Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction

[hillbilly123069]

"If I could go back, I'd tell Morpheus to shove that red pill right up his ass!"
http://www.truth-out.org/obama-deregulates-gmo-crops-despite-supreme-court-injunction/1307023149

[Teaser Rate]

Nice to see the Obama administration side with science and not give into the irrational fears of environmentalist groups over GMOs.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Nice to see the Obama administration side with science and not give into the irrational fears of environmentalist groups over GMOs.

Maybe you can share the science with us.


In so doing, Obama and the USDA have chosen to override and ignore decisions and injunctions made by the U.S. Supreme Court that banned planting of genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets without consideration of the Environmental Impact Assessments, which showed high risks to organic and conventional (chemical) farmers.

Yeah, let's cheer that on.



Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, explained the company’s regulatory philosophy thus: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA’s job.”

To assure the Food and Drug Administration and USDA do not regulate genetically engineered crops, biotech has spent more than half a billion dollars lobbying Congress since 1999.

Keep the hits coming.

[LibertyEagle]

In so doing, Obama and the USDA have chosen to override and ignore decisions and injunctions made by the U.S. Supreme Court that banned planting of genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets without consideration of the Environmental Impact Assessments, which showed high risks to organic and conventional (chemical) farmers.

Farmers should have a class action lawsuit against Monsanto and sue the ever lovin' hell out of them.

[Krugerrand]

Farmers should have a class action lawsuit against Monsanto and sue the ever lovin' hell out of them.

So true ... but this is why it's important to pay off both political parties. A mistake that the tobacco industry demonstrated.

[discing_engineer]

I grabbed this off of the DP forums

http://www.naturalnews.com/031922_Monsanto_lawsuit.html

(NaturalNews) In order to avoid completely losing their businesses and livelihoods to the predatory business model of Monsanto, 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations have collectively filed a preemptive lawsuit against the multinational biotechnology giant. Filed by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of the plaintiffs, the suit seeks judicial protection against the inevitable lawsuits Monsanto will file against non-GM and organic farmers when its genetically-modified (GM) seeds and other materials contaminate their fields.

In the past, Monsanto has successfully sued farmers in both the US and Canada for allegedly violating patent protections. But the truth is that Monsanto's seeds or other genetic materials have inadvertently trespassed on nearby crop fields, for which any rational person can see makes Monsanto the violator.

Continue:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031922_Monsanto_lawsuit.html

[scottditzen]

On a related note, just watched the documentary Food Inc. last night on tv.

Very interesting, and while I didn't have time to follow up on the allegations, it's thought-provoking to say the least.

Strange coincidence how all those Monsanto types just waltz into powerful FDA roles!

[Kelly.]

Farmers should have a class action lawsuit against Monsanto and sue the ever lovin' hell out of them.

if a gmo contaminates a non gmo field, the liability is on the gmo farmer, not monsanto. this is part of the agreement you sign when you buy gmo seeds.
luckily my area has a lot of smaller fields, so gmo crops arent worth it. (~$11 per pound for gmo seed vs ~$3 per pound fro non gmo seed)

i wonder if there is anything i can legally due to protect my fields from gmo contamination?
obviously i cant block pollen blowing in the wind from blowing into my fields, thus contamination my fields.
im open to suggestions. (pm me as to not derail this thread)

i have heard of a handful of farmers being sued by monsanto for copyright infringement after a non gmo field has been pollinated by gmo pollen :(

[ChaosControl]

Will never touch GMO crap. Go to hell Monsanto and Obama.

[Kelly.]

Nice to see the Obama administration side with science and not give into the irrational fears of environmentalist groups over GMOs.

can you help me out as to how i can stop a neighboring farmer from contaminating my organic alfalfa mix field?
as it is currently drawn up, if a gmo crop's pollen blows into my field, i can be sued for copyright infringement.

isnt the pollen from the gmo field violating my private property?

edit: should i put up a "no gmo trespassing" sign up to ensure the pollen knows to stay out of my property?

[speciallyblend]

I grabbed this off of the DP forums

http://www.naturalnews.com/031922_Monsanto_lawsuit.html

(NaturalNews) In order to avoid completely losing their businesses and livelihoods to the predatory business model of Monsanto, 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations have collectively filed a preemptive lawsuit against the multinational biotechnology giant. Filed by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of the plaintiffs, the suit seeks judicial protection against the inevitable lawsuits Monsanto will file against non-GM and organic farmers when its genetically-modified (GM) seeds and other materials contaminate their fields.

In the past, Monsanto has successfully sued farmers in both the US and Canada for allegedly violating patent protections. But the truth is that Monsanto's seeds or other genetic materials have inadvertently trespassed on nearby crop fields, for which any rational person can see makes Monsanto the violator.

Continue:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031922_Monsanto_lawsuit.html

spot on

[KingRobbStark]

can you help me out as to how i can stop a neighboring farmer from contaminating my organic alfalfa mix field?
as it is currently drawn up, if a gmo crop's pollen blows into my field, i can be sued for copyright infringement.

isnt the pollen from the gmo field violating my private property?

edit: should i put up a "no gmo trespassing" sign up to ensure the pollen knows to stay out of my property?

You can sue, and all you have to do is post a sign that has a "No trespassing". If by anychance your field is contaminated you can sue for sabotage and vandalism. My dad sued a neighboring dairy using this method.

[Teaser Rate]

Will never touch GMO crap. Go to hell Monsanto and Obama.

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.

[Krugerrand]

You can sue, and all you have to do is post a sign that has a "No trespassing". If by anychance your field is contaminated you can sue for sabotage and vandalism. My dad sued a neighboring dairy using this method.

This may be a good strategy. If all the GMO farmers get sued left and right, they'll stop growing the GMO crap.

[Krugerrand]

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.

what propaganda manual did you pull that stat from?

[RideTheDirt]

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/8650/76841559.jpg

[SanDiegoForPaul]

The movie "The World According To Monsanto" is pretty interesting. Don't take everything as fact of course, because everyone likes to put their own spin on the issues.

Full video: h xx p://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto

[ghengis86]

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.

Right...

[Kelly.]

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.

can you tell me specifically which gmo foods have helped to directly feed people?
please be specific

[flightlesskiwi]

This is the company responsible for more than fifty uncontrolled or abandoned places where hazardous waste is located (“Superfund sites” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites)

Monsanto should have been put out of business a long time ago.

[parocks]

Right, I don't remember people starving to death in such great numbers before bug poison was built into potatoes.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Welcome to Rule by Decree! Anyone wanna take bets on Obama losing the election and then declaring it null and void?

[Teaser Rate]

Welcome to Rule by Decree! Anyone wanna take bets on Obama losing the election and then declaring it null and void?

That's never, ever going to happen.

[t0rnado]

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.

You are correct, the advent of semidwarf wheat and rice did help feed the starving, but that's not what Monsanto's GMO crops do.

[Teaser Rate]

can you tell me specifically which gmo foods have helped to directly feed people?
please be specific

Google Norman Borlaug.

[Zippyjuan]

Interesting to see such an outcry over deregulation of an industry. Let the market sort it out? Free enterprise and all that? Perhaps there are some things which should be regulated?

[nbhadja]

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.

How much is Monsanto paying you to be a shill in favor of GMO food, which is poisonous btw.

[Guitarzan]

Interesting to see such an outcry over deregulation of an industry. Let the market sort it out? Free enterprise and all that? Perhaps there are some things which should be regulated?


A better question might be to ask whether, or how much, Monsanto has benefited from using the power of the State to get where it is today.

[Zippyjuan]

Conventional farmers also receive government subsidies. They benefit too.

[KingRobbStark]

GOO crops have proven to cause cancer, and other types of illnesses. They also lied multiple times on the amount of dosages of various types of chemicals that helped manufacture these poisons.

[Guitarzan]

Conventional farmers also receive government subsidies. They benefit too.


In your post, you implied that Monsanto is a creature of the marketplace, when the truth is far from that. And then you criticized the people here, alluding that they were being hypocritical by being against "deregulation" of this marketplace. You're being disingenuous at best.

[PaulConventionWV]

if a gmo contaminates a non gmo field, the liability is on the gmo farmer, not monsanto. this is part of the agreement you sign when you buy gmo seeds.
luckily my area has a lot of smaller fields, so gmo crops arent worth it. (~$11 per pound for gmo seed vs ~$3 per pound fro non gmo seed)

i wonder if there is anything i can legally due to protect my fields from gmo contamination?
obviously i cant block pollen blowing in the wind from blowing into my fields, thus contamination my fields.
im open to suggestions. (pm me as to not derail this thread)

i have heard of a handful of farmers being sued by monsanto for copyright infringement after a non gmo field has been pollinated by gmo pollen :(

That's not fair. They can sue you but you can't sue them? That's bullshit considering they're the ones violating other people's property rights.

[PaulConventionWV]

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.

Teaser, why are you here? You obviously want government regulation to solve all of our problems and for government to grow inevitably. That's opposite of what Ron Paul wants. The fact that you can defend this stuff with a straight face just sickens me to no end.

[Vessol]

That's not fair. They can sue you but you can't sue them? That's bullshit considering they're the ones violating other people's property rights.

That's what happens when the court system is held in a monopoly :\.


Teaser, why are you here? You obviously want government regulation to solve all of our problems and for government to grow inevitably. That's opposite of what Ron Paul wants. The fact that you can defend this stuff with a straight face just sickens me to no end.

I don't agree with Teaser on 99% of things. However, I do feel that he has a point. Pesticides, modified crops and other technological advances in agriculture have allowed us to greatly increase our crop production which is needed for the increasing world population.

Simply put, we cannot feed a 21st century population with 19th century farming techniques. There is a reason why we had such a big population boom, it was due to the fact that technology increased to allow such growth.

Do I agree with the IP and copywrite crap with GMOs? No. However, I do recognize that they allow for greater crop yields and believe that on a free market that a farmer should be allowed to grow whatever he want however he wants on his own land.

[acptulsa]

Interesting to see such an outcry over deregulation of an industry. Let the market sort it out? Free enterprise and all that? Perhaps there are some things which should be regulated?

