im not sure if the "kill-bit" was never used or got "broken" but the problem is that this seed CAN BE PLANTED and PRODUCES FERTILE SEED.
I seem to recall that when roundup-ready soybeans (or quite possibly I'm thinking of another variety) appeared on the market, it had the infertile seeds as a way to force farmers to buy new seed every year. It seems that this is no longer the case or I am thinking of another roundup-ready crop.
so you can have an RR crop five miles down the road blow pollen into YOUR very carefully CERTIFIED ORGANIC/NONGMO crop and then your entire field is ruined.
If an organic farmer is located relatively close to a conventional farmer with GMO crops and they take no precautions about contamination which leads to a not-certified organic crop, it's their own fault. Similarly for a conventional farmer being contaminated by an organic crop which leads to decreased yields - it's their own fault. Contamination between nearby fields is to be expected, and if it something a farmer wants to avoid, they need to take action to stop it. If contamination happens over a larger distance than can be reasonably expected, it's not the farmers fault, but is the result and fault of unexpected weather, which isn't the contaminating farmer's fault either.
And the organic crop, while ruined in the sense that it is no longer organic, is not ruined in the sense of total desolation. The farmer still has a crop they can sell (and because of the GMO influence it probably will have higher yields), they just can't sell it at the higher organic rate. And if it is economically worthwhile for them to grow organic crops, they have an economic incentive to take steps to prevent contamination. If it is too expensive to prevent that, and they will not relocate, it may no longer be economically feasible for them to attempt to raise organic crops.
Next time you laugh at us Americans for having so many people who reject the science of evolution or climate change, know that we're laughing at you for rejecting the science on genetic engineering.
It's not like the Europeans are complete opposed to genetic engineering and genetically modified crops. They're okay with 'natural' genetic engineering and manipulation that farmers have been doing for millennia. It's not like modern agricultural products exist in the wild - they are the end result of genetic selection and manipulation via breeding. But newer, faster, more efficient manipulation is going to kill the people that eat it.
I recommend reading about Norman Borlaug and how his aggressive wheat manipulation and cross-breeding saved millions of lives from starvation.
FGM involves removal of the clitoris, and the inner and outer labia to varying extents.
That describes some forms of Female Genital Mutilation, not all of them.
FGM is absolutely intended to deny females sexual pleasure; it's a prophylaxis of sorts against adultery. In actuality, it causes them pain for the rest of their lives.
In these cultures, the men often demand that their bride be cut in this way, otherwise they're undesirable.
I'm not sure that FGM and male circumcision are comparable. Circumcision came about during a time when hygiene was lax, awareness of causes of infection nonexistent.
Male circumcision is certainly comparable to removing the clitoral hood, which is a type of FGM.
Slashdot Mirror
im not sure if the "kill-bit" was never used or got "broken" but the problem is that this seed CAN BE PLANTED and PRODUCES FERTILE SEED.
I seem to recall that when roundup-ready soybeans (or quite possibly I'm thinking of another variety) appeared on the market, it had the infertile seeds as a way to force farmers to buy new seed every year. It seems that this is no longer the case or I am thinking of another roundup-ready crop.
so you can have an RR crop five miles down the road blow pollen into YOUR very carefully CERTIFIED ORGANIC/NONGMO crop and then your entire field is ruined.
If an organic farmer is located relatively close to a conventional farmer with GMO crops and they take no precautions about contamination which leads to a not-certified organic crop, it's their own fault. Similarly for a conventional farmer being contaminated by an organic crop which leads to decreased yields - it's their own fault. Contamination between nearby fields is to be expected, and if it something a farmer wants to avoid, they need to take action to stop it. If contamination happens over a larger distance than can be reasonably expected, it's not the farmers fault, but is the result and fault of unexpected weather, which isn't the contaminating farmer's fault either.
And the organic crop, while ruined in the sense that it is no longer organic, is not ruined in the sense of total desolation. The farmer still has a crop they can sell (and because of the GMO influence it probably will have higher yields), they just can't sell it at the higher organic rate. And if it is economically worthwhile for them to grow organic crops, they have an economic incentive to take steps to prevent contamination. If it is too expensive to prevent that, and they will not relocate, it may no longer be economically feasible for them to attempt to raise organic crops.
Monsanto don't even allow farmers to keep seed and resow next year; they insist that farmers buy fresh.
I believe that's because the roundup-ready crops produce infertile seed.
Next time you laugh at us Americans for having so many people who reject the science of evolution or climate change, know that we're laughing at you for rejecting the science on genetic engineering.
It's not like the Europeans are complete opposed to genetic engineering and genetically modified crops. They're okay with 'natural' genetic engineering and manipulation that farmers have been doing for millennia. It's not like modern agricultural products exist in the wild - they are the end result of genetic selection and manipulation via breeding. But newer, faster, more efficient manipulation is going to kill the people that eat it.
I recommend reading about Norman Borlaug and how his aggressive wheat manipulation and cross-breeding saved millions of lives from starvation.
In certain countries they do that, and the West refers to it as "female genital mutilation"
FGM involves removal of the clitoris, and the inner and outer labia to varying extents.
That describes some forms of Female Genital Mutilation, not all of them.
FGM is absolutely intended to deny females sexual pleasure; it's a prophylaxis of sorts against adultery. In actuality, it causes them pain for the rest of their lives.
In these cultures, the men often demand that their bride be cut in this way, otherwise they're undesirable.
I'm not sure that FGM and male circumcision are comparable. Circumcision came about during a time when hygiene was lax, awareness of causes of infection nonexistent.
Male circumcision is certainly comparable to removing the clitoral hood, which is a type of FGM.
Is this really that surprising? No. Is it fair? Maybe. Maybe not.