe for decades or centuries

      hah. The problem with this is folk wisdom is, while sometimes right, often wrong. Sometimes tremendously wrong, especially if there are long term effects (negative or positive) involved. I think homeopathy alone demonstrates just how useless popular sentiment is, but for an even more fabuous example of this kind of folk 'wisdom' at work (though not directly connected to herbs or medicine), check out "male menstruation" on wikipedia. For every successful herb you can come up with that was validated by science, I can give you a hundred more that were proven not just useless, but actually harmful: laetrile, coffee enemas...

    3. Re: 'organic' is bullshit by sjames · · Score: 1

      You seem to have missed the part about "has proven safe". I am certainly not aware of smoking or chewing tobacco having been proven safe. Coffee has proven safe for oral consumption and that is the only way I care to consume it.

      Many of the things used in agriculture have not even been tested for safety in humans, particularly if they are added through GM. While rigorous testing beats folk anecdotes, folk anecdotes beat no testing.

    4. Re: 'organic' is bullshit by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Um, tobacco was 'proven safe' for hundreds if not thousands of years before anyone suspected it of causing serious illness. Less than 100 years ago you could find doctors actually recommending light smoking (usually they didn't like heavy smoking, but then the default is to not like anything without moderation) as treatment for various illness. My own grandmother recommended it for treatment for a headache. Or maybe it was an earache, I forget.

      Folk anecdotes does beat no testing, but only for immediate and strong effects. When it comes time to test it scientifically, you really need to isolate specific compounds. It's too hard to ensure the chemical composition is exactly the same from batch to batch, year to year.

    5. Re: 'organic' is bullshit by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you're going to bring error into this, look no further that vioxx or fen-phen.

      Consider though if we take your advice and test in isolation. We might conclude based on the effects of nicotine in isolation that smoking is mostly harmless with some benefit to people with IBS or schizophrenia. It is really necessary to test both the isolated componants and the whole. However, in the case of agricultural chemicals and GM, we are testing neither. Given that, we are left with the choice of folk wisdom or nothing at all.

      It's the nitrosamines in tobacco that cause the cancers, and the particulates and CO that cause the cardiovascular effects. It's the MAOIs that potentiate the nicotine and make smoking strongly addictive (And give cigarettes an anti-depressant effect). However, it seems that it is the medical community (not the folk herbalists) that want to demonize nicotine itself for all of those effects. That's why when it was discovered that nicotine was uniquely effective in treating the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, rather than prescribing the patch, the industry collectively scratched it's head saying "If only there was something just like nicotine in every way out there".

      Folk anecdotes does beat no testing, but only for immediate and strong effects.

      Even for weak or long term effects, surely logic dictates that long experience is at lestly slightly more likely to reveal a problem than not looking at it at all?!?

  88. Monsanto Park! by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    There you go... as one of my favorite scientists once claimed "Life will find a way!"

  89. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for explaining it. Now that I know the law merely banned the courts from the centuries old practice of injunctive relief I feel so much more at ease.

    Maybe we can update the law to also ban the courts from offering compensatory damages...

  90. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Monsanto will allow it to get banned as soon as their next, newly patented, product is ready for the market.

  91. No. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    once it's on my property, I should have the right to do whatever I want with it -- including harvesting and re-planting the seeds, because I never agreed not to.

    No. You may be surprised to learn this, but patents apply to you and do not require your explicit consent. All government requirements apply to you without your consent. That includes the requirements that allow you to "own" land in the first place. You are just picking and choosing which ones you like and which ones you don't.

    1. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That includes the requirements that allow you to "own" land in the first place.

      Nice move. You've just argued that the government owns your land, but allows you to think you own it. In Soviet Amerika...

      Where's your Freedom now, bitch?

    2. Re:No. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Wishing something weren't true isn't a valid refutation.

    3. Re:No. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Did he genetically modify the wheat himself? No. He wasn't violating the patents; the wheat did that itself.

