They use the claim of limited viability to support the claim that anything over a trace indicates infringement.
We have well-done studies of how quickly gene flow happens in commercial canola operations. Anything about viability would merely be an explanation for more important, already separately quantified, information.
the evolving nature of our knowledge on the subject makes nearly any evidence that doesn't involve video of the defendant in the act a bit questionable for my taste.
Skepticism is good, but using skepticism as a cover for bias isn't.
Here are the statements I quoted that you think this supports, rebutted using only that source:
the new claim is that if the gene is in your crops, you infringed the patent... they have disputed the possibility of innocent gene transfer
They clearly say "...it has never been Monsanto policy nor will it be to exercise patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means." and that quote also implicitly admits that transfer is possible.
Any claim that pollination cannot carry the gene to another crop should result in a conviction for perjury at this point.
Since they say "The study also found two plants (0.7 percent) had both the Liberty Link and the Roundup Ready gene.", and since as far as I know they've never been sold in the same plant, it seems pretty clear that they understand that crossing happens.
claims based on poor viability of the crop without roundup should be barred from the trial as unfounded
1. Again, I don't believe that this has been an issue in any court case, and your source doesn't even use the word "viability" (in any version) anywhere.
2. As the article you cited points out, government agencies think that crosses are unlikely to be more weedy (i.e. they can still be easily be controlled by other means), not have poor viability.
3. This thread's original article's research on non-commercial rice (not commercial canola) is troubling, but probably has to do with weedy rice having a less effective EPSP synthase gene to start with, and shouldn't be generalized.
At this point I can only conclude that you have a reading comprehension problem, or are trolling.
the new claim is that if the gene is in your crops, you infringed the patent... they have disputed the possibility of innocent gene transfer
Give me a citation, then, of Monsanto saying that innocent gene transfer, in general, doesn't happen, or that the mere presence of genes proves infringement.
Any claim that pollination cannot carry the gene to another crop should result in a conviction for perjury at this point.
Yeah, and it should also trigger a mental health evaluation. It's an undisputed (so far as I know) fact that cross pollination happens in (most) commercial crops.
claims based on poor viability of the crop without roundup should be barred from the trial as unfounded
I don't think it's played any significant role in any case, feel free to correct me. But (and please forgive me if I'm wrong) it appears that your knowledge of farming comes entirely from "Food, Inc." - and I really would like to know where you're getting your information from.
Their contention was that if you sprayed it with roundup and it didn't die, you must have knowingly infringed their patent.
I don't think that's true, testing for the gene (or rather the markers for it) is trivial at this point, and I know it has been used in lawsuits.
There certainly was by then a way for other varieties of canola to end up roundup ready that did not involve further GM techniques. There was also a way for plants to become roundup resistant with no GM techniques at all.
I don't know anyone who disputes that.
We need to shut down the suits while that research happens.
[Monsanto has falsely claimed that] ONLY their GM technique could produce a roundup ready plant
But their statement is pretty much true. With the exception of bizarrely unlikely scenarios, like viral transfer and complete coincidence, genes from bacteria are not going to show up in plants by natural means.
Now you seems to want "crossed with with a GM variety" to mean the same thing as "produced without GM techniques", which is getting absurd.
Some poor schmoe gets sued for patent violations when in reality the patented gene has violated his crop.
given cross pollination I would say that natural breeding could produce a roundup READY plant or a roundup resistant plant
Except that "cross pollinating with a RR strain" isn't "natural breeding".
Their argument has been that roundup resistance (including roundup ready) is a disadvantage to the plant in the absence of roundup and so the trait wouldn't last under natural selection. However, TFA indicates that we can't be so sure of that.
That is a surprise, and needs to be looked into. But even if it turns out not to be a disadvantage... OK, so resistance shows up earlier than expected... and... ?
I see what I did - the GP conflated "roundup ready" and "roundup resistance" and I missed it:
produced 'superweeds' that are also roundup resistant (funny considering how many times Monsanto has sworn that ONLY their GM technique could produce a roundup ready plant)
Resistance is almost certain to develop eventually, but getting the exact gene that was transferred is very, very unlikely.
