That's a lot like pollen with the patented genes from neighbors' fields getting onto your plants.
At least so far: you have to know that the cross-pollination has happened, deliberately breed for it, use the engineered trait (e.g. use lots of glyphosate), and (for the most part) use it for for financial gain.
How can something that happens on its own, as designed, as sold, get the person who happens to own it in trouble?
That's what I said when my pet lion ate the neighbor's kid! But seriously, as the law has been used so far people have to deliberately do things in order to get into trouble. I'm not saying that it couldn't change in the future or that we should just trust things to work out, but right now that kind of thing isn't a problem.
I'm just pointing out the irony of a European being proud that a technology is banned from Europe, even though the same attitude (though towards a different technology) appeared a couple of centuries ago, and nowadays we generally see that as a rather unenlightened movement.
I think we're getting down to basically only about 3x main seed providers commercially out there anymore
The numbers I have aren't authoritative, but it looks like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta put together aren't even half of the global seed market. One of the major reasons they got there was because they took enormous risks (imagine if GMOs failed to work, didn't do anything farmers wanted, or were made illegal) and other companies didn't. And also keep in mind that there are farmers (generally organic or specialty ones) that won't even do business with companies that make GMOs, so smaller organic suppliers have a small, but essentially captive, market.
Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.
This is not an "if" but a "when". It is as near to a certainty as anything can be.
No, it's pretty much impossible to do that to an entire field. And if they're trying to keep a pure heirloom variety they're going to need to carefully control pollination anyway.
cross-pollination with wild-type seeds is a certainty and therefore everyone not buying new seed every year will suffer from yield reductions due to Monsanto's seeds.
their seed yield will be reduced they negatively impact their future yield due to a percentage of the seed being sterile
A small percentage, yes, but certainly not enough to ruin a whole harvest.
More importantly, if you're growing something to produce seed you should be practicing "safe sex" and controlling your plants pollination anyway. Genes from a sterile variety won't get far (one generation), but genes for a low-yield variety can get in and cause significant problems.
Let's say for instance they cross pollinate with another crop and sterilize that crop as well. Which in turn cross pollinates ad nauseum until there are no fertile seeds. Far fetched perhaps but not unthinkable.
No, I really think that sterile crops cross-pollinating generation after generation is pretty much unthinkable.:)
More to the point, if A plants corn for seed and does nothing to control their reproduction, and B plants a sterile variety, it's true that A may lose some (small) part of his seed because of pollination from B's plants. But you'd get essentially the same effect if B planted a hybrid (their offspring tend to do poorly) or an incompatible variety. Farmer A really just needs to use the standard techniques (that he's probably already using if he's doing his own breeding) to do his own crossing, not go off and demand the right to dictate to the rest of the county what they're allowed to plant.
This sequence caused expression of the allergen from cashews, so it got caught and the program was shut down.
Except that (so far at least) in situations like this allergen expression was a likely result of the experiment in question, and it "got caught" by people specifically looking for it, as it was an expected result. This shouldn't be any more alarming than finding out that a crash test dummy got its head bashed in - you expect things to go "wrong" during safety testing, because that's the one place you actually want those bad things to happen.
Big fire at Monsanto, and the world starves because no seed grows? Stupid.
Yes, that is a stupid question:
First, because Monstanto has lots of locations.
Second, because Monsanto will keep selling other varieties as well.
Third, because Monsanto isn't the only seed company in the world.
Fourth, because there are still people (and governments) who have their own varieties.
I suppose though its possible 1 twin really was alone and the other was comitting the crimes, which gets you back to square one.
Isn't that a pretty likely situation? The chances of a younger, unattached person being alone when not at work are fairly good, even better at night when they're asleep. Heck, the 'evil' twin probably knows a lot about 'good' twin's schedule, and could just plan accordingly.
Look at it this way: if our education system required a class on morality instead of science, wouldn't you want your children to be able to skip the section that says that God created man and man owes our sense of morality to a supreme being?
Absolutely not! While divine command theory is a (very) minority position, it still is a legitimate theory in philosophy. It doesn't matter if some find it distasteful, it deserves to be discussed right along with egoist and utilitarian conceptions of meta-ethics. Creationism/ID, by contrast, is either not science at all, or just a random hypothesis with no empirical support and a great deal of contradictory evidence, depending on version.