      Or do you honestly believe that every human being on the planet should be legally required to send any seed they plan to plant to a genetics testing lab first to make sure they're not actually required to be paying a licensing fee?

    4. Re:No. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      The guy knowingly cultivated the patented seeds. You're making an absurd argument saying that you'd have to send in every seed for testing. The court wouldn't accept such a foolish argument.

    5. Re:No. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Did he genetically test them? Because if not, then he knowingly cultivated wild seeds that were likely to have been genetically modified. All he would have known for sure is that they were herbicide resistant.

      If anyone should be sued over that it should be the guy who originally planted the seeds that spread to this guy's properly. THAT guy's negligence is what violated Monsanto's patent; not the guy who just cultivated a crop he found on his own land. You've gotta be out of your fucking mind to suggest that sale terms you and Bob agree to apply to me just because I'm Bob's neighbor.

    6. Re:No. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      There are no natural strains of corn that are roundup resistant. The farmer knew that and was attempting to exploit what he saw as a loophole in the patent system. The court, however, ruled that he knowingly infringed on the patent (which he obviously did). He was required to abide by the terms of sale in order to compensate Monsanto for their monetary losses (the loss of the sale to the farmer). That's how patents work.

  92. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

    Farmers around the world already deal with Roundup-resistant strains of weeds. It's not impossible or perhaps even unlikely that, with the widespread use of glyphosate, some resistance among crops would appear.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  93. Nature.. by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    ...uh...will...uh...always...find a way...hmm.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  94. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    The USDA's experts. Genetically-modified food is GRAS, but the crops fall under the authority of the USDA. The FDA only really gets involved for the different chemical effects of the genetic engineering, and that's a separate issue from being patentable. The USDA covers the growing process, the FDA covers what's being eaten, and the patents are on the genetic mechanism that produces the desired effect.

    I'm not a geneticist, chemist, or a farmer. I can't tell you with certainty how Roundup works, but I do know enough (from my time in the pocket of Big Pharma) to make some reasonable illustrative (and grossly oversimplified) examples:

    Let's suppose that a particular herbicide works by breaking apart a particular protein holding together cell walls. Spray it on plants and you get a nice cytoplasmic jelly. To make crops that are resistant to that herbicide, a GMO company alters the genes for the enzyme that assembles that protein, so the final protein works the same to hold the cell together, but can't be disrupted by the herbicide. That works, and the altered enzyme is patentable. As far as the USDA's concerned, the crop needs testing, because the resistance to herbicide could lead to more of the herbicide in use, which must be studied. The FDA only cares that the enzyme and protein both break down by stomach acids as expected, so they don't need much testing. The patent office allows a patent on the modification to the enzyme, since that's the mechanism.

    After further research, a different GMO company finds an alternative: The introduction of a second enzyme, found naturally in beef, that will alter the protein only in the presence of the herbicide. The protein is assembled naturally, then modified when the herbicide's applied, then returns to normal once the herbicide has degraded. Now the USDA cares, because of the earlier herbicide-use issue and the new enzyme's presence. The FDA doesn't really care at all, because the new enzyme is already considered safe, and its behavior is understood well enough to know that it's safe by the time it's actually eaten. The patent office allows a new patent, because though the effect is the same, the mechanism is completely different.

    Hopefully that illustrates the different jurisdictions of the groups involved.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  95. Correction (as you write it is untrue) by aepervius · · Score: 1

    "GM doesn't cause allergies or any other known negative reactions in people."

    should be fixed to "GM is tested to catch eventuel allergy to people. Which is why GM soy with nut growth protein was stopped and never marketed : it was actually provocating allergy reaction in nut-allergic people". See Wiki on GM soy for reference.

    Otehrwise , I fully agree with you : GM are "generally" safe. I don't care if my wheat is GM or not.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  96. We will NEED GMO food crops! by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    We are not going to do anything effective to halt CO2-influenced global climate change. So, we'll need GMO crops that can withstand our increasingly destabilized climate. In 20 years, I predict the new GMO tornado-resistant tomatoes will make our current grocery-store red rocks seem soft and toothsome by comparison.

