Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto Agrees Not to Sell "Terminator" Seeds
flanksteak writes "Monsanto has bowed to pressure not to sell single-use seeds for their genetically modified crops. These so-called "terminator" seeds work only once. The resulting plants produce sterile seeds that can't be used to grow more food. This forces farmers to keep buying seed to grow additional crops. Monsanto says it's a way to recoup the cost of genetic engineering. Are we going to have to buy "seed" licenses to grow food? Read about it at the USNews Web site." On a planet covered with 6 billion humans, agriculture is our most important concern. Yes, more important than the Internet. We rarely pay attention to food-growing on Slashdot, but nerds need to eat too. (Fun fact of the day: even frozen pizza and Hostess cupcakes are made from farm products!)
This sounds like a wonderful opportunity to get lots of people on the upgrade treadmill. Imagine a grower getting something like this:
Dear Seed'98 owner:
We are proud to announce Seed 2000! This novel product is an upgrade/replacement for Seed '98, for which our records show you are a registered customer.
Many people felt that the elimination of all birds eating Seed '98 was an overly ambitious goal. Heh, the insects really liked it anyway! In response to customer demand Seed 2000 is now completely bird friendly, causing at most mild diarrhea.
The gene that caused half the seeds to grow downwards has been fixed.
Plants will no longer expire on Y2K rollover, the death gene now handles negative ages correctly.
In addition Seed 2000 only requires twice the water that Seed '98 did.
We hope you will send us your money soon, so we can ship your new seeds.
Yours truly,
SeedSoft Inc.
P.S. If you have difficulty planting the new seeds due to high levels of insects in your fields, see our new genetically engineered Bird on our avian pages.
Several human genes have been patented also, so in the future it may be wise to consult a lawyer before any unauthorized reproductive activity.
OK, I looked like an idiot there....I'm still half asleep. *snore*
1. Not *all* farmers do this. A lot of 'em do buy seed. A lot of 'em work with seed companies planting new hybrids, etc. etc. But, generally you do set some aside. You can't consistently plant seed from the same crop over and over again as it gets "inbred" as some others have said.
2. This still seems like a move aimed directly toward the big farming companies, though. I'm sure this stuff isn't cheap. The reward vs. cost wouldn't be worth it unless you had thousands of acres of the stuff.
Blech. Signatures.
- Monsanto has engineered traits into crop plants using, in many cases, germplasm taken from indigenous seedstocks in Third World countries. They did not pay for those seedstocks, yet under GATT they are able to patent "creations" using the genetic material in those indigenous varieties (which are themselves the results of centuries of careful selection via open-pollinated culture).
- The people who created the strains that Monsanto used to create their GM seeds did not get a dime.
- Since the genetic information in the parent strains was not created by Monsanto, how can they claim it? If they claim IP, then don't they also have to credit prior art?
- Fair only if you grant them ownership to begin with....
- Unfortunately, the data are already coming in proving that transgenes are being expressed in non-GM planted crops and even in wild plants. Monsanto could conceivably sue the bejeezus out of a farmer whose non-GM crop had been contaminated by wind drift from a neighboring field.
- The agribiz industry giants of today are the chemical industry. Monsanto wants to sell seeds tailored to its brands of chemicals, because that's where it really makes its money. So we're supposed to feel sympathy for them because they have to cover their butts?
The worst part of the whole treadmill-like scenario is that it does nothing to address the root issue: Large-scale, petrochemical based crop production has been in a spiral of decreasing yields for two decades plus. Throwing more chemicals, gene splicing, and lawyers at the problem isn't helping. It has, on the other hand, led to new poison-resistant pests, eroded topsoil, contaminated water and bankrupt farmers.And, AC, you should go out and meet a few farmers. There are still a lot of them who are not large conglomerates - they just have to dance to the tune that ADM plays if they want a market for their crops.
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
oh cant we all live by what mother nature wants. hey, nature is a mother, shes a bad mother, and she will kick your ass. you should be licking Monsanto, ADM, and every other giant corporations ass for plopping your fat white hiney comfortably in your suburban domicile while mexican peasant migrant labor breaks its stupid genetically inferior back to supply you with your daily dose of pesticide laced pop tarts and french fries. goddamn hippy! actually im just kidding. you had a good post.
Conventional hydridized crops at least _breed_. Conventional crops in fields neighbouring fields that had the terminator genes would end up with a massively decreased yeild of fertile seeds as a result of cross-polinization(sp?) with the terminator gene carriers. It's fine to condem yourself to continually buying seed form the company, but you should force others to do so by screwing their environment.
Of course, if they just made plants that wouldn't breed in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem, but that wasn't Monsanto's objective...
The terminator feature is a copy-protection dongle for seeds. In most areas of software, dongles have proven unprofitable, and hopefully the terminator feature will suffer the same economic fate. Monsanto is now folding to public opinion, but that isn't a long-term fix; unprofitability would be.
Then the next step will be open-source seeds.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
u know how they get disease resistant crops by genetically engineering plants? they make the plants produce pesticides. oh boy. instead of spraying crap all over them now its inside the plant itself so you cant even wash it off. guess what kinda shit plastic growing plants are going to produce? i dont know, i bet monsanto doesnt know, and i bet they dont give a shit, because when you and i and joe blow go to the supermarket we dont give a shit where it came from or what it put out getting there, we look at the price tag and if its got a penguin logo on it or not.
People look at these genetically-engineered crops and think, "Whee, now Farmer Akumbo in Africa can grow enough to feed his whole village!"
They don't realize that Farmer Akumbo could already feed his whole village if he used modern fertilizers and a tractor and rotated his crops and generally modernized his farming techniques into the 1950s. Farmer Akumbo might be better at farming if his fields weren't full of General Fwalumbwebwe's land mines and his sons weren't drafted into the People's Guerrilla Revolutionary Army every spring.
The real market for these high-yield crops is Farmer Johnson in Missouri, who along with all his buddies in Missouri already grows so much that the prices for what he grows are pretty low. The only way he can stay in business is to try to grow more and more and more so he can sell enough crops to try to recoup his costs. The trouble is, Farmer Johnson is competing with Farmer Robinson and Farmer Jones and everyone else in Missouri, and there simply isn't enough market for their crops.
However, as soon as Farmer Johnson falls behind on his mortgage, we have all these TV news images of the evil banks coming and seizing the family farm from the noble upstanding farmer. The farmers call their congressmen and get them to set up price supports and farm subsidies -- so now Farmer Johnson gets money from the government to help him stay in business, and so does Farmer Robinson, and so does Farmer Jones, etc.
But eventually Farmer Johnson decides to chuck it and he sells his farmland to a developer, who puts up a housing development.
Farming is a business. People think the business model is simple, "Grow crops and sell them." The thing is, farming has a stranglehold on the Congress and on the popular imagination, and so people don't realize that there are simply more farmers than we need. If someone is starving in Missouri it's not because there's not enough food being grown in Missouri. People aren't starving in Africa because of Farmer Akumbo's lack of genetically-engineered crops, they're starving because General Fwalumbwe is spending his time fighting wars and robbing the treasury.
Who's getting rich? Monsanto. Farmer Johnson, when he sells his farmland to a real estate developer who'll put houses or a mall on it. General Fwalumbwe, of course.
Who's starving? Poor people in Africa, who could probably do pretty well for themselves if they could just get rid of General Fwalumbwe (easy) and replace him with a reasonable government (hard).
The people in Africa didn't have much chance of getting rid of General Fwalumbwe during the Cold War, because the U.S. probably supported him against the People's Guerilla Army. Maybe now that the Cold War is over, we'll stop supporting SOB's like that. Truman said once of someone like that, "He may be an S.O.B but he's _our_ S.O.B.
Some of that seems to be happening in Indonesia; Indonesia doesn't get a free ride any more just because they're not Commies.
Monsanto has nothing to do with it.
'this program has been brought to you by ADM, supermarket to the world' get a fucking clue!
shut up u damn commie! i love pesticide and i love nuclear power. without nuclear power and pesticide this country would be a third world toilet bowl with no development, no highways, no nothing. name me one industrialized nation that does not depend at its very core on nuclear power, nuclear wapons, pesticide, and everything else that u pinko pot smokers waste all your time protesting against. love it or leave it!
In a hundred years small family farms will be a thing of the past no one needs to accelerate this trend.
It is well past time for the small family farm to have gone the way of the small family loom and the village ferrier. The more acceleration, the better.
yeah if we all just bow down to rachel carson and the enviro nazis we will have a peaceful country. well then it will erupt into anarchy in 10 years because nobody will have a damn job! socialism was just great for the environment of china and russia. i think we need it here too.
Ok, Hostess cupcakes, maybe. But you're not gonna convince me that Twinkies aren't made from pure industrial waste chemicals. Nuh-uh. And try to explain away Snowballs. And to think that we were worried whether blue M&M's can give you cancer!
nice @#$@#$ excuse! 'were gonna sue your ass and put you in jail for 50 years because its for the good of the planet to protect against genetic mutation' my ass!
I would like to see genetically engineered crops that do not produce pollen. I would like to see them go a step beyond including genes which kill seeds, and ensure that other strains and clones of plants to not get corrupted through cross-pollination.
Before you work yourself into a hissy about poor farmers being forced to buy new crops every year, hear me out. I would also like to see the biotechnology companies initially sell a crop at a decent price that will compensate them for their R&D, but then in subsequent years, sell the same seeds for a greatly reduced price. Subsequent radical improvements would be bought again, but farmers would be able to use genetically engineered seeds without having to spend exorbitant amounts of money each year.
There needs to be some sort of controls over what happens when some of the more radical crops start being used. I would hate to see widespread ecological damage because an engineer was too busy 'improving' a plant to think about the possible repercussions. Hopefully some sort of 'insurance' in the form of sterile plants can be used, without bankrupting farmers.
Resistance is rare (1 per billion weeds?) or unobserved. Weeds are not insects. Their reprductive cycle is slow. Resistance requires several generations as well. It is true farmers who misapply RoundUp could increase the odds of resistance.
>In fact, they`re more likely to become resistant with the organic growers applying it to the plants, as they have to use so much more of it.
Actually, do you know ANYTHING about organic farming and the usage of BT?
BT is EXPENSIVE. (If it was CHEAP, then it would be the toxin of choice rather than your chlorpyrifos)
BT is used by organic farmers when normal crop rotation methods, soil management, and other methods have failed, and you have too high a population of worms. Given the high costs of BT, you don't want to use it more than 2 times a year, if at all.
In field usage data for 40 years of BT application have shown NO resistance buildup.
It is the effectiveness of BT that Monsanto trots out when they talk about the wonders of yieldmaster. *IF* worms become resistant/immune to BT, then the blame can be laid on Monsanto. But blame is useless, as the organic farmers will have lost the only effective tool they have.
(Of course the pesticide debate is moot when farmers deploy solar powered bug-hunting nannites)
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
i learned that you need to put saran wrap on your sexual partners anus/vagina to prevent disease and you can put honey on it if you dont like the bad taste. i also learned how to kill fruit flies and worms so i could learn little fun facts about punnit squares. i think i learned about digestion too. grapes? who cares about grapes? only poor people have anything to do with food production. i was being groomed to head the national socialist medical center for genetic improvement of the american race.. err i mean the NIH. heh. i crack myself up.
>Important part of the terminator is to stop these GM species
*sigh*
From the Monsanto spokeswoman on the BBC.
The terminator was to be included in 3rd world countires to stop the farmers from re-planting seeds. The reason was to PROTECT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY of the Monsanto corporation, because in 3rd world places, IP rights are weak.
The 'sanity' is the defending of the rights of the company vs your rights as an individual.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
*smile* like how past presidents had said it was a patrotic duity to have as many kids as you can?
Monsanto sells seeds to farmers every year; farmers buy seeds to replant. They do not commonly use last year's seeds to plant this year's crops because the seeds they buy from Monsanto will provide better a better return. This is common where I live (Illinois, large farms), and it's why hybrid crops are so popular. It's why the local television stations air seed-corn commercials in the spring-time.
That Monsanto argues that farmers must start buying self-terminating crops to cover their research and development costs is ludicrous. Monsanto already makes money selling the results of their research and development, and makes a hefty profit doing so. Perhaps Monsanto should have determined whether self-terminating seeds would sell at all before they incurred research costs in developing them!
