When others get to decide how you live...
... and how you use your land, you don't have property rights any more.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Both GM agriculture and organic agriculture have flourished in the past 20 years. In all that time there has not been a single example of an organic farmer losing certification for trace amount of GM in their organic fields.
Likewise, no organic farmer has ever been sued for trace amounts of GM showing up in their organic field.
http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/07/science...
I have no interest in Organic Certification - I have an interest in selling what I advertise. And I can't do that if my crop gets contaminated - without re-buying new seed.
And, read my earlier post. I'm not ok with regulation on the matter, just the option to have my case heard in court if I want to argue it before the offending farm operation is allowed to move forward. Thus my agreement with not allowing the offending farm to move ahead without hearing the case.
Absolutely, and if that happens you have a real claim on damages and adjudication for such. And I fully support you in your claims.
"The non-GMO farmer is the only one at a disadvantage here."
What you have are competing business models. The GMO-reliant farmer pays a higher cost for seed in the hopes that they can have a higher yield and lower maintenance costs as a result. If their seed gets cross-pollinated with a lower-yield heirloom variety, they have spent that extra cost in seed and chemicals for naught. But they have no claim against the non-GMO farmer for their losses! (BTW - I used to work for a company that worked for farmers hauling sugar beets and had a friend who worked for Monsanto, so I have more than a passing knowledge of both sides of the industry despite my tech background.)
The purpose of the post was not to get into the merits of GMO vs non-GMO, but to point out that this particular judge's ruling effectively sidelines the facts of the case. By ruling against a stay of enforcement, the judge is saying that there is zero merit to the complaints of the GMO farmer who is to be impacted by the ruling even though the hearing hasn't taken place yet! The judge is basically telling the legislature that their efforts won't face judicial review. That to me is wrong regardless of my stance on GMO.
That is not the case for more - they would be causing me the problems and financial hit. How do I make them pay for damages without proof? By taking a random sampling of my produce and having it DNA tested, then hiring an attorney, then going through the whole set of court motions to get what? Maybe fair market value? Maybe all of my time invested in dealing with the whole law suit? Maybe getting all of my DNA testing money back (assuming I could afford to have that done in the first place)? Against a behemoth like Monsanto. That's just not realistic. Court is slow. I could very well be into multiple years of the same suite from year to year before being awarded anything - if anything. Quite simply they would have the resources to run me out before it even got started.
And - I have posted multiple times on this thread that I think the farmer should be help up until the case is heard - not simply tossed out and not heard.
You have no case against Monsanto. Your suit would come against the neighboring farmer for contaminating your crops through his negligence. Regardless, no lawsuit can proceed unless you can prove damages and allege causation. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a pain in the pocketbook, but you open a huge can of worms by proposing to allow a preemptive judgement where no actual damages had yet taken place and where there was no certainty of future damages. Yes, it might be inconvenient, but the other choice you are presenting is to prevent the other farmer from running their business entirely.
Can there be the case where both can operate side by side? I don't know. There are a lot of variables over which no one has any control. I am simply contending that it is premature to assert damages before they are evident and can be physically ascertained. Just courts do not rule based on speculation, but on evidence: past vs future.
And, also, I agree - you cannot sue for damages without damage. I stated this somewhere else in this thread that I may have misunderstood to original issue. I thought the judge said in the case that he was staying the farmer from planting GMO seeds until the merits on the case were heard. But, if the case is that a non-GMO farmer is suing for damages when the damages have not actually occurred - that is wrong. I guess what I've been arguing for is more of an injunction against the someone being upheld until the merits of the case were heard. Not in relation for 'potential' damages.
And I agreed with your last comment. Farmers need to figure out how to work these issues out, but I think it will be very messy. I think there are too many grey areas that simply don't have good answers. Like how far apart they should keep their crops - 100', 200', 300', 500', a mile? Like I said in one of my other comments, pollinators like bees have a large travel area. Wind... How could you possibly measure that effect!?! Full, hazmat level, sealed greenhouses or high tunnels? This is just another of my concerns for GMO. It was much simpler with heirloom and hybrid, but even that has many of the same issues.
Jan, thinking now
I REALLY dislike regulation, but I don't think it makes sense to wait for the damage to happen before trying to put a stop to the activity in the first place - BUT that does mean having a hearing with thinking, knowledgeable, and rational people being involved.
Damages don't always equate to fair in these matters. Proving the case can be even harder and more expensive. I'd hate to be in a position to have the pay for genetic DNA testing of a sampling of my small crops. That is itself would be more than I could pay for I'm sure.
I also dislike the idea that some religiously environmentalist could move in next door and take me to court every time they think I'm doing something evil to the environment.
I see the potential issues and ramifications - but haven't settled on a viewpoint that I'm comfortable with.
Objectivism is not so clear cut as it initially appears on such issues. Especially when such outcomes can so easily be foreseen. I want to say - "my property and I'll do what I want with it!" But I can understand how that could be abused - and under our current system - not justly valued if it goes wrong.
I guess I would hope that the neighboring farmers would value each other enough to not do these things to each other in the first place. But, until everyone is a rational, educated, objective minded person - you have such court cases.