  97. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by similar_name · · Score: 1

    That was very informative. I would mod you up but I'd rather discuss. I'm not a geneticist, chemist, or a farmer either but you seem to know more about it than I do. I'm curious about what exactly is patented. Is it the enzyme, the dna sequence, the method for gene transfer, all, or some combination? I'm okay with the process being patented but the enzyme and dna could occur through natural or artificial selection. It seems possible at least that non-GMO varieties could develop the same enzyme, not through cross-pollination, but from exposure to the Round-Up herbicide.

    I recognize that at least in the U.S., where even non-GMO crops are likely clones, there is probably not enough variety in the gene pool to make the necessary mutations to resist Round-Up without careful breeding. It would appear that weeds develop resistance which implies the possibility that weeds do not care about patents :)

    Is it illegal to breed Round-Up resistant corn if it results in the production of the same enzyme?

  98. Topsoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    organic is frequently confused with hand tended plants, which often actually taste better and are of higher quality. Recently I ate an orange off a tree in the yard, without any "profit optimization", which tasted completely amazing next to the comparatively dry tasteless items for sale in bulk bags.

    the sad thing is when "organic" produce has been grown with pesticides that _are_ more toxic than the non-organic types. Eg. Rotenone or cryolite. Generally the "real thing":tastes better and is also healthier, but we also completely rely on inorganic phosphorus and nitrogen. Haber did away with the entire guano business.

    The terrible secret of agriculture is that we are reliant on topsoil. without it water tables would fall and desertification occurs, not only that but the accumulated organic matter has a very different mineral profile from the "average distribution in the earths crust" meaning that when we've destroyed it we might be forced into a soylent future.

    Rewatch Nausicaa, the idea that nature purifies an intrinsically toxic planetary environment is actually TRUE! The average distribution of certain very prevalent minerals (more prevalent than Carbon for eg), in the earths crust would kill if they were not bio-filtered (like the opposite of accumulated) from the Topsoil creating the basis for more sensitive and refined organisms to thrive.

    Why do you think Salmon spawn in the very purest of waters, but live in the sea. Natural selection, the pure water yields a fitter spawn.

        Either that or we'll survive eating toxic food, abundant in heavy metals, halogens, and organic toxins, by supplementing artificial levels of antioxidants like people are already doing with Glutathione and Q10.

    If you disregard the issue with halogens, yes Cl- is an essential mineral in the Nervous system, recall that most municipal water chlorination has now changed to chloramination (which kills fish) because the chlorination was combining with methane to produce a statistically significant increase in bladder cancer.

    The cancer epidemic is not simply a matter of people not succumbing to eradicated diseases.

    Governments are happy to tell people that UV causes skin cancer but although it will cause single and double strand breaks which can lead to melanoma, the body does have repair mechanisms that will repair both. The greater problem is that bromine for example will impair the defense mechanism, so is the problem excessive use of fire-retardants and now discontinued bromine based food sprays, or UV? hmm (we've gone back to vikane, better the devil you think you know?)

    The Eu requires warehouse premises to have the food removed when being fumigated with vikane, many other countries do not, and America has proposed allowable residue levels in things like nuts, flour and "egg white powder" which should alarm everyone.

    Oh and your attack on herbalists is misdirected, science and falsification is not the issue.

    Herbalists are relying on 1000s years of falsification. Just because the proper statistics were not collected, does not entirely invalidate such a history of safety.

    Eg. Lobeline, from the plant lobelia, is superior, from receptor affinities pharmacology to the reality of not needing to use corticosteroids and 3 types of bronchodialator and having a 20% higher peak flow than I would have even if i took prednisolone (lets not even compare side effects shall we, cause that would be unfair), to practically every treatment for asthma. Which I saw having, lived with a nebuliser during highschool, and also just about every invented SSRI/SNRI/DRI/etc antidepresants. But the fresh plant has different qualities, and is not emetic in contrast with pure lobeline.

