Well, no, but I admit I’m no expert on the science. Your question suggests that there are problems, though. Are there? What are they?
And I will bookmark this thread. In the global warming threads, we hear a great deal about how the right refuses to accept scientific evidence, while the left is calmly and rationally analyzing the weight of scientific evidence to arrive at their conclusions.
Not seeing that here from at least two prominent board leftists. Hmm. How could this be??
The problem, which I think is pretty obvious, is that heritage farmers save their seed to plant the next year. If Monsanto pollen contaminates their crops, they can no longer save their own seed, because now it’s sterile. They have to buy new seed the next year, at considerable expense. You really don’t see anything wrong with this?
Not to speak for anyone — and frankly I don’t have much of a dog in this fight — but I believe The Tao’s Revenge was referring to this statement by Monsanto’s attorney:
“Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not … matters not at all.”
This reads to me as an official statement that, irrespective of Schmeiser’s “guilt” vis-à-vis knowingly appropriating the genetically modified seed, Monsanto would still be within its rights to sue. Am I reading this incorrectly? Although a supporter of genetically modified crop, I must admit some discomfort with that proposition.
You see “two prominent board leftists” ignoring, or at least failing properly to weigh, the deposit of scientific evidence with respect to genetically modified crop? At most I see some “board leftists” — I would not by any means necessarily say “prominent” — misinterpreting judicial decisions. Unfortunate, perhaps, but not at all the same issue.
And even if you were correct, does pointing this out improve your persuasiveness either here or in future climate change related threads? My suspicion (feel free to ignore it) is that you are acting against your stated interests.
Wait, wait, wait. I’m confused. If Monsanto seeds are programmed to die during embyrogenesis how the fuck are people are keeping seed and growing them? That doesn’t make any sense. I’m going to make a guess that there is a way that seed embryos can somehow escape, grow, and produce fertile seed. This isn’t the fault of the farmer, it’s the fault of the Monsanto scientist.
[rant] Also, not to derail the thread or anything, but as a biologist, I think lawyers or judges know NOTHING about biology. Otherwise they wouldn’t allow some idiot to overexpress/silence a gene and make profit over it in a living organism. It’s stupid. What happens if the plant silences the lethal gene? Which can happen. Plants use epigenetics, too. What if there is transposon that inserts itself right in the middle of the gene? Which occurs a lot in plants (See McClintock’s work). What happens if the embryo is infected with a plant virus that incorporates its genetic material in middle of the gene? That can happen too. Living organisms are not fucking test tubes nor as predictable [/rant]
- Honesty
The confidential nature of the settlements means many will not speak, but I assume you do not have ties to any farmers as this is just well known at this point.
This latest suit will fail, it is full of woo if you read the text but Monsanto is very aggressive.
[looks at OP, another case of a point that is made by not looking at the science and the evidence?]
Very busy right now, but after looking around the reliable sources and experts, **Bricker ** is more spot on with the legal side of this and **Blake **has it on the science part.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/hollow061504.cfm
The seeds in question do not die every year according to what I have read. But the purchaser contracts to remove old seed and buy new seed every year.
Thugs ? Sure thing. Monsanto sent people to go across property lines to get potential evidence that they were using Monsanto canola seeds. They encouraged people to turn in their neighbors. Sweet people.
Schmeiser won in that he did not have to pay Monsanto anything. He did not have to pay court costs and he did not have to turn over the value of his 1995 crops. He removed a lot of Monsanto’s ability to threaten farmers with financial destruction if they did not obey them.
Sorry I meant to link to the newest suit
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf
It will not make it very far IMHO.
Well, since my position on climate change is that it’s real and that human activity is almost certainly a significant factor in it’s magnitude, I would say I am advancing my interests: in both cases I seek the weight of available scientific evidence to reach a conclusion.
They’ve developed the technology, but have not AFAIK, put it in their seed. This type of technology scares the crap out of me. Assuming this gene can be passed along like all other genes, it means a guy using public domain harvestable seeds can have his seed crop irreparably damaged by his neighbor using Monsanto seed. Not simply “polluted” by an unwanted gene, but rendered sterile.
On the plus side of all this, one of the key components of patent law is the technology becoming public domain, which will happen to many of these seeds in the coming years, so farmers would again be able to save seed, and even get valuable traits like resistance to RoundUp.
Yes, you are confused.
Monsanto has the patent for second gen sterile seeds. They (at the behest of others) are not using it.
Well, my biology knowledge is not extensive, I agree… High school AP biology augmented by regular reading of Scientific American.
But I would venture a guess that there are plenty of very sharp biologists that don’t share your concern, aren’t there?