Um, a government where Tom Vilsack is Secretary of Agriculture, the Supreme Court is overturned by Executive Fiat, and farmers are sued for not preventing the spread of pollen into their fields is helping maintain a free market?

I don't believe I've ever seen you propose a stranger definition of that term...

[nbhadja]

Conventional farmers also receive government subsidies. They benefit too.

No.

Big corps benefit from it, not small farmers.

[nbhadja]

Interesting to see such an outcry over deregulation of an industry. Let the market sort it out? Free enterprise and all that? Perhaps there are some things which should be regulated?

Do you support fraud?

Monsanto is marketing a dangerous proven poison as "food" even though it is not food. They should be put in jail or killed off. They are mass murderers much worse than any independent serial killer.

[PaulConventionWV]

That's what happens when the court system is held in a monopoly :\.



I don't agree with Teaser on 99% of things. However, I do feel that he has a point. Pesticides, modified crops and other technological advances in agriculture have allowed us to greatly increase our crop production which is needed for the increasing world population.

Simply put, we cannot feed a 21st century population with 19th century farming techniques. There is a reason why we had such a big population boom, it was due to the fact that technology increased to allow such growth.

Do I agree with the IP and copywrite crap with GMOs? No. However, I do recognize that they allow for greater crop yields and believe that on a free market that a farmer should be allowed to grow whatever he want however he wants on his own land.

I disagree. I don't think overpopulation is a problem. I think greed and redistribution is a problem that is causing a lot of people to starve. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone if we didn't have hoarding and greedy manipulators. This is easily demonstrable if you think how big the world is and then consider that the world's population could all fit into Jacksonville, FLA... twice.

[Vessol]

I disagree. I don't think overpopulation is a problem. I think greed and redistribution is a problem that is causing a lot of people to starve. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone if we didn't have hoarding and greedy manipulators. This is easily demonstrable if you think how big the world is and then consider that the world's population could all fit into Jacksonville, FLA... twice.

I'm not saying that overpopulation is a problem. I never said that. So please do not strawman me.

I know that starvation is occuring because of farming subsidies that allow American and European farmers sell their crops in third world nations at artificially low prices to destroy competition in those countries.

Simply put however, we would not have our world population at its current size if we did not have the agricultural technology that we possess that allows us to grow much larger crop yields.

If you look at any population climb in history, it is preceded by new agricultural technologies that allow more food to be produced and thus allow populations to grow. This is a simple fact.

All I'm saying is that a farmer should have the right to grow whatever he wants on his land. Considering their output, most farmers will choose GMO products. You as a consumer have the choice not to consume those products.

[nbhadja]

I'm not saying that overpopulation is a problem. I never said that. So please do not strawman me.

I know that starvation is occuring because of farming subsidies that allow American and European farmers sell their crops in third world nations at artificially low prices to destroy competition in those countries.

Simply put however, we would not have our world population at its current size if we did not have the agricultural technology that we possess that allows us to grow much larger crop yields.

If you look at any population climb in history, it is preceded by new agricultural technologies that allow more food to be produced and thus allow populations to grow. This is a simple fact.

All I'm saying is that a farmer should have the right to grow whatever he wants on his land. Considering their output, most farmers will choose GMO products. You as a consumer have the choice not to consume those products.

Yeah but the fact is that GMO is poison. In a truly free society the FDA would not exist and everyone would understand how poisonous GMO foods are, as a result NO ONE would buy GMO foods just like no one would buy pop tarts laced with cyanide.

There is not a food shortage problem on earth, there is a food distribution problem. Also eating cancer and organ failure causing GMO does NOT help out anyone.

Also GMO is not the reason for the large population. Indian, China, and Europe ban GMO foods. GMO is hardly a technology responsible for the big population growth. It is just useless trash. GMO seeds do not even have higher germination rates.

[Vessol]

Yeah but the fact is that GMO is poison. In a truly free society the FDA would not exist and everyone would understand how poisonous GMO foods are, as a result NO ONE would buy GMO foods just like no one would buy pop tarts laced with cyanide.

There is not a food shortage problem on earth, there is a food distribution problem. Also eating cancer and organ failure causing GMO does NOT help out anyone.

I'm not doubting you, but could you provide me with some links and sources? I'd like to look into it further.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's what happens when the court system is held in a monopoly :\.



I don't agree with Teaser on 99% of things. However, I do feel that he has a point. Pesticides, modified crops and other technological advances in agriculture have allowed us to greatly increase our crop production which is needed for the increasing world population.

Simply put, we cannot feed a 21st century population with 19th century farming techniques. There is a reason why we had such a big population boom, it was due to the fact that technology increased to allow such growth.

considering that we only farm less than 1% of arable land, and less than 5% of the arable land that is actually available for farming, I would disagree with that assessment. It's not crop technologies (beyond simple contour farming, crop rotation, chemical fertilizers etc) that drives our food production - it's petroleum fuel for the equipment. abandon GMO tech and you easily make up for the difference by adding 5% arable land to new farming. You to THAT by simply stopping paying farmers not to grow...


Do I agree with the IP and copywrite crap with GMOs? No. However, I do recognize that they allow for greater crop yields and believe that on a free market that a farmer should be allowed to grow whatever he want however he wants on his own land.The problem with Monsanto et al is that they are not playing in a free market. You can't use free market techniques to deal with a government corporatist entity. IF we had a free market vis Monsanto it would be an entirely different story I believe.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not saying that overpopulation is a problem. I never said that. So please do not strawman me.

I know that starvation is occuring because of farming subsidies that allow American and European farmers sell their crops in third world nations at artificially low prices to destroy competition in those countries.

Simply put however, we would not have our world population at its current size if we did not have the agricultural technology that we possess that allows us to grow much larger crop yields.

If you look at any population climb in history, it is preceded by new agricultural technologies that allow more food to be produced and thus allow populations to grow. This is a simple fact.

All I'm saying is that a farmer should have the right to grow whatever he wants on his land. Considering their output, most farmers will choose GMO products. You as a consumer have the choice not to consume those products.

It was a misunderstanding, so chill. I agree with what you are saying.

[PaulConventionWV]

On second thought, Vessol, I'm really not sure how much GMO crops are responsible for the world population. So, I can't say I agree with everything, but I'm not explicitly disagreeing, either. I just don't know about that part.

[GunnyFreedom]

It was a misunderstanding, so chill. I agree with what you are saying.

I also agree -- except to say that we as consumers currently do NOT have the choice to not consume GMO foods. The government controlled corporatist market does not allow us to know. Someone labels their food "non-GMO" and Monsanto sues the pants off of them for 'claiming that GMO is harmful' simple because they label their products "Non-GMO"

Government helps Monsanto then by either bowing to the political pressure so they win their bogus lawsuit, or allowing Monsanto to keep suing the same guy and losing until that guy runs out of money goes broke and goes out of business.

As it stands, this is NOT a free market, and we do NOT have the choice to not consume non GMO foods.

[Vessol]

Well crops have been genetically modified for thousands of years through selective breeding and all that. So I guess a definition or line has to be made of what is GMO and what is not.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well crops have been genetically modified for thousands of years through selective breeding and all that. So I guess a definition or line has to be made of what is GMO and what is not.

Yeah, that's not what I call GMO. GMO is more about bombarding natural seed with cockroach DNA to make them more resilient...

Selective breeding is not genetic modification IMHO. Not by a long way.

[Inkblots]

Yeah, that's not what I call GMO. GMO is more about bombarding natural seed with cockroach DNA to make them more resilient...

Selective breeding is not genetic modification IMHO. Not by a long way.

Um, selective breeding is EXACTLY genetic modification. That's... what you do when you breed for a trait.

[Zippyjuan]

Being genetically modified is not in and of itself a good or a bad thing. Like anything in life, it can have good and bad results.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/10/forget-apples-a-tomato-a-day-is-what-might-keep-the-oncologist-away.ars

Genetically modified tomatoes can keep cancer at bay

By Yun Xie | Published 2 years ago


The unfortunate truth is that most of us don't eat enough fruits and vegetables, which contain chemicals that protect us against cancer, cardiovascular disorders, and other degenerative diseases. For decades, the National Cancer Institute of America has been promoting a diet that contains at least five portions of fruits and vegetables, but over 75 percent of Americans ignore the advice. To help us out, food scientists are trying to modify crop plants to give us a bigger dose of helpful chemicals in those items that we do eat. Today in Nature Biotechnology, European scientists report that they have made a purple tomato that significantly extended the life span of cancer-prone mice.


Or:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suppressed-report-shows-cancer-link-to-gm-potatoes-436673.html

Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes


By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Saturday, 17 February 2007


Campaigners against genetically modified crops in Britain last are calling for trials of GM potatoes this spring to be halted after releasing more evidence of links with cancers in laboratory rats.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well crops have been genetically modified for thousands of years through selective breeding and all that. So I guess a definition or line has to be made of what is GMO and what is not.

I believe there is a definition out there, and I can assure you they didn't do it through breeding. I would like to suggest watching the documentary "The Beautiful Truth" which you can find on Youtube.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If the subtle trends of tyranny continue unchecked on the present course, and no militia intervenes to protect American farmers from frivolous federal intervention...

[GunnyFreedom]

Um, selective breeding is EXACTLY genetic modification. That's... what you do when you breed for a trait.

You are splitting hairs. Technically having sex or any kind of pollination is "genetic modification," but you know pretty well that's not what I am talking about.

[jmag]

For those who haven't seen The World According to Monsanto vid, it's a must. Google brings it up.

[headhawg7]

A better question might be to ask whether, or how much, Monsanto has benefited from using the power of the State to get where it is today.This^^^^^

[jmag]

I found this comment on a site where the vid is so just a head's up to try to get the full version.


I saw The World According to Monsanto in Montreal and there
is a part missing(sensored) in the ones to be downloaded from internet.
The move I saw in Montreal had a long detailed part where it explained that Bush in the ’80s was behind the “revolving door” of employment positions between Monsanto and the FDA. Where can I get a hold of that part of the movie to show my friends?

[GunnyFreedom]

I saw the full version on Google Video but that has gone away now.

[Teaser Rate]

How much is Monsanto paying you to be a shill in favor of GMO food, which is poisonous btw.

I would tell you, but I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement.


