Please cite a case where thousands of people were made sick by eating GMO food.
Note: Every day thousands of people are made sick by eating all kinds of food so your citation must include evidence that the sickness was caused specifically by the genetic modification.
I have researched this. It was a Greenpeace funded paper published in a non-refereed journal that collected a bunch of Monsanto data into a meta study and then applied a series of statistical methods to the data until they found a correlation and then released the publication to the world's press agencies.
Schmeiser was sued for patent infringement because he selected and replanted seed from plants fertilized by wind blown pollen. His crop when analyzed was found to be 90+% RoundUp resistant corn.
He WAS NOT sued for the accidental wind blown contamination of his crop.
Nor did he end up having to pay any royalties.
So:
1. The matter he was sued for was not accidental contamination.
2. He was not made responsible for the accidental contamination.
WRONG. Schmeiser selected and intentionally replanted seed from corn that was fertilized by wind blown pollen. Tests of his crops showed over 90% of his corn had Roundup resistance. This was quite obviously intentional infringement of the Monsanto patents.
The price of labeling would be marginal, if even existent. I don't care if products with GMO in it is labeled, but products without it should be allowed to; so the price of adding a label wouldn't hurt producers of GMO food in the slightest. As for driving some customers away from GMO thanks to freer information, I don't see how this would have much of an effect on price either.
That is not the proposal that most people are considering. The usual idea is that GMO foods must be labelled as to their GMO content.
There was never any such tomato sold to the general public.
I have read many arguments against GMO foods. The ones I have read all show a startling like of understanding of basic biology, farming, nutrition, science in general, the FDA, genetics, patent law in various and sundry combinations.
Yes, you are right. Scientific experiments are subject to certain ethical standards. Baby soap would violate these standards.
Similar ethical standards have been established through much debate within the scientific and regulatory communities for plant tests of this nature. Tests adhering to these standards have been conducted many times without damage to the environment. You have provided no evidence that this experiment failed to observe these well established ethical standards. If you have any such evidence I am sure that a legal challenge to this testing protocol would have been successful, as such challenges have been in the past.
This destructive action was not a challenge based on any rational basis. It is simply an expression of hate manipulated by people who are manipulating others using fear for their own political gain.
Bull. GMO patents are already expiring. The original Roundup patents have expired. There are non-profits etc. involved in the field.
Just because you don't like the business practices of some of the companies in the business doesn't mean the technology is bad. In fact we are looking at some pretty severe constraints on food production on this finite planet which are going to lead to some severe issues in the near future. GMOs are one of the few hopes we have to solve them.
If you want to make a difference go after the laws around the commercial exploitation of the technology. Not the technology itself.
I have seen this claimed many times by GMO opponents. I've asked many times for a citation or reference to a case where this has actually occurred. Guess what, NOBODY has one.
Oh poppycock. You didn't cite anything by linking to this movie.
The fact of the matter is that US case law DOES NOT allow collection of damages by a patent owner in cases of accidental contamination. This is clearly established legal precedent.
1. Have there also been no cases where Monsanto (threatened to) sue(d) a farmer "without winning"? Because most farmers I know are not really in a position to pay for those trials, and will settle out of court out of desperation. And Monsanto will likely demand they keep this quiet (bad PR) while simultaneously dropping hints whenever they 'contact' another farmer. 2. how sure are you that they aren't doing this in countries that aren't being represented by US newspapers?
This is a complete baloney. You are making up the possibility of unverifiable cases to justify a statement. Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as evidence in support of an argument. You have to come up with actual evidence, not some fantastic idea that there MIGHT be evidence.
Selective breeding does in fact create traits that do not exist in the gene stock; there are a variety of ways to make that happen without inserting a gene using genetic engineering. However it is much more haphazard and imprecise to do it this way and these techniques are much less sure of getting the desired result.
In fact genetic engineering is safer than selective breeding because the control of the process is much better.
Slashdot Mirror
Please cite a case where thousands of people were made sick by eating GMO food.
Note: Every day thousands of people are made sick by eating all kinds of food so your citation must include evidence that the sickness was caused specifically by the genetic modification.
Wrong. Vandalism is a random act of violence without political goal.
The environment has time to adapt?
Interesting. Hmm so what is that adaptation. OH! I know, the natural process by which species extinction occurs!
The fact is that nature is a constant flux of species waning and waxing as their environment changes!
So now how is this different from the introduction of some engineered crops. I KNOW! The introduction of the crops is actually controlled!
Crikey.
I have researched this. It was a Greenpeace funded paper published in a non-refereed journal that collected a bunch of Monsanto data into a meta study and then applied a series of statistical methods to the data until they found a correlation and then released the publication to the world's press agencies.
In other words, complete 100% bullshit.
The thing is though the resistance to Roundup occurred through natural selection, not transference of the resistance gene from the crops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html
The lawsuits were of farmers who intentionally violated the terms of their license agreements. NOT due to accidental contamination.
