I guarantee, this will never end!I'm happy as a newbie to have started a good conversation! Congratulations. Here's to many more.
I guarantee, this will never end!I'm happy as a newbie to have started a good conversation! Congratulations. Here's to many more. Right. Great job.
From Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases "Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was pollinated with pollen blown into his field from neighboring fields, he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998. The initial Canadian Federal Court rejected Schmeiser's defense and held for Monsanto, finding that in 1998 Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds he had harvested from the wind-seeded crops in 1997, and so patent infringement had indeed occurred.[23] Schmeiser appealed and lost again."I didn't know it had made it to Wikipedia. Thanks. Do you see that his intention is why he was sued? The law that protects Monsanto has been around for almost 100 years. His intention to plant seeds grown in his own field was his sin. What's he supposed to do, buy from Monsanto every year? Monsanto would like that, but it isn't what he wants to do. Should he sell his farm and buy another far away from any Monsanto fields? What if his new neighbours decide to grow Monsanto crops... should he keep moving? I am not a conspiracy nut, but these companies have no public good in mind when doing anything. No, I suppose they can't monopolize the entire global seed market, but they can get enough to do harm. They aren't evil people, they are business people - very successful business people who are great at their job. Unfortunately their job is to make as much money as possible, that's it. My utopian hopes for the future are admittedly impossible, but that doesn't make the crap that goes on right now acceptable. We need to control things, if 100-year-old laws need to change then we should change them, not use them as excuses. GMOs can be an incredible force for good, but they can also be used to do bad things. They're a technology, that's it. How we use it determines whether we all benefit or only a tiny select group do. My point about 100 year old laws is that this is not strictly a GE issue, it applies to hybrids and similar farming. The law is, if seed accidentally drifts to a neighbor, the original planter has no claims on that immediate result and is not subject to damages, however, the accidental receiver does not get something for free. They are still subject to whatever patents or use restrictions there are for that seed. The law is written to acknowledge both the technology involved in creating the seed and the natural factors that are not controllable. Schmeiser knew what he had and knew he was getting traits from the drifted seed that would benefit him. He "owned the harvest", but, he saved the seeds and replanted them, that's where he broke the law. Do you think about the word "people" when you say it? Do you really imagine thousands of people going to work at Monsanto each day thinking about nothing but making money? Not caring about farmers, who happen to be their customers? Not caring about people living on a few dollars a day who have to choose between food or medicine? If anything, I can much more easily imagine that mindset for people making sugar water and flavored corn chips than I can for a seed company. And FYI, it's the anti-GMO people who are keeping this technology out of the hands of "all". It's the organic industry that benefits from an elite group. There is no reason for Golden Rice to be delayed like it has. A GE product that could be preventing and curing blindness. It has been the Organic Consumers Assoc and Greenpeace who have been heading up the fight against that.
...Schmeiser knew what he had and knew he was getting traits from the drifted seed that would benefit him. He "owned the harvest", but, he saved the seeds and replanted them, that's where he broke the law.Well, a farmer needs seeds. Did he have enough of his own un-modified seeds to plant his subsequent crops? If not, it seems to me that Monsanto should be liable to provide him with un-modified seeds, to replace the un-modified seeds that he would have had.
