If the mods want to move this, feel free. I don’t where this belongs.
U.S. Indians Protest Rice Research
My question: What the heck is this all about? Are these protestors for real? Mapping the genome of wild rice is evil? Huh?
According to treaty the Indians are the only ones allowed to harvest the rice. The rice belongs to the Indians and I would imagine this is why they are upset about being left out of the research.
Here, by the way, is the same article in a non-spying format.
I think the primary concern is the propensity for GM products to find their way into the wild. This is not an unfounded concern, although the results of the study cited in that article are still in dispute.
I’m not qualified to say whether or not such concerns are valid. My guess is that neither is Winona LaDuke. On the other hand, we know with certitude what Monsanto is up to. If that wild rice starts sporting someone’s carefully crafted genetic signature, the Ojibwes and others may one day have to pay royalties on their own cultural rituals.
Such is the absurdity of the world in which we live. It comes as no surprise to me that it’s the tribes that are among the first to point it out.
I’m pretty sure it’s about money; that, and knee-jerk fear of the unknown.
For anyone who’s not aware of it, “wild rice” isn’t rice; it’s an aquatic grass seed, grown in lakes and marshes.
So what are they up to? Your statement makes it sound like Monsanto is counting on revenues from damages they are awarded in court. This is ludicrous.
Also, the article you linked to is misleading. The judge in the court case was clear that Schmeiser was fined because he knowingly planted Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola seed. That article also says that third-party tests detected “less” RR canola in his fields than a previous Monsanto-done test. The third party test actually found 95-98 percent RR canola, so the term “less” is misleading. That’s why the judge awarded not only actual damages, but exemplary (punitive) damages as well.
The point I was trying to make, CurtC, is that the potential for a company to spread its proprietary genetic signature by pollen to other, unwilling farmers is already out there and is already being litigated.
Sorry if I misunderstood you, Sofa King. Reading your post, I gathered that you were saying that:[ul]
[li] spread of GM crops by pollen had been demonstrated[/li][li] Monsanto wants this to happen[/li][li] Monsanto is “up to” figuring out how to supplement their income by collecting damages from farmers[/li][li] Monsanto would consider collecting damages from someone whose crops were unintentionally pollinated with their GM product, or[/li][li] Farmer Schmeiser didn’t knowingly plant RR canola.[/li][/ul]
I don’t believe that any of these is true. That story you linked on organiccomsumers.org is particularly full of lies and half-truths.
Well, I apologize for spreading ignorance. What I wanted to say was rather more like this:
[ul][li] spread of GM DNA by pollen is suspected;[/li][li] Monsanto has not been shy about litigating neigboring farmers who appear to have used their patented resistant strains;[/li][li] Monsanto appears to be trying to establish a judicial precedent that effectively outlaws re-seeding by the neigbors of people who use GM crops, because it may be pollenated by the proprietary strain;[/li][li] Monsanto certainly did attempt to collect damages from someone who claimed his crops were unintentionally pollinated by their GM product, but[/li][li] Since I’m not a farmer, a lawyer, or a biologist, I sure as hell can’t do anything more than parrot what I read on the Internet.[/ul][/li]
So you’ve got me under a barrel on this. My impression was that the issue is in its formative stages and is still in doubt. You seem to be certain that’s not the case. I’ll be happy to be wrong, by the way, and I am sorry for posting those links which apparently mischaracterize the issue.
That article did a terrible job of explaining their objections. This website explains the Indians’ reasons for objecting to the research.
As Sofa King points out, part of the problem has to do with the potential for genetically modified to destroy wild strains. From the Indians’ perspective, this has to do with money to the extent that they are trying to protect their source of livelihood and culture. They couldn’t possibly profit from this. I’m not interested in debating in detail this one particular case regarding Roundup Ready, but I’m confused by CurtC’s arguments. First of all, the article linked to is from the Washington Post and can also be found here. If you’re going to call the facts contained in that article lies and half-truths, you better provide a cite. Accordingly to the article, the genes were transmitted with his knowledge but not his consent. The is no mention of punitive damages nor is there any indication that the fact that he had knowledge of the contamination affected the outcome. What other choice did he have but to plant the seeds? Farmers have been using the seeds from their crops for many thousands of years. Monsanto’s goal is to force them to buy new seeds from them every year. In reference to your points:[ul]
[li]The spread of GM crops by pollen has been demonstrated (though perhaps not in the specific case of Mexican corn).[/li][li]Monsanto can only profit from this.[/li][li]Monsanto is figuring out how to supplement their income by collecting damages from farmers.[/li][li]Monsanto has collected damages from someone whose crops were unintentionally pollinated with their GM product.[/li][/ul]There are also moral issues involved. Indigenous peoples and traditional communities often feel that the ownership of life is morally wrong. I don’t think you can just dismiss their beliefs because they are different than your own. Vandana Shiva is a leading activist in this area. A speech she gave on the subject of biopiracy can be found here, and it’s worth trying to understand her perspective. This speech doesn’t pretend to be objective (she has written other, less emotional pieces), and if debate its merits we’re definitely getting sent off to GD (which is fine by me).
By the way, Winona LaDuke is a well known expert on environmental issues relating to Native Americans. She has a degree from Harvard, has published books and articles on the subject, and has been working in the field for about 20 years. So I think she is qualified to form an opinion on the subject.
Don’t forget the flap a few years ago with Monsanto and its “Terminator Seeds.” These were genetically modified plants that all produced sterile seeds, so you couldn’t keep some seeds from this years crop and use them next year. Nope, you had to buy them all over again from Monsanto.
Thanks for that link, Chula. Here’s the meat of the matter:
Now I see why they could be touchy. Terrible article from the AP.
Modern farms buy their seeds every year from Monsanto or someone like Monsanto. They don’t save the seeds from the previous crop.
Right, but the farmers in Third World countries do save the seeds and the worry was that Monsanto would “accidentally” start shipping those seeds to Third World farmers, thus forcing the farmers to spend more money, or increasing the risk of famine in such places.
Tuckerfan I don’t understand your argument. People that get their seeds from the previous crop are not going to be buying Monsanto’s seeds at all.
But their neighbors MIGHT. There’s this thing called cross-pollination …?
I thought that gazpacho was against Monsanto! Terminator seeds received so much flack that they were outlawed. There existed the possibility that the genes would spread, causing infertility in all strains. In this case, the farmer received the gene against his will and was forced to pay Monsanto for the profits they would have lost had he bought seeds every year.
By the way, I spoke briefly with one of the lawyers involved in the Minnesota wild rice case today (a good friend of mine). He said that the best legal strategy was to pursue this as a trademark case, forbidding any different or modified products from marketing them as ‘wild rice.’