Teaser, why are you here? You obviously want government regulation to solve all of our problems and for government to grow inevitably. That's opposite of what Ron Paul wants. The fact that you can defend this stuff with a straight face just sickens me to no end.

If I understand your post correctly, you accuse me of wanting more government regulation because I stated that I agreed with the Obama administration's decision to deregulate GMO crops...

[GunnyFreedom]

I would tell you, but I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

lol -- yeah you do collect more intel when you keep em guessing don't you?


If I understand your post correctly, you accuse me of wanting more government regulation because I stated that I agreed with the Obama administration's decision to deregulate GMO crops...

Well, to be fair, Obama is only removing the regulations that slow down Monsanto specifically, and retaining the regulations that allow them to monopolize markets. I'd stake my life and reputation that Monsanto had a direct hand in writing the deregulatory package.

[Kelly.]

Well crops have been genetically modified for thousands of years through selective breeding and all that. So I guess a definition or line has to be made of what is GMO and what is not.


Um, selective breeding is EXACTLY genetic modification. That's... what you do when you breed for a trait.

there is a HUGE difference between what mosanto (and other agri corps) are creating, and what is "genetically modified" by nature.

the term "genetically modified" has now become synonymous mixing genes of UNLIKE organisms. this is mainly done because it is easy to isolate genes of certain animals, while being extremely hard to isolate similar genes from plants
when you mix a flounder genetics [easy cold tolerant gene] with a tomato [hard to find a cold tolerant gene], that is unnatural, and would NEVER happen in nature. so to say this combo is safe is very misleading as there is zero long term evidence that it is safe.

some of the GMO crops are:
corn (ethanol, cattle feed, hfcs)
soy (soy is integral to creating chemicals for use in pharmaceuticals)
cotton
wheat (see how nutritious white bread is ;) )
rice (more people subsist on rice then on any other food in the world)

so when people talk about deregulation of GMOs in the current state, what they are advocating is an unchecked experiment on the consuming population, while also rarely asking for GMOs to be labeled.

and to make things worse, monsanto puts the liability [for the food] on the farmer, but can also sue surrounding farmers who cant stop the GM pollen from contaminating their fields.


i am still wondering what GMO crop directly feeds humans, because most GMO crops are a feeder crop for something else ( ie you cant eat GMO corn off the cob, it isnt designed to be eaten without processing)

[Krugerrand]

...
i am still wondering what GMO crop directly feeds humans, because most GMO crops are a feeder crop for something else ( ie you cant eat GMO corn off the cob, it isnt designed to be eaten without processing)

My understanding is that virtually any corn oil, or canola oil comes from GMO crops.

[PaulConventionWV]

lol -- yeah you do collect more intel when you keep em guessing don't you?



Well, to be fair, Obama is only removing the regulations that slow down Monsanto specifically, and retaining the regulations that allow them to monopolize markets. I'd stake my life and reputation that Monsanto had a direct hand in writing the deregulatory package.

This. Teaser's position on government intervention can be seen on the global warming Mitt thread, too.

[tropicangela]

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.

Looks like Bill Gates has joined the forums.

[Kelly.]

My understanding is that virtually any corn oil, or canola oil comes from GMO crops.

are you suggesting that one of the benefits of GMO crops is corn or canola oil?

i am not seeing how that directly feeds humans? nor was there a oil shortage prior to the release of gmo versions of the same...

[Krugerrand]

are you suggesting that one of the benefits of GMO crops is corn or canola oil?

i am not seeing how that directly feeds humans? nor was there a oil shortage prior to the release of gmo versions of the same...

Certainly not a claim of benefit ... just pointing out that avoiding GMO consumption is not an easy task.

[erowe1]

can you help me out as to how i can stop a neighboring farmer from contaminating my organic alfalfa mix field?
as it is currently drawn up, if a gmo crop's pollen blows into my field, i can be sued for copyright infringement.

isnt the pollen from the gmo field violating my private property?

edit: should i put up a "no gmo trespassing" sign up to ensure the pollen knows to stay out of my property?

They shouldn't be able to sue you for copyright infringement, and you shouldn't be able to sue them for violating your private property. If you don't want a gmo farm next door to you, then buy that property. If you don't want to buy it and don't want the wind to blow anything from their property to yours then put up a big wall, or plant some of your alfalfa in a greenhouse to keep a pure strain. Unless you had a contract with the neighbors that nobody would plant GMO seeds or sell their property to anyone who would, then you don't have a right not to have their pollen blow into your property. You bought the land, not the air.

[Krugerrand]

They shouldn't be able to sue you for copyright infringement, and you shouldn't be able to sue them for violating your private property. If you don't want a gmo farm next door to you, then buy that property. If you don't want to buy it and don't want the wind to blow anything from their property to yours then put up a big wall, or plant some of your alfalfa in a greenhouse to keep a pure strain. Unless you had a contract with the neighbors that nobody would plant GMO seeds or sell their property to anyone who would, then you don't have a right not to have their pollen blow into your property. You bought the land, not the air.

What stops that same argument being applied to radiation fallout?

[erowe1]

Interesting to see such an outcry over deregulation of an industry. Let the market sort it out? Free enterprise and all that? Perhaps there are some things which should be regulated?

+1

Government regulation is always a bad thing. Deregulation is always a good thing. I'm a little surprised to see how many people here think otherwise.

[erowe1]

What stops that same argument being applied to radiation fallout?

That's a good question. I'll have to think about that.

[Krugerrand]

+1

Government regulation is always a bad thing. Deregulation is always a good thing. I'm a little surprised to see how many people here think otherwise.

I see two liberty compromising issues in turning a blind eye to the GMO issue.

1 - The court system is being used as a form of regulation. While you rightly claim that Monsanto should not be able to sue farmers for copyright infringement, the reality of the situation is that they do. Our judicial system is being used as pseudo-regulation means because Monsanto has the biggest bucks to fight the court battles.

2 - For better or worse, we have laws in place that control how things must be labeled. I would suspect a large percentage of the population would be shocked at how much GMO product they are consuming ... and probably assume is being labeled.

Also, I disagree with your suggestion that this is not a violation of personal property. We're not talking about one person growing dandelions for a living and those seeds infesting the neighbors lot. This is more in line with contamination. If a chemical plant is dumping harmful chemicals into the air, you most certainly do have a claim against those pollutants. To suggest that you should just buy the downwind land so that the chemical plant does not exist is not in line with liberty.

I'm also troubled that you have potential liability issues which could drastically exceed what Monsanto could afford to pay. They are unleashing into the wild genetic combination that have unknown consequences. What happens when wild weeds become round-up immune? What happens when other traits permanently alter the food crop?

[Kelly.]

They shouldn't be able to sue you for copyright infringement, and you shouldn't be able to sue them for violating your private property.

even if something from their property could ruin my property? (ie if i own a organic farm, and my farm is rendered no longer organic due to my neighbors gmo pollen)
i never wanted this pollen, and in fact do not want this pollen.
the bottom line is something they own (they bought the seed) is destroying something i own (my crop)



If you don't want a gmo farm next door to you, then buy that property.
hahaha, is this a serious response to a property rights violation? why cant i just get current private property rights enforced?


If you don't want to buy it and don't want the wind to blow anything from their property to yours then put up a big wall,
this will not stop pollen.



or plant some of your alfalfa in a greenhouse to keep a pure strain.
why should i have to due extra work to my property to stop you (whoever it is) from contaminating my farm?


Unless you had a contract with the neighbors that nobody would plant GMO seeds or sell their property to anyone who would, then you don't have a right not to have their pollen blow into your property. You bought the land, not the air.
but what happens when the air is used to transport pollen that will effect my property? are property rights only valid in certain situation?

what happens if someone wants to put a nuke site next to your house? because you didnt have a contract in place to prevent it, and because radiation travels be air there would be no private property violation, according to your response.


edit:
i have no problem with no gmo regulation, as long as it is in a true free market, which we are not, not even close to operating in.
currently there is no mechanism in place to compensate a person whos property is violated by a GM organism.

[Zippyjuan]

Certainly not a claim of benefit ... just pointing out that avoiding GMO consumption is not an easy task.

I beleive that most soy and soy products also come from GMO products. They are not required to be labled as such so you cannot be sure what you are buying at the store. That would include all tofu products as well.

According to a chart at Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food 93% of soy grown in the US is GMO and 77% of global soy is as well. 86% of US corn is GMO, 93% of cotton, 93% of rapeseed (Canola).

[Krugerrand]

That's a good question. I'll have to think about that.

I started a new off-topic thread because it's been something I've been thinking about lately:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?297030-Liberty-and-liability

i think the liability issue goes beyond GMO, and I don't want to hijack this thread.

[erowe1]

even if something from their property could ruin my property? (ie if i own a organic farm, and my farm is rendered no longer organic due to my neighbors gmo pollen)

An organic farm. So you get to put stickers on your crops telling people "These crops were not grown in the vicinity of any genetically modified ones," and some poor saps out there will pay extra for the food you grow on account of that sticker. And Monsanto prevented you from being able to use that sticker, so now they owe you money. Yeah, something about that doesn't click with me.

If you sold some product with the label "Made in the USA" on it, and then your state seceded from the Union, should you be able to sue your state for preventing you from being able to say "Made in the USA" any more?

[erowe1]

i have no problem with no gmo regulation, as long as it is in a true free market, which we are not, not even close to operating in.
currently there is no mechanism in place to compensate a person whos property is violated by a GM organism.

This is the kind of argument I see around here far too often. It goes, "Some existing problem is exacerbated by some action by the state, so we need the state to perform some new action to balance out the unintended consequences of that former action." Inevitably the new action brings its own unintended consequences, and the cycle just goes on.

If there's a problem that is exacerbated by some government meddling in the free market, then the only solution is to undo that government meddling.

All the other questions in your post are based on the premise that pollen blowing into your property is a violation of your property rights, which I don't buy.

[Kelly.]

An organic farm. So you get to put stickers on your crops telling people "These crops were not grown in the vicinity of any genetically modified ones," and some poor saps out there will pay extra for the food you grow on account of that sticker. And Monsanto prevented you from being able to use that sticker. Yeah, something about that doesn't click with me.
i dont need a sticker to know my farm produces food void of pesticides/larvecides/herbicides.
to some people, that is a value added, and they will pay a bit more because they know food without these chemicals are better for you.

that still doesnt address the fact that i can not stop an adjacent farmer from contaminating my field.