Schmeiser knew what he had and knew he was getting traits from the drifted seed that would benefit him. He "owned the harvest", but, he saved the seeds and replanted them, that's where he broke the law. Do you think about the word "people" when you say it? Do you really imagine thousands of people going to work at Monsanto each day thinking about nothing but making money? Not caring about farmers, who happen to be their customers? Not caring about people living on a few dollars a day who have to choose between food or medicine? If anything, I can much more easily imagine that mindset for people making sugar water and flavored corn chips than I can for a seed company. And FYI, it's the anti-GMO people who are keeping this technology out of the hands of "all". It's the organic industry that benefits from an elite group. There is no reason for Golden Rice to be delayed like it has. A GE product that could be preventing and curing blindness. It has been the Organic Consumers Assoc and Greenpeace who have been heading up the fight against that."Schmeiser knew what he had and knew he was getting traits from the drifted seed that would benefit him. He “owned the harvest", but, he saved the seeds and replanted them, that’s where he broke the law." Then the farmer should not plant his own seed any more but only ever buy it? Or do the legal alternative and pay Monsanto to plant seed he grew on his own land, didn't buy from them, and didn't want in the first place? What kind of choices are those?! "Do you think about the word “people" when you say it? Do you really imagine thousands of people going to work at Monsanto each day thinking about nothing but making money? Not caring about farmers, who happen to be their customers? Not caring about people living on a few dollars a day who have to choose between food or medicine? If anything, I can much more easily imagine that mindset for people making sugar water and flavored corn chips than I can for a seed company." My entire argument is based on the fact that people are in control! It's not the production floor workers who decide to do the things I don't like, it's the few at the top with the ability to make all the decisions. I never begrudge the work-force for the bad decisions of the head office. CEOs are people and if the opportunity to make money comes along, a CEO will take it, even if people far away they don't know get hurt in the process. (It doesn't help that lots of other people like share holders, production floor workers who want to keep their job, or anyone else who benefits at the expense of distant others, want the same decision.) Junk food manufacturers are opportunists who prey on our weakness for yummy food that's bad for us. They are no different than the cigarette companies, only more acceptable to the public. Is junk food terrible for us, yes - is it necessary for a large portion of the world to survive, no. That's the critical difference, as concerned as I am about the junk food epidemic, it is fundamentally a different problem than the extreme control private companies can have on some GMOs. "And FYI, it’s the anti-GMO people who are keeping this technology out of the hands of “all". It’s the organic industry that benefits from an elite group. There is no reason for Golden Rice to be delayed like it has. A GE product that could be preventing and curing blindness. It has been the Organic Consumers Assoc and Greenpeace who have been heading up the fight against that." Amen! The first thing I said on this thread is that the anti GMO lobby is identical in almost every way to the anti vaccination lobby. When the science fully supports something and only brainless conspiracy theories are preventing it from being used, I get pretty upset. The fact that anti GMO groups are keeping the benefits out of the hands of the public should almost cause the same reaction as Monsanto using such a heavy hand to keep it to themselves. I feel like I need to restate that I am emphatically for companies using GMOs to help feed the planet. Because of that, I don't like the anti GMO lobby or Monsanto preventing people from using it. That's it, I think we have almost the same stance except for how much we trust a few companies.
...Schmeiser knew what he had and knew he was getting traits from the drifted seed that would benefit him. He "owned the harvest", but, he saved the seeds and replanted them, that's where he broke the law.Well, a farmer needs seeds. Did he have enough of his own un-modified seeds to plant his subsequent crops? If not, it seems to me that Monsanto should be liable to provide him with un-modified seeds, to replace the un-modified seeds that he would have had. Drift is rarely more than 2% of a field. I've never heard of a case where someone had drift, knew it, reused ALL the seeds from the field in one big mix and got sued. That would be an interesting case. I bet Monsanto would lose that case, and I bet they know it. In Schmeiser's case, he specifically separated out the GMO seed and was trying to increase the amount of RoundUp resistance in his fields. He never made the argument that those seeds caused him any harm. It is only the arbitrary designation of "organic" that is even opening the question of it being harmful to one farmer to have a neighbor's seeds drift onto their property. Every other farmer considers this a normal part of doing business. There is only so much of nature that we can control. Farmers or seed companies shouldn't be liable for the affects of wind. I imagine you could find a case of irresponsible planting during a tornado, or a truck crashing into someone's barn, but those would be extremes and fall outside the legal definition of "reasonable".
