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.'"

Comments

It's still under investigation

[ranulf]

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

Re:It's still under investigation

[bdleonard]

Italicize wheat?

Re:It's still under investigation

[ranulf]

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

Re:It's still under investigation

[Sponge Bath]

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.

Re:It's still under investigation

[hamburger lady]

i can barley contain my laughter.

Re:It's still under investigation

[ilsaloving]

That was terrible. Maybe you corn try again?

Re:It's still under investigation

[ranulf]

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

Re:It's still under investigation

[Kavafy]

You spelt that wrongly.

Re:It's still under investigation

[j00r0m4nc3r]

lettuce see how long we can drag this out

Re:It's still under investigation

[93 Escort Wagon]

This is rapidly going a-rye.

Re:It's still under investigation

[MickyTheIdiot]

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

Re:It's still under investigation

[PopeRatzo]

I oat to smack you.

Don't be so bulghur.

Re:It's still under investigation

[moronoxyd]

... maw?

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

Re:It's still under investigation

[philip.paradis]

Listen here meow.

Re:It's still under investigation

[yagu]

Carrot.

Re:It's still under investigation

[coinreturn]

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

It's called a pun, dipshit.

Re:It's still under investigation

[mdm42]

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

Re:It's still under investigation

[Penguinisto]

Italicize wheat?

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

Re:It's still under investigation

[trazom28]

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

Re:It's still under investigation

[scarboni888]

All the way down tomatoes!

Re:It's still under investigation

[David_Hart]

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.

Re:It's still under investigation

[BronsCon]

Yes, he oat to be awarded for his efforts.

Re:It's still under investigation

[BronsCon]

You mean your poppy?

Re:It's still under investigation

[sconeu]

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.

Re:It's still under investigation

[orgelspieler]

I bet a lawsuit is not farro way.

Re:It's still under investigation

[davester666]

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.

Re:It's still under investigation

[sneakyimp]

Enough of this rye humor!

Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[localman57]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[SargentDU]

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?

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[gstoddart]

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".

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[cdrudge]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[wisnoskij]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[__aaltlg1547]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[__aaltlg1547]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[cayenne8]

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?

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[operagost]

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?

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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?

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[c]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[kilfarsnar]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[codeButcher]

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....

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Svartalf]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[betterprimate]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[dpilot]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Will.Woodhull]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Culture20]

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

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[tom17]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Teun]

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

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[pnutjam]

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

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[gstoddart]

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

As in, it's the total opposite.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Nadaka]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Thomas Miconi]

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!

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[interkin3tic]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Ken D]

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?

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Frobnicator]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[FilmedInNoir]

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."

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[ideonexus]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[abigsmurf]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[crtreece]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[paiute]

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

GRRAAIINNNSSS!!!!!!

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Eunuchswear]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[ideonexus]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[J'raxis]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[the biologist]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[caseih]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Urza9814]

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.

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[Urza9814]

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/

Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare

[sneakyimp]

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.

Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act signed

[Picass0]

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.

Copyright?

[MrMickS]

So, has the farmer been sued by Monsanto yet for copyright infringement?

Re:Copyright?

[JDG1980]

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?

Re:Copyright?

[fustakrakich]

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.

Re:Copyright?

[MightyYar]

It's another idiot who gets their news from Facebook:

Here's the hoax that was floating around.

Market forces at work...

[Geraden]

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.

Re:Market forces at work...

[jythie]

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.

Re:Market forces at work...

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re: Market forces at work...

[Rob the Bold]

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.

Re:Market forces at work...

[wisnoskij]

But the ones who buy GMO seed are having no difficulties, it is ones who do not that go bankrupt.

Re: Market forces at work...

[MickyTheIdiot]

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.

Re:Market forces at work...

[The Rizz]

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.

Re:Market forces at work...

[CowTipperGore]

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.

heh

[sociocapitalist]

How long until Monsanto sues the state of Oregon?

(and no I'm not serious)

Nobody knows how?

[Hatta]

Someone should tell them that wheat pollen is distributed by the wind.

Re:Nobody knows how?

[Rob the Bold]

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.

Re:Ethanol.

[lxs]

Ethanol is a great idea. Especially diluted to 5%-40% by volume and served in large quantities! Yes. It's Friday again.

A little wheat scarcity...

[Saethan]

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.

good time to mention

[slashmydots]

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.

Re:good time to mention

[indy_bob_twobears]

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?

Re:good time to mention

[StormReaver]

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.

Re:Re-heh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Monsanto's statement

[Jason Levine]

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.

The same story again and again...

[jcdr]

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.
   

Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign

[Sarten-X]

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".

Re:patent not copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto has pubicly stated

I guess that statement was withdrawn because it violated decency rules. ;-)

Re:One day, I will piss

[cpghost]

Careful then, doing so could grow some GMO weed...

The REAL dangers of GMO

[bickerdyke]

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.

Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign

[The Rizz]

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.

Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign

[The Rizz]

Also, for once an article needs a whatdidpossiblygowrong tag instead of a whatcouldpossiblygowrong one.

I'd opt for a whatcouldpossiblygrowwrong tag.

USDA

[Frankie70]

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.

Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign

[fustakrakich]

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'.

Why is anoyone surprised?

[kbg]

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.

Re:Hypocrites...

[tgd]

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.

Life finds a way

[LokiFoo]

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

USDA investigates by asking the FDA

[erroneus]

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?

Monsanto's master plan

[endus]

...and so it begins.

Re:The Futility of Narrow Enforcement

[J'raxis]

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.

Remain calm! All is well!

[ZipK]

The USDA is currently investigating and says there is no health-risk.

Remain calm! All is well!

'organic' is bullshit

[foreverdisillusioned]

'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.