If you sold some product with the label "Made in the USA" on it, and then your state seceded from the Union, should you be able to sue your state for preventing you from being able to say "Made in the USA" any more?
no, i would move to a state where i could use that sticker. or change my sticker to made in colorado.
the location where something is made/assembled, isnt nearly as important as say a food product whose ingredients are pure, so i dont see ho wthat relates.

[Kelly.]

All the other questions in your post are based on the premise that pollen blowing into your property is a violation of your property rights, which I don't buy.


if my crops are not my property, then what are they?

[erowe1]

i dont need a sticker to know my farm produces food void of pesticides/larvecides/herbicides.
to some people, that is a value added, and they will pay a bit more because they know food without these chemicals are better for you.

So the so-called "contamination" you talk about wouldn't even do so much as prevent you from putting a sticker on your produce? Then what exactly would the damages be that you would want to sue your neighbors for?

[erowe1]

if my crops are not my property, then what are they?

Are you going back to that again? I already answered this. You didn't like what I said.

[Kelly.]

So the so-called "contamination" you talk about wouldn't even do so much as prevent you from putting a sticker on your produce? Then what exactly would the damages be that you would want to sue your neighbors for?

contaminating my crop with genetics from a non plant organism.

people seem to be under the impression that a GMO crop is just a bunch of plant genes mixed together to make a super plant. this is completely wrong. GMO is referencing genetics from animals, mixed into plants. this is an untested and ongoing experiment that i can no opt out of.

[erowe1]

contaminating my crop with genetics from a non plant organism.

people seem to be under the impression that a GMO crop is just a bunch of plant genes mixed together to make a super plant. this is completely wrong. GMO is referencing genetics from animals, mixed into plants. this is an untested and ongoing experiment that i can no opt out of.

And what would the damages be exactly?

You keep mentioning this stuff about animal genes. I don't really get the connection between that and anything I've said.

[Kelly.]

Are you going back to that again? I already answered this. You didn't like what I said.

you said if a gmo farmers plants crops next to me, i should buy his property.

ok, im poor, now what? suffer the violation of my rights? uproot my family and move?

[erowe1]

you said if a gmo farmers plants crops next to me, i should buy his property.

ok, im poor, now what? suffer the violation of my rights? uproot my family and move?

Again, I don't accept that there's a violation of your rights. You keep repeating questions that have that premise, and I don't accept the premise.

[Kelly.]

And what would the damages be exactly?

You keep mentioning this stuff about animal genes. I don't really get the connection between that and anything I've said.

lost profits from people wishing to buy my food (the reason they would be buying from me is to guarantee no GMOs in their diet)

the hardest part would be if there are 2+ different farms that planted GMO seed. im not sure how to determine whos crop pollinated my field, but that doesnt change the fact that my field was pollinated with pollen i dont want.

[Kelly.]

Again, I don't accept that there's a violation of your rights. You keep repeating questions that have that premise, and I don't accept the premise.

so again i ask,
are my crops my property?

if yes, then how is the pollination of my crops with a dissimilar pollen, of which i do not want (and strictly tried to avoid), not a violation of my private property rights?
if no, whos crops are they?

[erowe1]

lost profits from people wishing to buy my food (the reason they would be buying from me is to guarantee no GMOs in their diet)


Well then you're back to the original thing I said. The first time you answered you said you didn't need a sticker or anything for that. So what guarantee do they get now that they wouldn't get then?

[erowe1]

so again i ask,
are my crops my property?

if yes, then how is the pollination of my crops with a dissimilar pollen, of which i do not (and strictly tried to avoid), not a violation of my private property rights?
if no, whos crops are they?

Yes, your crops are your property. So long as you have them out in the open, the air that blows on them is not.

When you plant your crops, one of two things is true. Either you accept the risks of whatever pollen might blow in from others' properties, or the burden is on you to protect your own crops from that risk. If you don't want to go through the trouble of buying your neighbor's property or building a greenhouse, then you have to accept the risk of that cross-pollenation. You didn't pay for the right to control the conditions of the pollen in the air that would blow through your property.

[Kelly.]

Well then you're back to the original thing I said. The first time you answered you said you didn't need a sticker or anything for that. So what guarantee do they get now that they wouldn't get then?

im confused.

if i own a farm, whos niche market is selling food that contains no genetically modified organisms in it, and someone next to me plants a field, whos pollen will cross pollinate my crops with pollen from a genetically modified organism, [there is no way to stop cross pollination via wind] therefore destroying my "farm without genetically modified organisms" , how do you justify these actions taken against my property?

[erowe1]

im confused.

if i own a farm, whos niche market is selling food that contains no genetically modified organisms in it, and someone next to me plants a field, whos pollen will cross pollinate my crops with pollen from a genetically modified organism, [there is no way to stop cross pollination via wind] therefore destroying my "farm without genetically modified organisms" , how do you justify these actions taken against my property?

There you go again. I'm not sure how to say this in a more clear way than I've already said. Your question is based on the premise that what they did was to take actions against your property. I don't accept that premise.

I don't think any of your rights would be violated in that scenario. I don't think you'd incur any damages. And if you did incur lost profits from some customers who pay a premium for food not grown in the vicinity of genetically modified crops, and who cease to be willing to pay that premium after Monsanto set up shop next door to you, then like I said above, something about that just doesn't click with me. I don't see any real damages there. It would be like suing your state for seceding from the union and preventing you from being able to say "Made in the USA." You still have your land, you still have your crops. You can't distinguish an ear of your corn that came from pollen from your own crop from an ear from their crop. You have higher yields and better pest resistance now. And you just can't charge extra money to certain people who are super-sensitive about the possibility of eating something pollenated by something modified by a trout gene.

I hope I'm on a jury some day of some farmer suing Monsanto for that. And I hope Monsanto counter-sues them for legal fees.

[Kelly.]

Yes, your crops are your property. So long as you have them out in the open, the air that blows on them is not.

ok, so we have determined that my crops are my property, and your crops are your property.



When you plant your crops, one of two things is true. Either you accept the risks of whatever pollen might blow in from others' properties, or the burden is on you to protect your own crops from that risk. If you don't want to go through the trouble of buying your neighbor's property or building a greenhouse, then you have to accept the risk of that cross-pollenation. You didn't pay for the right to control the conditions of the pollen in the air that would blow through your property.

but the pollen in question, is from a man made organism.
should the creator and/or user of that organism have no liability for what his crop (property) does, especially when HE KNOWS IT WILL OPEN AIR POLLINATE?

what if i were to plant a crop with a terminator gene in it.
a terminator gene is a gene that will render the seeds for the current years crops sterile for next years planting, thus forcing the farmer to buy more seeds from XYZ company)
would this be ok?

[erowe1]

but the pollen in question, is from a man made organism.

Even if I thought there were such a thing as a man-made organism (which I don't), I would consider that irrelevant.

[Kelly.]

Even if I thought there were such a thing as a man-made organism (which I don't), I would consider that irrelevant.

so you are saying that a flounder gene crossed into a tomato plant is natural?
if you believe it is natural, can you tell me how these to species would mate?

if it is not natural, who made it?

[erowe1]

should the creator and/or user of that organism have no liability for what his crop (property) does, especially when HE KNOWS IT WILL OPEN AIR POLLINATE?

what if i were to plant a crop with a terminator gene in it.
a terminator gene is a gene that will render the seeds for the current years crops sterile for next years planting, thus forcing the farmer to buy more seeds from XYZ company)
would this be ok?

His liability is limited to specific provable damages that are caused by his pollen blowing on your property. Some abstract idea about wanting to buy food that was not grown near genetically modified food, even though I can't distinguish anything different about it, doesn't cut it. But at least you'd have some physical evidence, which is more than you could say in the example of profits lost because of people no longer paying a premium for food not grown anywhere near a Monsanto farm.

The terminator seed would be easier for you to have a case. You'd have to be able to quantify how much of your crop was pollenated by it, how much seed for next season you lost, and how much that cost you, and you'd have to be able to prove all of that.

[Kelly.]

His liability is limited to specific provable damages that are caused by his pollen blowing on your property. Some abstract idea about wanting to buy food that was not grown near genetically modified food, even though I can't distinguish anything different about it, doesn't cut it. But at least you'd have some physical evidence, which is more than you could say in the example of profits lost because of people no longer paying a premium for food not grown anywhere near a Monsanto farm.

so wanting to buy a tomato that does not have other non tomato genes mixed into it, is an abstract idea?
just because YOU cant tell the difference, does not mean there is no difference.

should i have to test my crops to see what has been pollinated with gmo pollen, to prove my field has been contaminated?



The terminator seed would be easier for you to have a case. You'd have to be able to quantify how much of your crop was pollenated by it, how much seed for next season you lost, and how much that cost you, and you'd have to be able to prove all of that.
so if i could prove that my crops were ruined by gmo pollen #1 [terminator gene], i can get compensation, but if gmo pollen #2 contaminates my field on a genetic level [non plant genetics on a plant], i cant get compensation?

i dont see the difference, both are caused by another person planting a gmo crop they knew would release pollen.


edit:
im all for a deregulation of GMO crops, as long as the people planting these crops are held to account for damages caused by the spread of their pollen.

[erowe1]

so you are saying that a flounder gene crossed into a tomato plant is natural?
if you believe it is natural, can you tell me how these to species would mate?

if it is not natural, who made it?

I don't know what qualifies something as natural. But, like every other organism in the world, God made it. In eternity past he designed this world, and he hid all these little secrets everywhere for us to discover will all these wonderful blessings we'd get when we did. If what you describe is real (and I don't care one way or another if it is or not) then one of those secrets is that you can put a flounder gene in a tomato seed, and you'll get a new and improved tomato. This same God gives the rain, the air, and the sun that makes that new and improved tomato grow and then reproduce.

If some people out there don't want to eat those tomatoes, that's fine. If they're so superstitious about it that they only want to eat tomatoes that have been grown under strict conditions that protect them from pollen from the new tomato blowing around in the open air, then the burden is on them to pay the cost to create those conditions.