The fact that anti GMO groups are keeping the benefits out of the hands of the public should almost cause the same reaction as Monsanto using such a heavy hand to keep it to themselves.Why are you singly out Monsanto as a company that can't protect it's patents? And again, read up on this, read what the costs are. It's expensive to bring these products market. Part of the expense is dealing with the intense regulations. Regulations that are based on what? There is no identified danger that has been identified as related to GE technology. You could use GE to create something dangerous, but there is nothing inherently dangerous. So we all pay extra because of fear. The patents are expiring, so this is all going to change soon anyway. GMO groups aren't "keeping the benefits out of the hands" of anyone, no more than anyone with a patent. Golden Rice, FYI, has been offered patent free. And Monsanto is not the only GE company. Your arguments are falling apart.
The fact that anti GMO groups are keeping the benefits out of the hands of the public should almost cause the same reaction as Monsanto using such a heavy hand to keep it to themselves.Why are you singly out Monsanto as a company that can't protect it's patents? And again, read up on this, read what the costs are. It's expensive to bring these products market. Part of the expense is dealing with the intense regulations. Regulations that are based on what? There is no identified danger that has been identified as related to GE technology. You could use GE to create something dangerous, but there is nothing inherently dangerous. So we all pay extra because of fear. The patents are expiring, so this is all going to change soon anyway. GMO groups aren't "keeping the benefits out of the hands" of anyone, no more than anyone with a patent. Golden Rice, FYI, has been offered patent free. And Monsanto is not the only GE company. Your arguments are falling apart.Sorry that I used the name Monsanto as a stand in for all GMO seed producers. I was lazy and they were a company being talked about. Since no GMO companies will ever abuse their power, I have no fears anymore.
There is a larger issue to consider here. Without GE foods we cannot feed our world’s population. For that matter, we can’t feed everyone even with GE foods, but without them an additional hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people would be malnourished. Climate change is stressing our crops and without GE foods famines would claim many millions of people in the coming decades, people we can probably feed with modified foods. Ethically, we have no choice. We cannot let millions of people die needlessly when we have the technology to provide them food. Sure, there are dangers, but the alternative is not in doubt.
People talk about Monsanto and other ag businesses as if they are people. Despite the dreadful Citizens United decision corporations are not people. There are many scientists and ancillary workers doing everything they can to produce seeds that can withstand pests and climate change because they want to feed people. Yes, the big companies make enormous profits. That in itself isn’t unethical, so the issue is how they make their profits. One side says they are doing good things and deserve their profits, the other points to the more questionable actions and accuses the corporations of evil doing. Both arguments have merit.
But it comes back to feeding a growing world population. I consider overpopulation the root of most of our environmental problems, but ethically cannot find any good argument to outlaw GE crops and let millions of people starve to death.
Thanks Darron. At this point, the only argument I’m hearing is “corporation bad”. There are some problems with the corporation system as it exists, but it’s a pretty poor argument.
Thanks Darron. At this point, the only argument I'm hearing is "corporation bad". There are some problems with the corporation system as it exists, but it's a pretty poor argument.I'm sorry, but how does what Darron just said differ from what I've been saying? -GMOs good. -Corporations need to be monitored. Maybe I over explained my position or just did a crappy job of it. I don't want to come on here and make enemies of people that basically agree with me except on minor points.
Thanks Darron. At this point, the only argument I'm hearing is "corporation bad". There are some problems with the corporation system as it exists, but it's a pretty poor argument.I'm sorry, but how does what Darron just said differ from what I've been saying? -GMOs good. -Corporations need to be monitored. Maybe I over explained my position or just did a crappy job of it. I don't want to come on here and make enemies of people that basically agree with me except on minor points. His statement has the proper nuance. It separates the concept of "corporation" from the mythology. Of course corporations need to be monitored, that's what all the laws are about, but they didn't spring up out of a mud pit and then get regulated, we created the concept in the first place to protect individuals from liability for things out of their control. Those laws have morphed into something that buy politicians and avoid government controls and we need to reign in that power, but that doesn't mean that every corporation is evil or the concept is evil. Look at what you were saying and why you needed to eventually explain that you didn't mean "just Monsanto". If it's not what you meant, you should have said what you were saying differently. I accept your correction, but now you're trying to weasel out of it and say you're just like Darron. I've never argued for Monsanto or their business practices or any individual's moral character. I only pointed out the flaws in your argument against those things. I am in no position to judge people I don't know. I've argued that the laws are designed to recognize natural forces, that Schmeiser argued for a right he didn't have and one that I don't see how it can work, and that GE is a safe technology that has and can continue to save lives and contribute to a healthy planet.
