Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Chen » Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:12 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Heisenberg wrote: "newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States"

While I make no judgment as to whether or not Thomas is biased towards Monsanto, this is not a sign of it. Recognition of a reasonable patent law is not a symptom of corruption.


Not to mention it looks like that case passed 6-2 (or 3 it seems to say O'conner abstained or something) in the Supreme Court so it wasn't JUST his decision. He just wrote the court's opinion.

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Mokele » Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:20 pm UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:"newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States"

Why shouldn't they be patentable just like any other invention?


I'd also note that the quote can apply to hybrids and cultivars produced by "traditional" plant breeding methods, some of which are of legitimate commercial value (for instance, there are multiple cultivars of the 'common' banana, and work is currently underway to produce new ones immune to a disease ravaging the existing crops).

Terminology note - "cultivar" is an exceptional individual plant which is henceforth reproduced exclusively via cuttings and other asexual methods, to guarantee the offspring have the same genetics.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:11 pm UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:Why shouldn't they be patentable just like any other invention?

Because they can reproduce of their own accord.
Because me patenting a vigorous grass strain and then arresting anyone who harbors its pollen inside their nose without specific license from me is the kind of shit we make Bond movies about. It's patently ridiculous.
If you can't control it, it's not your intellectual property.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:30 pm UTC

They can control it; with Terminator genes.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:11 pm UTC

The blockbuster documentary Jurrasic Park tells me otherwise :D

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Telchar » Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:30 pm UTC

We just need better Terminator genes. Called Selective Karotin-Y Neutralizing Enzyme Telomerase

We shall call it....
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Chuff
CHOO CHOO I'M A TRAIN
Posts: 1018
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:45 am UTC
Location: The Purple Valley, Mass

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Chuff » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:33 pm UTC

Bachelor genes?
The Great Hippo wrote:The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.
addams wrote:How human of him. "If, they can do it, then, I can do it." Humans. Pfft. Poor us.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby broken_escalator » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:40 pm UTC

Can we call it Steve? I'm rather partial to Steve.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Telchar » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:50 pm UTC

Or SKYNET as my cleverly set-up joke would lend itself to...

:P
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Dauric » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:52 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:Or SKYNET as my cleverly set-up joke would lend itself to...

:P


I saw the acronym.

I also think that "Selective Karotin-Y Neutralizing Enzyme Telomerase" needs to be used in a Resident Evil style game that has Zombie Robots.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:54 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:Or SKYNET as my cleverly set-up joke would lend itself to...

:P


B-but, SKYNET is a machine, not a biology project ... ?
broken_escalator wrote:Can we call it Steve? I'm rather partial to Steve.


"Well, these genes have been designed with Steve in mind, so they'll be unable to reproduce successfully."

Yep. Steve it is.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Dauric » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:56 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
Telchar wrote:Or SKYNET as my cleverly set-up joke would lend itself to...

:P


B-but, SKYNET is a machine, not a biology project ... ?


With engineered Terminator genes.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:28 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:B-but, SKYNET is a machine, not a biology project ... ?

True scientists recognize the lack of a difference.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:32 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:B-but, SKYNET is a machine, not a biology project ... ?

True scientists recognize the lack of a difference.

But do True Scotsmen?

Bleh, Biology isn't science. It's just chemistry for people who can't do math. :P
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby broken_escalator » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:34 pm UTC

ಠ_ಠ

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:46 am UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:Bleh, Biology isn't science. It's just chemistry for people who can't do math. :P


Image

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Radical_Initiator » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:38 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:Bleh, Biology isn't science. It's just chemistry for people who can't do math. :P


Spoiler:
Image


Hehe. In reality, I suggest biologists, physicists and chemists join forces to stop the nigh-invincible mathematicians and their so-called "pure science".
I looked out across the river today …

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby HungryHobo » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:58 pm UTC

Magnanimous wrote:But if you forget to carry the seven, you kill all life on the planet. Kidding, of course.


that's madness.
Bacteria are the lords and masters of horizontal gene transfer.
They're insanely good at picking up, dropping, swapping and stealing DNA from the bacteria around them.
The ability to produce alcohol is already insanely common so if there was any advantage to this bacteria to being able to produce it then it would already have taken over.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:59 pm UTC

Eseell wrote:
The article wrote:non-violent direct action
Destruction of property is non-violent now? Also, let my people grow.