Sally Fox began growing Foxfiber, naturally colored older versions of cotton. She promotes that they can produce colored garments without the use of dyes and has a specialty market.
Originally she was trying to grow these crops near Bakersfield and the other cotton farmers were upset about the potential for these colored cottons to cross into their all white versions.
The opposition drove her from the area and she is now located in Northern California.
But, yes, even supposed "heirlooms" are nothing but natural hybrids. The idea that any of them are 'pure' is really a falsehood, BUT they were done through natural processes. Our modern hybrids - can be cross bred as well to produce other varieties and can be selectively chosen for certain characteristics. But blasting them with radiation, injecting them with heavy metals, introducing completely foreign DNA sequences is my issue...
I'm a big fan of Boxer dogs. Unfortunately the breed has a couple of common flaws one of which is a heart defect. Breeders are making significant efforts to remove these genes from the Boxer genome. This involves genetic testing and monitoring young animals for 48 hours for any heart arrhythmia prior to breeding.
This would have been a lot easier if they picked the genes they wanted to transfer rather than doing crosses to see what they get. Natural is not always safer.
As to foreign DNA, any viral infection will do that to you.
And no, any viral infection will not transfer new DNA sequences into you DNA code and convert you into some hybrid with whatever it came from.
I think the difference in what we are talking about here is transgenic verses cisgenic. And in any case I'm not convinced that either is without consequence when they are done the way they are. But, I do believe transgenic manipulation is asking for trouble. Cisgenic is not as bad - at least there, they are naturally compatible species.
cisgenic = compatible living things' genes introduced
right? . had to look them up. -- j
.
transgenic = material from another species is added to the host
cisgenic = genetic material from the same species or a species that can naturally breed with the host
With transgenic - we have no history to use as the basis for comparison or to see what the effects have been and thus no real ability to know what may happen in the long term.
already in a who-knows-what stew (frankenstew?)
of stuff which will have consequences in our future.
how interesting! -- j
.
But, from what I gather, GMO has not really hit the direct produce you buy in the store to much, but more of an issue from where it is used on other stuff like the grains in bread, and such. But, they do have GMO options for things you'd buy in the produce isle. Like with corn, if these start getting mainstreamed, it will make it more and more difficult to get produce that does not have mix of GMO in it over time.
normal, normal, normal, nrl..........................
I bet LOTS of people felt normal at some point in their life and then ended up with cancer, heart attacks, stroke, etc... So what exactly does feeling normal, normal, normal nrl have to do with it?
Like I said in another post, when x-ray was first available it was played with like a toy - in fairs where people could walk in front of it to see their insides in real time. Shoe stores used them when sizing for shoes. And a long time later they started realizing that there was a correlation to increased rates of cancer. I'm sure at the time they felt normal, normal, normal too. I'm sure many of the people that were exposed in these ways never got cancer or had any symptoms. But in hind sight NOW we know better.
determine the long-term effects of GMO changes,
in a short time!!! -- j
.
I am tremendously in favor of GMO crops, but you have posed a well constructed problem that goes like this:
1. I, as a person, am not opposed to GMO.
2. My customers are.
3. Ethically, I sell what I say I sell.
4. I say I sell organic heritage produce.
5. If GMO pollen contaminates my plants, then the next generation of seeds will be heritage/GMO hybrids. I will not then be able to ethically label my crops as heritage.
6. The market does not support the additional cost of my buying new seeds every year.
"Pollen" is a physical substance, but one over which we have little control. If a herd of "cows" crosses a property line and damages a neighboring farm, we have ample precedent for considering this the responsibility of the cows' owner (even it he is not negligent). If a herd of "pollens" cross a property line, we really do not know what to do.
Jan
And for the record, I'm not outright opposed to GMO's - it is as you stated - If that's what I say I sell, then that is what I sell. And although I am not outright opposed to GMO, I am skeptical of its long term effects on us. People are too willing to screw around with nature and think they can control it. GMO's are unnatural creations - combining thing that could not combine in nature. Thus we just don't know how they will effect us in the long term - or even the environment. Look at how well we have done with introduced species of plants, animals, bugs, through history. For all practical purposes - these GMO plants are new species. Like I said - I'm very cautiously skeptical for now - and probably will be for quite a while. I don't want to ban the choice of others to go that route - I just don't want to farms that do so, to kill out any other option either.
The cow analogy is a good one - and true. But get down to those little things like pollen, bees, etc.. that's kind of new territory.
Noise pollution - hehe how about light pollution ;)
Yeah, I like I said - I hope people would just value each other enough to adjust. If you had a floodlight shinning right in my bedroom window at night - I'd hope I could say something to you about it and you'd have the common courtesy to alter it in some way to not drive me crazy. Same with noise. I don't like the regulation approach - but what about when you have a jerk neighbor to tells you to piss off? Again, I think maybe peer reviewed court hearing. Not sure. Me personally - I would put something over my window to keep from having a feud. I have only experienced a couple of neighbors like that in my life - I eventually found something I could do that annoyed them back - eventually we agreed to eliminate both issues and were fine - just didn't deal with each other. Suited me. BUT, if really need be - I think court verses regulation.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/20...
