Slashdot Mirror
Scotland To Ban GM Crops
An anonymous reader writes: Scotland's rural affairs minister has announced the country will ban the growing of genetically modified crops. He said, "I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14 billion food and drink sector." Many Scottish farmers disapprove of the ban, pointing out that competing farms in nearby England face no such restriction. "The hope was to have open discussion and allow science to show the pros and cons for all of us to understand either the potential benefits or potential downsides. What we have now is that our competitors will get any benefits and we have to try and compete. It is rather naïve."
in case you missed the last twenty years, they're specifically talking about the Monsanto crops which are a: terminal (they do not produce viable seed), b: specifically resistant to insect and disease strains that have already adapted to the resistant strain crops such as triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye), and most importantly c: as synthetic strains, are patented, hence with marker genes can be traced into the wild and used to shut down farmers who refuse to buy Monsanto strains by litigating them to death when those marked strains are found sprouting in their hedgerows.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
I don't think the world is quite ready for genetically modified haggis.
#DeleteChrome
Lots of people like to say things like 'there is no evidence that GMOs are dangerous.' But that is mirroring the hippy-dippy types who say that anything 'natural' is healthy.
Just because no one's found a problem with the corn that most of us have been unknowingly eating for decades, that doesn't mean the latest and greatest GMO won't have its own unique risks. The more GMOs that are engineered, the more chances there are to screw something up.
Do these people want us to go back to the Stone Age? Because that's what's going to happen.
These people are opposed to any progress that might actually solve the problems we face, which only leaves us with the option of going backwards.
From http://www.savethepinebush.org...
Who Owns Life?
Canadian Farmer Sued by Monsanto
by Lynne Jackson
ALBANY, NY — The First Lutheran Church was the setting for the talk by Percy Schmeiser, the Canadian farmer being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement. [...] Around 1995, Percy told his wife he was thinking of retirement. Louise expressed concerns about what he would do with himself, so Percy decided to keep farming for a while longer. What to do with his spare time was decided in 1998, when Monsanto sued Percy for patent infringement. Monsanto said that it had found GMO (genetically modified organism) canola seed in Percy’s field, and that Percy had to pay a $15 an acre fee for using its patented GMO seed. Percy never had anything to do with Monsanto. He never purchased seed from Monsanto. He was concerned that Monsanto seed had contaminated his farm. The GMO canola plants got into his fields by the wind blowing pollen or seed onto his land. It took two years for the pre-trail motions and paper-work to be completed. During this time, Monsanto dropped their charge that Percy had illegally obtained the GMO seed. Because this was a patent case, the case would not be heard by a jury but by one federal judge. The trial took two and one-half weeks. The federal judge decided that it did not matter how the GMO crops got into his field, he must pay Monsanto their fee of $15/acre. In addition, the judge ordered that Percy pay Monsanto all of the profits from his 1998 crop, and that he must turn over all of the plants and seeds to Monsanto. Two of Percy’s fields were not contaminated with Monsanto GMOs and 60% of the GMOs Monsanto found were in the ditch by the road. Percy appealed his case to the federal Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling against Percy by the first judge.
There is nothing Luddite refusing GMO.
Scottish Nationalists want to go back to pre-1707, apparently everything was a paradise back then.
If you had to eat English food, you would think so too.
Scotland's rural affairs minister has announced the country will ban the growing of genetically modified crops. He said, "I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14 billion food and drink sector."
Oh he's gambling with their food and drink sector but not in the way he thinks he is. Simply banning these crops in the absence of actual evidence of their harm will definitely cause an impact but probably not a positive one. I understand taking reasonable steps to evaluate the effects of new(ish) technologies but slapping a blanket ban on something without any actual evidence of harm seems rather short sighted. This is exactly the sort of thing that you need to have a rational and evidence based debate over. Not a fear motivated ban.
Of course, you realise that the Terminator Seeds thing is effectively a myth - right:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsvi...
Of course, we're quite happy to eat effectively some of these kinds of plants (seedless grapes and seedless watermelon).
And of course if you were worried about some of the GM gene's getting into the "wild", this would be a good thing. Then again, you'd expect one to be more concerned about our traditionally GM'd crops (i.e., bred) inter breading with their "wild" relatives.
forcing terminal
Nobody is 'forcing' anybody to do anything, and there are no 'terminal' crops. Two words, two lies. Seems about right for the anti-GMO bunch.
Must you keep repeating this bullshit? Read the actual case, not some anti-GMO spin on it.
