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.'"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.........
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?
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!
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
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?
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.
Liberty in your lifetime