Jan
It's nice that they are at least trying, but this article and the NPR article you posted do not invalidate my argument about additional costs and potential crop/seed loses. Whether many or most seed purchasers buy, does not resolve the issue for those who do.
The one article made the point that getting corn that doesn't have some amount of GMO in it now is difficult - if other GMO items like tomato, spinach, lettuce, etc... make their way into the market - this will be the end result with them too. It will make non-GMO strains more and more difficult to maintain as cross pollination will happen - and at further distances cited in this article.
"Your right to throw a blow ends at the tip of my nose." is a good big law. What we have to decide is if the 'pollen' is a 'fist'. And questions come up: What if I am doing kata and someone walks into my space and gets hit? Is that his fault or mine? This is directly related to "If I have been growing my crops here for decades and now you decide to plant an organic farm downwind, should this be 'my fault'?"
These are important questions that relate to what an individual is responsible for.
Jan
of the same phylum (group -- whatever) is bred like a
genetically modified organism. . what is the distinction
which people call "GMO" -- is this apparent? -- j
p.s. AMeador1, could you answer this? . I see the
definition using the term "non-natural means" but don't
know what this designates.
.
(1) what are the actual differences
(2) what will the market support
Fortunately, we are in a group of folks who understand and respect the importance of economics.
Let me answer as I see it, and we will let AMeador correct me where I am wrong.
It is really not a question of GMO. Let me suggest that if I had a natural tomato plant and my neighbor had a natural pork plant and they could cross breed, then my next generation of seeds would be tomatopork seeds. But my customers are Muslims and will not eat tomatopork produce, so I must keep my tomato plants pure and free of pork plant pollen.
In this case, things labeled GMO are considered religiously offensive to environmentalist - and it does not even matter if there are foreign genes in the genome of the plant in question or not. Once a plant is labeled GMO, then it compromises the ability of the neighboring farmer to collect seeds for his next crop IF he is ethical and wants to label his product accurately for the market.
Jan
Take a look at this wiki article on some explanations about how GMO is plant modification outside of normal natural means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically...
As an example I had read an article many years ago where a GMO corn had been modified to contain some of the DNA from lightning bugs to improve their color to give them a more vibrant yellow color. I just tried to Google for it and can't find it - this was probably 10 or 15 years ago and I don't recall the source - I think it was a magazine article.
Obviously a lightning bug and corn can't naturally breed. In the link I included, there use forceful DNA injection to add things like where GMO plants can produce their own insecticides to keep them from being eaten by bugs - but don't we then eat it?
Granted there is some GMO where they are using same types of plants and combining them the create a hybrid - but in the same was as it naturally happen? No, so are the outcomes the same - maybe - but I don't know. Nor do they. Again, my issue with the long term effects.
But where species that would not normally breed are being forced - I don't like the idea - especially when your adding who knows what from other kinds of organisms like bugs, fungi, etc...
My parents have been using and developing recipes that use food starch from a GMO corn called waxy maize for 25 years now. They sell the product under their own label and many of their recipes are geared towards addressing nutritional needs in their clientele such as diabetes, Celiac's, hyperglycemia, etc. Their product is an alternative thickening agent in everything from pie filling to gravy to jams and jellies. It is superior to standard corn starch in every way we've come across in those 25 years of use.
Granted that this is just one example, but in having watched very closely the California case regarding use of GMO sugar beets a few years ago, what was brought up there was that there has never been a single demonstrated case of the fruit of a GMO plant being the least bit toxic to the consumer. Am I contending that they will never occur? No. I believe highly in the Jurassic Park philosophy of "but they were so busy with whether or not they _could_ that they didn't stop to think if they _should_". IMHO, the largest bugaboo still outstanding are the potential effects on bees, but to this date I am not aware of any study which links any effect of GMO plants to bees. Such would indeed be a major development.
Your 'concerns' are in the nature of 'what if', and horror at the idea that genes found in one species have been placed in another. So what, we share a large portions of our genetic material. If you want to add the ability to create a protein, add the gene for it.
And, we play with fire all the time. The ability to cook food is potentially the source of the additional energy that has let us grow our brains.
You are looking at a tiny spec of time in history to make the assumption that this is safe. There are plenty of articles to go read where there are experts bringing up concerns about negative side effects from GMO's and what they believe is evidence to support their claims. Now, I don't have access to their research to see if they are full of it, no more than you have access to the research done by those claiming it's safe - to verify they did full, complete studies with proper testing. The fact is neither of us 'know' which experts are right and which are wrong, and maybe, based on their studies, they're both right in certain circumstances. I prefer to err on the side of safety and what I can verify with my own two eyes. Statistics is a BS game that can create practically any outcome desired - is it in the interests if the GMO producers to produce evidence that their product is bad? If there are no flaws in the GMO products, why are so many experts expressing the same concerns I have? If GMOs are fine with no side effects and consequences, then by all means - let's turn the GMO factories on high. But I will not blindly follow the crowd - or the so called scientific consensus cited in some articles I've read. Consensus does not science make. My what if's are based on prior experiences with experimenting with nature - introduced species of plants or animals, effects of radiation and heavy metals on living things, the fact that we share nearly 99% of our DNA with chimps - showing how only a 1% variation means an awful lot - I can't ignore the fact that it is worth being cautious over. I find it ridiculous that you and others are not even willing to consider the fact that there could be problems with this. I consider the fact that it may be fine, but I have too much opposing reasons to blindly accept that it's safe. Plus like I said, every new pattern they create is a new combination that has no study to go by, especially in the realm of transgenic manipulations.