Didn't you get the memo? "Non-violent direct action" is the politically-correct term for violence by people the Left supports, particularly if it's against states, property, institutions, disfavored ethnicities, disfavored professions, or pretty much other anyone than eight-year-old blondes and little old ladies.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Minerva » Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:55 am UTC

I hope these criminals get the book thrown at them for destroying all that property, embodying years of research.

As anyone who has actually worked with genetically modified organisms (let's let that term refer specifically to recombinant DNA techniques, not to artificial selection and/or mutation breeding, and the other "traditional" techniques of engineering living things) knows, there are layers of regulations on top of controls on top of safeguards for any work with genetically modified organisms in the laboratory. You need to demonstrate that they won't hurt anything in the laboratory before taking them out of the laboratory for a pilot field trial, and even then, there are even more regulations and controls and safeguards when you're in the field.

Bloody "eco"-terrorists. That's what they are. Why treat them any differently to any other terrorists?

...anyway, back to the IP thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders'_rights

Most nations recognize in their intellectual property laws that plant varieties that have been engineered through the labors of people embody intellectual property in those plants, and the plant breeders have rights regarding that intellectual property.

We've had laws like this for many years, across much of the world. Those laws apply to plant varieties that have been created through the traditional techniques of artificial selection and/or mutation breeding, so why shouldn't the same or similar rights still apply when people labor to create new, valuable plant varieties through recombinant DNA technology as well?
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:03 pm UTC

Minerva wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders'_rights

Most nations recognize in their intellectual property laws that plant varieties that have been engineered through the labors of people embody intellectual property in those plants, and the plant breeders have rights regarding that intellectual property.

We've had laws like this for many years, across much of the world. Those laws apply to plant varieties that have been created through the traditional techniques of artificial selection and/or mutation breeding, so why shouldn't the same or similar rights still apply when people labor to create new, valuable plant varieties through recombinant DNA technology as well?

The laws governing GM plants are vastly different than the ones you've cited for Heirloom plants. For instance, the article says
Commonly, there is an exemption for farm-saved seed. Farmers may store the production in their own bins for their own use as seed, but this does not necessarily extend to brown-bag sales of seed.
So if I purchase a bag of Heirloom plant seed, and I grow that crop, I am legally entitled to save the seeds that crop produces, for use in my field the next year. For GM crops, not only am I not allowed to reuse seed, but if my crops encroach on my neighbor's property, then HE is legally forbidden from reusing his own seed. Because instead of reasonable laws, like the one you've cited, GM crops are now governed by the strictest IP laws, which may work for iPods, but certainly do not work for living things which have a tendency to reproduce in inconvenient locations.

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Minerva » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:34 pm UTC

Limiting the ongoing reproduction of the proprietary seed could never be enforced in practice prior to the use of recombinant DNA technology.

However, using recombinant DNA technology, limiting the reproduction of the saved proprietary seed can be enforced in practice through the use of the "terminator" technology. It is no more and no less "right" to do it just because you're using recombinant DNA as opposed to traditional artificial selection or mutation breeding, but recombinant DNA simply makes it possible to where it was not previously possible.

It's a piece of technological machinery that is used for IP protection, just like, say, CSS or Macrovision. Like almost all technological IP protection mechanisms, it is sometimes controversial because sometimes it can restrict the usefulness of the IP to legitimate consumers who are using it legitimately.

As well as controlling the use of seeds or plants containing proprietary IP, such technology has another use which is just as important, arguably more so - to protect against the possible transfer of a transgene into wild-type plant genomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_us ... technology

However, customers who buy seeds from Monsanto Company must sign a Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement. "The agreement specifically states that the grower will not save or sell the seeds from their harvest for further planting, breeding or cultivation". This legal agreement preempts the need for a "terminator gene".