[erowe1]

so wanting to buy a tomato that does not have other non tomato genes mixed into it, is an abstract idea?
just because YOU cant tell the difference, does not mean there is no difference.

But you have to be able to tell the difference.

Are your customers genetically testing their produce to see if it has "non-tomato genes" (whatever that means) in it? If not, then yes, it's just an abstract idea.

[Kelly.]

I don't know what qualifies something as natural. But, like every other organism in the world, God made it. In eternity past he designed this world, and he hid all these little secrets everywhere for us to discover will all these wonderful blessings we'd get when we did. If what you describe is real (and I don't care one way or another if it is or not) then one of those secrets is that you can put a flounder gene in a tomato seed, and you'll get a new and improved tomato. This same God gives the rain, the air, and the sun that makes that new and improved tomato grow and then reproduce.

If some people out there don't want to eat those tomatoes, that's fine. If they're so superstitious about it that they only want to eat tomatoes that have been grown under strict conditions that protect them from pollen from the new tomato blowing around in the open air, then the burden is on them to pay the cost to create those conditions.

so you do not see genetic modification across species as contamination?

edit:
didnt god allow us to create a terminator gene also?

[erowe1]

so if i could prove that my crops were ruined by gmo pollen #1 [terminator gene], i can get compensation, but if gmo pollen #2 contaminates my field on a genetic level [non plant genetics on a plant], i cant get compensation?

i dont see the difference, both are caused by another person planting a gmo crop they knew would release pollen.

If you're still talking about your terminator gene example, then the difference is specific provable quantifiable damages with actual physical evidence. If you think you could just as easily quantify and prove specific damages in both cases, then you're right, they're not different. But if you could, then you wouldn't be talking about profits lost because of people being willing to pay a premium only for food based on the distance the farm it was grown on is from a Monsanto farm.

[Kelly.]

so my crops [pollinated by another person] are my problem, unless there is something obviously wrong (sterile seed example)

got it.
genetically modified freedom for everyone :\

[erowe1]

so you do not see genetic modification across species as contamination?

That depends on the context and what you mean. Even non-modified pollen could be called contamination if it's in a context where your talking about trying to preserve one particular strain. That doesn't have anything to do with something being man-made or God-made.



edit:
didnt god allow us to create a terminator gene also?
I don't know anything about terminator genes. But if they are what you described, then yes, God not only allowed us to create them, he invented them before we discovered them.

[Kelly.]

That depends on the context and what you mean. Even non-modified pollen could be called contamination if it's in a context where your talking about trying to preserve one particular strain. That doesn't have anything to do with something being man-made or God-made.
we are specically talking about non plant based genetics, being crossed into plant species. (are we reading the same thread???)



I don't know anything about terminator genes. But if they are what you described, then yes, God not only allowed us to create them, he invented them before we discovered them.
so because god invented it, its ok?
not sure where your going with this.

[erowe1]

we are specically talking about non plant based genetics, being crossed into plant species. (are we reading the same thread???)

Yes. Hence the way I worded the answer you're replying to.

Again, you keep trying to steer the thread back to this idea of non-plant genetics crossed into plants, like that is relevant. I don't see how it is.



so because god invented it, its ok?
not sure where your going with this.

I don't know where you're getting this. I'm not the one who tried to use an argument that something is ok or not ok based on who made it, you are.

[erowe1]

Also, I'm not up on all the different vegan/evironmentalist/fair-trade lingo out there. Does a plant pollenated by the pollen from a genetically modified plant really not qualify as "organic"? If so, why is that? Did these people all of a sudden change the meaning of the word "organic" on us?

[AFPVet]

The problem lies with the implications of screwing with nature. That's all it is. Yes, while nature can make mistakes due to a variety of factors, deliberately cross contaminating plant and animal genes—or inserting pesticides—could be catastrophic since we have no idea what this will cause in the long term.

By definition, GMO means any modification to the original genetic material.

[Kelly.]

i still think this is a private property rights issue.

as the planter of a gmo crop that will release pollen, which when mixed with my crop, will create a genetic modification [specifically a non plant gene] to my crop.
i do not want this pollen / modification, and there it no reasonable way to prevent this cross contamination (fyi a greenhouse wont work, a completely sealed grow environment is what would be needed)

deregulate GMOs, but hold the planters of GMOs accountable for the pollen their crop release.

[erowe1]

deregulate GMOs, but hold the planters of GMOs accountable for the pollen their crop release.

I agree 100%. And that accountability can only pertain to specific, quantifiable, provable damages. It can't just be people saying, "I don't want my crop to be contaminated with something from your property." and arbitrarily making up damages that result from displeasure about the risk that it might have happened.

[Kelly.]

I agree 100%. And that accountability can only pertain to specific, quantifiable, provable damages. It can't just be people saying, "I don't want my crop to be contaminated with something from your property." and arbitrarily making up damages that result from the risk that it might have happened.

"i dont want your non tomato genes contaminating my tomato field"
does that qualify?
a tomato whose genes are mixed with a flounder, surely isnt the same as a tomato with pure tomato genes, is it?

edit: the only way my tomato field would be contaminated by flounder genes, would be if someone planted a GM field. this contamination cant happen in nature.
so imo, the planter of the GM crop is responsible for contaminating my non GM field. (ie, my property rights were violated)

[erowe1]

The problem lies with the implications of screwing with nature. That's all it is.

I've never really understood this mindset. It reminds me of stories about people complaining when the airplane was invented that man wasn't meant to fly.

[erowe1]

"i dont want your non tomato genes contaminating my tomato field"
does that qualify?

No, it doesn't. You keep bringing this point up. Did somebody dare you to see how many times you could use the phrase "non tomato genes" or something? I don't see how that's relevant.

[Kelly.]

I've never really understood this mindset. It reminds me of stories about people complaining when the airplane was invented that man wasn't meant to fly.
except in the example of the food supply, humans do not have another choice, like they do with the flying example.

[Krugerrand]

Also, I'm not up on all the different vegan/evironmentalist/fair-trade lingo out there. Does a plant pollenated by the pollen from a genetically modified plant really not qualify as "organic"? If so, why is that? Did these people all of a sudden change the meaning of the word "organic" on us?

My understanding is that any product that is a result of genetic modifications cannot be classified as organic.

[Kelly.]

I agree 100%. And that accountability can only pertain to specific, quantifiable, provable damages. It can't just be people saying, "I don't want my crop to be contaminated with something from your property." and arbitrarily making up damages that result from displeasure about the risk that it might have happened.


"i dont want your non tomato genes contaminating my tomato field"
does that qualify?
a tomato whose genes are mixed with a flounder, surely isnt the same as a tomato with pure tomato genes, is it?

edit: the only way my tomato field would be contaminated by flounder genes, would be if someone planted a GM field. this contamination cant happen in nature.
so imo, the planter of the GM crop is responsible for contaminating my non GM field. (ie, my property rights were violated)


No, it doesn't. You keep bringing this point up. Did somebody dare you to see how many times you could use the phrase "non tomato genes" or something? I don't see how that's relevant.
you asked for a "specific, quantifiable, provable damages"
i gave you one, and you said i was wrong.

so instead of just telling my im wrong, can you give me an example of when a GM crop cross contamination would violate private property rights?

or are you just here to argue?

[erowe1]

except in the example of the food supply, humans do not have another choice, like they do with the flying example.

That's ridiculous. We have all kinds of choices. It's not like someone who wants to preserve heirloom strains of this or that can claim that they've been prevented from being able to by the mere existence of genetically modified foods that other people want to buy.

[erowe1]

you asked for a "specific, quantifiable, provable damages"
i gave you one

I must have missed it. Can you give it again.

[erowe1]

My understanding is that any product that is a result of genetic modifications cannot be classified as organic.

Isn't that just ridiculous that our government would change the meaning of a word on us like that?

[dude58677]

Can someone fill me in on this topic? What are GMO's?

[Kelly.]

That's ridiculous. We have all kinds of choices. It's not like someone who wants to preserve heirloom strains of this or that can claim that they've been prevented from being able to by the mere existence of genetically modified foods that other people want to buy.

as long as they grow them in sealed environment greenhouses, right?
because you cant stop the wind from moving pollen around, unless i missed something.

[Kelly.]

Can someone fill me in on this topic? What are GMO's?

i believe that a GMO crop, whos pollen is blown into my field, thereby contaminating my non GMO crop is a violation of my property rights.
edit: based on the fact the the GMO planter knows his crop will produce and release GM pollen, which is carried by the wind into my field.


erowe disagrees.

[parocks]

It's GMO if you splice a gene (or genes) from a bacteria into the genes for a potato. See BT potato, BT corn, etc.

I don't want to eat bug poison.

[Kelly.]

Isn't that just ridiculous that our government would change the meaning of a word on us like that?

do you think a strain of corn with a pesticide gene spliced into it, should be called organic?
fyi - this corn is called BT corn, and is registered as a pesticide

[erowe1]

so instead of just telling my im wrong, can you give me an example of when a GM crop cross contamination would violate private property rights?


I'm not sure if there are any cases where it really could. But if I were to come up with a hypothetical example, based on a purely made up scenario that I'm not even sure could ever happen it might go like this.

I homestead some land. I have no neighbors when I do. I plant some crops.

A neighbor later homesteads nearby. He plants some GMO crops that include a terminator gene.

I harvest my crops and save some seeds for the next year. I plant those seeds, and then harvest those crops and save those seeds.

I store my seeds from each year separate from one another. I also plant them in separate fields.

I get a yield of 85% from all of my seeds with virtually no variation from this yield except for those seeds from the 2nd year on after he started planting his terminator seeds. In the fields where I plant those seeds I only get an 70% yield. Granted, it does seem unlikely that the cross-pollenation from his terminator seeds would have such a large effect on my crops, but for the sake of argument I'm trying to present this in a way where the causality could be proven and the results quantifiable.

Then I would be entitled to the cost of that yield lost due to the pollen from my neighbor's terminator seeds.

[erowe1]

do you think a strain of corn with a pesticide gene spliced into it, should be called organic?
fyi - this corn is called BT corn, and is registered as a pesticide

Of course it's organic. It's corn. And the pesticide gene is a gene. Are genes not organic any more?