fiction, growing up, and went on to be a design
engineer responsible for public safety. . it's very
enticing to me that we can "force evolution" by
changing the DNA of living things. . yet, natural
selection takes "forever" and leaves the bad mutants
behind in the scrap heap. . ALL of the consequences
of a forced mutation can't be known in advance,
I am sure. . so, we take risks. . if I had invented
the Daisy Can Opener, I might not have considered
the fact that it could be used for human torture.
we just must take our best guess and go, don't
you think? -- j
.
I'd much prefer looking at improved farming methods - like bio nutrient systems - healthier products based on healthy biological systems remaining in tact via minimal tilling practices. Better water management systems. Multitier growing systems to get more per area. So on and so on. But, we don't like spraying pesticides on our food and eating the produce - so the solution is to embed pesticide into the plant? We like prettier food so we embed glowing bug DNA into them? We don't want to eat chemicals sprays on our corn, so we alter the plant so we can spray them with herbicides to kill everything else besides them? Even if the GMO aspect of that is found to be safe - is the herbicide traces on the food ok? What does that do the biological systems in the ground like the beneficial bacteria and fungi? What about the beneficial plants in the same area? For example - in a bio nutrient approach you could plant clover with the produce you're growing. The clover will fix nitrogen which the produce plant can then use. Both help maintain soil microbial quality and can be a ground cove to maintain the microbial systems when the produce crop is done - verses becoming a baron microbial system destroying zone until a future planting. Without the active microbial systems in place and a full mineral spectrum available, the produce collected will be lacking in proper nutrient value anyway.
Anyway, you see my point.
attention to this subject. . fascinating, and scary. -- j
.
I am not an environmentalist. Never said I was and quite frankly think environmentalism is a religion in and of itself - dedicated to the "belief" in nature/environmentalism without true consideration of actual scientific facts. I would maybe call myself a rational conservationist, but environmentalists generally don't like me. What I am speaking of is the science of GMO and on weather or not someone can do something to my property against my wishes.
Yes you are correct - my heirloom products could infect others around me growing the same kinds of things - however - luckily for me - I have no nearby neighbors and the likelihood of that is very small as compared to a large farm growing a large crop right next to mine.
I have wanted to buy some larger land to expand my operation, and proximity other farms is an issue I will have to consider when I eventually do so. Especially since I have considered the idea of growing heirloom seed for the purpose of the seed being the primary item I'm selling. This makes this even more of an issue than I'm interested in.
Much like Jan said above - if their pollen is "infecting" my crop and by their crop coming onto my property it is going to cause my operation harm - I would want them to stop BEFORE doing the harm. Extending Jan's analogy above, if the farmer next door told me he was going to get a herd of cows and let them loose on his adjoining portion of my property WITHOUT putting up a fence - should I really have to wait for his cows to destroy my crop before being able to do something about it? Anyone who's been around cows - knows - if there is no fence - they WILL invade my crop. No differently than their pollen that WILL invade my crop. They idea that you think I should wait for crop damage and then go to court seems odd. If you have a neighbor with an aggressive dog - and you have no local ordinance regulating dogs - do you wait to get bitten or have your kid get bitten or killed before you do something about it?
This has huge adverse ramifications for common law, since the guy did not go through the normal phases of a contract - offer, acceptance, exchange of considerations, informed agreement. To me, this goes against every tenet of free trade and (non-IP) property rights. At the very least, it pits one form of property rights against another.
To use an internet analogy - how would you feel if you noticed your computer running slightly faster and better? Happy, I'm sure - and you'd just go about your business. Then, how would you feel if you copped a lawsuit some months later from a software vendor, saying that you're pirating their IP, and it turned out that their software was installed without your knowledge or consent via a virus you accidentally picked up when you were simply just visiting a website? Would you feel violently offended, and fight them with everything at your disposal, or would you sheepishly just pay them the legal remedies they were demanding?
Jan
"In 1996 a neighbour grew Roundup Ready Canola on a field diagonally adjacent to Schmeiser's field. In 1997, Mr. Schmeiser noticed that a large number of canola plants from seeds saved from the field survived his normal spraying with Roundup for weed control along road allowances. He tested a section of the field by spraying it with Roundup, and 60% of the plants survived. Seed from that crop was used to plant all of his fields in 1998."
It seems that OF has such low yields per acre and uses much more water to produce those crop yields that some folks HAVE done the math and figured out that CA's excessive water consumption by Organic Farmers has contributed to the shortage of water in the state.
Go figure... another unintended consequence of a cult movement.