The IP "license agreement" used by Monsanto states you can't save the seed. If you don't like it, you don't have to use the seed, just like you don't have to use Windows if you don't agree with its license agreement. Because the license says you can't save the seed, they don't need the second-generation "terminator" technology actually implemented to stop it reproducing.

If you're concerned about, for example, farmers getting sued by Monsanto for violating the license agreement accidentally because the recombinant plants have accidentally gotten mixed up with normal plant varieties and some recombinant seed has been harvested by accident, then isn't the actual use of the "terminator gene" technology to limit the reproduction of the plant a better alternative to the existing license-agreement system they're using, where the license agreement is an alternative to actually using the terminator?
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby HungryHobo » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:12 pm UTC

KestrelLowing wrote:As to why it's different from patenting source code: source code cannot replicate itself without permission (yet...).

I remember watching a documentary where a farmer who had worked for a very long time perfecting his own crop had some of the roundup resistant crop blow into his field. He used roundup around the power lines and realized that some of the crops wouldn't die. He was charged for patent violation and all his seed was taken. Do you know how important that is? That seed had been specially designed for that area by that farmer through many years of deliberate hybridization. Because some of the neighbor's crops had blown onto some of his crops, he lost all of his seed because of their patent. That's devastating.

While I totally understand why people want to patent seed, etc. they just can't when it can spread of it's own accord. There has to be some better system.



Would this by any chance be that farmer in canada?
He's actually a really terrible example: the documentary may not have mentioned this but it wasn't that he "noticed some of the crops wouldn't die".
He selected for crops which had the genes.
If it had just been a few crops he would have been fine and the court case was a close run thing anyway.
He sprayed round-up on some weeds at the edges and noticed a small portion of his crop was resistant.
he was fine up till this point.
the judge would have laughed monsanto out of court if it had stopped there.

Unfortunately he then sprayed a few acres of his own crop nearest the neighbour who used monsanto seed with roundup to select for seed which had picked up Monsantos roundup resistant genes then collected the seed from those plants for the next years crop to get free 100% roundup resistant seed.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:36 pm UTC

Minerva wrote:Because the license says you can't save the seed, they don't need the second-generation "terminator" technology actually implemented to stop it reproducing.

Plants have been known to reproduce of their own accord. They do not need assistance from humans.

You're right, though, terminator technology would solve this problem if it was shown to work 100% of the time, forever. Also as long as evolution stopped working. And also if terminator technology weren't completely shut down due to entirely separate ethical considerations.

Chuff
CHOO CHOO I'M A TRAIN
Posts: 1018
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:45 am UTC
Location: The Purple Valley, Mass

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Chuff » Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:57 pm UTC

You realize evolution can't happen with terminator genes, right? They don't reproduce. That's the point.
The Great Hippo wrote:The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.
addams wrote:How human of him. "If, they can do it, then, I can do it." Humans. Pfft. Poor us.

WaterToFire
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:09 pm UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby WaterToFire » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:01 pm UTC

Except mutations happen either when the seeds are initially produced, or in the natural course of the plant's lifetime. And those mutations could result in defects in the terminator genes. Leading to a highly successful allele that would soon be present in all individuals in the community, if left alone. And that would be evolution, almost by the definition of evolution.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:05 pm UTC

That, however, would have to be a highly specific mutation, wouldn't it? Something that eliminates the ability of the terminator to restrict reproduction (which, I'm assuming, is not a single mechanism, but a collection of changes that does this job) and has to happen within a single generation (since incremental mutations can't be passed on)?

Admittedly, biology is not my strong point, but this seems sufficiently remote, at least given a terminator technology that is 100% effective.
I looked out across the river today …

WaterToFire
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:09 pm UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby WaterToFire » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:That, however, would have to be a highly specific mutation, wouldn't it? Something that eliminates the ability of the terminator to restrict reproduction (which, I'm assuming, is not a single mechanism, but a collection of changes that does this job) and has to happen within a single generation (since incremental mutations can't be passed on)?

Admittedly, biology is not my strong point, but this seems sufficiently remote, at least given a terminator technology that is 100% effective.
Indeed, however, such a mutation is selected for every generation, so theoretically it should eventually appear.