Leading a class in prayer or teaching kids the 'fact' that apostates go to hell is quite different than mentioning the Crusades in world history.
I don't believe that man is capable of increasing temperature
Also, I never said I'm certain, I said I'm unconvinced
I hope you can see how these two sentences seem to be expressing different positions. Skepticism is great, but just assuming something isn't possible is close-minded, and not really the same thing at all.
I don't believe that man is capable of increasing temperature, thus influencing something as complex as the weather, worldwide.
Well, unless there's some other source that we've been mysteriously unable to find, Man has increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% in the last half-century. I don't know how you can be so certain that a change like that can't affect the climate.
I thought the climate change debate was the same. *Both* sides fudging every number they can.
You are correct that both sides are attempting to spin the situation, but there's a significant difference between (for example) Al Gore only mentioning worst-case scenarios and Christopher Monckton misrepresenting the results of research after being repeatedly corrected by the researchers themselves.
since that's the reason we have a disproportionate representation of Iowa in our national conversation.
I have no idea why this got down-voted, as it's completely true. Not only does my state fight hard to hold its caucuses before any other state, it also gets a disproportionate number of electoral votes, just like the other rural states. (Wyoming gets 2.5 times as many people in Washington per capita as California).
Adding to that, the winner-take-all system in most states means that unless you're a swing state, your vote simply isn't worth fighting for.
This geography-based voting system is simply a messy kluge from a pre-industrial age, and should be fixed. But since current political groups get their power from the current system, it's in their best interest to leave it alone.
Except people routinely feel like they'd like to lie or sleep around, so why doesn't religious doctrine say, "go right ahead"?
Simply because most people get all grouchy when other people do those things, so most people say that they're against them, and proudly pat themselves on the back for being so moral. Then they come up with reasons that their own lies and bed-hopping are different, completely unaware of the contradicion. "Do as I say, not as I do" at it's finest.
it turns out that the people claiming that it burns more fuel than it produces were fudging the results
As an Iowan who has worked for agricultural technology companies for most of the last decade, I can assure you that both sides are fudging the numbers as hard as they can. Imagine a debate where both sides used the same tactics as the climate change deniers - not the merely ignorant or skeptical ones mind you, but the industry-funded lie-if-it's-convenient corporate whores.
Those are a different kind of study, but both types have some serious problems.
You're talking about population studies, where you try to find a correlation between circumcision and HIV infection rates. But because circumcision is based on culture any other variation in cultural practices will give a false connection. Some countries have a strong correlation but a large Muslim population, so we can't be sure if it's circumcision, prohibitions against adultery and unaccompanied women, or just a general view that sex is sinful or dirty (or some combination) that is actually responsible. Other countries have a strong inverse correlation (more circumcision -> more HIV infection) but have different levels of contact with the West, so that might just be a result of picking up both circumcision and HIV from outside groups.
The studies that the GP brought up were experimental - find 1000 uncircumcised men in a high-risk group who want to be circumcised, split them randomly into experimental and control groups, and see what happens. One problem is that they ended those studies after 18 months, so time while healing and temporary behavioral changes could explain much of the difference in apparent risk. And that also leaves out long term effects - if you look for subjects at a brothel, giving them a few weeks with no sex might make them rethink their behavior, or because they were required to wear condoms while healing they might pick up that habit. Another is that the experimental group has much more contact - they had to come back to the hospital to have the surgery done, at least one follow-up visit, and also come back if something went wrong or seemed odd - and every time they see AIDS prevention posters, talk with medical professionals, and are reminded that they have to wear condoms. Then there's the possibility of control group members going to religious practitioners (a common HIV vector in Africa), low numbers (out of hundreds, 12 infections vs 6), more people dropping out of the study than contracting HIV, preexisting biases, and lots of other more minor issues.
Of course the biggest issue (for both of these kinds of studies) is that studies in first-world countries, where it's easier to be rigorous and socioeconomic factors can be compensated for, almost never show a statistically meaningful correlation between circumcision and any STD, let alone a medically meaningful one. That's why after the three African studies came out almost every medical organization worldwide reviewed their policies regarding circumcision and left them the same - the studies were of questionable value, and for the groups we deal with (infants in the West) we have better studies that have different results.