He was not 'concerned that Monsanto seed contaminated his farm'. He suspected that some GMO seed from his neighbors property got on his field, so he intentionally killed (with glyphosphate) all of the crop that HE planted, kept the seed from the 'contaminated' plants, and replanted them. There was nothing 'accidental' about it.
in case you missed the last twenty years, they're specifically talking about the Monsanto crops which are a: terminal (they do not produce viable seed), b: specifically resistant to insect and disease strains that have already adapted to the resistant strain crops such as triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye), and most importantly c: as synthetic strains, are patented, hence with marker genes can be traced into the wild and used to shut down farmers who refuse to buy Monsanto strains by litigating them to death when those marked strains are found sprouting in their hedgerows.
Aren't a and c mutually exclusive? I am not a farmer, so if I have a gross conceptual error here please correct me, but if the crops are terminal, how are the farmers "illegally" getting seeds to plant without paying royalties? Someone has to buy the seeds from Monsanto if they are not viable on their own, right?
they're specifically talking about the Monsanto crops which are a: terminal (they do not produce viable seed)
If they are, they're not blocking anything, as Monsanto has never sold terminator seeds.
specifically resistant to insect and disease strains that have already adapted to the resistant strain crops such as triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye)
If they are, they're not blocking everything, because all crops are being constantly bred for disease resistance
as synthetic strains, are patented, hence with marker genes can be traced into the wild and used to shut down farmers who refuse to buy Monsanto strains by litigating them to death when those marked strains are found sprouting in their hedgerows.
There has never been a lawsuit for accidental wind sprouting. The closest case was Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, in which Schmeiser bred roundup-ready seed, pretending to have had it been part of a wind-blow, but actually having purchased the seed before, and simply bred a new crop without paying for it:
Lots of luddites on slashdot right now. I thought I ought to correct the record.
anytime a company holds a patent on our craps
It's the end of the world when you can eat your food and get sued when it comes out the other end.
How the fuck did he 'saved the seed and planted is next season' if your claim that they do not produce viable seed is correct? You need to keep your lies straight.
The book is wrong. There have been hundreds of studies that show animals turn out the same. Also the seed/pesticide price for a farmer isn't that big of a difference between the two types of corn. The farmer would not grow it if there was a difference.
I find it really funny how non farmers think farmers are stupid. They spend all day thinking about these things, the same as you think about computers/tech, etc.
Seedless watermelon involves crossing two lines (diploid and tetraploid) annually to generate a sterile fruit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I understand it seedless grapes are typically grafted from plant to plant and are perennial but I expect the "first" generation of them are produced in a similarity. That's how you could get multiple seedless varieties (green, red, black, etc.)
Why would you think that this could happen? There are tons of companies that produce seed. The only reason a farmer would pay a ton of money for their particular seed was if it was a really profitable seed that they couldn't get anywhere else. And farmers have been buying seeds anually forever for lots of crops. Agreements not to replant specialty varietals long predate the modern transgenic era. A lot of the time, they're just buying a particularly useful hybrid that doesn't breed true (or doesn't produce seeds at all), so it makes sense to buy seeds year after year anyway.
This doesn't actually seem to be happening, though. Glyphosate use is way up, but that seems to be primarly because it's replacing other (much nastier) herbicides. And insect resistant crops actually reduce insecticide use.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
The "accidental contamination gets you sued" argument that they made is also a myth. The most famous case usually cited is that of Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, where they sued a Canadian canola farmer for growing crops from seeds wind-pollinated from a neighbor using their plants. But Schmeiser always admitted to deliberately trying to get the glyphosphate resistance. He roundup'ed his own crops that were grown next to his neighbor who was using roundup-ready canola, saved only those seeds from the survivors for the next year and planted his whole crop with the resistant seeds, achieving a 95-98% concentration of the gene. He was deliberately attempting to acquire the gene without paying for it - it was in no way, shape or form "accidental contamination". Monsanto confronted him about what he was doing and insisted he pay a license fee since he was using their crop. He refused saying that because he grew it from seeds on his land, it was his own property.
Despite the fact that it was deliberate contamination, not accidental, Monsanto still barely won the patent infringement case, 5-4.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
Take a close look at those cases. The lawsuits have only been people who were obviously intentionally selecting for the trait to grow their own roundup ready seeds. People who get cross-pollinated by accident have never been sued. The lawsuits generated a lot of press, so there's a pretty good amount of information in the public record about what actually happened, and it's nothing like what the anti-GMO activists have claimed.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Simple answer:
The plants do produce viable seed. The sterile seed BS is just FUD by the anti-GMO group.