They make it sound as if they're developing new agricultural technologies exclusively for the good of all mankind, and are just now needing some income to balance expenses. They've been raking in the money all along, and this product was a flop.
--
Huh? How are antibiotics used in making seeds? Breeding animals I can see, but seeds?
As far as I am concerned, the terminator gene would have been a good thing to have on those plants. At least it makes sure that the plants can't hybridize quickly with naturally occuring plants, or get out of control. Can you imagine these plants hybridizing with weeds, and they will be resistant to herbicides? That will be fun...
Technology Review had a good article on this a few months back...
Well, IANAF but do know it is possible to clone at least some plants.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
ok, some useful info on corn that i may not have exactly right, so any farmers (or Iowans) out there feel free to clarify.
corn, as grown for food, is sterile. you can't plant your leftover food corn. in order to be used for "seed corn", it must be painstakingly hand-fertilized (i.e., tie off the tassels with a paper bag then collect the stuff & redistribute, inseminating the poor celibate plants)
this is the result of centuries of genetic engineering the slow way.
the kind of corn we eat could not reproduce in the wild without human intervention, i.e. farmers must buy new seed from people who do corn sex.
We all know Terminator's don't go away. You think you harvested them last year, but.....
[Arnold Voice]
They'll be back
I couldnt resist.
There is a serious conflict of interest in the FDA and the agricultural industry (ditto for the USDA & FCC): senior FDA folks go on to six figure jobs at Monsanta, ADM, etc. when they leave public service. You think they're going to bite the hand that feeds them?
This line caught my eye too. This just sounds too much like a line from a bad scifi movie.
;) ) to turn these genes on and off.
So they start slipping in other hidden genes, and then they start adding innocent things to the water (like flouride...
Then what happens when Dr. Evil comes along and discoveres a way to flip a hidden magic *switch* to kill all of the plants with these genes?
"I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines." - Mr. Furious, Mystery Men
"Are GM seeds/food/etc even safe? In the US, medicine cannot be sold unless it's approved by the FDA."
There are *no* protocols for testing the safety of genetically modified food either through direct genetic engineering or traditional hybridization techniques. There is simply no analogue to the sort of methods used to screen pharmaceutical compounds (and such protocols are impossible to design from a practical standpoint).
There is no evidence yet that there are any specific problems with genetically modified foods that are any different that the sorts of problems encounter with hybridized foods.
"Genetical engineering" is probably the most important thing humans have learned how to do in a long time. Yes, I think it is much more important than internet .-)
Imagine the possibilities in front of us - plants could be made "better" in various ways:
- The rice lacks some vitamines? Let us fix this..
- Beeing vegetarian is bad for you because some proteines are missing in plants - well, not any more!
And what does our dear food-industry produce using this technology?
- plants which cannot reproduce: so you have to buy seeds again and again and... With a good chance that your neighbour will have to do the same, because of the cross-insemination.
- plants with higher resistivity against insect-killing and (other) plants-killing chemicals... Meaning more chemicals can be trown over the fields, killing everything except the plant they sold you. As a side effect, YOU will get more more chemicals in your food, insect become more resistent and all those farmers who do not buy "resistant" seeds get ruined.
I suppose I should not be surprised - after all, the same thing happens every time a new industry is build: the "bad guys" get a grip on it first.
of course this assumes enough hippie left wing pinko nazi commies have gotten a 'movement' going (when they arent smoked out too much to care) and made sure GE shit cannot pass for 'organic'.
GIVE ME YOUR MUSIC FOR FREE
you could target specific populations of migrant farmers. spanish for the southern california market on crops like strawberries and oranges. imagine seeing 'yo soy comprador tide detergent' 50,000 times a day. this will lead to agribusiness wanting to pay migrant labor more so they will have better wages and ease up on the immigration restrictions. see monsanto just wants whats best for you and your family, and the families of those migrant laborers. it brings a tear to my eye just thinking about the god blessed manifest destiny given to the american people to save the world through democracy technology and big business.
Farmers would buy the seeds because 1) no till farming o saves equiptment wear & tear, o uses less fuel o greatly reduces soil erosion o requires less of their time o reduces their exposure to toxic herbicides (RoundUp is not toxic and has zero soil residue) 2) crop yields increase (less competition from weeds) 3) no technology liscence to sign 4) non-transgenic seeds (conventional hybrids) have an average product life of 3 years; they buy new seed technology on a regular basis anyway. 5) they understand value-added farming... invest $$ make more $$
Monsanto has not said that their transgenic monsters will breed true, only that they will produce fertile seeds. Since there is no reason for them to reverse a 50-year old policy of selling nothing but hybrids, there is no reason to expect the seeds from their transgenic plants to be of any use to farmers.
I will believe in the viability of these plants when I see 2nd and 3rd generation produce from saved seeds. Until then, only "heirlom variety" seeds can be expected to grow plants that can be sustained for multiple generations.
Spraying huge amounts of RoundUp is a waste of time and $$$. For these crops you just spray the same amount you would use if no crops were present.
This behaviour is common in the farming industry and has been for years. Companies like Monsanto have been prosecuting farmers who do not purchase their seeds every season.
Here is the reasoning:
1) Monsanto has created seeds via genetic engineering that are resistant to chemicals, or pests, grow with less water, etc.
2) This process costs Monsanto millions of dollars.
3) Since this seed does not occur naturally, Monsanto has created the seed and therefore "owns" the seed. It is the product of their intellectual property.
4) Since Monsanto "owns" the seed, they can sell it (license it) using any method they wish. That includes requiring that the farmer does not reuse the seed, share the seed, or use seeds that are descendants of the original seed.
5) This final step is just a technological enforcement of their policy. Farmers still do not have the "right" to use Monsanto's variation. Those that do are doing it illegally.
6) Prosecution and enforcement costs the industry millions every year. The only people that benefit are the lawyers.
I agree with Monsanto in this. Since they have spent millions creating a seed variation, they now "own" that variation. If the farmer doesn't like it, then don't use the variation. Don't believe the hype that the farmer is some starving hick. Most farmers are large conglomerates earning millions every year.
I am sure we won't have to worry about this getting out of hand, because M$ will probably buy all of the fertile land in the Northern Hemisphere.
Funny and I thought Perl == Paid employment recently located
I have read through this thread a bit and some of the comments have forceds me to go from lurking mode to non-lurking mode. I am now going to college, but I grew up on a family farm all my life, and my father was (and is) heavily invovled in Farmers Union. I saw a comment saying that it was high time that family farming went the way of family looms and such, and that really make me angry.
The same monopolistic business practices that we despise in Microsoft and some of the other large software companies are the same type of practices that are putting THOUSANDS of multiple-generation family farmers off the farm every year. Cargill and Continental are every bit as big as Microsoft, and control an unnerving amount of the market share. I think there was an anti-trust case against one of them not too long ago, but I am not sure how it went.
I am all for progress- don't get me wrong. My family uses RoundUp and other chemicals- but they also are very conscience of the concept of stewardship and leaving things better than when you got them. I hope this post made some people realize that family farming and its lifestyle is something that everyone should be able to support. I won't be a farmer after college, I want to be a system or network admin (for now), but I will defend with every last atom of my being family farming and everything behind it.
Thanks for listening to me rant. =)
Andrew Giessel
Hydropnic on efnet
damn i cant think of a single rant to make against farmers. we grew vegetables in our back yard. i guess thats not too common in the modern 'work 70 hours a week or you are a worthless piece of lazy shit and deserve to die' life people have built. come to think of it, fuck ross perot, fuck microsoft, and fuck computers.
Hostess cupcakes and frozen pizza really couldn't be much farther away from food...
--
E2 IN2 IE?
the way we practise it (waging war on every
other species on this planet, except for those
we feed upon) is actually the core problem. It
might look like a short term success, but its
nowhere near evolutionary stable.
Six billion people are made of what? Sunlight?
Moonbeams? No, out of what they eat. The more
food you produce, the more people you will get;
the more more people you get, the more food you
will produce, forever the same experiment
run 10,000 times ever since our "agricultural
revolution" took place in the fertice crescent
10,000 years ago.
Agriculture was not an invention to fight hunger;
it pays off much less than hunting and gathering
if you look at the calories involved (1 calory
spent on hunting and gathering buys you 4 cals
of food, while 1 cal spend on agriculture buys
you only two).
Using increased food production to "finally feed
the starving millions" once and for all is one
of the common myths of our culture. I cannot
work for above reasons, nor will it ever work.
More on this and other interesting concepts
at http://bnetwork.com.
Uwe
Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
Since the term "large megacorp semi-monopolies" shows that you are completely open-minded and receptive to reasoned debate...
Hostility? I just don't look upon the small family farm with sentiment. We haven't been launching government programs for the last seventy years to save home looms or blacksmiths -- let the family farm survive or die on its own merits, if it has any.
Frankly, I'd rather get my food from somebody I don't have to bail out with my tax dollars every time there's bad weather. Note how this year's farm crisis that has forced millions of dollars of federal bailouts didn't affect enough of the food supply to change prices? Those farms should be allowed to go under.
When I first read this (a couple of weeks ago. d'oh!), I gave a little dance. Fortunately, no-one saw me.
I've a few problems with GM food, and terminator was the main one. Now all we've got to worry about is the ridiculous amount of antibiotics that goes into making the seeds. Once that's dealt with, as far as I'm concerned most of the problems with the production will be over. Legal problems, however...
What I found interesting was a tiny little sentence at the end, where it said that Monsanto was trying to figure out how to turn "on and off" gene sequences by spraying a chemical on the plant. I guess if you don't pay your seed license, they cropdust your fields & your plants become "normal".
Aside from the ethics, doesn't this strike anybody as pretty cool? It's like having controls on a protein-manufacturing machine, turning on & off different proteins by squirting it with different environmental cues.
I wonder if you could have an "all-in-1" common protein plant, where the plant is genetically programmed for lots of different kinds of useful proteins, but you turn "on" & "off" the proteins according to currently desired uses...
Some anonymous coward dun said:
Minor nit to pick here--actually, most carnivores have short intestines, whilst herbivores have long intestines.
For examples, cats, which are obligate carnivores (cats require a certain amino acid, taurine, that only occurs in meat; if a cat is fed a vegetarian diet the cat will get fatty heart degeneration and die...taurine deficiency was actually discovered when well-meaning vegans tried to feed kitty a vegan diet, and most vets now agree that trying to make kitty a vegan is an act of cruelty) have guts that (proportionally) are shorter than those of a human. Cows, which generally don't eat meat unless one is boffo stupid enough to put rendered animal parts in commercial cow feed (which is how we got BSE and "new variant" Creutzfeld-Jakob disease--apparently some of those rendered remains in Britain included sheep who had died from scrapie), have far longer gut tracts than humans, proportionally speaking (and also have special compartments in their gastrointestinal tracts to help them digest plant food).
Humans, along with most other great apes (and let's all be honest here--creationist, evolutionist, whatever, the evidence shows humans can be classified as great apes--our closest relatives are chimps and bonobos, and it's generally agreed we share a common ancestry somewhere even by genetic evidence (and that humans are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than chimps and bonobos or humans are to gorillas); those who don't want to think we're cousins to Washoe may boil it down to the fact that God indeed has a sense of humour, but the fact remains that in physiological terms and genetic linking we may well be classified as a family of great apes) are (surprise, surprise) omnivorous. They don't eat as much meat as humans, but this is largely because most have to catch their food (and there are reports from primatologists that chimps HAVE killed and eaten animals for food). Remains of hominids from roughly the time we split from the chimps and bonobos to modern times have shown evidence that we are in fact omnivorous. Our gut tract is right in the range for omnivores (along with chimps and bears and--this may shock you--some canids). In fact, the only major exception to omnivorousness in apes is gorillas (which are largely vegetarian, and have evolved the gut tract to deal with a mainly vegetarian diet--this is why gorillas have pot bellies).