Most of the materials you need to build the bigger tools aren't on the asteroid so you're kind of SOL.
Right. Because iron, nickel, carbon, and silicates are rarely used in heavy industry.
If we had the technology to locate the raw materials, mine them, refine and process them, and then produce finished goods fully automatically we wouldn't use humans to mine anything on Earth anymore either.
Humans are cheap, and have political opinions. It probably wouldn't be that much of a technical challenge (compared to say, the space shuttle) to make a building-sized vending machine to replace a fast-food restaurant, but if it would cost more and get people to boycott you, why do it?
Speculating that it "could" be done is a world away from actually doing it.
attractivity (as in: being liked and pulling people) always works better than pushing people with terror
You missed "he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated", and more importantly the whole chapter called "That One Should Avoid Being Despised And Hated".
So if we ignore the tier of the US government that deals with most of the serious crime (the state level) we still get an imprisonment rate somewhat comparable to an EU member. How does this support your argument?
Which is a more reasonable assumption - Americans commit many more (or worse) crimes as people in other Western countries, or the US legal system is a bit different? (Hints: death penalty, three-strikes)
If you believe I am incorrect, please reply with a rebuttal with primary sources that prove me wrong.
From your own citation [118]: "It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr. Schmeiser's field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998. However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey, an expert witness appearing for the plaintiffs, that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser's crop. His view was supported in part by evidence of Dr. Barry Hertz, a mechanical engineer, whose evidence scientifically demonstrated the limited distance that canola seed blown from trucks in the road way could be expected to spread. I am persuaded on the basis of Dr. Downey's evidence that on a balance of probabilities none of the suggested possible sources of contamination of Schmeiser's crop was the basis for the substantial level of Roundup Ready canola growing in field number 2 in 1997."
In case it isn't clear: you can't be successfully sued for accidental gene transfer.
otherwise, you are in violation of the moderator rules and I'd be more than happy to report you so that your moderation privileges are revoked.
I can't tell be sure if this is wild bluster, trolling, or stupidity - but it's likely all three.
In the land of the free even donating money is considered "free speech", go figure.
Donating money isn't free speech, but preventing people from working together to get a message out interfers with their ability to use their free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we produce trillions of descendants from a few dozen soybeans that had their genes modified. We're not exactly tweaking every bean.
The complexity of the genome isn't much of an issue when you're just inserting a gene, swapping out a gene is likely to be much harder.
Plus, when you screw up a few soybeans, there's no moral pressure to keep it alive, nobody sues you, and your entire industry doesn't get banned.
If the government is 'disappearing' babies on a large scale, for any reason, I don't think the privacy of genetic information is your biggest problem.
The GDP of the top 40 nations in 2011 was about 64 trillion.
We have well-done studies of how quickly gene flow happens in commercial canola operations. Anything about viability would merely be an explanation for more important, already separately quantified, information.
Skepticism is good, but using skepticism as a cover for bias isn't.
Here are the statements I quoted that you think this supports, rebutted using only that source:
They clearly say "...it has never been Monsanto policy nor will it be to exercise patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means." and that quote also implicitly admits that transfer is possible.
Since they say "The study also found two plants (0.7 percent) had both the Liberty Link and the Roundup Ready gene.", and since as far as I know they've never been sold in the same plant, it seems pretty clear that they understand that crossing happens.
1. Again, I don't believe that this has been an issue in any court case, and your source doesn't even use the word "viability" (in any version) anywhere.
2. As the article you cited points out, government agencies think that crosses are unlikely to be more weedy (i.e. they can still be easily be controlled by other means), not have poor viability.
3. This thread's original article's research on non-commercial rice (not commercial canola) is troubling, but probably has to do with weedy rice having a less effective EPSP synthase gene to start with, and shouldn't be generalized.