Trials here in South Africa showed that circumcision reduced the HIV infection rate [mrc.ac.za],...
... just like similar trials in Kenya and Uganda. But those trials had significant methodological problems and their conclusions directly contradict the available epidemiological data and virtually every study done on men who were circumcised as infants. Even if we skip over the US vs Europe as the obvious counterexample, Africa is about evenly split between countries with higher HIV infection rates among the circumcised and those with lower. So if there is some kind of protective effect, it would have to be a relatively small compared to other factors.
Slashdot Mirror
At least so far: you have to know that the cross-pollination has happened, deliberately breed for it, use the engineered trait (e.g. use lots of glyphosate), and (for the most part) use it for for financial gain.
That's what I said when my pet lion ate the neighbor's kid! But seriously, as the law has been used so far people have to deliberately do things in order to get into trouble. I'm not saying that it couldn't change in the future or that we should just trust things to work out, but right now that kind of thing isn't a problem.
I'm just pointing out the irony of a European being proud that a technology is banned from Europe, even though the same attitude (though towards a different technology) appeared a couple of centuries ago, and nowadays we generally see that as a rather unenlightened movement.
The numbers I have aren't authoritative, but it looks like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta put together aren't even half of the global seed market. One of the major reasons they got there was because they took enormous risks (imagine if GMOs failed to work, didn't do anything farmers wanted, or were made illegal) and other companies didn't. And also keep in mind that there are farmers (generally organic or specialty ones) that won't even do business with companies that make GMOs, so smaller organic suppliers have a small, but essentially captive, market.
Didn't some of you guys do the same thing with machinery during the Industrial Revolution?
No, it's pretty much impossible to do that to an entire field. And if they're trying to keep a pure heirloom variety they're going to need to carefully control pollination anyway.
Sterile seed doesn't spread much of anything.
A small percentage, yes, but certainly not enough to ruin a whole harvest.
More importantly, if you're growing something to produce seed you should be practicing "safe sex" and controlling your plants pollination anyway. Genes from a sterile variety won't get far (one generation), but genes for a low-yield variety can get in and cause significant problems.
No, I really think that sterile crops cross-pollinating generation after generation is pretty much unthinkable. :)
More to the point, if A plants corn for seed and does nothing to control their reproduction, and B plants a sterile variety, it's true that A may lose some (small) part of his seed because of pollination from B's plants. But you'd get essentially the same effect if B planted a hybrid (their offspring tend to do poorly) or an incompatible variety. Farmer A really just needs to use the standard techniques (that he's probably already using if he's doing his own breeding) to do his own crossing, not go off and demand the right to dictate to the rest of the county what they're allowed to plant.
Except that (so far at least) in situations like this allergen expression was a likely result of the experiment in question, and it "got caught" by people specifically looking for it, as it was an expected result. This shouldn't be any more alarming than finding out that a crash test dummy got its head bashed in - you expect things to go "wrong" during safety testing, because that's the one place you actually want those bad things to happen.
Yes, that is a stupid question:
First, because Monstanto has lots of locations.
Second, because Monsanto will keep selling other varieties as well.
Third, because Monsanto isn't the only seed company in the world.
Fourth, because there are still people (and governments) who have their own varieties.
Why not? We use seed for food all of the time, and much of that can't be planted.
If the owner developed a new breed of horse and patented it, then yes. For example, there are lots of patented varieties of lab mice.
Except that, legally, they're treated in much the same way.
Isn't that a pretty likely situation? The chances of a younger, unattached person being alone when not at work are fairly good, even better at night when they're asleep. Heck, the 'evil' twin probably knows a lot about 'good' twin's schedule, and could just plan accordingly.
Absolutely not! While divine command theory is a (very) minority position, it still is a legitimate theory in philosophy. It doesn't matter if some find it distasteful, it deserves to be discussed right along with egoist and utilitarian conceptions of meta-ethics. Creationism/ID, by contrast, is either not science at all, or just a random hypothesis with no empirical support and a great deal of contradictory evidence, depending on version.