This is not to say I think people should go hog wild on meat. I think (ObSlashdot) that a lot of the things they do to grow meat anymore, from how they raise veal to loading chickens and cows up with antibiotics to feeding them sheep remains to injecting them fulla hormones IS asking for trouble, to put it mildly (and people wonder why we get crap like BSE and haemorragic E. Coli food poisoning :P...the conditions most animals are raised in are damn near the perfect breeding grounds for it). Then again, the same argument can be done for plants (injected fulla hormones, often artificially ripened, full of God-only-knows what chemicals both GM-engineered and sprayed on). Perhaps we should all go back to growing our own or hunting and gathering and we'd all be much healthier :)
And for those who say meat is murder--well, when one eats plants you're either eating plant lungs (leaves), plant "naughty bits" (flowers), plant stomachs/intestines (roots), or ABORTED PLANT FETUSES (fruits/seeds). And most of the time THE POOR THINGS ARE STILL ALIVE WHEN YOU'RE EATING THEM AND ONE DOESN'T HAVE THE DECENCY TO MAKE SURE ONE'S FOOD IS PROPERLY DEAD :)
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
Hostess Cup Cakes are made from farm products? You mean that crap occurs naturally?
What the hell am I going to eat now?
Farfetched? Today, maybe...
This is truly a good thing.
This would mean that the "high-tech" genetically engineered plants are also available to third world farmers who could benefit very much from some properties of those plants such as resistance to certain diseases and insects.
That in turn would benefit the environment because they would need less chemicals.
Everybody happy, including Monsanto, they get a better image
Explain to me why it is good that third world farmers have access to better seeds?
Are you under the impression that world hunger is caused by farmers not growing enough food?
I can assure you that is not the reason, even though the liberal media will tell you otherwise.
I grew up on a small farm and didn't know anyone that ever saved seed for replanting the next year. Unless you were growing crops for the ag college or a seed company, the harvest was either sold or fed to livestock.
There are a couple of holes in this reasoning:
You are not avoiding this by allowing your food supply to be provided by corporate farming.
Yeah, I note how lowered production has not yielded higher commodity prices for farmers. I also noted this year, when hog prices collapsed to worse than Depression prices, that pork wasn't any cheaper at the grocery store. What lesson exactly am I supposed to take from this?
No, they should not. The argument why is longer than I have time to go into. If you really care, I suggest you read The Unsettling of America : Culture & Agriculture by Wendell Berry, which goes into great detail about the failures of the American family farm (hint: while farmers have certainly cooperated in their own destruction, the destruction of the family farm has been deliberate corporate and government policy for decades, sad-faced politicians notwithstanding).
And I agree with comment #2 those twho things couldn't be farther away from being food.
When's the next Slashdot Radio coming out?
Good is never enough, when you dream of being great!
"Fun fact of the day: even frozen pizza and Hostess cupcakes are made from farm products!"
Haha. Yeah, sort of like how PentiumIIIs, Alpha, and Cray super computers are built from rocks. They're about the same number of generations apart. =)
With all this genetic modification going on, shouldn't the open source movement adopt it's own project? Start up the FFF, free food foundation?
Maybe hacking (reverse engineer) these new seeds to make them spawn non sterile offspring?
Never mind me. I've had my try at biotechnology, and I like computers better. Lucky for all of us heh?
the pun is mightier than the sword
what's a duck squeezer??
NO!! It's a lie!!! Please tell me he's lying? :~(
-- www.bteg.com | bleh.n3.net | hac47.dhs.org
This is truly frightening..but I have to ask: what makes these seeds to great that anyone would be WILLING to buy seeds that can't re-produce? Can't farmers just walk down the street and buy someone else's seeds that DO re-produce? If all the big corp's start making terminator seeds can some small-time organic farmer just start selling his seeds? It seems like even if MonSanto (MS...hmmm) wanted to become the evil empire of farm products, they'd have a losing battle on their hands.
Werd.
Having fields full of plants with exactly the same genetic makeup decreases biodiversity and if they are suceptable to a certain pest or fungus then the whole crop is wiped out. Every year new strains are needed, and (hopefully) have even better pestilence resistance. I'm not 100% on this - but - the farmers contractually aren't allowed to sell or plant the seeds from last years crop. There is some initiative to sell/trade/plant seeds from last years crops, but the amount of seed needed is large and the scale isn't there. Pretty much buying seed from large producers like Monsanto is usually the most economical solution.
The "Terminator" seeds don't really effect US farmers. Why? Because they already buy new seeds every year. Why would they do that if they can re-sow what they have? Because they can't, current seeds have been cross-bread and genetically engineered already to the point where the second-gen seeds are not nearly as good as the original. How are they not as good? They don't produce as much crop as the originals, they aren't as resistant to bugs and weather, they aren't as healthy, etc. The cost of new seeds every year doesn't compare to the equipment costs and amount produced with new seeds. It is economically in their best interest to pay a little extra to get more yield.
So smart-guy who does this affect? Third world countries. Many of these farmers don't have all the equipment that big first world farmers have. They are out there with their ox and hand plow. So for them it does become economically better to re-sow seeds even if they don't produce as well. The cost of the seeds is their highest cost.
I think the US farmer organizations lobbied against it on principle though.
--
?
i have been following this issue for a while now, and though i believe the "terminator" would not affect the 3rd world farmers who save seeds (3rd world subsistence farmers probably couldnt afford to buy hi-tech seed in the first place) RAFI is still sending an important message to the Mega-Agri corporations of the world.
The real victory here is that RAFI fought a successful info battle with a giant Agri-corporation like Monsanto and got them to bend.
RAFI even suggested that this "terminator" technology could be transferred to other plants and crops growing nearby... realistically this is impossible, but still a great scare tactic! they were effectively sending the message that "these crops will sterilize the world and turn it into a barren wasteland"
It may be worth noting that the vast majority of 1st world farmers dont plant part of their crop for seed, (its just not cost effective for them to save seed) "store bought" seed has some really fabulous insecticides and chemicals on it that helps them germinate and keeps out the bugs...
i hate to be pessimistic, but this little victory is only one small battle in the war against hunger and proprietary technology in general (the atrocities of the ADM's and Monsantos of the world that you DONT hear about are where you should really be concerned) because its really all about maximizing shareholder wealth, not feeding people.
feed the world!
--freq
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
The whole point of terminator seeds is to prevent cross-polination. One of the big problems with GM foods is that once they are out there, you can't get them back (as they will cross-polinate with normal crops), and with pesticide-resistant GM versions of grains you could end up with superweeds. So, terminator seeds are good, as the adult plants won't be able to cross-polinate natural organic produce. That way, people who choose to eat natural, organic, non-Frankenstein foods, can do so safe in the knowledge that their food hasn't been cross-polinated with some untested genetically modified food that may cause severe allergic reactions in some people.
>Actually, this is all much ado about nothing. For
>the last 40 or 50 years almost all crops have
>been grown with hybrid (crossbred) seeds. The
>result is that they don't "breed true" anyway -
>you can't save seeds and replant the next year,
>because the resulting plants will not have the
>same characteristics as the hybrid plant. You
>already can't sell the resulting seeds because
>nobody would want them, as the quality and
>productivity would not be the same as the
>commercial hybrids. The real risk (hopefully
>unlikely) is that if civilization collapsed, and
>hybrid seeds were no longer available, we mostly >don't have the seed stock for self-sustaining
>agriculture anymore. (but see organizations like
>http://www.seedsavers.org/).
This is not entirely correct - it does not apply to certain crops, such as wheat, rice, soybean, and cotton. Since one of Monsanto's best-known products is the Roundup Ready soybeans (which are genetically engineered to be used with a certain pesticide), Monsanto certainly has a commercial interest in actually using this technology.
Is how Monsanto enforces it's "licenses" to use it's product. Even if your neighbor's field cross-polinates with yours, you can be held liable for growing Roundup-ready canola (a herbicide-resistant crop).
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You should be more curious (or concerned?) about where the market infrastructure of the ag industry. You have food prices going up, production costs shooting sky-high yet raw commodity prices (the $/bushel or whatever unit the farmer gets in return) are the lowest values they have been in 30+ years. A decent tractor costing ~$100k per, harvester costing ~$200k per, yet soybeans averaging $5.00/bushel, corn ~$2.00/bushel. How the hell can you expect to keep alive in this kinda busisness?
I come from a farm; I'm not continuing the tradition and in a way it breaks my heart. But today's market makes it almost impossible to do so. Think about that the next time you buy your $FOO at the grocery.
-fester
ps... some other values for semi-completenes. Say. ~35 bushel/acre bean yield, ~180 bu/ac corn. Beans can be $40-70/acre to produce, corn $30-60. Yields are estimates based on what our farm has done in the recent past, costs are semi-WAG based on schoolwork a number of years ago. And of course this ignores efficiencies, maint. costs, etc... and let's not get into property tax.
-'fester
Monsanto made seeds that germinate only when fertilized by other Monsanto GM'd plants - kind of a genetic 'embrace, extend and privitize'. And if they could make some sort of Monsanto logo grow on each leaf, perhaps GM'd so that advertising shows up on each corn stalk like "Use only genuine Monsanto products" or "Best grown with Monsanto!".
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Many years ago, DDT is used to kill pests. Then the environment impact is found and UN bans the use of DDT.
Roundup is nothing special except it is slightly better than DDT, roundup degrade faster than DDT.
When you say GM soybean is not affected by roundup doesn't mean GM Soybean will not absorb herbicide.
Instead, the resistant only mean the GM soybean can ABSORB MORE HERBICIDE and not dying.
Many farmers (my father included), don't like the idea because of the possible consequences. In order to provide seed for next year's crop, a certain amount of acreage has to be planted with usable seed, while the rest can be planted with a crop that produces sterile seed. If something goes wrong with the seed crop, you have no other seed to get next year's crop from, because all the other seed is sterile. Very big problem.
There are some things in nature which just shouldn't be messed with. Creating genetic enhancements in order to produce more or make the plant better is great, but creating them just for controlling purposes is stepping over the line.
http://www.rayma.com.my/pahlawan/thot05.shtml
Yes, consumers play important roles here.
I don't see why everyone is so riled-up over this. Monsanto, Cargill, etc. have all been limiting generational growth and have been adding marking agents for years. This is standard practice in the seed industry. Why? A lot of R&D goes into the development of geneticlly engineered seeds and, like high-end 3d rendering software, its a vertical market prone to piracy. Yes, there are seed pirates. Any farmer with a combine (harvester), modern chemicals (40 gallons of FallowMaster = US$740 or so), and a seed cleaner can pirate and put out a product that is just as good as the big boys.
I know that OpenSource works just peechy for software, but it doesn't work for 'plantware'. Unlike OpenSource, the creation of a new breed of a seed isn't dispersed to darkened rooms across the planet, filled with hoh-ho wrappers and stacks of jolt cola in a proud attempt at making a bucky-ball. This is research laboratory stuff, folks. There are amazing start-up costs, costs to keep everything running, R&D, marketing (sorry, the farm economy isn't terribly wired yet), etc., etc. The seed companies need, to an extent, protect their investment and their product.
(This isn't to say that they're rat-bastards--they do overcharge and they could allow for only two generations.)
And who am I? Just a rural North Dakotan who has spent his entire life in a agricultural based economy. My father is a grain marketer for Benson-Quinn; when the elevator is short staffed, he'll still go load train cars. I've fixed fence. I've spent a day sitting in a combine actually doing something useful.
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
This is a catch-22 situation.
Farmers use pesticides and commercial fertilizers to get the yields that are needed to stay in business. They still use timeless organic methods (tilling under old crop reside & manure if you also have livestock or are down the road from someone with confinement buildings) because they are basically free and you have to get rid of the stuff anyway. But given the what it takes to prep the ground, plant the crop, maintain it, harvest it, taxes, and then truck it someplace to be sold, one can come up with the amount of yield per acre that needed to break even given the price you could get at a nearby grain elevator (I know of many farmers that got the first Apple IIs or IBM PCs w/ spreadsheets to do this sort of analysis). Given the same price for the resulting product, while growing a totally organic crop (no herbicides/pesticides/fertilizer) will have a lower break even point because of the cost of those chemicals, odds are you aren't going to make it and will lose money and will eventually go out of business. Farmers didn't start looking into no/low till operations two decades because some enviromentalist group said so. They did it because it would save them money (it also increased the need for herb/pesticides)
So, unless you are near a market that will pay a premium amount for your organic crop, you won't be in business for long. Now if the demand was there to support higher prices, then there would be more people that would be able to not use chemicals to get by. That's one reason why the Feds are trying to subsidize ethanol plants because they will help increase demand for some crops (getting rid of the 10% cap of ethanol in gasoline would help to). I'm surprised that harmfull stuff like MTBE is used to oxygenate fuel, when a relatively cheap, save alternative such as ethanol is available (it will keep your fuel lines from freezing too).