Enjoy!
Makes me temped to quit everything, buy a motor home and move from free federal park to free federal park and keep my money - but then they'd get my fuel taxes :(
managed by Ma Nature, but if we wanted to plant
some "super-trees" we couldn't? . so, ya gotta have
a driver's license for trees? . aaaarrrrgggggghhhhh -- j
.
Many of the customers I sell to are looking for non-GMO and such. So, my crops remaining untainted by local GMO crops, is important to my small commercial operation.
GMO is not hybrid. Cross pollinating of heirloom strains produce hybrids. I suppose Hybrids cross pollinated with other hybrids would produce other hybrids - but predictability and consistency of output would be hard to determine at best.
So, if I intend to use some of my current crop to collect seeds for the following year's crop, neighboring farms plantings would cause me to end up with seeds that are no longer the strain I started with. The idea that no commercial operation uses heirloom varieties is not correct.
Additionally, from my understanding, is that the large companies who invest in producing GMO strains, have and will try to shut down via lawsuits, surrounding farmers if they determine that you have plants with their GMO patters in them. So, if they plant a GMO crop (and even their hybrids) next to yours and you use seeds from your crop in the following year, you future plants will have genetic patters containing their hybrid and GMO - patented strains. They will then sue you because you didn't buy those seeds from them.
This is plain biology and is an anticipated and expected result. Cross pollination will happen when planted in some proximity to each other. That distance is not a set distance either. It depends on the pollinators involved. Bees, birds, etc... Size of plantings, prevailing winds, etc...
But there is no question that it can contaminate heirloom strains. There is no question that there are many people and particular clientele that do not want GMO.
With that issue and potential law suits from companies suing over "stolen" patented strains, there is very real pending damage that is almost guaranteed.
Stopping the companies from planting these crops related to this law suit and waiting to see the research, findings, and hearing the arguments makes sense.
I am not anti-science by any means. BUT I also say that the science is not there yet in relation to GMO - there simple can't be in the short term. Complications from GMO could take decades to emerge and even longer to determine that they are the cause. Hybridization is a much different creature than GMO. Hybridization is normal in nature. GMO is not. GMO allows introduction of completely - normally incompatible genetics - to be brought together (such as lightning bug DNA in corn). That does not happen in hybridization and selective breeding.
We would not want a farmer dumping excess weed killer next you property - causing mass plant death on your property - and being told to wait until they do it (destroying your plant life) before you could file for a stay in the courts.
I am also very anti-regulation... I suppose in this case, filling for some kind of stay in the courts until you can argue your cases would be better than regulation, but even that could be abused.
My overall point is to make sure you understand that there is valid argument on the side of the commercial operations (in my case - small) going up against large GMO-using farms and the GMO seed companies.
As far as how to deal with it, I don't know right now - but to simply let them do whatever they want when the outcome is so predictable doesn't seem right either. No more than toxin dumping or other obviously bad practices.
In the first, I think there is an opportunity to declare a Fair Use standard for incidental use. I don't agree with the seed companies being able to go after any farmer for incidental use - especially if they didn't plant the seeds.
In the second, however, I think it is necessary that one show actual damages. Cross-pollination between GMO and non-GMO is a far cry from toxin dumping. What is possibly affected is the market to which the product may be sold and the resulting revenue. All of that is measurable and can therefore be weighed as actual damages. But to preclude one method of doing business by legislative fiat in favor of another is nothing more than blatant favoritism and subsidy.
The thing that stuck out most to me in this article was that the judge denied the stay. That ruling effectively was a ruling which effected a verdict in favor of the government even before the case could be heard. That to me is incredibly dangerous.
Dumping toxins is not different. If you are a farmers growing a completely different crop - and my toxin is an herbicide - it kills part of your crop - that is effectively no different than your cross-pollination effectively destroying seed crop. Weather it is dead or unusable - either way money is lost. If you know I'm getting ready to dump the herbicide - and you intervene before I can, I'm sure you'd want to have someone hear your argument before allowing me to proceed. What if was simply spraying and the herbicide mist wafted over onto your property damaging crops? Very similar to my little pollen wafting over and causing you monetary loss as a direct result.
Are there potentially negative effects from cross-pollination? Those most definitively DO lie within the realm of possibilities. But until it actually happens, there have been no damages. Part of any civil proceeding is that you have to prove _actual_ damages in order to have standing to litigate. You can't sue otherwise. You can't sue based on what another party _might_ do - only on what they _actually_ did.
There is no Constitutional basis for a federal court to even hear this.
It did a story about how two farmers, neighbours, that have fallen out because of GM Canola.
The transcript of part one is at:
www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2015/s419...
Titled "Seeds of Wrath", one farmer told his neighbour in 2008 about the possible effects GM would have on his Organic farm; in 2010-11 the neighbour planted GM Canola and seems surprised that he was given a legal document.
I do not understand the plaintiffs' assertion that "will stand as a precedent for the rights of farmers and communities across the United States to create GMO-free zones to protect the future of our food."