User avatar
dragon
"Can I have a Mountain Dew?!"
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:18 am UTC
Location: the darkness

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby dragon » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:47 am UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:That, however, would have to be a highly specific mutation, wouldn't it? Something that eliminates the ability of the terminator to restrict reproduction (which, I'm assuming, is not a single mechanism, but a collection of changes that does this job) and has to happen within a single generation (since incremental mutations can't be passed on)?

Admittedly, biology is not my strong point, but this seems sufficiently remote, at least given a terminator technology that is 100% effective.
When you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of plants, you have a lot of shots for that one-in-a-million mutation.
Context? What context?
Sandry wrote:I'm kind of feeling like it'd be a good idea to somehow position a vibrator for hands-free use, then you can legitimately DDR with your feet while knitting and it all works.

User avatar
Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Screaming vacuum of space

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp » Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:29 pm UTC

Other reasons aside, with current GMO IP law and enforcement (patent infringement suits when GM crops inevitably cross-polinate to fields using non-GM crops), GM crops present a clear threat to all farmers using non-GM crops within pollination distance of GM crops.

Terminator seeds solve this (contrary to what someone stated previously, it seems they are being developed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_controversy) but force GM farmers to re-buy all seeds each season.

Additionaly, the current practice of disallowing GM seed replanting is highly exploitative.

Untill these issues are adequately solved (patent infringement by growing crops only applicable to crops with terminator genes, illegalizing GM seed replanting restrictions) you simply cannot expect people to welcome GM crops.

Edit: These may not be the reasons why various groups oppose GMO's, but that makes them (the reasons) no less valid.
Edit2: Added (the reasons) for clarity.
Last edited by Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp on Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:19 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Edit: These may not be the reasons why various groups oppose GMO's, but that makes them no less valid.


Could you clarify that sentence, not sure I understand it. I'm reading it as even though groups are opposed to gm food for the wrong reasons, they are still right in opposing them. Without some careful wording, that implies some really bad things.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Screaming vacuum of space

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp » Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:21 pm UTC

I clarified the last sentence, but I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Edit: I think I get what you mean. If they are against them for the wrong reasons, then the right stuff won't get rectified, or if it will, it still won't persuade them. Yes, that's a problem.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:39 pm UTC

Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp wrote:I clarified the last sentence, but I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Edit: I think I get what you mean. If they are against them for the wrong reasons, then the right stuff won't get rectified, or if it will, it still won't persuade them. Yes, that's a problem.


I understand(and tend to agree with) what you are saying. When I first read it, it sounded like you were counting the opposing groups as good people even if they were opposing for bad reasons. Which would imply an odd position on what makes someone good.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby achan1058 » Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:18 pm UTC

Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp wrote:Other reasons aside, with current GMO IP law and enforcement (patent infringement suits when GM crops inevitably cross-polinate to fields using non-GM crops), GM crops present a clear threat to all farmers using non-GM crops within pollination distance of GM crops.

Terminator seeds solve this (contrary to what someone stated previously, it seems they are being developed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_controversy) but force GM farmers to re-buy all seeds each season.

Additionaly, the current practice of disallowing GM seed replanting is highly exploitative.

Untill these issues are adequately solved (patent infringement by growing crops only applicable to crops with terminator genes, illegalizing GM seed replanting restrictions) you simply cannot expect people to welcome GM crops.

Edit: These may not be the reasons why various groups oppose GMO's, but that makes them (the reasons) no less valid.
Edit2: Added (the reasons) for clarity.
Speaking of patent and patent laws, how long does it take for the patents to expire?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby addams » Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:44 am UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:B-but, SKYNET is a machine, not a biology project ... ?

True scientists recognize the lack of a difference.

But do True Scotsmen?

Bleh, Biology isn't science. It's just chemistry for people who can't do math. :P

Oh me yarm. You people are so funny. And you are right. I can keep up with the chemistry Math. I like Biology.
Steve? Really? O.K. Steve it is.

With engineered Terminator genes.
You were typing about a terminator gene named Steve.