The problem with the "terminator" seeds is that many farmers may feel compelled to use them because they will be engineered to have superior insect and pesticide resistant properties. If the farmer wants the better crop, he may have no choice but to accept the terminator gene with it.
In the worst case, terminator seeds could become so common that regular "free" seeds would be difficult if not impossible to acquire.
There may also be the risk that the genes that make the plant terminate will be spread to other plant species, with obviously catastrophic effects.
Nix absolutably seriousness.
Nuclear power was a undemocratic decision
Dear Congressman,
It has come to my attention that nuclear energy produces a small amount of highly toxic radioactive waste, which even in small levels can cause cancer. While I realize that this waste is very carefully monitored and controlled and there is a very minute chance that it will be released in such a way as to ever affect me, I would like to request that you please replace the nearby nuclear reactor with another energy source. A few recommendations follow:
Coal Fired Plant Coal has been a reliable source of energy for hundreds of years. Who cares that Coal Fired plants produce huge amounts of pollutants, such as particulates, NOx, SOx (causing acid rain), and CO, as well as green house gases such as CO2 and that myself and my children will likely develop chronic lung disorders due to these pollutants. At least there's no chance of exposure to that dreadful RADIATION. What's that you say? The particulates from Coal combustion often contain trace amounts of Radioactive materials, such as Uranium? Well as long as it's just "trace amounts" its no big deal. Right?
Natural Gas Fired Plant These plants are much cleaner than a coal plant and there's no worry about RADIATION. Who cares that natural gas is expensive to transport and that my electric bill will increase substantially? That's not a big deal right? Also, so what if burning natural gas releases CO2, resulting in Global warming, who needs polar ice caps anyway?
Hydroelectric Power Dams are wonderful fun. No polution, renewable energy, great! What's that, all of the Salmon are dieing and the surrounding ecosystem is being destroyed? Oh well, at least there is no RADIATION. Lucky for me there is a big river nearby, so this is even an option.
Solar/Wind Solar and Wind energy is great, too bad it's not available at night(solar) or on cloudy(solar) or calm(wind) days. But oh well, if it's cloudy I really don't need to run my refridgerator do I?
As you can see, there are many other options to nuclear power. Although these other options either destroy the environment or don't supply enough energy to supply the needs of my city, that's a small price to pay for eliminating the miniscule threat of a nuclear accident. After all, history has shown that over the last thirty years, hundreds of people have been killed or injured in nuclear accidents. While hardly anyone one has been hurt by these other sources of energy. (At least if you don't count the hundreds of coal mining accidents, millions of pulminary disorders due to pollution, or the effects of global warming and acid rain)
The term should be changed to "Pharmaceutical salespeople".
It's like those financial planners, who help sort out your bills and finances, to figure out what corners you could cut to afford a life-insurance policy.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
DDT is a pesticide. It kills animals
Roundup is a herbicide. It kills plants.
Which are you?
0 1 - just my two bits
Because I don't don't use bin-run (beans stored by the farmer to be used for sead) beans. I buy my soybeans from a sead dealer because,
1) They have been tested and shown to have a 90%+ germination.
2) They are of different varieties, so that I can spread my risk. Different varieties take different amounts of time to mature, and so they are affected by poor weather differerntly. They have different succeptability to pests. Saving some from each variety for the next year would be a pain.
3) New varieties come out that are better than what I plant today.
4) When I purchased the beans I agreed that I wouldn't use bin-run.
Can't farmers just walk down the street and buy someone else's seeds that DO re-produce? If all the big corp's start making terminator seeds can some small-time organic farmer just start selling his seeds?
Yes, that is the current situation.
Companies like Monsanto are coming up with genetically modified (GM) soybeans that are resistant to herbicides like Roundup, that will kill most plants. Roundup is cheap, so by using a Roundup ready soybean, I can use a much cheaper form of herbicide to get good weed control. There are also varieties resistant to cyst nematodes. Cysts can destroy a bean crop. It is worth it to me to pay the extra to insure that I get a crop. The terminater gene would insure that they would be able enforce the agreements made with the farmer when they sold him the beans.
It seems like even if MonSanto (MS...hmmm) wanted to become the evil empire of farm products, they'd have a losing battle on their hands.
Unlike MS there are plenty of competitors to Monsanto. And I buy my seed from several different companies.
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the company.
I prefer the organic method. Some of your points are valid but some not.
:super weed
>2). Wrong. Third world countries are already >using the biotech products of the IRRI.
Using doesn't mean EVERYBODY is using
>3). Wrong. The amount of arable land in >production in in rice growing countries is >strictly limited by geography.
Think twice! Don't blame the geography countor. It is mostly due to policies and political. Some agriculture land is convert for short sighted economy purpose such as golf course, housing, manufacturing, etc.
>5). IRRI super crops are being used to feed >nearly 50% of the world population today.
I am sceptic with this figure.
>6). Rice supplies the basic calorie input of 50% >of the world population today. It is a simple >fact. Fruits and vegatbles are nice too, but the >basic caloric intake needed to sustain life comes >from grains.
Agree.
>7). Irrigation is not going to increase the >output of a rice paddy that is already >intensively irrigated.
Wrong. Science have prove that, proper organic irrigation increase the yield instead. Organic irrigation sustain the earth nurtition, reduce usage of fertilizer, reduce the underground water polution due to over fertilize.
Organic irrigation will takes time to heal the earth. It is not easy to restore mother nature after we spoilt it with chemical. But mother nature will rewards us if we appreciate her.
> 8). If Southeast Asia used organic methods like > you propose 1 Billion people would die of > starvation next year. Their methods are not > organic, but are sustainable.
Wrong. femine issue will fade if people know whats go wrong. Food issue in the world is cause by power struggle and the country policies.
Yes, modern agriculture is attractive, anyone can see the result almost immediate. How about the impact? The deficiency of modern agriculture?
We have see the effect of relying commercial herbicide, insecticide and fertilizer
resist/immune to herbicide, super bugs resist/immune to insecticide, over fertilize poison the land and reduce crops yield.
In addition, the latest research have shown that the heavy machinery used for irrigation, have reduce crops yield 10-20% per year, due to deficiency of the machine.
No, it doesn't mean we must use the slow and old way. Why not adopt the mother nature way with science?
-- $SIGNATURE
If you've ever heard of the chemicals known as "PCBs" (used in electrical tranformers), it was Monsanto who originally told everyone they were harmless.
Now they're known as one of the nastiest carcinogens that exists.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Seeds are the biotech version of free software. If Monsanto changes their mind in five years and re-introduces terminator seeds, then everyone will just use the old seeds. (It may be illegal under their "seed license", but I'd like to see them try to enforce it.)
At any rate, I don't see why terminator seeds are a so horrible. I can't grow an infinite number of TV sets from the one I just bought, luckily for Sony. Monsanto just wants to close that loophole in the seed business. Besides, although I like genetically engineered products in general, I'm not sure that I want corporations manufacturing fertile organisms.
MSK
What has been truly disgusting about this whole thing is that companies that DON'T use GM foods (or livestock hormone treatments) in their products are LEGALLY FORBIDDEN from labelling their products "GM Free" or "rGBH Free" (or it might be the converse - that the US Government has forbidden the labelling of GM foods as such) - in either case - there's some legislative voodoo going on that, bottom line, FORBIDS consumers from making an informed choice, and thereby applying market forces to eliminate these technologies. The arguments against the labeling are such garbage as "the consumers have bought into this hysteria which has no sound scientific basis, so it would be economically harmful to allow labeling". This attitude generally came about through the use of expensive biotech industry lobbyists.
Folks, Intel's USB 2.0 FUD may be evil, Microsoft Passport may be evil - but this stuff is capital-E Evil. Evil of the worst sort. Nasty McEvil. Bad, bad, bad, bad, goes against everything I believe in Evil. If the biotech companies have an image problem, then they need to fix it, and fund some good compelling studies that support their position - apparently they haven't been able to do that, and possibly it's cheaper to hire lobbyists (ie- bribe politicians).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
right. And NT 4.0 running Exchange is all the Enterprise Messaging Platform anybody will ever need.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
This is an interesting point. Actually, European countries are trying to block hormon meat, and European population appears to be strongly against GM modified food.
On another hand, it appears that USA Gov. is trying to force european countries to accept those products via mondial commerce organisation. (we already have to pay huge penalities for refusing meat with hormones).
Cheers,
Justin.
"My cat's breath smells like cat food." - The Tao of Ralph Wiggum.
In fact, unless Monsanto patented it and inforces the patent, I would think other seed companies would try to copy the idea. They would all still happily make enough money off the larger farmers, while 3rd world farmers would find life much more difficult.
--
?
>Is there anything these guys can't genetically engineer:
> Now Monsanto is considering technologies that turn engineered genes on and off in plants after they are sprayed with a chemical.
This isn't big news. It's even a basic technique in molecular biology. Hell, I'm only a student, but I do it in the lab every day.
However, this might hint into the way they do the fertility thing. Did you think of how they grow the fertility-impaired seeds in the first place? Yes, crossing of two different parental strains might be an answer - but it's a long shot and would lead to many complications. Since the Microsoft analogy has already been used, they might have used a "back door" into their "terminator" seeds, by placing a essential gene for reproduction under control of a promoter that's off unless a special chemical is present, then grow their production crops in presence of the chemical. It's simple enough to do, and wouldn't need as much time/money for R&D as any other approach.
Perhaps you are aware that on the next census no entry for "farmer" will be listed under occupation. (Paul Harvey radio show, Oct 1 I believe). There simply aren't enough farmers left to justify the wasted ink/space on the forms, apparently.
As an aside, I'm surprised at how many on here have similar backgrounds--who grew up on a farm, chose not to farm not because of the hard lifestyle, but rather because of the hopelessness of it. (Myself included: Iowa farm, corn/soybeans/beef/cattle. My family got out of the business after the mid-80s-Reagonomics farm crisis).
I propose that all the backers of the X is too many people movement lead the way and voluntarily sterilize themselves.
This will show true dedication to your cause. Call it a "put your money where your mouth is" suggestion.
I propose that you find a way to feed and house every starving person in the world without polluting more air/water and destroying more wilderness habitat.
/* Fun fact of the day: even frozen pizza and Hostess cupcakes are made from farm products */
Really? Are you sure? Some times I personally doubt that. =)
Back to the topic... Can it be true that we (humans) are going to regulate the food production at the very same time than half of the population on the planet is starving.
I'am quite certain that telescope antennas are aimed to the wrong direction... They should try to find intelligent life forms from this planet first.
Monsanto is only responding to regulatory pressures by the government and the public not to release genetically modified crops that can reproduce in the wild. Hense 'Terminator' crops. What a bad name for them. This is much better than a genetically modified seed stock that produces viable plants with the potential of outcompeting natural plants and causing ecological disasters. Which by the way IMHO is unlikely ever to happen. Nature rules! and would find a solution to this faster then any scientist can outwit her/him.
Terminating seeds are necessary for putting GM products into the ground. Otherwise, we could see GM plants outcompeting the natural plants. That could upset our biosphere in unpredictable ways. Briefly - don't screw around without safety...
Stop the brainwash
So what if GMO creates more food? Will it get to hungry stomachs? Some reports indicate that technology is not really the problem. It's rather politics/distribution. What's your answer to this?
also.. you come off kinda breathtakingly arrogant.. are you sure you have *all* the facts? Are you at a debate or on a pulpit?
Actually, wouldn't the spread of the terminator gene be self-limiting? Also, if such cross-genetics accidentally happened, the farm wouldn't suddenly see all its crops stop producing seeds, but a fraction of them. (stop and think). Finally, they may not buy from Monsanto to replace what shortfall they have.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
This whole GE issue has made me take a hard look at what I buy at the supermarket. "Roundup Ready" in particular really woke me up the fact that most westerners eat up to several kilograms (1 kg = 2.2 pounds) of residual pesticide a year!!! "Roundup Ready" just exacerbates the problem (ie you are eating even more poison than on conventional produce). I started buying from an organic fruit and vege and grocery store at the start of this year. I only go to a conventional supermarket about once a month for non-food supplies. Not only is the food more flavoursome, but it feels great knowing I am not putting so much crap in my body. GE technology has a lot of unanswered questions, but I have made up my mind to stop eating pesticide whenever possible.
smile, it makes everyone else wonder what you're up to
I thought terminator seeds were there so that these supposedly risky GM plants would not spread out of control.
http://davedash.com/
So what? It's their crap, they built it.