It seems to me the judge is rightly saying that the right to farm law shouldn't allow you to do some activity on your land that poisons a neighboring farms crops. I don't believe GMO crops are harmful. How would the GMO companies make money if a significant portion of GMO crops ended up on neighboring farms for free?
According to what I can find out, there was some cross contamination but that was not the issue, what happened was that he harvested, saved and reused the seeds from the crop. It was this deliberate reuse that was the source of the suit.
Monsanto wanted him to sign a license agreement and pay a fee, he claimed that the seeds were his to use as he wanted.
The court ruled he was violating Monsanto's Patent.
Is this the case you were referring to?
Jan
And two, buy you premise - you should not be concerned if I dump my excess RoundUp on my property killing vegetation on your property.
The cases Monsanto have won, open the doors to being sued even if you didn't want the cross pollination - I don't have the money or resources to fight such an operation.
Monsanto can sue whether the intent was there or not to intentionally raise these hybridized seeds. Much like copyright law - you can't copy their stuff - even in part without opening the door to suit.
Let me propose a conspiracy theory - what if Monsanto were a large company. And suppose they wanted to control the seed market. Suppose they locate farms that raise and sell seed for heirloom or competing hybrid seed. Suppose they contract with local farmers upwind of these opposing seed producers so that they will cross pollinate their crops - ensuring that more and more of their seed stock in contaminated with their GMO variety. Could they do this - eliminating the competition?
If they've gotten protection from the government via cronyism so they can't be counter sued - what is the recourse?
The product is only better by some peoples standards - others disagree that it is better and are skeptical due to the lack of science that these varieties are in fact safe in the long term.
Monsanto and others of their nature are exactly Ayn Rand's example of crony capitalism. They are big business in bed with government for protection and handouts. They are effectively taking away the rights of their neighboring farmers when they use biology against them... Biological warfare per se.
BUT, I also have a problem with government regulation. At best right now - with our current structure - I would hope that we would have the option to request for an injunction against them moving forward until the matter can be heard in a court where peers can listen to the matter to settle the disagreement without regulation. So, I agree with you on that point - simply banning entire regions is an overstep - but how to deal with my conspiracy theory? It only takes them being successful a handful of times to alter the market in their favor by trampling the property rights of other farmers via biological warfare from doing what they wanted to with their farms.
The other issue is also one of civil litigation, and involves the damages caused to one farmer by another. I think there is an opportunity for the farmers to get together and structure a basic framework under which such disagreements can be adjudicated. But in protecting one business, one can't also exclude another, which is what concerns me about this ruling here.
The judge is simply promoting a popular political bias against "GMO" plant strains.
I missed that part and focused on the $4.2 million.
I agree. There's no way they should enforce this law with them unless there's evidence of damages.
Anti-science is denying the science of biology in how these processes work and how they can be used with cronyism to manipulate the market.
Ignoring the lack of long term outcomes of these products is denying science. Science requires study over reasonable time frames related to the experiment involved. The use of GMO should be a very long term study - and would have to be done on an individual products basis as each GMO could have its own unique issues.
Taking one narrow view and ignoring the full spectrum of possibilities and outcomes is anti-science and anti-human. What if it turns out that corn GMO engineered to be resistant to RoundUp (an herbicide) leads to cancer in 40 years after long term consumption of corn covered in RoundUp. or due to the genetic manipulation somehow causes improper cell division when exposed to other compounds?
It is very complicated and nearly impossible to know what the long term outcomes could hold. Would the cancer patients 40 or 50 years from now that end up dying from it think it is pro-human? If it only start manifesting itself in 40 or 50 years, how many decades after that would it take to figure out that (if ever) that the GMOs were the cause?
Applying this policy strictly means humans would never take action, never progress, because we can never be sure of the repercussions and unforeseen direct effects.
Progress for the sake of progress is evil!
Our food supplies through heirlooms and hybrids have done us fine up until GMOs. Why all of a sudden are GMO's the only answer? We can't county on pharma to produce safe drugs anymore and you want botanists chemically/genetically altering our food supplies and think there's not a real risk?
If GMO ends up contaminating all of our heirlooms - there will be no option. If we made a mistake - then what?
Being cautious is not weakness - running blindly forwards simply because we can is dangerous.
"Progress for the sake of progress is evil! "
What is really being talked about under "progress" are goals. "Progress" is merely a measurement of movement along some trajectory away from some starting point and toward some projected terminus which has been deemed to be desired. What you are really saying here is is that one must examine the goals/endpoints of the journey and not merely that one is moving in order to assess the morality of the movement. I wholeheartedly agree.
During the drought of the 1930s, the unanchored soil turned to dust, which the prevailing winds blew away in huge clouds that sometimes blackened the sky. [...]"
This was from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
So,I will clarify my statement - it wasn't THE cause, but as is stated in this wiki, it was this along with drought. So a major cause... Anyway, I had seen a documentary on this - I think on the History Channel as well. A few years back - don't recall for sure.
And yes, I agree with your more thorough statement about progress. Someone else (maybe you?) compared it to the "Jurassic Park" thesis/theory/something... Yep. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should and the consequences could be bad. Trying to control nature has had some nasty side effects. Like I said - I'm not outright against the idea of GMO - but I am very concerned about it's use and how thoroughly it's tested and it's effects on non-GMO availability.