  99. 200ppm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yes, the next time you buy just about any processed sweets/goods eg. pavlova consider the allowable residue levels in "dried egg white" or flour is upto 200ppm...

    thats 0.02% residue. hrmm 1 part per 5000 for food where the same is only legal at under 1ppm in the "human fit water supply" (which is causing salmon to go extinct in Canada due to factories trickling their waste directly into an adjacent river at "legally defined to equal allowable human drinking water levels" = "legally defined to not be waste at all" ... except for the Salmon going extinct

    >

  100. Re:Impact on Monsanto vs unlicensed farmer lawsuit by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

    From what I understand

    The rest of your comment shows that you do not, in fact, understand.

    --

    kurzweil_freak

    5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

    Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  101. Re:Also ban computers, sanitation and the seed dri by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

    [citation needed]

    --

    kurzweil_freak

    5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

    Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  102. Will Monsanto be sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, can this farmer sue Monsanto for for illegally planting? or trespassing? Can he sue them for any profits that he might loose due to cross contamination? What about all the farmer that might loose international sale of non-GMO wheat? And what is the basis for the FDA saying there is no safety concern? Can all the farmers who were sued for theft of IP now file a class action suit now that there is proof that GMOs can invade a field intended for non GMO plants?

  103. the ignorance of the public is so frustrating by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

    1. Seeds can lay dormant for 7 years. He may not have planted it that year but he or the previous owner planted it at some point

    2. It wasn't growing wild. The author is an idiot

    3. When a farmer grows like that ....the planted a kelated strain to replace the manganese that RoundUp strips out.

    This is why people who don't know jack about farming should STFU because they don't know what they're talking about and the public freaks out because they don't know jack about farming either.

    --
    There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
    1. Re:the ignorance of the public is so frustrating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right! and people with no medical training should just shut up and accept anything their doctors tell them. Tell parents not to ask about the quality of their children's education unless they have some qualification as an educator. Also if you are not a lawyer, don't ever disagree with the police if they say..... Oh wait, America already does that

  104. more yen intervention soon ? by CurrencyEU · · Score: 1

    Reducing Japan imports? Tokyo looking for more bright ideas for yen intervention using wheat?

  105. UHH wait a minute! by BigLonn · · Score: 1

    Iregardless of what Monsanto has done to the wheat, guess what, wheat is a hybrid, grass, oates, rye and barley and its been around for 5000 years. Ya, a 5000 year old GMO, not done in petri dishes but still a geneticaly modified food, and we've been eating it since mesopotamia was an on going concern. There is nothing natural about wheat, so why is this more recent gmo such a panic? Also on a side note, I suspect it came from an old stock that didnt get returned to monsanto in 2000 and the adjacent road to the field it was found in, it probably was the one to the local garbage dump.

  106. wow, are they clever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty cool that now "since it is out of the closet", Monsanto should be able to market and profit from this frankenfood.

    Gee, we don't know how this could have happened.

    good thing they were not working with Weapons grade ANYTHING!

    If any testing material paid for by the government (like this likely was) the contractor (MONSANTO IN THIS CASE) gets put through the wringer.

    They will walk, scott free, remember, even though Obastage is corrupt, 2001 was GW Bush territory.

    We have a yearly menace which was introduced by Penn State Univerity ag ....the Asian Beetle. They swarm, bite and infest our homes.

    This is called introducing an invasive species into the evironment and is EXTREMELY illegal and immoral.

    The Asian carp was introduced in the US waterways by moron Asians who brought them here for fish ponds. Now they care killing skiers and boaters.

    What will be the true impact on the envoironment of Franken Wheat??? who knows. Remember genetic mutations happen all the time. Since this was "screwed with" already, is it ore susseptible to further mutation? Also is it possible for the "screwed with astuf to transfer. Answer, no one knows.

    Jail them all for life!

  107. point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    once found growing wild, patent invalid. once the justice system catches up to these predators.