We need a governmemt agency to take over, monitor and control the development and use of GMOs. It’s too important and criical to world food supplies to be left to fat cat capitalists who get rich on the prospect. Meanwhile, I think all GMO crops should be labeled. I can’t understand why people vote against it. It’s as if they are putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, "La, La La La. No, don’t tell me, I don’t want to know which foods are GMO. I might get confused! "
Lois
We need a governmemt agency to take over, monitor and control the development and use of GMOs. It's too important and criical to world food supplies to be left to fat cat capitalists who get rich on the prospect. Meanwhile, I think all GMO crops should be labeled. I can't understand why people vote against it. It's as if they are putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, "La, La La La. No, don't tell me, I don't want to know which foods are GMO. I might get confused! " LoisIt's already a highly regulated process, taking years to get a new product to the market. And capitalism is doing just fine controlling the costs. Name one of these fat cats. Meanwhile, we only label things for a reason, so provide one. "Because it frightens you" is not a reason. You pay extra for organic partly because the supply chain is controlled and certification is required to show you met some standard to get the label and the food on the shelf was grown meeting those standards. That's self imposed by the organic growers. It is essentially marketing. GMO is not a substance, it's a part of the process. Where do you draw the line? Is a cow that is fed GMO grain labeled GMO? Chipotle had that problem. Grain is sent to storage bins and mixed, is there some percentage of mixing where it becomes GMO? The organics standards allows for a small percentage of GMO, due to that drift problem, so this is not a question I just made up. You might as well just label everything "may contain GMO grown ingredients". A lawyer might recommend that if labels were required.
We need a governmemt agency to take over, monitor and control the development and use of GMOs. It's too important and criical to world food supplies to be left to fat cat capitalists who get rich on the prospect. Meanwhile, I think all GMO crops should be labeled. I can't understand why people vote against it. It's as if they are putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, "La, La La La. No, don't tell me, I don't want to know which foods are GMO. I might get confused! " LoisIt's already a highly regulated process, taking years to get a new product to the market. And capitalism is doing just fine controlling the costs. Name one of these fat cats. Meanwhile, we only label things for a reason, so provide one. "Because it frightens you" is not a reason. You pay extra for organic partly because the supply chain is controlled and certification is required to show you met some standard to get the label and the food on the shelf was grown meeting those standards. That's self imposed by the organic growers. It is essentially marketing. GMO is not a substance, it's a part of the process. Where do you draw the line? Is a cow that is fed GMO grain labeled GMO? Chipotle had that problem. Grain is sent to storage bins and mixed, is there some percentage of mixing where it becomes GMO? The organics standards allows for a small percentage of GMO, due to that drift problem, so this is not a question I just made up. You might as well just label everything "may contain GMO grown ingredients". A lawyer might recommend that if labels were required. Why do we label prepared foods with all of the ingredients, including the amounts of each ingredient? Why do we label foods with all the vitamins and minerals, fats, sugars and saturated fats they contain? Where do we draw the line? Everything is mixed together. We might as well label everything as "May contain lots of stuff and have lots of fat, calories and salt. Or maybe not." What are you afraid of when it comes to labeling? Even your mattresses, pillows, furniture, clothing must be labeled for content. But when it comes to GMOs suddenly it becomes too complicated and you want to draw the line. Lois
GMO is not an ingredient. We don’t list chemical elements of ingredients. When you buy that “super sweet” corn from the stand, no special label, but it contains more sugar. It’s a hybrid. We don’t formaldehyde as an ingredient in pears, but it’s in there.