The huge bushfires blamed on drought are similarly man-made.
My reasoning:
By removing the recharging of the water table from the consideration of Farmers, and Graziers to a smaller extent, we allow the variable rainfall, changing from season to season/ year to year, to run off and take the precious moisture needed by crops.
(In high rainfall areas the volumes of water runoff can contribute to erosion.)
Where the soil is less hydrated, there is less buffering of adverse circumstances. The trees having less moisture than is stripped away by evaporation(also evapo-transporation, where plants are working to regulate their temperature), are vulnerable to dessicating winds and then a lightning strike fire can spread rapidly.
The crops being grown and how they are produced have an enormous effect. Growing huge fields of grasses so that harvesters can economically collect them, leaving exposed bare earth in their wake are responsible for tipping the balance between precipitation and evaporation. Versions of no-till farming where the soil isn't tolled and the stumble left can help to mitigate the water loss of soils.
I like the invention of swales - water catching ditch on contour. They allow for the retention and infiltration of rainfall; when they are planted with legume trees you get fertiliser, shade, depending on species cattle/goat fodder.
:)
Theory is derived from practice to get to generate principles. These principles are then used to inform improvements in practice;
However there are site specific circumstances that have to be taken into consideration, so you try to approach the economically achievable outcome while keeping the theory as an ideal.
I have said repeatedly that I'm not outright opposed to GMO - BUT I am very skeptical of it.
You guy's aren't listening. They are genetically modified. Their DNA has been altered. These alterations are done my non-natural processes. These DNA sequences that are being inserted or modified are from other species: from bugs, from fungi, and who knows what. Every one is unique at the target and sources are different. The means of how and potential DNA damage from the process will be different from batch to batch. There is no blanket - the process is safe, the end product is safe - no one knows that. People are putting this into their bodies. I can't comprehend how anyone would not be concerned.
The idea that there are 'human' and 'non human' DNA is a bit simplistic. There is an amazing commonality to all DNA we share 28% of our DNA with yeast.
Bacteria and viruses move DNA back and forth between species all the time. Then, of course there are genetic mutations.
What's new is knowing exactly what we are doing. Now we could wind up with something going wrong, but that's always a possibility -- especially with trial and error.
"Genetically engineered crops have genes added or removed using genetic engineering techniques,[29] originally including gene guns, electroporation, microinjection and agrobacterium. More recently, CRISPR and TALEN offered much more precise and convenient editing techniques.
Gene guns (a.k.a. biolistic) "shoot" (direct high energy particles or radiations against[30]) target genes into plant cells. It is the most common method. DNA is bound to tiny particles of gold or tungsten which are subsequently shot into plant tissue or single plant cells under high pressure. The accelerated particles penetrate both the cell wall and membranes. The DNA separates from the metal and is integrated into plant DNA inside the nucleus. This method has been applied successfully for many cultivated crops, especially monocots like wheat or maize, for which transformation using Agrobacterium tumefaciens has been less successful.[31] The major disadvantage of this procedure is that serious damage can be done to the cellular tissue.
Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation is another common technique. Agrobacteria are natural plant parasites, and their natural ability to transfer genes provides another engineering method. To create a suitable environment for themselves, these Agrobacteria insert their genes into plant hosts, resulting in a proliferation of modified plant cells near the soil level (crown gall). The genetic information for tumour growth is encoded on a mobile, circular DNA fragment (plasmid). When Agrobacterium infects a plant, it transfers this T-DNA to a random site in the plant genome. When used in genetic engineering the bacterial T-DNA is removed from the bacterial plasmid and replaced with the desired foreign gene. The bacterium is a vector, enabling transportation of foreign genes into plants. This method works especially well for dicotyledonous plants like potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco. Agrobacteria infection is less successful in crops like wheat and maize.
Electroporation is used when the plant tissue does not contain cell walls. In this technique, "DNA enters the plant cells through miniature pores which are temporarily caused by electric pulses."
Microinjection directly injects the gene into the DNA."
again from the wiki I cited earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically...
What you are describing is more in line with hybridization and selective breeding - these are not inherently the same. It may introduce new characteristics, but almost exclusively with the same kind of things - whether it be dogs, cats, plants, etc... through their natural reproductive processes.
Bombarding cells with radiation and heavy metals laced with completely foreign DNA sequences is farm from benign.
https://www.laprogressive.com/monsanto-a...
More links to come tomorrow
http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/05/25/s...
http://www.naturalnews.com/049932_glypho...
https://www.laprogressive.com/monsanto-a...
http://www.livescience.com/40895-gmo-fac...
http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunnin...
Excerpts
Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it.
The important thing to note in these deficiencies is that these are exactly the deficiencies in a human being that lead to susceptibility to sickness, disorders and cancer. People who have osteoporosis are low in calcium and magnesium, people who have cancer are low in maganese. The list goes on and on.
GMO Corn has 14 ppm of Calcium and NON GMO corn has 6130 ppm. 437 X more.