The concern shouldn't be whether or not they'll restrain themselves for a "long enough" period of time.
What needs to happen is LESS government regulation, not more, to whit: shorter patent expiration times, so everybody else can reverse engineer and use it after the builder gets his well-deserved head start for all the work he's done.
As for what China did; just goes to show you Communism doesn't work. In the US, people make enough money that they have spare cash to give to churches and other programs to give away free milk, and the resulting taxes cover government programs to do the same.
Chorizo
Attended high school biology
Doesn't give a crap about agriculture
Yup.
Not *all* farmers do this. A lot of 'em do buy seed. A lot of 'em work with seed companies planting new hybrids, etc. etc. But, generally you do set some aside. You can't consistently plant seed from the same crop over and over again as it gets "inbred" as some others have said.
Generally, not we (farmers like myself) do not set some asside. Some do, but most don't.
Get inbred?? Beans do not cross pollinate. The beans we buy from the seed companies are not different genetically from what we farmers grow on there own (they're the ones growing it for companies like Monsanto), but they have been cleaned of garbage (like weed seed), and tested to insure high germination. 2. This still seems like a move aimed directly toward the big farming companies, though. I'm sure this stuff isn't cheap. The reward vs. cost wouldn't be worth it unless you had thousands of acres of the stuff.
The cost right now is in bad PR. The farmers it effects is the farmers that would be braking agreements to not plant bin-run beans. The rewards of using purchased sead over bin-run seeds is why we buy seed from seed companies now, and will continue to do so.
> Any plant that crossed with a terminator and
> inherited the terminator genes would be unable > to reporduce.
hold on. think about this senerio (and I'm not saying that this happens -- to my knowledge no one has yet to prove or disprove that this could ever happen) You have two fields of corn -- one regular, one terminator -- the terminator corn pollinates the the regular corn so that the regular corn forms seeds that have the terminator genes what will germinate (hey, the original terminator seeds have to germinate) *but* this next generation (the terminator-regular hybrids) will not have seeds, but may very well pollinate any regular corn that happens to still be around, creating more of the terminator-regular hybreds, repeat ad infinitum. If, for whatever reason, the terminator genes happen to better for reproduction in some other way, it would a possibility (but only a possibility) that the terminator hybreds would eventually over run the corn, then die out themselves.
I'm not saying this is happening or will happen, I'm just saying that as of now this is still a possibility, and your post showed more ignorance of survival of the fittest and plant reproduction than the previous poster.
The worms are as likely to become resistant to bacillus toxins if they are on the plant as they are if they are in the plant. This isn`t an issue. In fact, they`re more likely to become resistant with the organic growers applying it to the plants, as they have to use so much more of it. Actually, intermittent massive doses are harder to develop a resistance for than constant low doses. A gene that confers partial resistance is a constant selective advantage when the dose is low, but has less effect in a massive die-off. It's a similar principle to that of multi-drug therapy for AIDS. Moreover, recent studies have shown negative health effects to some organic workers who are allergic to BT. Since BT is all washed off by the time anything hits the shelves, that's only a minor concern currently; but plants with a BT gene are suffused with low levels of the stuff, so consumers have to worry. For an effect like this, "safety testing" is a joke. It would take decades for us to realize that BT (for instance) was helping to cause later-life diabetes in the 5% of infants allergic to it.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
I just don't understand the ruckus about this. The ruckus is about FUD. People don't understand GM, so they fear it. It's like any other kind of FUD that readers of /. are all too familliar with. --- "Progress is the God of the Machine"
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
Can you imagine the results of accidental cross-pollinization with 'Terminator' crops and regular???
It could've resulted in the accidental genocide of, say, corn.
This shows a complete and utter ignorance of natural selection. Think about what you just said. Organisms that win out in natural selection do so according to their darwinian fitness. For those of you who don't know what this is, darwinian fitness is defined as an organism's ability to pass on its genes.
Any plant that crossed with a terminator and inherited the terminator genes would be unable to reporduce. Period. That means that its darwinian fitness would be zero. Such a plant cannot pass on its genes, and therefore cannot compete against a plant that isn't sterile. For that matter, it can't compete at all.
The truly sad thing isn't that this guy doesn't understand ecology, it's that so many otherwise intelligent environmental organizations have put forth this same absurd argument.
I guess this gives me a chance to plug my band, Monkey Bucket, and their latest song, "Dont Play With Your Food".
The corn used to ripen under the sun,
and the fruit used to follow the flower,
now its more like a man in a white coat saying
"Igor, turn up the power",
I dont want tomatoes that keep for a year,
or potatoes the size of my head,
when I'm eating a meal I want something that's real
and I remember what my mama said
Dont play with your food, dont play with your food
How many times must I tell you dont play with your food.
there's a couple more verses, but you'll have to buy the album for that!
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/~rowlings/Band for a website in severe need of an update!
This site has the lowdown on everything Terminator... http://www.rafi.org/misc/terminator.html
What is interesting to note was the BBC had this as the top story all day long, whereas NPR had a short mention. And this happened over a week ago, so note how 'quick' the US has picked up on this.
And, for the USA reader consider:
The use of bacteria genes (bacillis Tsomething (BT))in corn, soybeans has resulted in products that the UK, Japan and others won't import. So many US farmers won't use it, even though the plants are supposed to kill the pest worms when the eat them.
(BT is the only effective organic killer of the pest worms. So, if the worms develop a resistance, the only product organic growers have for killing worms will be gone.)
The Canadians have banned BGH (the milk enhancing chemical) because it harms the cows.
Rice growing countries found the high yeild rice was not insect resistant.
Etc la.
The rest of the world is not adopting wholesale the chemical/genetic methods embraced by the US ag industry.
Not ALL GMO (Geneticly Modified Organisms) are 'bad' however. An example: Monsanto is working on growing plastic. Yup. Dirt+sun+water+plant=plastic. As opposed to using oil.
Ask the christians... they are the one who says "grow and populate the earth" (and I won't speak about their no-abortion, no-birth control policy)
I thought Hostess cupcakes were made of space aged polymers. Was I wrong?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Are you SURE??? I always thought they were some hybrid edible plastic or foam...
>...I can't see how this would happen.
Virus can sometimes transfer genes from one species to onother(your reasoning is still accurate).
LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
FRA: STFU GTFO
There's one big difference though. Anyone with an old 486 and the required knowledge can write Open Source Software and become a hacker. With Open Source, everyone benefits. The original author gets a better product due to bug fixes and patches done by others, the users also get a better product and for free.
;) *snicker*)
I don't see a billion of people worldwide do their genetic manipulation experiments on the kitchen table though. (I mean with seeds, mind ya! Duh! *CROP* seeds! Leave the women out of it for once
So in this case, what would be the advantage for the corporation if the farmer could distribute the seeds for free?
I'm glad the market had the power in this case
Organic food in the US (at least in south eastern Michigan) is available, but it's not really common.
Some big grocery stores (VG's, of Spartan stores chain) have organic sections, but they're rather small, and you can't buy all your staples there. The best bet is Food Co-ops, such as my local People's Food Co-op which a lot of college towns have. Mainstream america, removed from places like that, generally don't have access or information on organic foods.
"There's so much left to know/ and I'm on the road to find out." -Cat Stevens
Anyway, what ever did happen to 100% pure food?
What the hell is pure food? No such thing. Even 100% organically grown food varies tremendously in chemical composition depending on where and how it was grown, what the rainfall was, whether or not a particular plant was attacked by beetles on xyz day, when it was harvested, what fungus was growing on it that day and so on.
Let's give an interesting example. Here in the East part of the US this year we had a bad drought. Some farmers where however able to get perhaps 25% production of corn. This corn however turns out to be completely usesless for animal feed because the concentration of nitrates in the corn is so high that it is toxic to cattle. On the other hand, this was a GREAT year for grapes. The hot dry weather led to usually high concentration fo sugar in the fruit making them tasty and very potent for wine making.
If they are unsafe, wouldn't they be forced to cease and desist selling the GM seeds? Or worse, the government might consider them safe and ignore the other consequences, such as the environment.
There has been all kinds of debate on this topic, and many of the techniques used in making the GM foods have been worked out specifically to address these concerns. There are trials going too, before each type of food is introduced.
It would seem to me that provided there are always other vendors of seed, then the free market would see the seed business moving to the vendors who didn't sell sterile seed. Monsanto would then have two choices: stop selling the sterile, or get out of the business.
I wouldn't be so sure. Setting up biotech labs is expensive, and such products would have a very long development time. Some people have compared this to OSS, but I don't think the comparison is valid. A better (although still imperfect) comparison might be with chip manufacturers. It's not of great interest to me, but I know that Intel is starting to get serious competition in x86 architecture terms. But how long did it enjoy a virtual monopoly? I bet cloning a seed (except for the terminator bit) would be even harder than clean rooming a chip to copy it.
I agree wholeheartedly. I grew up on a corn/cattle family farm and from dad's estimates, most farmers have actually lost money by planting the last two years. The freaking stuff costs more to produce than they can sell it for (and dad is a pretty good farm manager). Luckily cattle are a bit better than row crops right now, but it's still insane. How many of you would care to work 60 - 100 hour weeks for about $25 K a year? And farming requires a hefty skillset. Manager, chemical certifications, welder, mechanic, construction worker, basic vetrenarian, animal husbandry, knowledge of crops and current trends, some computer skills are becoming useful, and manual laborer. My hat's off to farmers.
I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
Most seeds are already hybreds and won't grow the same thing in the second generation anyway. Remember 9th grade Biology? Anyway, farmers are already pretty much stuck with buying seed for their crops every year (yes, there are some exceptions but we don't need to dwell on them). The concept of the Teminator seeds brings with it two sides of the coin. Without them in the market, there is less incentive for seed companies to invest billions in geneticly engineered products, this means we will likely not see a couple of products that could change life for the better. It also probably means that seeds won't be as expensive. Because GE could mean bigger yeilds, this does not necessaraly mean lower profits for the farmer or more expensive foods for the consumer when they use the GE seeds. Infact, it may mean just the opposite in the long run. Don't expect very different crops than we have now in the forseeable future. Corn will still be corn, wheat will still be wheat. There may be a few different products out there but the staples will just be improved to improve yeilds, improve disease resistance, and change the places where they can grow (but don't expect bannanas in Michigan anytime soon).
Yes, GM holds great promise, if it is used to solve hunger problems. However, Monsanto is only concerned about profits. Whether or not you feel that the Terminator gene is fundamentally an abomination, you have to admit that its sole intent is to increase Monsanto profits at the expense of the poorest farmers (those who can't afford to buy hybrids every year anyway). Even aside from terminator, Monsanto's GM efforts have again and again shown that they have no concern for the larger effects of their work. Roundup-ready soybeans increase pesticide runoff, demonstrably hurting the environment; BT-containing plants will lead to resistant nematodes far faster than organic farmer's use of BT, and also may cause allergies in consumers, especially the very young, which would not be caught by current "safety" testing. [Monsanto argues that BT is already "proven safe" by its use in organic farming, but in that case it washes off before reaching the consumer.] There is simply no comparison between the work on nitrogen-fixing rice and the abortions (literally, in the case of Terminator) produced by Monsanto. It is exactly because GM is so important and powerful that it must not be used for the wrong ends.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
-Malachi-
"Life is all about strategy, mathematics and psychological perceptiveness."
Terrorism at a new level -- kill all food. Hopefully there are measures to counteract this!
1) If these species have the potential to cause environmental havoc they shouldn't be allowed at all
2) These "variations" have been developped to provide higher productivity. So a farmer using the natural, lower-productivity seeds has a severe disadvantage, as higher productivity yields lower prices. That puts a certain pressure on farmers to use these "variations".
3) Now, you may say that producers of organic food could advertise not using GM species and so have their own market. BUT...the US have threatened Europe with a trade war if they only *allow* to advertise with the label "GM-free".
The bottom line is: always see the big picture.
4) There is really one thing that is more important than Open Source software: and that is sharing our knowledge about producing more food with the people who don't have enough food. That's not even a matter of moral or being a christian, that's a matter of being civilized. Making money with the misery of hungry people is much worse than making money with bad software.
here is a link for all of you (like me) who have the common sence to be scared of how genetic engineering can change our world for the worse...