[Kelly.]

^^^^

ok, from that post i can tell you are just arguing or playing devils advocate, thanks for clearing that up.

[Krugerrand]

There you go again. I'm not sure how to say this in a more clear way than I've already said. Your question is based on the premise that what they did was to take actions against your property. I don't accept that premise.

I don't think any of your rights would be violated in that scenario. I don't think you'd incur any damages. And if you did incur lost profits from some customers who pay a premium for food not grown in the vicinity of genetically modified crops, and who cease to be willing to pay that premium after Monsanto set up shop next door to you, then like I said above, something about that just doesn't click with me. I don't see any real damages there. It would be like suing your state for seceding from the union and preventing you from being able to say "Made in the USA." You still have your land, you still have your crops. You can't distinguish an ear of your corn that came from pollen from your own crop from an ear from their crop. You have higher yields and better pest resistance now. And you just can't charge extra money to certain people who are super-sensitive about the possibility of eating something pollenated by something modified by a trout gene.

I hope I'm on a jury some day of some farmer suing Monsanto for that. And I hope Monsanto counter-sues them for legal fees.

Here's where there's a big disconnect in what you're saying. While you'll say that Monsanto should not be able to sue you for patent infringement when GMO pollen ends up in your corn - the reality of our world is that they can and do. So, you'll claim the ear of corn is indistinguishable ... but it IS distinguishable and you the small farmer are now liable to Monsanto for patent infringement. Therefore, in this current world - the farmer growing those crops should be held liable for contaminating your crops ... for that's exactly what happened.

Now, if your crop gets pollinated by a genetically modified 'terminator' gene, the contamination has rendered your crop sterile ... just as if radiation or some chemical pollution had rendered your cows sterile.

Consider what could happen if lack of adequate testing leads to massive widespread crop failure. (and I believe this has happened in Africa ... perhaps somebody may have sources readily available.)

Why do you reject the idea that genetically modified pollens cannot be a pollution/contaminate?

[erowe1]

as long as they grow them in sealed environment greenhouses, right?
because you cant stop the wind from moving pollen around, unless i missed something.

Sure, whatever you want to do on your property to protect it from pollen from other property. This isn't unique to people wanting to avoid genetically modified pollen, it's true for anyone who wants to preserve any kind of plant from any kind of contamination of any sort. If you want to do that, then the cost is on you.

[Kelly.]

Sure, whatever you want to do on your property to protect it from pollen from other property. This isn't unique to people wanting to avoid genetically modified pollen, it's true for anyone who wants to preserve any kind of plant from any kind of contamination of any sort. If you want to do that, then the cost is on you.

by this thinking, is a nuclear site is leaking radiation upwind from me, i should have to build a bubble around my property so im not effected.

[erowe1]

Here's where there's a big disconnect in what you're saying. While you'll say that Monsanto should not be able to sue you for patent infringement when GMO pollen ends up in your corn - the reality of our world is that they can and do. So, you'll claim the ear of corn is indistinguishable ... but it IS distinguishable and you the small farmer are now liable to Monsanto for patent infringement. Therefore, in this current world - the farmer growing those crops should be held liable for contaminating your crops ... for that's exactly what happened.

Now, if your crop gets pollinated by a genetically modified 'terminator' gene, the contamination has rendered your crop sterile ... just as if radiation or some chemical pollution had rendered your cows sterile.

Consider what could happen if lack of adequate testing leads to massive widespread crop failure. (and I believe this has happened in Africa ... perhaps somebody may have sources readily available.)

Why do you reject the idea that genetically modified pollens cannot be a pollution/contaminate?

I'd say the same thing here. If somebody else's radiation rendered your cows sterile, then the damages you're entitled to are whatever you can specifically and quantifiably prove resulted from that radiation. If you have 100 cows, and 20 of them are sterile, but only 10 of them would have been sterile without that radiation, then you are entitled to damages equal to the difference in value between a sterile cow and a non-sterile one times 10.

The same applies to concern about genetically modified pollen. If you have actual, specific, quantifiable, provable damages, then I think you're entitled to whatever they are. But you can't just say "I don't want non-tomato genes (whatever that's supposed to mean) getting into my tomatoes." and then arbitrarily come up with a dollar amount you're entitled to because of the displeasure you feel about the risk that some of your tomatoes might have been cross pollenated with non-tomato genes without you knowing it.

[erowe1]

by this thinking, is a nuclear site is leaking radiation upwind from me, i should have to build a bubble around my property so im not effected.

Or you could sue them for actual, provable, quantifiable, specific damages you incur because of their radiation. But just saying "I personally don't want to experience any extra radiation, and even though I can't point to any actual damage that has been done to me by it, I'm going to call this displeasure I feel on account of knowing that I've been exposed to that radiation 'damages', and sue you for it." isn't good enough.

[erowe1]

^^^^

ok, from that post i can tell you are just arguing or playing devils advocate, thanks for clearing that up.

Nope. I was dead serious. Corn that has genes from a bacteria that kills bugs added into it is every bit as organic as any other corn. Anybody who says otherwise has cooked up a brand new definition for the word "organic."

[dannno]

( ie you cant eat GMO corn off the cob, it isnt designed to be eaten without processing)

High fructose corn syrup.

[Kelly.]

The same applies to concern about genetically modified pollen. If you have actual, specific, quantifiable, provable damages, then I think you're entitled to whatever they are. But you can't just say "I don't want non-tomato genes (whatever that's supposed to mean) getting into my tomatoes." and then arbitrarily come up with a dollar amount you're entitled to because of the displeasure you feel about the risk that some of your tomatoes might have been cross pollenated with non-tomato genes without you knowing it.


ok, example time:

if i plant a field of "organic" tomatoes (meaning tomatoes with genes only from tomato plants), and you plant a field of genetically modified tomatoes (tomato plant spliced with genes from an arctic flounder, which helps the tomato with cold tolerance) , and the pollen from your GM tomatoes flies into my field, thus changing the genetic makeup of my previously "pure" tomatoes, are you saying that because i did not build a greenhouse to completely cover my crop, that i am at fault?

YOUR pollen changed the genetic makeup of MY field.

[parocks]

Here's some links to recent news stories about bt corn. Bt corn (a type of GMO) has genes from a bacteria that kills bugs spliced into the genes of the corn.
They say bug toxin isn't bad for humans, but I don't trust Monsanto, and I'd rather eat no bug poison.

UI scientist worried over lack of compliance with Bt rules
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/agriculture/2011-05-29/ui-scientist-worried-over-lack-compliance-bt-rules.html

Dangerous Toxins From Genetically Modified Plants Found in Women and Fetuses
http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/gmo/dangerous_toxins_from_genetically_modified_plants_ 0527110452.html

Bt-Toxins Found In Newborns Causing Food Allergies To Autism
http://nutritiondietnews.com/bt-toxins-found-in-newborns-causing-food-allergies-to-autism/854063/

[dannno]

by this thinking, is a nuclear site is leaking radiation upwind from me, i should have to build a bubble around my property so im not effected.

The idea is that if the nuclear site was leaking radiation before you moved in, then you have no claim to damages as long as it doesn't increase. You shouldn't move in where there is nuclear leakage. If the nuclear site STARTS to leak radiation after you have moved in, then you have claim to damages.

[Krugerrand]

I'd say the same thing here. If somebody else's radiation rendered your cows sterile, then the damages you're entitled to are whatever you can specifically and quantifiably prove resulted from that radiation. If you have 100 cows, and 20 of them are sterile, but only 10 of them would have been sterile without that radiation, then you are entitled to damages equal to the difference in value between a sterile cow and a non-sterile one times 10.

The same applies to concern about genetically modified pollen. If you have actual, specific, quantifiable, provable damages, then I think you're entitled to whatever they are. But you can't just say "I don't want non-tomato genes (whatever that's supposed to mean) getting into my tomatoes." and then arbitrarily come up with a dollar amount you're entitled to because of the displeasure you feel about the risk that some of your tomatoes might have been cross pollenated with non-tomato genes without you knowing it.

You really should read up on some GMO stuff. I think you'll be surprised to see what's out there. (in ref to: "I don't want non-tomato genes (whatever that's supposed to mean) getting into my tomatoes.")

A good enough starting place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Development

Herbicide resistant gene taken from bacteria inserted into soybean
New genes, some from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, added/transferred into plant genome
"Golden rice" Three new genes implanted: two from daffodils and the third from a bacterium
Contains coat protein genes of viruses.
Contains coat protein genes of the virus.


Now consider you haven't addressed the issue of potential widespread crop failure.

And, I forgot to mention the potential risks to human health that consumption of such products may entail. Sadly, it may be a long time until such dangers become manifest or provable.

[Kelly.]

The idea is that if the nuclear site was leaking radiation before you moved in, then you have no claim to damages as long as it doesn't increase. You shouldn't move in where there is nuclear leakage. If the nuclear site STARTS to leak radiation after you have moved in, then you have claim to damages.

according to erowe, you should do everything in your power to protect yourself (or your crops) from contamination, to include building bubble to keep the radiation out [or in the GM pollen case, build a greenhouse to keep the GM pollen out]

[erowe1]

Now consider you haven't addressed the issue of potential widespread crop failure.

I've addressed quantifiable, specific, provable damages. Do I have to go down a list of any possible form those can take?




And, I forgot to mention the potential risks to human health that consumption of such products may entail. Sadly, it may be a long time until such dangers become manifest or provable.

Until they become manifest or provable, there's nothing to sue anyone for.

[erowe1]

according to erowe, you should do everything in your power to protect yourself (or your crops) from contamination, to include building bubble to keep the radiation out [or in the GM pollen case, build a greenhouse to keep the GM pollen out]

No I shouldn't, because I'm not superstitious about so-called "non-tomato genes."

But for the people who are, sure, go ahead and do whatever you think you need to do to protect your crops from whatever kind of contamination you want to protect them from. Just don't go thinking you can sue me for planting some genetically modified seeds in my yard when you can't even show me any damages that resulted from it.