GMO corn has 2 ppm of Magnesium and NON GMO corn has 113ppm. 56 X more.
GMO corn has 2 ppm of Manganese and NON GMO corn has 14ppm. 7X more.
Look at the levels of Formaldehyde and Glyphosate IN the corn! The EPA standards for Glyphosate in water in America is .7ppm. European Tests showed organ damage to animals at .1ppb (.0001ppm) of Glyphosate in water. Our water levels allow glyphosate 7,000X higher than what has been shown to be toxic in animals. This corn has 13 ppm! 130,000 times higher than what is toxic in water!*
“Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.” Scientists must literally ‘ASK’ these corporations for PERMISSION BEFORE publishing independent research on GMO crops.(Scientific Amerian, August 13, 2009.)
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...
http://www.nyrnaturalnews.com/article/is...
http://edgytruth.com/2015/04/25/are-gmos...
http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/03/gmos-wo...
And this website
http://www.gmoevidence.com/
Hehe, but ALL experts and ALL 'scientists' have come to consensus that these articles don't really exist! ;)
I will read them later - thanks!
Further, Samsel says he now has documents he received from the EPA that are "trade secret" documents belonging to Monsanto which, allegedly, are safety studies regarding glyphosate from the late 1970s and early 1980s, as well as others beyond those dates.
The documents reference animal studies, according to Samsel, with short-term and long-term studies conducted on mice, rats, rabbits, and dogs. Monsanto allegedly asked the EPA to seal these documents as "trade secrets" so no one else could review the data from these studies.
It amazes me that people are so narrow minded on their criticisms. This is just an IT person... blah, blah, blah... so 'of course' their reason cannot be listened to as they are not a scientist!
What is a scientist? Someone who runs around in a white lab coat and wears glasses? No.
From our friend Merriam-Webster: "a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems"
Now, let’s take that further: Is 'trained' only acceptable if via an accredited college? What about self study? What about work experience? What about via mentoring? Trained is a vague area.
Anyway, as an IT (Computer Scientist) professional via self study and via college study and as someone who has worked for a company doing Alzheimer's Research - I found that the data that some of the PhD researchers wanted to use and how they wanted to collect and analyze their 'data' was quite ridiculous.
I would like to argue that they are not scientists in the science of data storage, data types, SQL query, database theory, etc... The IT person, especially if they do their job well, and from my experience in this type of environment, has much more qualification in how to utilize the data to produce statistics and reporting of the data collected than the scientists doing their studies. Getting these Dr.s to understand exactly what they needed to collect, what form the data needed to be in, how to make sure their data was comparable to ensure data integrity across multi-facility data collection, etc… was a completely foreign concept to them. And on top of that I was given restrictions that even as the Systems Administrator, Database Administrator, and Systems Analyst for the organization - was told that I could not question the Dr.s directly about their data so as to determine their needs for data storage and schemas. The reason… because it wasn’t proper for IT to directly deal with them! This from the COO and CIO of the organization (which was heavily government funded by the way).
IT is the data scientists. The systems they design allow for the proper ability to study the data it holds and in many cases have to write the complex queries to pull the data into patterns that even allow for further analysis. When this is done wrong, or different 'scientists' are plugging data into the database that don't correlate to the same methods and procedures - it is as the old adage goes: "garbage in, garbage out!" I have very little faith from what I have seen firsthand that all, or even most, 'scientists' are producing valid studies. This requires a group effort - utilizing the true data scientists - the IT people involved with the database systems. But when does that happen?
This article's commenters further show the dire lack of understanding that IT plays in proper data utilization and analysis in such systems. Simply dismissing the idea or what the person was saying because “they’re not scientist – they don’t know what they’re talking about”. What BS!
A Systems Analyst and/or Database Admin/Programmer must understand fairly thoroughly what the data is, what it means, how it correlates to related data etc… I feel confident in saying that IT in those positions have a VERY HIGH degree of understanding about the projects they are supporting. In more than a few cases when running my own IT company I often found that I had a better understanding of the overall operation of many of the client’s companies that I contracted with – because to do my job right, I had to study their business from the ground up, document how everything flowed in production and in data to be able to properly design their networks, servers, workstations, software, data storage and flows, and to implement their accounting and POS systems to help them catch errors in AR/AP/Payroll/etc…
People who dismiss what IT can bring to the table are truly uninformed about what they are capable of. But I see it all the time. Too bad that’s how people have reacted to the article you posted here…
I’m not directing this at you– just venting! It really frustrates me that people are so dismissive of people opinions without really having a clue about what they are even talking about.
:)
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/hea...
I studied aerospace engineering and computer engineering in college. Thought seriously about going into Botany as I have had a serious interest in plants since before my teens. I raise a garden, grow commercial crops, and have bonsai that I've had since high school (when I studied under a bonsai master with a botany degree (she even has one of her bonsai forests on loan in the National Arboretum in D.C.). I've been in IT (and just about every branch of it) for nearly the same time frame (30+ years). I also love and enjoy physics. My wife is a certified Biology Teacher and has had an interest and love of chemistry for nearly 25 years. But hey. What do I know ;)