At this point I can only conclude that you have a reading comprehension problem, or are trolling.
Did you read it? That article pretty much contradicts everything you've said.
Give me a citation, then, of Monsanto saying that innocent gene transfer, in general, doesn't happen, or that the mere presence of genes proves infringement.
Yeah, and it should also trigger a mental health evaluation. It's an undisputed (so far as I know) fact that cross pollination happens in (most) commercial crops.
I don't think it's played any significant role in any case, feel free to correct me. But (and please forgive me if I'm wrong) it appears that your knowledge of farming comes entirely from "Food, Inc." - and I really would like to know where you're getting your information from.
I don't think that's true, testing for the gene (or rather the markers for it) is trivial at this point, and I know it has been used in lawsuits.
I don't know anyone who disputes that.
And I think that's a bit premature.
But their statement is pretty much true. With the exception of bizarrely unlikely scenarios, like viral transfer and complete coincidence, genes from bacteria are not going to show up in plants by natural means.
Now you seems to want "crossed with with a GM variety" to mean the same thing as "produced without GM techniques", which is getting absurd.
Which is why we need more research.
Except that "cross pollinating with a RR strain" isn't "natural breeding".
That is a surprise, and needs to be looked into. But even if it turns out not to be a disadvantage ... OK, so resistance shows up earlier than expected ... and ... ?
Resistance is almost certain to develop eventually, but getting the exact gene that was transferred is very, very unlikely.
Shoot'Em-Up Construction Kit
Some GM crops work that way. Others don't.
Roundup is fairly environmentally friendly compared to many other herbicides, and we were using lots of it before GM crops existed.
I doubt that, because only an idiot would claim that. Hell, there were moderately resistant weeds before GM crops were available.
Right. Because iron, nickel, carbon, and silicates are rarely used in heavy industry.
Humans are cheap, and have political opinions. It probably wouldn't be that much of a technical challenge (compared to say, the space shuttle) to make a building-sized vending machine to replace a fast-food restaurant, but if it would cost more and get people to boycott you, why do it?
True, but you have to start with speculation.
Yeah. It would have to weigh about as much as 1,000 mountains and be in an orbit that you have to fight to get into.
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here.
I understand, but I don't think that eyegaze was the kind of facilitated communication the GP was calling a hoax.
Yeah. GP has 'European countries', P has 'Switzerland', and I did some hasty editing. Hopefully that doesn't obscure my point.
And your reliable evidence for your claim is?
Every other culture that existed at the same time each of the books originated.
attractivity (as in: being liked and pulling people) always works better than pushing people with terror
You missed "he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated", and more importantly the whole chapter called "That One Should Avoid Being Despised And Hated".
So if we ignore the tier of the US government that deals with most of the serious crime (the state level) we still get an imprisonment rate somewhat comparable to an EU member. How does this support your argument?
Which is a more reasonable assumption - Americans commit many more (or worse) crimes as people in other Western countries, or the US legal system is a bit different? (Hints: death penalty, three-strikes)
Nobody disputes that. Small amounts of gene flow are expected and aren't a legal issue.
Not a whole field full. And remember that it was the "concentration or extent" that the judge was citing, not just that the RR trait showed up.
From your own citation [118]: "It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr. Schmeiser's field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998. However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey, an expert witness appearing for the plaintiffs, that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser's crop. His view was supported in part by evidence of Dr. Barry Hertz, a mechanical engineer, whose evidence scientifically demonstrated the limited distance that canola seed blown from trucks in the road way could be expected to spread. I am persuaded on the basis of Dr. Downey's evidence that on a balance of probabilities none of the suggested possible sources of contamination of Schmeiser's crop was the basis for the substantial level of Roundup Ready canola growing in field number 2 in 1997."
In case it isn't clear: you can't be successfully sued for accidental gene transfer.
I can't tell be sure if this is wild bluster, trolling, or stupidity - but it's likely all three.
Donating money isn't free speech, but preventing people from working together to get a message out interfers with their ability to use their free speech.