Your view of property rights is pretty messed up. If monsanto doesn't want their seeds being blown by the wind, carried by birds etc, they need to build fences. If their seed lands on my land I can do whatever I want with it. Period. Only massive legal spending on a scale never before seen, and that could not be matched by Schmeiser enabled them to squeak out a victory. If they don't like the way nature work s- those pesky bees spreading pollen everywhere - they are welcome to leave the seed industry.
Really? You mean the book by this guy, who has literally no educational background in genetics (or for that matter, any kind of science).
And before you accuse me of ad-hominem (which is not always fallacious), a pretty good trouncing of every "fact" in that book can be found here
In general, there are several concerns about GMO foods (presented in no particular order):
1. GMO foods cause cancer, infertility, etc. (health concerns in general)
2. GMO foods will disrupt the environment, either by spreading too far due to their increased fitness or by spreading their genes and causing unforeseen changes in the surrounding wildlife
3. Issues with the concept of patenting life
4. Concerns about letting one (or several) large company control most of the seed stock
5. Concerns about allowing crops to get too similar, thus potentially raising the chance of crop collapse like the Potato Famine
6. It's "unnatural" and scary
Of these, 1. has no real evidence behind it, and plenty of evidence against it. It's still a potential concern in some cases, but in general these fears are overblown (especially when people are afraid they will pick up those genes - if gene therapy was that easy, hemophilia or muscular dystrophy wouldn't be an issue), as the proteins made from the inserted genes are already generally considered safe. 2. is possible, in that they could disrupt the insect/pest population, but their genes are unlikely to significantly improve the fitness of surrounding plants, and crops aren't good enough to grow outside of fields, for the most part. I understand both sides of the issue on #3. 4 and 5 are (in my opinion) legitimate concerns in general, but that isn't limited to GMO crops. 6 is just stupid.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Strawberries too. 100% of strawberries are from grafted hybrids.
Corporations do some crazy things in the name of profit, but GM food is not particularly crazy or malevolent. It's pretty awesome, actually. Unfortunately, the ill-defined "natural foods" trend -- really just another form of superstition -- is all the rage among a well-meaning but (sometimes willfully) uninformed population of mommies, hipsters, and, by extension, their households.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
That's because it's already happened. If you notice a bunch of crops growing on your land with special properties, and you dare replant those next year, you could inadvertently be running afoul of a license agreement you never saw, never agreed to and be sued for patent infringement.
So it doesn't matter that you can buy seed from a competitor - if some of the "viral" seed ends up on your land, your only option is to burn it. Or be sued.
Terminator seeds don't work, period. And unless the legal system changes to the point where if your patented seeds end up on someone else's farmland, then it's SOL for you - it's your responsibility to prevent that, then it's a serious problem.
Hell, the problem's compounded if your neighbour starts using the seeds and you want to go for organic certification.
All Scotland really needs to do is change the laws a little bit and say legal agreements are not conveyed by living things. So you can impose license agreements on farmers that agree to buy your product, but if they spill your product elsewhere, then not only is all legal protection void on the spilled product, any other IP protection carried on that product cannot be enforced. So your neighbour's seed ending up on your crop is yours free and clear.
And yet, with all of the farmers out there, there are no examples whatsoever of inadvertent use resulting in a lawsuit. The only ones who have gotten sued are the ones who obviously intentionally selected the Roundup Ready seed and planted that. Monsanto's position on this is pretty clear, and they've acted on it exactly how they said they would. In fact, Monsanto used to have (and probably still does) a policy that they'll pay to have hybrids removed from your fields if you contact them.
Terminator seeds would completely solve this problem, but there was so much outcry and shit flinging when they were proposed that Monsanto has pledged not to produce them. This is 100% not Monsanto's fault. They'd love to sell terminator seeds and have 0% cross pollination and never have to worry about enforcing their contracts.
That's a tougher nut to crack. USDA rules allow some cross pollination without losing certification. I haven't seen a lot of data that indicates hybrids are taking over, and depending on the crop, there are techniques to mitigate the problem (adjusting planting times, etc.). But cross pollination happens and people need to learn to live with it. If I grew strawberries and claimed that my deity was angered by corn pollen touching them, how much of a right would I have to dictate what my neighbors planted? At some point, the public's demand for religious accommodation on this issue is going to start trampling on other practical goods and we're going to need to draw a line.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
If at some point in a discussion about GMO and the company Monsanto gets brought up as a point pro/con GMO, just remember this. Bringing up a company that is built around a product does not mean that the product in question inherits the attitude that the company that uses has.
Good example, if I'm talking about chicken and McDonald's and their woeful employee wage gets brought up, more than likely you have less a problem with chicken and more a problem with McDonald's.