I have a story:
I had heard about terminator genes that have the negative effect that the seeds must be bought again each year. This is bad for the small farmer. That is what I was told.
Then; A new thing happened. It made some people that work in the field sad. I think that it is true. It was explained to me by a Scientist.
She said that we have a corn that does not get that worm. You know; The worm. The corn has a chemical that does not hurt humans. In fact the chemical is one that humans use as a vitamin. That does not matter to this story. The chemical kills the little worm. Caterpillars are little worms.
The corn 'Jumped fence'. Corn is genetically related to milk weed. Enough corn pollen got onto the milk weed that there was a butterfly die off.

The Monarch butterflies flow in rivers from Canada to Mexico. We lost the river of butterflies that flowed over the middle of the United States.
The river of Monarch butterflies that flows down the West Coast was unaffected, maybe.
In the light of that story; I see terminator genes as a good thing. Steve the good guy terminator gene may save us from evil that we do not know. We can not say with certainty that Steve will keep the wild things safe from us or us safe from them.
Steve will allow us to know we did our best. Steve shows that we have respect for what was here before Steve was. Steve is a good guy.

Oh; This has a happy ending. The numbers of Monarch that fly through the planes states are going back up. Maybe.
The ones one the West Coast are well. The numbers in Mexico are staggering. I looked. We are not running out of Monarch Butterflies.

http://www.google.com/search?q=monarch+ ... d=0CB0QsAQ

That is an ugly link. I don't know how to make it short and sweet.

You people were so funny. Can you do it, again?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby iop » Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:53 pm UTC

Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp wrote:Other reasons aside, with current GMO IP law and enforcement (patent infringement suits when GM crops inevitably cross-polinate to fields using non-GM crops), GM crops present a clear threat to all farmers using non-GM crops within pollination distance of GM crops.

Yes, but not in the way you seem to think: The danger from GM crops is that a non-GM farmer may no longer be able to sell their crop as GM-free.


Additionaly, the current practice of disallowing GM seed replanting is highly exploitative.

No. Farmers who plant high-yield non-GM crops buy new seed every year already to assure the quality of the seed, and those are the ones who would have the money and interest in the first place in order to invest in GM seed. In contrast, those who aren't that interested in performance (or don't have the means to do high-yield agriculture) wouldn't buy GM seed anyway.

Chuff
CHOO CHOO I'M A TRAIN
Posts: 1018
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:45 am UTC
Location: The Purple Valley, Mass

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Chuff » Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:19 pm UTC

iop wrote:In contrast, those who aren't that interested in performance (or don't have the means to do high-yield agriculture) wouldn't buy GM seed anyway.
Or, as is the case with Golden Rice, will be able to get it for free.
The Great Hippo wrote:The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.
addams wrote:How human of him. "If, they can do it, then, I can do it." Humans. Pfft. Poor us.

User avatar
Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Screaming vacuum of space

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

iop wrote:
Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp wrote:Other reasons aside, with current GMO IP law and enforcement (patent infringement suits when GM crops inevitably cross-polinate to fields using non-GM crops), GM crops present a clear threat to all farmers using non-GM crops within pollination distance of GM crops.

Yes, but not in the way you seem to think: The danger from GM crops is that a non-GM farmer may no longer be able to sell their crop as GM-free.

If a non-GM farmer cannot sell his/her crop as GM-free, he/she is vulnerable to legal action by GM patent holders. Since such patent holders will nearly always, not just in the case of Monsanto, possess considerably more legal resources, the farmer will either have to settle at the patent-holders terms, or engage in a legal battle that will surely bankrupt them. Since only farmers using non-GM crops are susceptible to such suits, it creates an incentive for farmers to use GM-crops, and for patent holders to sue farmers and thus pressuring them into using GM-crops.
This is not a hypothetical scenario, this is the current state of affairs.

iop wrote:
Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp wrote:Additionaly, the current practice of disallowing GM seed replanting is highly exploitative.

No. Farmers who plant high-yield non-GM crops buy new seed every year already to assure the quality of the seed, and those are the ones who would have the money and interest in the first place in order to invest in GM seed. In contrast, those who aren't that interested in performance (or don't have the means to do high-yield agriculture) wouldn't buy GM seed anyway.