Whether or not precedence is established at the Supreme Court level is irrelevant. District court cases can equally provide precedence.
So where is your citation showing farmers are being sued and are paying royalties for accidental contamination?
Eh?
Could it be that this is just a big lie?
Schmeiser was sued for patent infringement because he selected and replanted seed from plants fertilized by wind blown pollen. His crop when analyzed was found to be 90+% RoundUp resistant corn.
He WAS NOT sued for the accidental wind blown contamination of his crop.
Nor did he end up having to pay any royalties.
So:
1. The matter he was sued for was not accidental contamination.
2. He was not made responsible for the accidental contamination.
Therefore you have failed to provide an example.
No, but viruses can certainly transfer genes via splicing.
Plasmids transfer antibiotic immunity by splicing.
In fact the lab techniques for genetic splicing were developed by studying how splicing occurs in nature.
I'm STILL looking for a case where somebody had to pay royalties for ACCIDENTAL contamination of his crops.
Schmeiser -
1. Wasn't accidental.
2. Didn't have to pay royalties.
WRONG. Schmeiser selected and intentionally replanted seed from corn that was fertilized by wind blown pollen. Tests of his crops showed over 90% of his corn had Roundup resistance. This was quite obviously intentional infringement of the Monsanto patents.
Nothing accidental here.
The price of labeling would be marginal, if even existent. I don't care if products with GMO in it is labeled, but products without it should be allowed to; so the price of adding a label wouldn't hurt producers of GMO food in the slightest. As for driving some customers away from GMO thanks to freer information, I don't see how this would have much of an effect on price either.
That is not the proposal that most people are considering. The usual idea is that GMO foods must be labelled as to their GMO content.
There was never any such tomato sold to the general public.
I have read many arguments against GMO foods. The ones I have read all show a startling like of understanding of basic biology, farming, nutrition, science in general, the FDA, genetics, patent law in various and sundry combinations.
99% of the messages on this forum are even worse.
Yes, you are right. Scientific experiments are subject to certain ethical standards. Baby soap would violate these standards.
Similar ethical standards have been established through much debate within the scientific and regulatory communities for plant tests of this nature. Tests adhering to these standards have been conducted many times without damage to the environment. You have provided no evidence that this experiment failed to observe these well established ethical standards. If you have any such evidence I am sure that a legal challenge to this testing protocol would have been successful, as such challenges have been in the past.
This destructive action was not a challenge based on any rational basis. It is simply an expression of hate manipulated by people who are manipulating others using fear for their own political gain.
Please show me a definition of terrorism that limits the term to violence against humans.
Please provide evidence that these materials are poison.
The fact is that they are much more carefully tested and controlled than the rest of your food supply.
In what way?
Please provide actual citations to cases where contamination of nature has occurred in any of these experiments.
If what you say is true about Europeans not wanting GMOs, why don't they pass laws against this sort of experiment?
Bull. GMO patents are already expiring. The original Roundup patents have expired. There are non-profits etc. involved in the field.
Just because you don't like the business practices of some of the companies in the business doesn't mean the technology is bad. In fact we are looking at some pretty severe constraints on food production on this finite planet which are going to lead to some severe issues in the near future. GMOs are one of the few hopes we have to solve them.
If you want to make a difference go after the laws around the commercial exploitation of the technology. Not the technology itself.
Dictionary.com, Free Dictionary etc.
Terrorism:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Violence:
the exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc.
It doesn't say anything about killing here.
Generally civil disobedience does not entail the active destruction of private property. It is normally a passive act.
I have seen this claimed many times by GMO opponents. I've asked many times for a citation or reference to a case where this has actually occurred. Guess what, NOBODY has one.
Yes, and what safety issues were the "protestors" responding to?
Bzzzzt. Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies.
Oh poppycock. You didn't cite anything by linking to this movie.
The fact of the matter is that US case law DOES NOT allow collection of damages by a patent owner in cases of accidental contamination. This is clearly established legal precedent.
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/BriefScruggsCase5.9.2005.pdf
page 7
1. Have there also been no cases where Monsanto (threatened to) sue(d) a farmer "without winning"? Because most farmers I know are not really in a position to pay for those trials, and will settle out of court out of desperation. And Monsanto will likely demand they keep this quiet (bad PR) while simultaneously dropping hints whenever they 'contact' another farmer.
2. how sure are you that they aren't doing this in countries that aren't being represented by US newspapers?
This is a complete baloney. You are making up the possibility of unverifiable cases to justify a statement. Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as evidence in support of an argument. You have to come up with actual evidence, not some fantastic idea that there MIGHT be evidence.
Selective breeding does in fact create traits that do not exist in the gene stock; there are a variety of ways to make that happen without inserting a gene using genetic engineering. However it is much more haphazard and imprecise to do it this way and these techniques are much less sure of getting the desired result.
In fact genetic engineering is safer than selective breeding because the control of the process is much better.