Leading a class in prayer or teaching kids the 'fact' that apostates go to hell is quite different than mentioning the Crusades in world history.
I hope you can see how these two sentences seem to be expressing different positions. Skepticism is great, but just assuming something isn't possible is close-minded, and not really the same thing at all.
Evolutionary science gets more public funding than Creationists do...
Twisting is one thing, but I haven't caught him in an unambiguous, deliberate lie. Could you point one out to me?
Well, unless there's some other source that we've been mysteriously unable to find, Man has increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% in the last half-century. I don't know how you can be so certain that a change like that can't affect the climate.
I clearly differentiated between deniers and skeptics.
You are correct that both sides are attempting to spin the situation, but there's a significant difference between (for example) Al Gore only mentioning worst-case scenarios and Christopher Monckton misrepresenting the results of research after being repeatedly corrected by the researchers themselves.
I have no idea why this got down-voted, as it's completely true. Not only does my state fight hard to hold its caucuses before any other state, it also gets a disproportionate number of electoral votes, just like the other rural states. (Wyoming gets 2.5 times as many people in Washington per capita as California).
Adding to that, the winner-take-all system in most states means that unless you're a swing state, your vote simply isn't worth fighting for.
This geography-based voting system is simply a messy kluge from a pre-industrial age, and should be fixed. But since current political groups get their power from the current system, it's in their best interest to leave it alone.
Simply because most people get all grouchy when other people do those things, so most people say that they're against them, and proudly pat themselves on the back for being so moral. Then they come up with reasons that their own lies and bed-hopping are different, completely unaware of the contradicion. "Do as I say, not as I do" at it's finest.
As an Iowan who has worked for agricultural technology companies for most of the last decade, I can assure you that both sides are fudging the numbers as hard as they can. Imagine a debate where both sides used the same tactics as the climate change deniers - not the merely ignorant or skeptical ones mind you, but the industry-funded lie-if-it's-convenient corporate whores.
But changing one's models to fit empirical data is the basic philosophy underpinning ... um ... that thing they're doing.
Those are a different kind of study, but both types have some serious problems.
You're talking about population studies, where you try to find a correlation between circumcision and HIV infection rates. But because circumcision is based on culture any other variation in cultural practices will give a false connection. Some countries have a strong correlation but a large Muslim population, so we can't be sure if it's circumcision, prohibitions against adultery and unaccompanied women, or just a general view that sex is sinful or dirty (or some combination) that is actually responsible. Other countries have a strong inverse correlation (more circumcision -> more HIV infection) but have different levels of contact with the West, so that might just be a result of picking up both circumcision and HIV from outside groups.
The studies that the GP brought up were experimental - find 1000 uncircumcised men in a high-risk group who want to be circumcised, split them randomly into experimental and control groups, and see what happens. One problem is that they ended those studies after 18 months, so time while healing and temporary behavioral changes could explain much of the difference in apparent risk. And that also leaves out long term effects - if you look for subjects at a brothel, giving them a few weeks with no sex might make them rethink their behavior, or because they were required to wear condoms while healing they might pick up that habit. Another is that the experimental group has much more contact - they had to come back to the hospital to have the surgery done, at least one follow-up visit, and also come back if something went wrong or seemed odd - and every time they see AIDS prevention posters, talk with medical professionals, and are reminded that they have to wear condoms. Then there's the possibility of control group members going to religious practitioners (a common HIV vector in Africa), low numbers (out of hundreds, 12 infections vs 6), more people dropping out of the study than contracting HIV, preexisting biases, and lots of other more minor issues.
Of course the biggest issue (for both of these kinds of studies) is that studies in first-world countries, where it's easier to be rigorous and socioeconomic factors can be compensated for, almost never show a statistically meaningful correlation between circumcision and any STD, let alone a medically meaningful one. That's why after the three African studies came out almost every medical organization worldwide reviewed their policies regarding circumcision and left them the same - the studies were of questionable value, and for the groups we deal with (infants in the West) we have better studies that have different results.
Ask any woman which they prefer, Inches or Millimeters.
An impressive 178 millimeters, versus only 7 inches? That one's easy.