You have proven my point. Only wealthy farmers can afford to buy GM seed, because it is not a one-time investment, but has to be re-bought each season. In contrast with high-yield hybrid seeds, this is not out of necessity to preserve seed quality, nor does the farmer have a choice. So this practice requires the farmer to spend much more money on seeds than would otherwise be necessary - sounds pretty exploitative to me.

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby iop » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:47 pm UTC

Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp wrote:
iop wrote:
Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp wrote:Other reasons aside, with current GMO IP law and enforcement (patent infringement suits when GM crops inevitably cross-polinate to fields using non-GM crops), GM crops present a clear threat to all farmers using non-GM crops within pollination distance of GM crops.

Yes, but not in the way you seem to think: The danger from GM crops is that a non-GM farmer may no longer be able to sell their crop as GM-free.

If a non-GM farmer cannot sell his/her crop as GM-free, he/she is vulnerable to legal action by GM patent holders.

The background to some of the Monsanto scare stories is mentioned earlier in this thread.

And not being able to sell the crop as GM-free is a much worse problem than having to demonstrate where the seed were bought (which is something the farmer has to be able to demonstrate, anyway, if they want to sell the crop as GM-free). Organic (which includes non-GM, at least in Europe) crops fetch a higher price, but it's not good if somewhere down the road it's found that it was your crop that contaminated a shipload of organic corn.


iop wrote:
Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp wrote:Additionaly, the current practice of disallowing GM seed replanting is highly exploitative.

No. Farmers who plant high-yield non-GM crops buy new seed every year already to assure the quality of the seed, and those are the ones who would have the money and interest in the first place in order to invest in GM seed. In contrast, those who aren't that interested in performance (or don't have the means to do high-yield agriculture) wouldn't buy GM seed anyway.

You have proven my point. Only wealthy farmers can afford to buy GM seed, because it is not a one-time investment, but has to be re-bought each season. In contrast with high-yield hybrid seeds, this is not out of necessity to preserve seed quality, nor does the farmer have a choice. So this practice requires the farmer to spend much more money on seeds than would otherwise be necessary - sounds pretty exploitative to me.

Why do you think seed quality won't be a problem with "second-generation" GM seed? And who do you think would be buying GM seed in the first place? Would you consider packaged dog food exploitative, because it's marketed to the rich?

User avatar
Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Screaming vacuum of space

Re: Belgian activists destroy GM potatos

Postby Fuzzy_Wuzzy.bmp » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:49 pm UTC

iop wrote:The background to some of the Monsanto scare stories is mentioned earlier in this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean with this comment.

iop wrote:And not being able to sell the crop as GM-free is a much worse problem than having to demonstrate where the seed were bought (which is something the farmer has to be able to demonstrate, anyway, if they want to sell the crop as GM-free). Organic (which includes non-GM, at least in Europe) crops fetch a higher price, but it's not good if somewhere down the road it's found that it was your crop that contaminated a shipload of organic corn.

I don't know how much of a problem not being able to sell something as GM-free is, however a non-GM farmer within pollinating distance of a GM-field can easily be bankrupted or forced into using GM-crop by GM companies. That seems like quite a problem.

iop wrote:Why do you think seed quality won't be a problem with "second-generation" GM seed?

Seed quality may or may not be a problem with 2nd gen GM seed, but it might still be cheaper to reuse lower-quality seed than buy new ones. Currently farmers don't get that choice.
iop wrote:And who do you think would be buying GM seed in the first place?

Farmers? People who need food?
iop wrote:Would you consider packaged dog food exploitative, because it's marketed to the rich?

I would if you could plant dog food and grow more of it, but had to sign a contract saying you won't when you bought it.

Also, you don't seem to understand. GM-seed isnt something you buy if you can afford it. You buy it so you can grow crops cheaper/grow more of them, thus saving money. So saying they're marketed to the rich is just being ridiculous.

However, the present situation is such that using GM-seed opens the door to great legal risks, takes control over seed use away from farmers, and siphons large amounts of money from a countrys agriculture to a company that has anything but the best interests of the populace at heart.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CorruptUser and 15 guests