Gary Null
examples include genetic engineered plants affecting bees, and killing the monarch butterfly.
Try to remember that we do not live on this planet alone and despite what corporations would like you to think, we have not tested a lot of technologies fully. Money is the only rule for them and they will not stop until you do something.
Follow that link and educate yourselves!
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
Why such hostility to small family farms?
Do you truly prefer depending on large megacorp semi-monopolies for your food?
Sorry but this is rubbish
Did you even look at the web site I posted a link to? IRRI is a third world run organization. It has nothing to do with Monsanto or large agribusiness. It has a long history of delivering new hybrid rices to sustinance level farmers. There are VERY few if any organizations in the world today that have done so much to alleviate human suffering - right now their hydbrids are feeding something like 3 BILLION people per day; it has been estimated that their work has already saved 1.5 billion people from starvation.
They know how to get around the political and distribution problems, and how to develop products that third world farmers can effectively use. They have done it for many years, and very successfully.
They are embracing GM in a big way because of it's potential to further eliminate human suffering.
While your points concerning baby formula are valid, I really fail to see how "terminator" seeds can be economically viable. The breast-feeding mothers in China were naive, and the company exploited this. I doubt this will be a problem with farmers. Why would anyone smart enough to run a farm buy seeds that they could only use for one season? Yes, the company might make them cheaper than buying Natural seeds, but what about Total Cost of Ownership? It seems that the good ol' laws governing supply and demand (or more accurately, the lack of demand) would keep these seeds from being a problem.
--synaptik
HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
NO CARRIER
Two, the argument that Monsanto deserves to make profits from its technology is valid.
However...
By distributing fertile seed, they in effect kill any future profits and their own business.
Assuming that all farmers are forced by this 'terminator' gene business model to use seed of the same genetic constitution, any natural predator that adapts to consume modified seed will be very successful.
Assume further that 50% of world farmers buy this seed and then redistribute new seed to the remaining half. This should provide enough profits for Monsanto to develop a more robust, higher-yield seed, and provide enough incentive for the first half to buy the second generation of modified seed, and so on.
The percentages are hypothetical but the point remains. In the short term, Monsanto would gain from distributing the 'terminator' gene technology. In the long run it would not be such a hot idea.
What's to stop them from going ahead with their original plans after things have quieted down? It's not like they handed the patents over to the Rural Advancement Foundation or the UN or whoever.
>Open source genetics?
You mean like... evolution(keep in mind all the parallels with OSS an ev.)?
>Maybe hacking (reverse engineer) these new seeds to make them spawn non sterile offspring?
Isn't that like cracking the copy-protection on software? I41 whould like to see the copyright-trial in a case like that! OJ.. drop dead!
LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
FRA: STFU GTFO
i forgot to post a link to their site... it wasn't posted in the article.
http://www.rafi.org
Rural Advancement Foundation International
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
My word, you are a hateful little something, aren't you? Hopefully someone will put a bullet in your head soon.
Stefan
--
I'm not an amoeba.
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
Who cares what Monsanto does? If agriculture whithers away, mankind has shown a propensity to adapt by eating human flesh. Remember those crazy Argentinian (or Peruvian...they're all the same) soccer players?
I just don't understand the ruckus about this. Conventional hydridized crops don't breed true; if you want to replant the same hybrid you must buy new seeds anyway.
IOW, the "free market" is producing pressure to reduce R&D. Hardly a new occurence, but definitely a downside in this case.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
Also note that the article states a half dozen or so other companies are looking into the same tech. Also, they haven't given up. The article goes on to say that now they'll develop a spray which could have the same effect (among others, I'd imagine).
What spooks me most is where this leads logically. Imagine you're given a life saving gene therapy only to be told you've purchased a time limited license. In 12 months you can buy another license or die! That's the sort of situation we're heading for with all this IP protection BS.
GM won't feed the starving millions
Absolute crap. Your ignorance of this issue is breathtaking.
Take a look at the International Rice Research Institute in the Phillipines and tell me that GM won't have a HUGE impact on feeding the starving millions (840 million at last estimate).
GM foods are one of the most important scientific developments of this century. Ultimately their impact will affect third world nations that must import food from the developed world FAR more than any other new technology developed this century.
Farming is a hard and unrewarding way of life that is slowly ending in america. Selling steril seeds shows how hopless the situation is for the family farmer. In a hundred years small family farms will be a thing of the past no one needs to accelerate this trend.
Since it was mentioned how important agriculture is I may as well add this tidbit:
Unless there are some serious changes(improvements) in efficiency, volume per acre, or new food sources, the human population on this planet will outgrow its food supply (roughly) by the year 2026.
People have been doing un-smart things for quite some time. Take for example one of the most fertile river valleys in Arizona, the Gila River system.
Reasoning would be that people would realize its food growing potential and thus do what is necessary to preserve this agricultural area.
Reality is that this river valley is in the process of being completely paved over via urban sprawl (Phoenix). The population boom in this fast growing city is not only eating away at valuable areage but it is also tapping the water system dry. So much, in fact that the Phoenix area needs additional water supply lines from other areas, including the heavily taxed Colorado Water system.
This isn't the only location that this is happening either. Chicago is another example of how fertile farmland is being paved over and destroyed.
Fertile fishing areas such as the grand banks and the North American west coastal area were once considered to have boundless supplies of food but now biologists are finding out that they are being heavily overfished.
One of my ancestors made a comment similar to this:
"Only when all of the land is burned, only when all the rivers are poisoned, only when all the animals are slaughtered, only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten."
Being worth $90 Billion won't mean a whole lot if this ever happens to pass.
-Veldrane
And wouldn't Monsanto just hike the price of buying seeds to cover the fact that every customer is going to buy the seeds only once?
Cheers,
Justin.
"My cat's breath smells like cat food." - The Tao of Ralph Wiggum.
This is an interesting situation - at one end, if Monsanto were to limit these plants, it would have a negative impact on farming. On the other hand, I have to agree that they deserve to make money off of it, and if they do not have a method of limiting the seeds, what is to stop a farmer from selling off his seeds cheaper? And once everyone has Monsanto seeds, Monsanto has no more buisness, and they lose out. Doesn't seem very fair for them.
But if they were to use some method of limiting seeds/distribution/whatever, then the world would not benefit nearly as much, and we would still have a large food shortage.
As much as I agree that this should be in widespread use, Monsanto should definitly get what they deserve for it, as well.
-palp
Can you imagine the results of accidental cross-pollinization with 'Terminator' crops and regular??? (It's been proven to happen)
It could've resulted in the accidental genocide of, say, corn.
Good riddance. That's probably why Mosanto has ditched the plan.
---
Just because so many people choose to live in crowded areas does not make the earth crowded.
I propose that all the backers of the X is too many people movement lead the way and voluntarily sterilize themselves. This will show true dedication to your cause. Call it a "put your money where your mouth is" suggestion.
My, you wrote a long reply. Too bad none of it is correct.
1). The IRRI is not a GM company. It is a non-profit organization funded by third world countries to improve rice for use by sustenance level farmers. It has been very effective doing this; it is estmated that it's products feed 2-3 billion people right now.
2). Wrong. Third world countries are already using the biotech products of the IRRI.
3). Wrong. The amount of arable land in production in in rice growing countries is strictly limited by geography.
4). Monsanto is not the IRRI.
5). IRRI super crops are being used to feed nearly 50% of the world population today.
6). Rice supplies the basic calorie input of 50% of the world population today. It is a simple fact. Fruits and vegatbles are nice too, but the basic caloric intake needed to sustain life comes from grains.
7). Irrigation is not going to increase the output of a rice paddy that is already intensively irrigated.
8). If Southeast Asia used organic methods like you propose 1 Billion people would die of starvation next year. Their methods are not organic, but are sustainable.
Simple - by looking at the people and the politics we can solve the problem not by throwing more technology at it.
While you screw around with pie in the sky ideas, 840 million people are starving.
are you sure you have *all* the facts
In this case, yes. The IRRI is a third world run institute with a long established record of delivering innovations to rice growing countries that have made huge impacts already to the quality of life in these countries. It has been estimated that their hydrid rices already have resulted in productivity gains that have saved over a billion people from starvation. They know how to deliver improved technologies to sustinence level farmers. They are not allied with first world agribusiness in any way.
This certainly has a lot of parallels to Open Source vs Closed Source software.
The parallel where you obtain the source and cannot distribute it to others (source license) and not being able to copy the seeds via natural reproduction draws on all the reasons why open source is preferable.
Just on another note is there any reason why the seeds could not be modified to remove the "terminnator" gene (or bug) from seeds that their customers purchase (If this is indeed possible?) or were they intending to only authorise licensed use of their seeds.
I can see the seed packet instructions:
Instructions for use:
Just add water
Reverse Engineering this product will invalidate your warranty and does not constitute it's intended use by the manufacturer.
The chance of the "Self-destruct" gene crossing over via bees, wind, etc, whil eslim, DOES exist. Now imagine that it spreads to non GM plants, lots and lots of them. That is greater threat than nuclear accidents. Hell if a nuke went off in Iowa we could at least avoid the area for a few thousand years. Remember the African Killer Bee threat via Mexico a few years ago? Now imagine it with crop failures... GM food is bad bad bad. Tsts should be required to extend over 50 or 100 years in 100% (as posible) closed labs. NO WILD tests at ALL should be allowed.
When corporations willingly restrain themselves, I have to ask "For how long?" What's stopping them from threatening to introduce this again in 5 years. And 5 years after that. How long before the media and people in general will ignore them doing this, because they've heard about happening so many times?
(Keep in mind what Nestle did in China - giving formula to new mothers for a few months for free - until they dried up, and then they started charging them for it. The UN pointed out to them they were violating human rights and made them stop. They started again 5 years later. What can the UN do? You can't continually work people into a frenzy every 5 years over the exact same thing.)
I have no doubts that these seeds will be back.
-- Your friendly neighbourhood cynic.
...to answer criticism that their GM foods might breed rampantly in the wild and destroy other crops. Some environmental groups were very mad about it, but weren't satisfied with making it impossible for the second generation to breed.
This terminator thing didn't start out as a way to make more money off of people, but as a way to fix perceived problems. It's too bad that there are large lobbies in most European countries and the US to stop this stuff over unscientific fears and unrealistic requirements such as trying to prove that GM foods will never cause any changes to the environment at all. But, all the while they are forgetting that genetically modified foods are just exactly what has been happening since life began: one variety of organism is able to become effective at survival because the environment and surrounding organisms make it possible. The only difference is that usually the new organism has to randomly breed back and forth until it mutates into something that has an advantage. Doing it in the lab just saves generations of crossing crops, like it's been done since men started sedentary agriculture.
Rachael
"Go Forth Ye Lemmings and Propagate"
The more I read about Monsanto, the more I'm certain that the government should step in RIGHT NOW and put a stop to this company. They've already gone too far....BST for cows, and now seeds that 'terminate' after usage, solely to give them profit.
When will it stop? Monsanto laughs at consumer groups and environmentalists...they KNOW that nothing short of a full government intervention can stop them.
And really..WHO asked them to do this? Who is asking them to tinker with genetics like this? Is there a real NEED for this stuff? Seems to me that they just cook it up, hoping for a market to appear, consequences be damned.
If you're implying that there is 0 chance that the terminator gene will propagate, you are a gullible idiot. Let's see ... On one hand we have evolution, an irrepressable juggernaut finely tuned over 3.5 billion years. On the other hand we have the Monsanto corp. No contest.
i shall follow you to the ends of the earth. thank you for telling me what is important in my life.
Do an internet search for Monsanto and evil and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Check out http://www.foxbghsuit.com/ or read Toxic Sludge Is Good For you.
Monsanto will stop at no lengths to increase revenue at everyone else's expense. Public health and goodwill are not a concern.
Don't they work in a similar manner? I'm not sure, but I'd suspect it would be hard to collect seeds from your harvest of seedless grapes to replant.
Well.. what 'victory' is this ? Important part
of the terminator is to stop these GM species
to spread in the wild. And would cause environmental havoc.
So it is now 0:1 in the environment vs myrights
movements ? Or does sanity come in here somehwere ?
Dw
The only problem with this announcement is that those terminator genes, although designed to be a profit saving device, may have been the only mechanism to save us from widespread ecological damage due to a runaway genetically modified plant.