That’s the line. I’m not afraid of anything. I don’t want to pay for something because you are.
We have been genetically engineering foods since hunter gatherer people discovered some foods were more popular than others this became more focused when they discovered some grains were better for making beer than others. That made us selectively (engineer) what was planted.You are correct and this is one of the problems with the anti-GMO movement. Most of the people who are against GMO's don't even know what they are against or why.Its just a scare word for them. As you stated we have been genetically engineering lots of foods through selective breeding for thousands of years. Broccoli and Cauliflower are not only genetically engineered, they would not exist at all if it weren't for man. We created them from a type of cabbage through selective breeding.
We need a governmemt agency to take over, monitor and control the development and use of GMOs. It's too important and criical to world food supplies to be left to fat cat capitalists who get rich on the prospect. Meanwhile, I think all GMO crops should be labeled. I can't understand why people vote against it. It's as if they are putting their fingers in their ears and shouting, "La, La La La. No, don't tell me, I don't want to know which foods are GMO. I might get confused! " LoisPrivate companies can develop and use any important technology as long as there is oversite and regulations and laws that allow the maximum benefit for all. As for labeling products containing GMOs, it would create the impression that they are different in a significant way from the original. They are only different in ways that are irrelevant to the end user. If there are two loaves of bread and one has "Contains GMO wheat" on the bag and the other has "CONTAINS NO GMOs!", which would most people buy? There would be no measurable difference between the two that isn't on the nutrition label, but the impression would be that one is clearly better. People are easily swayed by useless labeling, and forcing products with GMOs to be labeled is asking for problems where there aren't any. In labeling, unless you know what the data means, too much data can actually be a bad thing.
We have been genetically engineering foods since hunter gatherer people discovered some foods were more popular than others this became more focused when they discovered some grains were better for making beer than others. That made us selectively (engineer) what was planted.You are correct and this is one of the problems with the anti-GMO movement. Most of the people who are against GMO's don't even know what they are against or why.Its just a scare word for them. As you stated we have been genetically engineering lots of foods through selective breeding for thousands of years. Broccoli and Cauliflower are not only genetically engineered, they would not exist at all if it weren't for man. We created them from a type of cabbage through selective breeding. The fact that I and a lot of people want to know how many calories, fat, sugar, salt and added chemicals are in my food does not mean I am afraid of it or that someone is using it as "scare tactics." Don't you want you know? Do you want to know what's inthe medicines you prescribe or do you just want to trust the government that everything is all right and that anyone who wants to know is just using scare tactics? If GMOs are safe why is there so much resistance to saying they are being used? It shouldn't matter how long crops have been genetically altered, either. But I'm willing to compromise. All crops genetically altered in modern laboratories using gene splicing and other such techniques invented since, say, 1950, and all croos developed using patented seeds should be labeled. I don't think that's asking too much. For the record, I am not against GMOs. I am against secrecy. The fact that I want to know what artificial preservatives are in my food, fr example, does not mean I am afraid of them or want to stop their use. I just want to know what they are and how much is in my food. Labeling has been the law for decades. Why should we suddenly want to stop labeling because some corporations are afraid it will eat into their profits if the public knows what they are doing? Check out the inserts required by law in any prescription medicine and let me know what information you'd like to leave out. Would it be ok with you if it says only "contains chemicals"? Lois
We have been genetically engineering foods since hunter gatherer people discovered some foods were more popular than others this became more focused when they discovered some grains were better for making beer than others. That made us selectively (engineer) what was planted.If it's worthwhile, safe and benign, why are you against informing what kind of genetic engineering is being used? Food preservatives have also been used for millennia and they allow more of the world's population to be fed. Are you against labeling their use? If so, why? What's behind the refusal? Lois