Busy still, but, you are correct sir!
http://www.biofortified.org/about/authors/
This is really not that hard to do once you follow the experts and the places they go to, several links came from there pointing at Paul Nurse’s notes on the issue, I was aware of him thanks to his BBC show on the ones attacking science, his expertise is in biology and in his show he also denounced the climate change deniers.
If that is the case, then what was wrong with what Shmeiser was doing? He didn’t sign a contract.
He deliberately and knowingly replicated the patent.
My initial impression from Blake’s post was that merely planting the seeds was not enough to violate the patent. Reading it again I see that if hosing the canola field down with roundup is part of the patented “gene insertion and selection process” then what Shmeiser did indeed violate the patent.
Lawyers and judges presumably don’t know any more about aeronautical physics, but we allow them to make court ruling concerning air travel regulation. They presumably aren’t experts in economics but we let them make decisions about money all the time. There’s also no reason to think lawyers and judges have mastered the ins and outs of professional football, but they would still be the go to folks for a lawsuit concerning the NFL.
What makes biology the one area where the law shouldn’t apply?
And, to add to that, one has to remember that even conservative courts have done a good job of stopping creationism and ID from being taught as science in our schools.
What appears to have happened is that Schmeiser was given some GM seeds by a friend an act that was itself against the contract that his freind signed. He then planted those seeds throughout his field in order to get them to cross-pollinated his non-GM crop.
The following year Schmeiser collected seeds from that field and replanted them. He then sprayed the entire crop with Glyphosate herbicide. According to the farm -hand working for him he did this at least 3 times.
He then collected seed from the plants that survived being sprayed with herbicide and the following year he replanted them, and also sprayed the resulting plants with Glyphosate on multiple occasions. At the end of that year he has a nearly pure-strain GM crop.
That process of spraying the crops with Glyphosate to select for the GM resistant pants is part of Monsanto’s patent. You can not do that any more than apply any other process that is protected by a patent. Schmeiser did do it, and he did it deliberately and repeatedly.
Not surprisingly every court in the land found him guilty of breaching Monsanto’s patent and stealing their intellectual property.
So you make outrageous claims in GD, and when asked for evidence you say that you can’t provide any because nobody will speak about it.
How very convenient. :rolleyes:
Oh well, if it’s well known then it *must *be true. Nothing that was well known has ever turned out to be baseless rumour. 
Working with facts would be better, but that whacky idea doesn’t seem to be getting much traction on this subject.
The Terminator gene exists. It works perfectly. Monsanto did place it in all GM crops for a period of about 18 months, and Leftist groups like Greenpeace lobbied vigorously to prevent them from doing so, including launching in somehting like 20 countries.
So Monsanto volountarily ceased using the Terminator gene. And now Leftist groups like Greenpeace scream bloody murder that they don;t use the Temrinator gene.
Seriously. You’d think I was making this up, but the sad part is that I’m not.
So you just spent a lot of time telling us that all these processes of horizontal gene transfer occur randomly all the time in nature.
And your conclusion form that is that we shouldn’t allow the same processes to be used in a controlled laboratory. :dubious:
I would like you to explain how this could even be possible. 
As a layman’s summary, pollination varies as an inverse function of distance and intervening plants. The further two plants are apart, the less cross-pollination occurs. The more plants there are between two plants, the less cross pollination occurs.
For a crop like canola, simply placing plants 50m apart will reduce cross pollination to <1%. And by that I mean that if you plant two varieties of rape at each end of a football field, with nothing but turf in between, then 99% of the seeds collected from each variety will be pure-stain seeds.
Each intervening same-variety plant in a line between two plants also reduces cross-pollination by ~5%. By that, I mean that if you plant a row of Variety X rape, and then plant 20 rows of Variety Y rape, with row spacings of just 10 cm, the Variety Y rape will produce <1% hybrid, despite being planted just 2 metres from Variety X plant.
Now consider that Monsanto’s contracts for GM Canola require that all fields be planted with a minimum 10m buffer zone of non-GM plants around the perimeter.
Can you explain for us how the hell every single seed produced in a neighbouring non-GM field is going to be contaminated? The probability of even a single seed being contaminated is significantly less than 1%.
In truth, “heritage farmers” are far better off if their neighbour’s plant crops containing the Terminator gene. Cross-pollination with non-Terminator crops will inevitably produce hybrids that gradually destroy the heritage line. In contrast, because all Terminator hybrid seed is non-viable that never occurs and the heritage variety remains pure-strain forever.
Can you explain why contamination of sweet pepper with hot pepper is less of a problem than contamination of “Variety X” with “GM Variety Y”?