I get that Monsanto has some serious legal ethics issues and that apparently the CEO goes to bed at night after his late night snack of kittens. However, GMOs didn't make their CEO some monopolistic asshat, he was already that before hand. GMOs are just his weapon of choice. It could have been self-microwaving hotdogs for all we know but we were destined to have this kind of caliber of a person grace the planet and this person choose GMOs.
You have a great point in that the whole problem isn't a scientific one, the problem is a political one. Much like climate change, a lot of people when the topic gets brought up start naming off political parties. Which that typically means whoever it is doing the talking has a lot more beef with the other political party (parties) than they actually do with the science behind the whole issue. It would be great to not hold people accountable if they didn't plant the seed and it came over by the wind instead. However, I will say, that a fair amount (I wouldn't say majority, but a lot more often than would like to be admitted) of farmers are on purpose planting seed knowing all about the agreements and what not. That comes from my experience with living not too far away from where a lot of growing goes on and having a few buddies that work on those farms. Again, though, we have a serious problem because the vast majority of those that aren't seriously trying to game the system are finding it difficult to mount a serious defense. However, again, that's not a problem with GMOs so much as a political problem.
So it is important and yet very difficult, because after all we are humans, for us to understand that there is a separation between the actual thing being debated and those who want to be complete dickheads with or about those things. Scotland banning GMOs is less an attack on the validity and safety of GMOs, and more along the lines of a big middle finger to companies like Monsanto. Knowing the context of why Scotland took the actions it did, helps us to cut through the "how do we make GMOs safe / how do we eradicate GMOs from the Earth" debate and get to the real heart of the matter, "How do we stop kitten eating CEO corporate greed? Or at the very least wean them off of kittens and reduce the full throttle amount of greed that engage in?" Because it is not unheard of for a business owner to actually take interest in their employees' lives and care about their impact on the local and national levels. That era may have passed us or may be only something in the domain of small businesses. However, I believe that this is truly the topic we should on a more broader sense be discussing.
When I did a search, Schmeiser did not come up, but this did: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/monsanto-wins-lawsuit_n_3417081.html and to quote in part, "Monsanto filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers between 1997 and April 2010, and won judgments against farmers it said made use of its seed without paying required royalties."
The assertion on slashdot is that everyone they won against stole the Monsanto seed, but cross-contamination is well documented which places the burden of proof on Monsanto's many and loud defenders. Monsanto does not claim cross-contamination doesn't occur, though they claim to not sue for it (that PR statement being the subject of a lawsuit that was the subject of the linked article). Yes, in the linked article it appears that being a public statement it is binding -- but Monsanto has refused to sign anything that would clearly be legally binding -- despite: "In its ruling Monday, the court noted that records indicate a large majority of conventional seed samples have become contaminated by Monsanto's Roundup resistance trait."
And, again, *Monsanto* admits to cross-contamination so any claim that they have not wrongfully sued needs to be examined on a case by case basis. Just offering one case (there are 144 mentioned in the article) does nothing to support Monsanto's claims to not wrongfully sue.
I know, Monsanto's astroturfing wants the discussion to be about "GMO is so good farmers steal it and then lie about it" but that isn't what is happening. That isn't why the lawsuit in the linked article happened. Free market proponents want the market to settle things and... the free market has said there is a market from selling non-GMO products. And companies that wish to cater to this are being harmed by cross-contamination as their product is no longer non-GMO.
You made that up. Or somebody did. What GMOs need more pesticides? And what pesticides are they, specifically?
Bt crops that produce their own pesticides are amazing. They took a natural bacteria-based pesticide that has no known effect on humans (and is used by the truckload on "organic" crops for this reason) and engineered the gene straight into the plant. The result is a pest resistant plant that massively reduces the amount of Bt pesticide used per acre and increases its effectiveness at pest control.
Of course, the anti-GMO crowd has a million complaints about it. It produces too much Bt to be safe. It also produces too little Bt to be effective. It's OK to spray it but it's super toxic when the plant produces it. 100% bullshit, but it's cheap to make a web site and hard to do real research.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Unfortunately, the ill-defined "natural foods" trend -- really just another form of superstition -- is all the rage among a well-meaning but (sometimes willfully) uninformed population of mommies, hipsters, and, by extension, their households.
You nailed it: GM fear and vaccinations are the 2 top superstitions of the 21st century. Plus, the two are related: "stick a pin in a map in the center of an anti-vax hotspot, and you've found a Whole Foods.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
First off, the evidence for including them as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (category 2A) is fairly weak. Some glyphosates were only classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (category 2B), which means there's no good evidence one way or the other - coffee falls in this category, FYI. Second, do you really think farmers are stupid enough to pay extra money for Monsanto seeds if they were getting much less out of them? That's just dumb.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.