With the terminator gene in place the harmful spread would have been limited to one generation, now they're free to expand indefinately.
Hotnutz.com
Genetically engineered farm products give me the screaming willies for several reasons. I recently read Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" about chemical/pesticide misuse/poisoning in our environment. While not exactly relevent to the genetic engineering of crops, it raises several points to consider, especially concerning the delicate balance of nature.
In our rush to "improve" our food production, we have continually rushed into solutions which are not fully understood. In the realms of pesticides, we have time and again sprayed pesticides, or even herbicides, as a solution to a problem without taking into consideration the effect it will have in the environment as a whole. Throughout the past 50 years, pesticides have been widely sprayed to control a perceived insect infestation. The sprayings have had disastrous effects on the bird and fish populations in the areas sprayed. In our attempt to eliminate one problem, we have created another.
Genetically engineering crops to resist an insect or disease sounds like such a good idea. But what happens when the insects that normally feed on this crop turn their attention to another crop? What happens when the disease that the crop was created to be resistant to mutates? Do we have to spend billions of dollars to re-engineer the crop to be resistant to the new strains? Man is the only creature on the planet that seeks to subdue rather than trying to acheive a natural balance with nature. These forays into engineered crops will not be, I fear, the panacea we believe, but will be a short term solution to a problem we have brought upon ourselves.
Nature adapts. Man overcomes natures adaptation. Nature will adapt again. Whether it is a disease that is resistant to the antibiotics we throw against it, or an insect that is resistant to every chemical we can create. Man does not have the ability to adapt to its environment as quickly as a disease or insect population, so we seek to override the laws of nature. While this works in the short term, mother nature will continue to adapt.
Further, let's not forget that the pollen from their GM corn kills Monarch butterflies. C'mon, the stuff is toxic and just plain scary!
And let's not forget that Monsanto, back in the 70s, manufactured flame-retardent baby clothing treated with TRIS and tris - known gene mutagens!
GM food is just a plain bad idea. No one knows what these plants are going to do in the long run. Why aren't are governments not more involved? Why not the public? Nuclear power was a undemocratic decision - is this to be the same with GM foods?
"Microsoft is the epitome of innovation and product quality."
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
UUhhh, let me see, starve to death in the Andes, or eat the bodies from the plane crash? Oh, well, I'm sane, let me starve to death.
I grew up in Nebraska on a corn/cattle farm and all professional (i.e. not hobby) farmers plant commercial seed. The only people that harvest seed for use as seed are those that sell the seed to the commercial concerns. And that is a fairly complex setup as they have to plant various varieties intermingeled to get the proper offspring. I.e. They often plant 4 rows of "female" corn which is detassled by high school kids and migrant workers as they go through the fields in the summer cutting the tassles off to prevent pollination. After each 4 female rows, comes two male rows (of a different species) that are allowed to keep their tassles, but aren't harvested in the fall. This situation is used to keep the genetic lines from decomposing over time by reinventing the variety every generation.
I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
Having lived in the ruralest of rural Wisconsin all my life, I can tell you this is of great relief to farmers everywhere. This is especially true for the small farmer. Farming is one of the toughest proffesions I can think of, and it's so hard to make money, yet it's probably the most important occupation on the planet.
Because of the low pofits involved, most farms today have to be huge (1000+ acres) to survive. It's very hard to maintain land of that size. And the smaller ones are having a hard time competing, and having a seed like this one would probably wipe them out (along with all those farmers in 3rd world countries, where this would be even more of a problem).
I don't think people really realize how bad the world farming situation is. The world population is growing exponetialy, while farm land is being decreased and about the same rate. I see this all the time when I visit a big city. Urban sprawl is a real threat to farmers and their land. The only reason we've been able to feed the world (and in most places we still can't) is because of genetic engineering of plants, to create larger yields on the same amount of land. For Monsanto to try to gain a few bucks and in the process wipe out the poorer farmers is just plain unethical in my book. Things like this will only hurt everyone in the end. I'm just glad they're backing down.
6 Billion is way too many, true.
But that's no reason to go around bleeding the last money from poor third-worlders.
I'm thinking of something like:
-Thirdworlder buys expensive but quality seeds.
-Thirdworlder grows good crops and gets to eat good and sell some of his crops
-Thirdworlder saves some money and therfore:
-Thirdworlder does not need a gazilion kids to support him in old age, two will do just fine.
then we have two people making two new people and the population stabilizes.
Now to get all religious people to support the notion that true celibacy is the only true way (and I mean true celibacy, not the "celibacy when not making kids" kind) And the world might actually become a little less crowded.
Ditto, I grew up on a good sized farm in NW North Dakota growing durum wheat, barley, sunflowers, etc. This year was rough because the seeding was not completed until the middle of June, it's now mid October and we still have over 1K acres left to combine. The prices are still very depressing (although the local elevator just had a "high" reported of $3.40 to top quality durum) All of our equipment is over 20 years old, with the exception of an 89 John Deeere tractor (real steal at 50K). A lot of the prices for equipment are out of reach for today's independent farmer that relies on farming for their livelyhood.
> being genetically engineered, the Monsanto plants might be more marketable than the normal type.
This is simply untrue (especially in Europe). Our supermarkets are falling over themselves in their hurry to declare their own products free of GMO. GM products are not a selling point to the consumer.
The GMOs on offer from Monsanto are not a bigger, shinier tomato, nor a solution to 3rd world hunger. They are simply either the Roundup ® glyphosate weedkiller resistant gene that allows farmers to buy and use more Monsanto Roundup ® weedkiller, or the Terminator gene (whose demise was recently announced) that would allow Monsanto to sell more seed.
Monsanto are not altruistic philanthropists.
You are so wrong!
GM foods won't feed the starving for several reasons:
1) GM companies aren't interested in creating products for the third world as there isn't enough money in it for them (same as pharmo companies don't produce/research 3rd world cures/products west is profitable even though actual benefits to mankind are negligable)
2) Third World Countries can't afford the seeds and the chemicals to go with them - its an even bigger gamble if your expensive seed stock dies because of a drout just the same as your cheap seeds.
3) Third world countries usually have enough fertile land but it is in the hands of rich conglomerates and feudal lords and is used for more-profitable cash crops like coffee/opium/coca/etc.
4) Monsanto and Co products are designed for western soil and the pests and weeds that it inhabits none of it is any good for dryer/arid lands or different pests.
5) We already have so-called super-crops, no-one who needs them has access to them though.
6) Rice, great but its hardly going to save the lives of subsistance farmers is it? They need a balanced diet with fruit & vegetables not a single crop that can be wiped out by a single disease or pest.
7) irrigation and politics are what will make a difference - by not burning down forrests (which produce shortlived fertility followed by severe soil errosion as they are over-used) fertility will be improved
8) sustainable farming using organic techniques (ie withouit expensive chemicals and equipment) with a fair trade market rather than global conglomerates that manipulate world markets for a quick profit will ensure livelihoods and food.
Simple - by looking at the people and the politics we can solve the problem not by throwing more technology at it.
Giving a shit rather than looking for a new market for your technology is what saves lives and makes lives better!
Aaron (TheJackal)
I won't touch hostess cupcakes and don't care to guess what's in them. Pizza though is tied directly to agriculture. You need wheat and other grain crops for the dough. Tomatoes for the sauce. Dairy for the cheese. That is just for a plain pizza. When you start getting into toppings you're talking about pork, other veggies, ground beef, stuff that comes right from the farm. On a slightly different topic, it is an interesting trend that a lot of techies now are moving out to the sticks and getting involved in small scale agriculture to feed their families. I'm one such geek. Check out http://yonderway.com/rural to see what one sysadmin does in his spare time. Next weekend I'm butchering some goats and lambs for their meat.
...the scariest bit about the Terminator is that it had the potential to crosspollinate other related plants that didn't include the Terminator gene, which would effectively reduce the productive seed output on neighboring farms that weren't subscribed to the "seed plan." That in and of itself is scary enough for me.
InThane
Scarcity of food is not a problem, that is why starvation is such an embarrasment to our planet. (I tend to try and think of how extraterrestrials would view us). We have so MUCH food that we could easily feed the rest of the world instead of having such problems as widespread obesity (I myself an 20lbs. overweight.) If food were scarce then every farmer in America would be as rich as every computer programmer. But food is so abundent that farmers are a dying breed - there is no money in farming just the love of the land.
The major problem we face as a society is pollution. We consume so much that we use up clean resources and generate dirty residue. Just one look out my window and I can see all sorts of trash along the highway. I can't see but am aware of all the exhaust from all of the cars. In the parking lot are pools of oil and anti-freeze. The groundwater where I live in Woburn is so bad they made a movie about it ("A Civil Action") and I have to use a water filter.
Food is not a problem. Pollution, politics, and war are much worse in that order. Pollution affects us all. Politics prevent us from making good decisions and implementing solutions. War has the worst of pollution and politics and adds on top of it the small chance of becoming nuclear war. It worries me that Pakistan, a nuclear nation, is so unstable it has had a coup. Pakistan and India have engaged in unreasonable politics lately, have had several wars in the past and in a blatant show of "manhood" have polluted their own environment with nuclear weapons testing. Now that is insane.
As programmers what can we do? How about creating a global communication and information system? Wait, that's the web! How about designing software that helps solve economic problems, helps design more fuel efficient vehicles, helps people shop at home so they don't drive all over creation during the holidays? Hey, we are doing that!
I'm not worried about genetically engineered plants or marketing schemes for seeds. I don't think Nature is perfect (otherwise, why go through all the work of building a complex ecosystem just to later wipe it all out with a single 10 mile wide asteroid?) The makers of the Terminator seeds have to eat too and the market will determine which economic model give mutual benefit to the creator of the seeds and the grower of the food. Honestly, if the plants are that much better no farmer is ever going to buy the seeds. Nature provides it's own open source!
Modern hybrid seeds (produced by "traditional" breeding techniques) *are* already unsuitable for resowing if serious yields are what you are after (like mules, they are crossbreds. While you usually can resow them, yield and characteristics are typically rather different from the parents). While I find it distasteful to use genetical engineering (which, after all, is a manipulation with little known consequences) solely for the purpose of ruining potential future crops, the principles have been used for years as well. Other "terminator" techniques involve the combination of crops/pesticides/fertilizer that will render the soil useless for years if you try switching the poisoned soil to other produce. Yes, it's distasteful (sort of Microsoft-like techniques), but no, it's not unheard-of-yet. In fact, agricultural mass industry and corresponding chemical industry does things like that all the time.
I agree that frozen pizza is made from farm products, but Hostess cupcakes are made from petroleum by-products, as any consumer knows.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
It would seem to me that provided there are always other vendors of seed, then the free market would see the seed business moving to the vendors who didn't sell sterile seed. Monsanto would then have two choices: stop selling the sterile, or get out of the business.
It looks like the free market took care of this very well -- although the article's details are a bit sketchy, it appears that pressure from buyers led to the decision not to sell this seed.
Very bad.
Most (if not all) small farmers set aside a certain portion of their harvest specifically for next year's planting. The rest gets sold off, or used for feed for their stock (if they've got any.) Combine-->dryer-->bin-->wait til spring-->planter....
Now, the big "agri-corporations" don't have any stock to feed. *They* would probably come out ahead if they didn't have to make special arrangements to separate,dry,and store next years seed (if they even do now, I don't know....)
Just order a couple of trucks of new seed each spring and voila! They produce even more, driving the price/bushel down, so Bob & Sons has to mortgage the ranch again.
Blech. Signatures.
Is there anything these guys can't genetically engineer:
Now Monsanto is considering technologies that turn engineered genes on and off in plants after they are sprayed with a chemical.
So they bow to pressure on the terminator seed issue, but they already seem to have an end run planned. Is it just me or is it somewhat chilling that their bag of genetically modified tricks is seemingly bottomless?
Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
Monsanto is bowing to public pressure on this one. This is scary because the Terminator was not the only modification in the seed, it was just an add-on.
I feel way better with pesticide-proof plants that can't reproduce (and MUTATE!) than ones that will.
I prefer the economic ramifications without Terminators, but biology will always kick you in the butt.
I heard that Monsanto were so pessimistic about the GM foods market in Europe (particularly UK) that they thinking of stopping GM crop production for the market and instead using DNA/Gene info for hi-tech cross-breeding.