[erowe1]

ok, example time:

if i plant a field of "organic" tomatoes (meaning tomatoes with genes only from tomato plants), and you plant a field of genetically modified tomatoes (tomato plant spliced with genes from an arctic flounder, which helps the tomato with cold tolerance) , and the pollen from your GM tomatoes flies into my field, thus changing the genetic makeup of my previously "pure" tomatoes, are you saying that because i did not build a greenhouse to completely cover my crop, that i am at fault?

YOUR pollen changed the genetic makeup of MY field.

I'll play along and pretend that somehow my genetically modified tomatoes are less organic than yours.

Why does fault matter if there are no damages?

[Krugerrand]

I've addressed quantifiable, specific, provable damages. Do I have to go down a list of any possible form those can take?


Until they become manifest or provable, there's nothing to sue anyone for.

Well, perhaps I should move this part to my liability and liberty page. When such widespread crop failure were to happen ... it would dwarf anything they could afford to pay out.

Plus, if there are carcinogenic risks involved they may be real but unquantifiable. Which I guess would leave companies free to expose people to certain but unquantifiable carcinogens. (think asbestos)

[Kelly.]

I'll play along and pretend that somehow my genetically modified tomatoes are less organic than yours.

Why does fault matter if there are no damages?
there are damages, my entire field of non GM tomatoes are now contaminated.

you may not see it as contaminated, but i do. the genetics are not pure tomato, as i originally planted. this was only caused by the release of pollen from plants you planted.

[parocks]

Let the jury decide in the class action lawsuits whether bt causes autism.

Bt-Toxins Found In Newborns Causing Food Allergies To Autism
http://nutritiondietnews.com/bt-toxins-found-in-newborns-causing-food-allergies-to-autism/854063/

[parocks]

Damages, consumers will pay more for 100% tomato as opposed to a tomato/fish hybrid.

[erowe1]

Well, perhaps I should move this part to my liability and liberty page. When such widespread crop failure were to happen ... it would dwarf anything they could afford to pay out.

If that happens, that's a problem. Until then, it's a made up scenario that has nothing to do with what we in the real world should do about genetically modified food.



Plus, if there are carcinogenic risks involved they may be real but unquantifiable. Which I guess would leave companies free to expose people to certain but unquantifiable carcinogens. (think asbestos)

I'm pretty sure that the degree of risk of cancer from asbestos is quantifiable. What kind of unquantifiable effects do you have in mind?

Also, I should note that it can't just be the level of risk that's quantified, it has to be the actual damage done. If I get lung cancer, I can't sue my neighbor who smokes just because they increased my risk, since I might have gotten it anyway and there would be no way I could demonstrate cause and effect. It should be the same way with genetically modified pollen. You can't just sue for some abstract risk, it has to be for actual damages that you can prove they caused.

[erowe1]

Let the jury decide in the class action lawsuits whether bt causes autism.

Bt-Toxins Found In Newborns Causing Food Allergies To Autism
http://nutritiondietnews.com/bt-toxins-found-in-newborns-causing-food-allergies-to-autism/854063/

I hope I'm on a jury for a case like that. And if the parents can't prove that bt caused their kids' autism, I hope the farmer they're suing counter-sues them for legal fees, because I would feel really good about awarding them.

[parocks]

I think we can look at the rates of autism before GMO and the rates of autism after GMO. If it's gone up, we'll leave it up to the jury to decide whether the GMO is responsible.

We can do this for any number of crazy ailments that have been popping up over the last 20-40 years.

[parocks]

It should be a class action lawsuit, with thousands of victims with serious ailments against Monsanto and ADM.

[erowe1]

Damages, consumers will pay more for 100% tomato as opposed to a tomato/fish hybrid.

Only if they can tell the difference. If this is just getting back to whether or not someone is able to put this silly "certified organic" sticker on their tomato so they can charge more for it, again, and that's just based on how close those tomatoes were grown to someone else's tomatoes, then I don't buy that that's real damage.

[Kelly.]

It should be the same way with genetically modified pollen. You can't just sue for some abstract risk, it has to be for actual damages that you can prove they caused.


my normal farm stand consumers will not by my tomatoes, which were contaminated by you GM pollen.

i lost all of the money i put into this crop this year, including prep, water, seed, labor, harvesting and packaging.
is that quantifiable enough?

or are you wanting to force my consumer to eat the GM tomatoes, because to you "there isnt a difference?"

[erowe1]

I think we can look at the rates of autism before GMO and the rates of autism after GMO. If it's gone up, we'll leave it up to the jury to decide whether the GMO is responsible.

Again, I hope I'm on that jury. If the plaintiffs think they're entitled to money from someone just because rates of autism have gone up since genetically modified food was introduced, then I would feel great about making them pay the defendants' legal fees.

[erowe1]

my normal farm stand consumers will not by my tomatoes, which were contaminated by you GM pollen.


Really? So they can pick up one tomato and say that it came from cross-pollenation with genetically modified pollen and then pick up another one and say that it didn't? If not, and they're just superstitious about the fact that my GM farm is near there, then that's their problem, not mine. If they can tell the difference, and you can specifically prove how my farm affected your crop, how many of your tomatoes came from cross-pollenation with mine, and what the exact decrease in value of each one of those was, then I should pay you for that. Otherwise, you're the one who has to bear the risks of people not wanting to by your produce, not me.

[Kelly.]

Really? So they can pick up one tomato and say that it came from cross-pollenation with genetically modified pollen and then pick up another one and say that it didn't? If not, and they're just superstitious about the fact that my GM farm is near there, then that's their problem, not mine. If they can tell the difference, and you can specifically prove how my farm affected your crop, how many of your tomatoes came from cross-pollenation with mine, and what the exact decrease in value of each one of those was, then I should pay you for that. Otherwise, you're the one who has to bear the risks of people not wanting to by your produce, not me.


no, i had the tomatoes tested, and they are showing genetics from a non tomato species, therefore my customers will not purchase my product.

is this enough to prove that my private property was violated?

[erowe1]

no, i had the tomatoes tested, and they are showing genetics from a non tomato species, therefore my customers will not purchase my product.

is this enough to prove that my private property was violated?

Yes. You're entitled to the difference in value between a tomato that has genes from a non-tomato species and one that does not have those genes multiplied by the number of tomatoes you harvested that you can prove had genes from a non-tomato species.

So, if your "organic" (wink wink) tomatoes normally go for $4/lb. and tomatoes that have "non-tomato genes" in them (nudge nudge) normally go for $3/lb., and you find that out of your whole crop 100 lbs. of tomatoes have non-tomato genes from cross-pollenation from my farm, then I should pay you 100 bucks. That is what your actual damages would be.

[Kelly.]

http://www.monsanto.com/careers/Pages/default.aspx

[parocks]

There are likely rules about what you can represent your vegetables to be. If a tomato/fish hybrid fetches less than a 100% tomato, than the difference is the fault of the guy who is growing the tomato/fish hybrid.

[erowe1]

There are likely rules about what you can represent your vegetables to be. If a tomato/fish hybrid fetches less than a 100% tomato, than the difference is the fault of the guy who is growing the tomato/fish hybrid.

See post #151.

[Kelly.]

There are likely rules about what you can represent your vegetables to be. If a tomato/fish hybrid fetches less than a 100% tomato, than the difference is the fault of the guy who is growing the tomato/fish hybrid.

what if, with economies of scale, someone can produce a GM tomato cheaper then someone can produce a non GM tomato?

does this mean there should be no compensation to the non GM farmer?
was the property of the no GM farmer any less violated?

[parocks]

I'd prefer some sort of new law actually. Strict liability. These GMO crops are dangerous. This BT only comes from Monsanto (if that is the case, if not include everyone else). Humans do not naturally have BT in their bloodstream. Having BT in your bloodstream without your knowledge and consent is harmful. Exactly how, we don't know.
But we know that it shouldn't be there.

We can't prove exactly how Monsanto poisoning millions of people is harming them, but we know that humans don't naturally have BT poison in their bloodstream, and we know that this BT poison which millions of Americans have in their bloodstream does kill bugs. We know that products containing this Monsanto BT poison aren't labeled.
No one knowingly is ingesting this BT poison. We also know that a wide variety of new ailments have been discovered, and other ailments have become much more common.

All this adds up to Monsanto and ADM having to pay up big.

[parocks]

I'm on your side Kelly. GM tomatoes are cheaper. Compensation is when the fish tomato guy turns the pure tomatoes into the fish tomatoes, or makes it so the pure tomato seller can't for whatever reason sell his tomatoes as pure tomatoes, but only as fish tomatoes.

I actually think that this is a place for Government. Ban this stuff. We ban DDT because it hurts birds. Birds. Smoking in bars is banned in many states. This stuff hurts people, gets into their bloodstream. Bug poison in the bloodstream can't be good. Even though Monsanto (and apparently Democrats) have no interest at all in finding out which particular man made poison is causing the new and weird ailments and epidemics. GMO isn't the only bad stuff out there that should go.

See: PFOA, in Teflon and Gore-tex. That gets in your blood and stays for years.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Opinion/Comments/i_strongly_recommend_avoiding_these_7_foods_053011 0857.html
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) lines microwave popcorn bags, and when they are heated the compound, which has been linked to infertility, leaches onto the food.

See: BPA, a can liner
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/health-and-fitness/24495-us-scientists-find-bpa-in-most-canned-foods.html
According to biomonitoring surveys by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly all Americans test positive for BPA.



what if, with economies of scale, someone can produce a GM tomato cheaper then someone can produce a non GM tomato?

does this mean there should be no compensation to the non GM farmer?
was the property of the no GM farmer any less violated?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I have no problem with GMO's, as long as they are required to label if a product is GMO, so they can lose business from people who don't want to eat spliced fruits and vegetables.

[erowe1]

I'd prefer some sort of new law actually. Strict liability. These GMO crops are dangerous. This BT only comes from Monsanto (if that is the case, if not include everyone else). Humans do not naturally have BT in their bloodstream. Having BT in your bloodstream without your knowledge and consent is harmful. Exactly how, we don't know.
But we know that it shouldn't be there.

We can't prove exactly how Monsanto poisoning millions of people is harming them, but we know that humans don't naturally have BT poison in their bloodstream, and we know that this BT poison which millions of Americans have in their bloodstream does kill bugs. We know that products containing this Monsanto BT poison aren't labeled.
No one knowingly is ingesting this BT poison. We also know that a wide variety of new ailments have been discovered, and other ailments have become much more common.

