I'm vehemently against GMO as a business model. The potential of Monsanto to control the world seed market terrifies me. The potential for disease in a (genetic) monoculture is equally frightening.
But I believe Mr. Schmeiser gamed the system and is the last person who should be held up as a victim.
I totally agree with everything you said. I am not against GMO research, natural or otherwise, My fear is about anyone having control of the world's seed or crop market.
Back to the original post and rants, we will have to see what the"" "new" war mongering President appointed GMO enthusiast "" will do with/after the DOJ investigation.
Owning "life-forms" is gaming the system, in my opinion. If farmers can't control the pollen from their plants, so that it infests or pollutes a neighbor's seed, THEY should be held liable.
GMOs don't produce more nutritious crops, or larger crops. They simply allow greater contamination of the soil, and in turn promote herbicide resistant weeds. In turn these crops are the most subsidized, and their cheap price results in them being turned into what we call "junk food" because they provide empty calories, devoid of nutrition. Moreover, there are many people who are concerned about their impact on human health.
Schmeiser was only continuing a traditional process of selecting seeds.
Bad laws make bad citizens
C'mon Billy, he purposely isolated RoundUp Ready plants and saved the seed. I have no _intention_ of siding with Monsanto on _anything_, but this guy is no victim. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Sure he knew, but wasn't that what mankind has done since the dawn of agriculture? That right should be protected if only by common sense. One always selects the best seed for next years crop. Just my $.02 worth, Steve
IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he supposed to do? He has lost his seed crop. Does he have to plow his crop under, wasting time and expense, or find the patent holder and pay them for genetic properties that he, the farmer, didn't ask for or want? Legally, every seed that contains Monsanto's genetic profile, belongs to Monsanto. Who pays for the loss of diversity? Who pays for losses, if his customers don't want GMOs? Since my plants become Monsanto's plants when they cross fertilize, who pays me for my loss?
GMOs should be grown in hermetically sealed enclosures, and the owner should be fined if he lets them escape.
Bad laws, make bad citizens, and this one is a stinker.
No victim? I'd say that we are all victims of Monsanto's efforts to reduce diversity, and to feed us untested (no feeding studies that I'm aware of) products.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I'd say, if you have wooden shoes, you should throw them in the gears.
Common sense tells me that the right to save seed doesn't extend to saving someone else's patented property. Don't like the law? That's what November 4th is for.
This wasn't a protest, it was a theft.
What he is supposed to do is beyond the scope of this argument. What he is NOT supposed to do is identify, isolate, and propagate someone else's patented property.
Sweet John Muir on ice...you've got me defending Monsanto. I need a shower. And a drink.
I agree. But we can't justify stealing the gears, ya know? There is a right way to do things. Now you have me spitting platitudes. And in favor of Monsanto. That's just nasty.
Just a rambling comment:
I would say that the gears should not belong to Monsanto or anyone at all and that seed saving must be defined as a human right.
It's clear that Monsanto can't contain it, _the damn stuff grows wild as a weed._ Canadian GMO rapeseed has been seen growing wild in Japan of all places.
I've seen it growing wild around here. (I destroy it wherever I see it as I do garlic mustard.)
There's concern over it crossing with turnips and other related vegetables. --So to continue to contain it Monsanto has to start testing for the gene in vegetables.
(And what of crosses to related wild species?)
...I've no doubt that GMO rapeseed will become a naturalized invasive weed and then what? It will leapfrog its way to areas that are not under Monsanto domination and then what?
In short, the genie is out of the bottle and can't be (insert favourite expletive here) contained. I think that even Monsanto doesn't have enough money to contain it.
It wasn't a protest.
It wasn't theft.
Seed saving is a human right.
That Monsanto is capable of abusing the law to prevent a farmer from exercising a basic right is tribute to the thieves running the show.
Bad laws make "Bad" citizens.
substitute "control its use" for the words "contain it"
Where is the outrage over Jackson and Perkins' roses? What's the difference?
I say it's a basic, inherent human to isolate and propogate "better" food regardless of the source. Steve
I propose we agree to disagree on this point. I do not believe in an inviolable right to ignore law for one's own convenience. That's all we're talking about here.
and I say the law disregards human rights.
You don't sign a contract when you buy or receive a Jackson and Perkins' rose.
Roses are (hopefully) perennials and only need to be purchased once, which is kinda traditional.
Jackson and Perkins' roses won't change the genetic make-up of your neighbor's roses.
Jackson and Perkins' roses won't lead to herbicide resistant weeds.
On the other hand, your neighbors are free to use any genes that have wandered into their yard, should they want to start their own breeding program.
There is no law to bar people from saving or selling Jackson and Perkins' rose blossoms or seed.
That genetic marker means that, no matter how many years farmers spend developing seed for their specific locations, no matter how different the conserved seed is from the original Monsanto seed, the marker means that, now, the rest of the genome belongs to Monsanto too.
Now, I'm conjecturing here, but if you wanted to fill an acre with self-made grafts of Jackson and Perkins' roses, I doubt you would have a problem, unless you went into a commercial venture to sell them. If you grow an acre of Monsanto's "Franken-plants" from conserved seed, their heavy-handed snitches and lawyers would be all over you, sales or not.
Yes, they both have 20 year patents, but you must see the qualitative difference between controlling ornamental plants, and trying to monopolize the right to grow food.
This is right in there with claiming the water from rainfall, just because you bought the water company. (see movie: "Corporation", Based on "The corporation : the pathological pursuit of profit and power" by Joel Bakan. Released as a motion picture in 2004. In better libraries near you.)
As usual, "Bad laws make BAD citizens".
Dang, I always find what I'm looking for in the last place I look.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.