  108. Introduction of genes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference between classic breeding and genetic engineering is the engineering part. Engineering is the introduction of specific genes into a lineage that has never seen them before. The journal Nature recently had a section devoted to this subject and the editorial outlined a history of the subject that pointed to some reasons why this approach is so mistrusted. Not included in the piece are the predatory business practices of Monsanto, which contaminate the entire discussion. Early attempts at inserting consumer-end genes didn't work out well so the focus centered on genes that could boost production. Given Monsanto's portfolio, this focus was about poisons. Nobody likes the hint of adding poisons to their food and despite the truth that nature has included entire packages of toxic materials in plants, it is also true that one outcome of classic breeding has been to remove the worst of these or at least the ones that food preparations can't remove easily. If the early successes had been all about increasing flavor or nutrition, we might be having a different discussion.

  109. Solution.... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    We ban import of all Toyotas until they lift their ban! :-)

  110. GMO stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing we can be thankful for ...... the Bees are dying from various pesticide over use, diseases, parasites and possible nutrition factors .... this should help stop the spread of "escaped" GMO s ...... mind you .... it will also stuff up the rest of the food chain.
    I'm thinking algae burgers ...... there may not be a patent on it yet. lol
    Or maybe Soylent Green anyone .....?

  111. Is There A Petition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To demand the incarceration of Monsanto executives? Is that too excessive? Well how about one to demand that Monsanto go find and remove all the GMO-contaminated plants in the wild? Too expensive? Okay then, how about something simple, reasonable, cheap, and easy, such as to demand the labelling of GMO food products?

  112. Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more I read about Mansanto the more dangerous I believe the company is becoming. I consider myself a conservative pro business voter - but the sheer huberous by which Monsanto operates is astonishing!

  113. Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Really, cause most of the cases. The farmers still deny it. I believe one did state that he had a patch that seemed more resistant. And therefore used that area for seeds for the next year.

    But if Mosanto can't control their dogs. They should be put down. And Mosanto claimed there was no way infection could be attributed. They showed their scientific evidence and studies (all since proven wrong).

    No meager farmer could produce counter evidence. It was an abuse of the legal system. Which is truly all our courts are for. We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system.

  114. Re:Impact on Monsanto vs unlicensed farmer lawsuit by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Really, cause your whole comment shows you're stupid. You declared the above comment as lacking understanding and failed even provide one argument as to why.

    Frankly, I think all the farmers sued, should file a class action lawsuit seeking $50 billion in damages.

  115. Re:Also ban computers, sanitation and the seed dri by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Google....

    It's quite well documented. And seriously, how much is Mosanto paying you Kurzweil Freak. Cause I see you posting lame comments in Mosanto's support. And you dismissed a whole other post by someone without making

    [Cited KurzeweilFreak = an ass who can make any citation to a post, but demands one for a well documented fact.]
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3804725&cid=43883477

  116. Re:Impact on Monsanto vs unlicensed farmer lawsuit by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1
    Because Monsanto doesn't sue farmers who are found with patches of their products in their fields; they sue farmers who intentionally harvest and replant entire crops of Round-Up Ready plants without paying for it. There has been a lawsuit just like you suggested; the entire case was thrown out because the farmers bringing it couldn't provide a single example of where Monsanto has sued innocent farmers; Percy Schmeiser and Vernon Bowman were both found to be intentionally infringing on Monsanto's patents. If you could cite examples to the contrary that actually support your original argument, you would be the first to do so. Ever.

    But I guess I'm just stupid for allowing things like "facts" to cloud the issue instead of just spouting out propaganda to stick it to The Man.

    --

    kurzweil_freak

    5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

    Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  117. Doesn't Matter... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

    Wheat is crap and not fit for consumption by man or beast. Think I'm kidding? I'm not! The only reason it got into the food supply was that it was practical for consumption for troops. You know, the people who probably won't live too long anyway. Not planning on dying soon? Don't eat wheat!!!

    --
    Social Credit would solve everything...