All this adds up to Monsanto and ADM having to pay up big.

I'm curious what you think of this essay.
http://mises.org/daily/2120

[parocks]

Aside from the fact that it's not about GMO, but air pollution, not too much. I'm not trying here, in talking about GMO, and the other poison food, to try to come up with the ideal Libertarian position.

I'd actually say that my position here may not be a Libertarian one, because I believe that it's very difficult for me to take my microwave popcorn to the lab to see if there's PFOA in the lining, or a can to the lab to see if there's BPA in the lining, or a potato to the lab to see if there's poison baked right in.

I'd be fine if it was left up to the states.




I'm curious what you think of this essay.
http://mises.org/daily/2120

[dannno]

superstitious about the fact that my GM farm is near there

What makes you think that all GM crops are harmless??


In July 2003, a farmer living in a small village in the south of Mindanao Island of The Philippines, found himself and his entire family suddenly falling ill with fever and respiratory, intestinal and skin ailments. They were not alone; at least fifty-one residents of Sitio Kalyong (Barangay Landan, Polomolok, South Cotabato Province) had similar complaints at around the same time. They all lived within 100 m of a field planted with GM maize, and their illnesses coincided with the GM maize flowering time.

Another resident of Sitio Kalyong, said [1] that the GM-maize pollen made him dizzy, gave him severe headaches, chest pains and caused him to vomit.

The field in Sitio Kalyong belonged to a local official who bought five bags of Monsanto's Bt maize seed (Dekalb818YG with Cry1Ab from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis ), enough to plant 5 hectares. He paid 4 500 pesos per bag, which was more than twice as much as the non-GM variety at 2 200 pesos per bag. The premium price included the promise of a small vehicle if the harvest turned out to be good, as it was supposed to. In the event, the promise was broken on both counts: the harvest of 93 sacks compared poorly with the usual 150 sacks per ha, and the small vehicle was never delivered. The local official stopped planting the Bt maize after 2003.

As part of an investigation to determine what made the villagers ill, one of the farmers was “volunteered” to venture inside the Bt maize field in the presence of more than 10 witnesses, as he explained to me via an interpreter. “Within 5 minutes, I could not breathe and felt something extraordinary on my face,” he recalled. The others could see that his face had swollen up and remarked that it was “very dangerous”.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMBanLongOverdue.php


Have you seen "The Future of Food"? Do you realize that there is a terminator gene that can make seeds sterile? There are plenty of damages that can come from GM crops that wouldn't come from nature. That is why we are concerned, that is why the CUSTOMERS at the local fruit stand are concerned and would stop buying their tomatoes, and you are pretending like there are no potential problems with this technology?

They have gathered a customer base of people who trust nature and not science, and their customer base is now ruined. Those are REAL damages. They are losing more than the cost difference of the tomatoes, they are losing customers.

[AFPVet]

except in the example of the food supply, humans do not have another choice, like they do with the flying example.

Exactly.... The truth is that we do not yet know what the implications of the various types of crop modifications are. We should not be force-fed these GMO's.

[jmdrake]

GMO crops have been proven to be safe and allow the world to feed an extra billion people. If we got rid of GMOs tomorrow, a billion people would have to starve to death.

GMO crops may be killing bees. Once pollinators are killed billions (with an "s") will starve to death.

[Teaser Rate]

GMO crops may be killing bees. Once pollinators are killed billions (with an "s") will starve to death.

Nope.


The assumption, that GM crops could be the cause of Colony Collapse isorder (CCD) is not substantiated in any scientific documentation of peer reviewed journals. CCD happened decades before ever GM crops showed up. CCD has also recently been reported from many regions in Europe, where the acreage of GM crops up to now (2009) remains small.

There are a number of different hypothesis named as the cause of the CCD documented in the scientific literature, but GM crops per se can be ruled out as a cause and therefore can be labeled as anti-GM-crop scare propaganda. The possible causes – still not really nailed down as the main factor, are infections of parasites, viral infection, as a sum multiple stress factors as we will see below. The recent report for EFSA confirms this summary (Hendrikx et al., 2009). See the extended summary of this most comprehensive report published in December 2009 under 3.1.

From a nice study (http://www.ask-force.org/web/AF-1-Colony-Collapse/AF-1-Colony-Collapse-20100222-web.pdf) on the subject. (PDF warning)

[Krugerrand]

If that happens, that's a problem. Until then, it's a made up scenario that has nothing to do with what we in the real world should do about genetically modified food.



I'm pretty sure that the degree of risk of cancer from asbestos is quantifiable. What kind of unquantifiable effects do you have in mind?

Also, I should note that it can't just be the level of risk that's quantified, it has to be the actual damage done. If I get lung cancer, I can't sue my neighbor who smokes just because they increased my risk, since I might have gotten it anyway and there would be no way I could demonstrate cause and effect. It should be the same way with genetically modified pollen. You can't just sue for some abstract risk, it has to be for actual damages that you can prove they caused.

One of the problems that asbestos plaintiffs faced was that asbestos was so prevalent that defendants would argue "how can you prove it was MY asbestos that caused the problem and not theirs?" It's rather similar to the cigarette issue that you mention below.

You're basically erasing all liability for damages when somebody is exposed to multiple carcinogens.

[Tyr]

Yes. You're entitled to the difference in value between a tomato that has genes from a non-tomato species and one that does not have those genes multiplied by the number of tomatoes you harvested that you can prove had genes from a non-tomato species.

So, if your "organic" (wink wink) tomatoes normally go for $4/lb. and tomatoes that have "non-tomato genes" in them (nudge nudge) normally go for $3/lb., and you find that out of your whole crop 100 lbs. of tomatoes have non-tomato genes from cross-pollenation from my farm, then I should pay you 100 bucks. That is what your actual damages would be.

Yeahhhh..... You may want to research not only GMO crops but how Agribusiness actually works before waxing poetic on something you have little clue about. Just saying.

[BarryDonegan]

It shouldn't be against the law to buy and sell a type of product in a free society. If we don't believe in it for heroin, we shouldn't believe in it for GMO crops. The idea that having them in a farm causes a radius around it to become genetically modified, you're describing a natural phenomenon at that point. Once these types of things are out of the bag, they interact with living things and those things may change. However, humans are also living things, and the things we catalyze scientifically are also natural phenomena. It is no more possible to outlaw GMO crops than is it to outlaw heroin. The prohibition on heroin doesn't stop people from becoming desperate on it and stealing. When it happens, there is a perpetrator that can be punished. Same would be true of anyone producing a harmful strain of GMO crops. Monsanto is bad because it is essentially a gatekeeper for that industry. We shouldn't, however, presume that every class or genre of product that they keep is automatically evil and ban it, because the organization doing the banning would just wind up being Monsanto, and the whole cycle would take some other form.

If Monsanto and the regulatory agencies were gone, the market would purge the bad types of GMO crops. If the fear is that genetic modifications might interact with the natural world, well, I hate to be the one to break it, but humans and their actions as a mass are natural also. That means nuclear weapons, chemistry, and GMO crops are all natural. Humans exist, and no individual, group, or nation can stop individual human action. No one has ever ended a human activity without the consent of every participant.

[Zippyjuan]

If you are eating vegan, there is a 97% chance you are consuming GMO- that is because 97% of all the soy produced in this country (and nearly 80% of global production) comes from GMO soy. That covers everything tofu which is a soy product.

So avoid GMO- consume more beef. Except that most of that is feed corn- the majority of which is also GMO.

The only way you can tell if a product contains GMO is to do DNA testing on it.

[Krugerrand]

It shouldn't be against the law to buy and sell a type of product in a free society. If we don't believe in it for heroin, we shouldn't believe in it for GMO crops. The idea that having them in a farm causes a radius around it to become genetically modified, you're describing a natural phenomenon at that point. Once these types of things are out of the bag, they interact with living things and those things may change. However, humans are also living things, and the things we catalyze scientifically are also natural phenomena. It is no more possible to outlaw GMO crops than is it to outlaw heroin. The prohibition on heroin doesn't stop people from becoming desperate on it and stealing. When it happens, there is a perpetrator that can be punished. Same would be true of anyone producing a harmful strain of GMO crops. Monsanto is bad because it is essentially a gatekeeper for that industry. We shouldn't, however, presume that every class or genre of product that they keep is automatically evil and ban it, because the organization doing the banning would just wind up being Monsanto, and the whole cycle would take some other form.

If Monsanto and the regulatory agencies were gone, the market would purge the bad types of GMO crops. If the fear is that genetic modifications might interact with the natural world, well, I hate to be the one to break it, but humans and their actions as a mass are natural also. That means nuclear weapons, chemistry, and GMO crops are all natural. Humans exist, and no individual, group, or nation can stop individual human action. No one has ever ended a human activity without the consent of every participant.

I don't think most people here are advocating bans on GMO crops. I think the issues are:
1 - Don't contaminate my crops with your GMO junk.
2 - If you sell something that is GMO, label it as such.
3 - Don't come after me for patent infringement when your GMO contaminates end up in my product by no action on my part.
4 - If you make the claim that it's safe/healthy - be able to back it up with independent research, not your staff scientist. Be able to prove long-term safety as well.
5 - Be prepared to pay for any damages caused by your product.

[erowe1]

What makes you think that all GM crops are harmless?

I never said they were harmless. I only said that their owners should only be held accountable for actual, specific, quantifiable, provable damage. Loose connections aren't good enough.

[erowe1]

You're basically erasing all liability for damages when somebody is exposed to multiple carcinogens.

Don't you have to do that? Otherwise you're making someone pay for damage they didn't cause.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

It shouldn't be against the law to buy and sell a type of product in a free society.

True, but Monsanto is not operating in a free society. It's power is derived from its collusion with government, giving it an unfair market advantage.

[Krugerrand]

Don't you have to do that? Otherwise you're making someone pay for damage they didn't cause.

I know that asbestos plaintiffs sue a bunch of companies that included it in their products. They prove they were exposed to the asbestos containing product. But, the defense "You can't prove it was our asbestos" apparently does not hold up, because awards are paid out.

[CanadaBoy]

In other news:
Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html