That would be something i would certainly support although at the moment (and for teh forseable future) GM is purely about profit for manufacturer and their larger customers.
GM won't feed the starving millions it will only mean greater over-production and profit in rich western countries along with more pollution and a badly poisoned eco-system - in the third world farmers won't be able to afford the seeds and will be unable to compete with those who can who will then be dependant on the vendor.
Fortunately Europe is kicking up a fuss about GM foods and the pesticides and otehr chemicals used on them - as well as the anti-biotics and hormones and GM injections given to US cattle.
This is still just a token gesture by Monsanto - it can afford to give up the terminator, it makes it look good while making the danger of GM cross-contamination worse - its a no-win situation for the environment and the consumer.
I'm glad we have Greenpeace and plenty of socialist european governments who aren't afraid of these conglomorates.
Hows Organic food in the US? Can you get Organic Vegetarian own-brand supermarket food in WAL-mart yet?
I have to say Sainsburies and Tesco in the UK have worked well to provide a full choice and pretty reasonably priced (would be cheaper if there was higer availability - demand outstrips supply for Organic foods in UK) selection.
More organic less chemical!!!!!
Aaron - TheJackal
All seeds aren't hybrids; in fact, most of the better tasting tomatoes are true varieties, often called "heirlooms", which create viable identical offspring season after season after season. On the other hand, hybridized plants are still limited to the genome of the species, being crosses of two different varieties of the sames species. If you love a hybrid variety so much that you want to turn it into a true variety, you can, with some patience, select offspring for the qualities you value, an over a number of generations you will end up with a plant you like that breeds true. Then you can post your info in the "Seed Savers Exchange" (the original Open Source!) and let the world in on your discovery.
Monsanto has a long track record of evilness... PCBs, rBGH coverup, lobbying for no labeling, funding research to support their crap.
Read Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, check out http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
Monsanto has the American public in their hands yet they have no concern for public health or goodwill. They only care about profits. Yes, we have a democracy but it is being manipulated by Monsanto.
But I don't see too much of an outrcy. Where's the boycott!?
Don't forget PCB... Or rBGH!
I got a question. Does anyone know if the genetic manipulation in the 'Roundup Ready' and 'Terminator' strains has any side-effects that would be detrimental to humans or the environment?
Incidentially, insert your own beowulf joke here.
I am assuming many of you are not farmers because if you were you would know that this kind of thing happens all the time. Well sortof.
If you were a farmer and wanted to buy Roundup Ready Canola(which is a variety of canola that is resistent to to the herbicide Roundup) stamped on the bag would be the words something like "Purchase of these seeds do not give you the right to plant them. You must purchase a license from Company X prior to use of these seeds."
Much of the crops my dad seeds have replanting restrictions placed on them so you cannot plant what you harvest.
Making seeds that are sterile doesn't change anything it just enforces the license restrictions that are already there.
This is the question for me. This impacts food production issues, but the prospects of the commercialization of the human genome is interesting/frightening.
If we agree Nature has a BSD-ish license where we do not have to return the modifications to the general whole, companies can make insane amounts of money creating and copyrighting genes for increased strength, intellegence, etc. These will be liscensed to parents for money. Potentially, the resulting kids will exist at the whim of the creating company since they hold key licenses inside the person.
If only a subset of the population can benefit from these genetic advances due to monetary concerns, will there be a potential fragmentation of the human genome? Even more likely, what will the social rammifications be?
A GPL-type license for Nature could help alleviate some of these concerns. It might, however, slow down genetic advancements. Of course, this might not be a bad thing.
I think these are issues we need to hammer out as DNA will become the source code of the next century and beyond as humans take control of their evolutionary paths.
The question is, do we want free market forces with it's emphasis on short term profit to drive the evolution of the human genome?
I'm all for making money on a good idea, but to me, there are somethings that are more important than making money.. and I think WE are one of them.
Bryan K. Baskin
The only thing that bothered me about the idea of these "terminator" seeds is how the gene is activated.
Now, obviously the plants need to grow fertile seeds before treatment, this is necessary for Monsato to grow the terminator seeds in the first place. But how is the terminator gene activated in the seeds they sell?
Unless the design changed since the last time I read about these seeds, they spray them with tetracycline!!!
Now, with all the trouble we're having recently with resistant bacteria, I think dumping antibiotics into the topsoil with every new crop planted is the last thing we need to be doing.
Other than that, I don't see where the problem is. In fact, I think just mabye ALL geneticall engineered food should have a terminator gene. This would prevent them from breeding on their own in case something went seriously wrong (attack of the killer tomatos???).
As for the economic issues involved:
As others here have pointed out, the hybrid crops already in use now don't breed true, so the farm companies have to buy new seeds every year anyway. And even if they didn't...
Who really cares if a giant seed corperation screws the giant farm corperations. Sadly, the days of the small farmer with two cows a coop of chickens, and 100 acres, are long gone. We live in the era of the factory farm, for better or worse.
So the farming company has to pay more every year to plant new seeds with the terminator gene. They'll pass along the extra cost to the consumers. Consumers will promptly start lobbying the government to do something about it. The government drops the its price supports for foodstuffs a few notches. The price then drops back in line with the normal inflation rate.
Net result? The farming corperations get a little more of our money directly from us in the form of food prices; and they get a little less of our money indirectly in the form of farming subsidies. But the actual cost to the consumer will stay the same.
No big deal. Just find a way to use the terminator gene without adding antibiotics to our soil, and theres no problem.
john
Imagine all the people...
This is bad technology, and needs to be strangled to death in the cradle. If the music industry can kill off Digital Audio Tape, then farmers should kill off sterile seeds in the same way.
Farmers in all parts of the world expect that seeds are fertile and saving seeds from one crop will allow farmers to grow the same type of plants for the next harvest. That's why hybrid seeds are deprecated, and that's why "terminator technology" or "sterile seeds" are not wanted by the farming community.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
> Vegetables can't provide all the proteins your
> body needs to grow. For this reason, it is
> generally reccomended that no one becomes a
> vegetarian before they're about 12 or so.
Who told you that exactly? That is bulls*t and you know it. All the proteins and minerals that you need to grow are readily available in vegetables, nuts, pulses and fruit. Meat proteins are actually harder to extract and require a longer intestinal tract than we posesse to digest properly.
> And the diet of the Innuit (Eskimos, if you
> prefer)is an enduring mystery - they eat animal
> products almost exclusively, and yet don't
> seem to be dropping like flies.
And the Hindu and Bhuddist Asian countries (in fact the worlds largest country: India) have managed just fine without meat.
They don't have to be dropping like flies - digestive and lung cancer are long slow killers that get you (usually) in middle age.
Also the innuit have a healthy lifestyle and eat fresh meat that isn't full of hormones - not to mention the fact that most innuit no longer lead the nomadic lifestyle that you're thinking of, most now live in towns with access to fruit and veg hence them living longer - any innuit who lives tradionally is almost certain to be killed by the conditions before middleage diseases will get to him.
That couldn't be more different to the diet and lifestyle of middle-america where red-meat filled with anti-biotics and hormones are the mainstay. Lack of exersize and a balanced diet mean that these people die of heart disease before the stumoch cancer kicks in.
Not only does Red Meat increase the danger of cancer but also increases the risk of heart disease and increases blood pressure.
There are no benefits in giving children meat - in fact while the amount of meat eaten in the UK has dwindled and vegetarians have increased health has improved.
> We are omnivores - we lack a digestive tract
> capable of properly digesting vegetable matter.
> Eating an excessive amount of meat will of
> course be bad for you. But not in itself.
Yup we are omnivores like all higher primates we can eat meat if we have to but are not 'designed' to survive on it hence the damage it does to the digestive system.
Check your facts a bit before you spout this crap!
Aaron (TheJackal)
Realizing that hacking C code is a wee different from gene sequencing, I still wonder if there's a new breed of hacker (pardon the pun) on the horizon. As many academic groups and biotech firms have shown, you can do a lot of research with minimal equipment. True, you can do a lot more with a wad of cash, but cash usually buys reduced time and not creativity. Following the thought through, won't we begin to see agri-hackers emerge as big firms put the squeeze on small producers? (Just as MS put the squeeze on the rest of the industry using bad-for-the-consumer products?)
There are already countless farmers and biologists who are hybridization experts, and I don't think it's a great leap to see them experimenting with Monsanto's latest genetically engineered product, and chatting with their virtual neighbors about it. Hybridization techniques are a far cry from laboratory engineering of specific genes, but still quite effective for guiding/preserving/producing desired traits. And gene sequencing no longer takes the army of researchers it once did. A little of both would reveal all manner of wonders -- Monsanto's NDAs be damned. All that's missing from the picture is an updated forum for sharing information (alt.agro.gene.warez? rec.hybrid.splice?) and some websites detailing how to do gene sequencing/splicing at home hosted by down-home agrihackers, hybrid-phreaks, and gene-crackers.
I'd venture a guess that in 10 years, Monsanto will have to develop gene encryption techniques in order to maintain their current business model, and we'll be looking at SETI@home or RC5-crack style distributed sequencing projects.
- Jon (sticking to certified organic food)
I think not...(*poof*)
mmm spotted owl.. mmm munch munch. quit whining, people who get harmed by sludge are stupid bastards and deserve to die for not moving out. its called 'the darwin awards y2k' "stupid man lives in toxic waste dump coz hes too stupid to get a decent job or get an education" thus we clean out the gene pool. dont you get it! ok actually im just kidding, but alot of people think like i just said above. coz they are chicken shits and dont want to leave their cushy job at monsanto or one of its thousands of dependent businesses. hell i know i dont want to leave my cushy seat! pass me the fritos and boot up my linux box to slashdot!
It's good to see that monsanto is doing something that is somewhat responsible -- but I'm pretty sure it's just because they know they couldn't get away with the 'terminator' plants.
Something makes me not trust Monsanto at all... One of their acheivements they're probably not so proud of is Agent Orange, which isn't too encouraging from the people who grow your food. Let's look at who else might sell us crop seeds, ok?
-ubermuffin
OH BABY monsanto can kiss my big organic dick.
Sorry but this is rubbish. Oters have already pointed this out, but i have to point out that you are swallowing the marketing and PR bull of huge multinationals who dont give a damn about third world countries, they just care about their share price. Im more inclined to listen to the likes of Freinds of The Earth or Greenpeace than someone with their eye on the mighty dollar like MS
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Are GM seeds/food/etc even safe? In the US, medicine cannot be sold unless it's approved by the FDA. But it seems that the GM food makers are selling GM seeds without knowing if it's possibly unsafe for the environment or for human consumption.
If they are unsafe, wouldn't they be forced to cease and desist selling the GM seeds? Or worse, the government might consider them safe and ignore the other consequences, such as the environment.
Anyway, what ever did happen to 100% pure food?
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
- A gene for a toxin that will kill the seed late in development, but that will not kill any other part of the plant.
- A method for allowing a plant breeder to grow several generations of cotton plants, already genetically-engineered to contain the seed-specific toxin gene, without any seeds dying. This is required to produce enough seeds to sell for farmers to plant.
- A method for activating the engineered seed-specific toxin gene after the farmer plants the seeds, so that the farmer's second generation will be killed.
Full technical description on the Edmonds Institute Websiteai731
--
"I use the words you taught me. If they don't mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent"
Monsanto could push all the sterile seeds it wanted all they would have to do is buy out the seed companies. Then over time they would just to a microsoft and sneak it in so every farmer was paying them each year for some thing that is normaly free. This terminator gene sort of all ready exzits its called hybridasation. I dont know how many people out here in net land have ever tryed to plant the seeds that have come from a hybrid tomato plant. Let me tell you, the tomatoes grown are full of imperfections. So each year the back year we have to go back to the plant farm and fork out more cash for tomatoes. "theres no such thing as a free meal."
I can't see how this would happen. If there would be a cross polination, and the terminator gene was transferred, well, then the product would not survive and the gene would not spread. To me it sounds like a terminator gene is much safer than any other kind of gene manipulation.
Lars
Lars
--
Reality or nothing.
They make GE plants to lock you into their own products
like the oilseed rape that resists their 'roundup' weedkiller, encouraging farmers to use more of the chemical.
Compare with other GE developments, such as rice which extracts vital minerals more effectively, and a birch tree which can be changed into paper without as much causitic chemical.
I've retyped this about 3 times because mozilla keeps crashing, and NS is bus erroring. GRR.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent