Seed patents and replanting restrictions are not unique to GMOs.
septimus, your point seems to be that better, more productive crops will cause more land to be planted with those crops and that will decrease biodiversity. I don’t see anything in that point against GMOs specifically, just against better, more productive crops.
I agree that the Earth would be better off with a billion humans instead of seven or ten billion. But what do you propose to do about it? The implication seems to be to starve them to death. I hope I’m not misrepresenting your view, but I don’t see any other point you could be making here.
Given this thread’s topic it’s not surprising that it has drifted into GD territory. However, let’s try to keep in mind that the thread was started in GQ, and it’s getting enough GQ appropriate responses that I don’t see any need to move it. So let’s try to keep all of the responses GQ appropriate.
If you want to create a spinoff thread in GD, feel free. You can even link back to this one if you want.
Several Dopers have overlooked my repeated disclaimers. (In my shoes, would you be annoyed?)
My consistent position in all debates has been
- Identify concerns, etc.
- Only then, seek solutions.
I’ve tried to outline my concerns. *I’ve proposed no solutions at all, **and certainly not famine or starvation. ***:smack: If I were in a positon to prescribe world-wide policy, I’d find a way to encourage low or below-zero population growth. (Yes, I know simply reducing tax breaks for children is not a proper solution.)
When your comments are:
Honestly what are we to think?
I think we are to think that the fictional idea of “Gaia” is more important to the writer than the actual fact of the famine and the starvation.
This kind of stuff kills me. Do these people have any idea how toxic salt is? Given the option of eating two tablespoons of salt or of Glysophate I’m choosing Glysophate while tucking a napkin under my chin.
That said, if you don’t like seed patents, that is something Monsanto definitely uses, so it might be what the OP is looking for.
Don’t be ridiculous, everyone knows that at the end of the 3rd Punic War Rome Glysopahted the soil around Carthage so naught would grow there anymore.
Can you link to details of any lawsuit by Monsanto relating to accidental GMO “contamination”?
The heavily publicized ones I’ve heard about are instances where farmers bought grain at elevators (knowing there was a high likelihood it would be genetically modified) and utilized it as seed, thus avoiding paying a fee to Monsanto), or deliberately harvested and utilized carryover GM crops for seed, similarly getting out of the fee requirement.
Nowhere have I ever seen a case where the company spotted a small number of its plants growing in a field that was heavily given over to a non-GM variety, and sued the farmer for genuine accidental “contamination”.
Note: there is no requirement for farmers to use GM varieties. There’s plenty of open-pollinated seed available for them to buy. They can harvest the resulting crop and re-use some of it for seed ad infinitum without a patent or fee being involved.
I think Saint Cad’s second sentence there was him refuting the point that other people make, which was the first sentence you quoted. IOW, you’re agreeing with him.
Agreement aside - the point remains whether anyone can show me a single case where a farmer had a few GM plants growing in a non-GM field due to accidental cross-pollination, and got sued by the biotech company that patented the GM seed?
Please note the Mod post that immediately precedes yours, and note that I am asking a GQ, not inviting debate. In fact, debate is the opposite of what I am looking for. I am looking for information on the topic that is not tainted by the agenda of one or the other side of a debate.
Many thanks to **Mr. Miskatonic **who provided great objective data.
Yours truly, the OP.
I am curious how you decided that the EPA and the scientists quoted in his link are supplying “objective data”.
Playing [del]moron’s[/del] devil’s advocate here, government officials like those at the EPA are known to be in pocket of big corporations like Monsanto. And could it be that those “objective scientists” have received corporate funding for research (or the institutions they work for have gotten corporate backing)?
There is such a charged climate in regard to the GMO “debate”, that a respected university horticultural scientist (Kevin Folta) whose work has never been linked to any form of bias, has been dismissed and sneered at by anti-GMOers because some of his travel expenses to speak on the subject of GMOs were covered by a $25,000 grant to his university foundation by Monsanto (Folta didn’t help matters by previously saying he had no financial connection to Monsanto).
Again, instead of focusing on an impossible standard of “objectivity”, I’d look first for what high quality work has been done on genetic modification, noting appropriately where the research was performed and who financed it, but not getting too wound up by the latter (especially when the findings been replicated by others).
I think the problem here is that you’re equating agricultural improvements with being some sort of population growth enabler, which probably isn’t really the case, except insofar as they prevent periodic mass famines due to crop failures or even sub-optimal production. Somewhere like India or China, a 2% decrease in yield probably would otherwise mean that thousands of people would starve to death. Ag improvements stave off that kind of thing.
The option is essentially to implement ag improvements and let people live, or stick with the old landrace stuff, and let people starve.
However, most of the Monsanto-related stuff is more centered around an biotech agribusiness company wanting to make money from agricultural biotech. I mean, it’s not like the development of glyphosate and the Roundup Ready crops were introduced hand-in-hand; there was a 20+ year gap in-between. And it makes sense- if you have a super-herbicide, having a crop plant that’s unaffected seems like a great idea- you can plant your crop and then spray your fields once or twice, and wipe everything out, saving money, time and effort that would otherwise be spent in dealing with weeds and dealing with the reduced productivity that weeds in farm fields creates.
Everything I’ve read about Monsanto’s lawsuits against farmers indicates that they pretty much revolve around farmers getting Monsanto GM seed through sketchy means- usually by identifying and planting seeds from resistant plants. The classic case is the guy who sprayed his fields with Roundup, identified the plants that weren’t killed, and then replanted the rest of his fields with seed from those plants. How is that NOT basically stealing Monsanto’s technology? Those genes weren’t there naturally, so he was deliberately replanting Roundup Ready crops without a license. It’s really an intellectual property issue more than a agricultural issue.
I’m familiar with this objection, and my response to it is that it is not just the EPA. I linked to the EPA because it was the easiest but pretty much every other nation’s environmental agencies has said there is no significant risk using glysophate in standard doses.
OK, so you wanna say our agencies are corrupt, but are they all corrupt? That just gets on the train to crazytown and doesn’t bother to make any stops along the way. If they say that yes, all of then are corrupt then there is simply no more point in engaging because there is simply no data that can satisfy them. Period.
I tried to be as objective in my sources as possible. I tried to avoid the Pro-GMO sites and anti-GMO sites. But the simple fact is that most relevant and reliable scientists are saying glysophate is safe. Just because someone may not like that answer does not make them shills, bribed by Monsanto, or delusional. At a point you need to say ‘this is where the evidence shows’ and that is about as objective as you can get.
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
OK, so you wanna say our agencies are corrupt, but are they all corrupt? That just gets on the train to crazytown and doesn’t bother to make any stops along the way
[/QUOTE]
With due respect :dubious: to the anti-GMO movement, that train left the station long long ago.
Here’s an example of a published study alleging GMO harm, which one could attempt to dismiss on the basis of a blatant undisclosed conflict of interest (one of the co-authors runs a company selling non-GMO animal feed, but neglected to reveal that up front).
More telling are gross defects in the study, the worst of which to my pathological 
mind was the failure to demonstrate microscopically that pigs fed GM grain had more stomach inflammation than pigs given non-GM feed (the authors just assumed it on the basis of naked eye inspection of stomach linings, which I can assure you is a really crappy method of determining whether inflammation exists).
So while it may be relevant to consider bias and “objectivity” in looking at research, it’s far more important to consider experimental design, statistical rigor and other factors that require more intelligent analysis but are way more reliable in deciding what evidence to accept.
Well, there is some truth to the idea of regulatory capture. Not that I think there is any evidence at all that governments are passing on the safety of GMOs incorrectly.
This is a three-year-old thread but here is a new data point on the potential hazards of Roundup. A California man who was a school groundskeeper and frequently exposed to Roundup developed a terminal case of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. While it’s obviously impossible to establish cause and effect in such cases with absolute certainty, there was enough evidence to convince the jury in his lawsuit against Monsanto. The man was awarded a staggering $289 million, $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages against Monsanto. CNN reports that as of last year, 800 other cancer patients were suing Monsanto.
The evidence against Roundup still appears inconclusive, so it would be interesting to know what the jury found so persuasive. The World Health Organization states that Roundup is “probably carcinogenic to humans”, citing “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma”. This is, interestingly, the exact opposite of what the EPA has claimed, but the EPA’s position seems to have been tainted by the fact that one Jess Rowland, an EPA official who was then chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee, tried to stop an independent review [PDF] of the carcinogenic hazards of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup.
The case rested on two claims: that Roundup is, in fact, carcinogenic, and that Monsanto failed to properly warn consumers about the risks. Monsanto is appealing the verdict, and continues to claim that the product is safe.
Further to the above, more on the details of the case …
Johnson’s lawyers argued over the course of a month-long trial in San Francisco that Monsanto had “fought science” for years and targeted academics who spoke up about possible health risks of the herbicide product. Johnson was the first person to take the agrochemical corporation to trial over allegations that the chemical sold under the brand Roundup causes cancer.
… “We were finally able to show the jury the secret, internal Monsanto documents proving that Monsanto has known for decades that … Roundup could cause cancer,” Johnson’s lawyer Brent Wisner said in a statement. The verdict, he added, sent a “message to Monsanto that its years of deception regarding Roundup is over and that they should put consumer safety first over profits”.
… During the lengthy trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys brought forward internal emails from Monsanto executives that they said demonstrated how the corporation repeatedly ignored experts’ warnings, sought favorable scientific analyses and helped to “ghostwrite” research that encouraged continued usage.
One of those Monsanto internal memos seems to confirm the claim made during the trial that even if glyphosate is safe, the same cannot be said for the actual formulations being sold under the “Roundup” name:
… in the US we have some lawn and garden products with the Roundup name on them but they contain other active ingredients in addition to glyphosate and they may have different properties from glyphosate …
The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use “Roundup” for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. For example you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.