Monsanto the GMO Kings

[NJLiberty]

There is no doubt that Monsanto is a company that engages in questionable business practices from many people's perspective. Monsanto's business practices are irrelevant though as far as discussing GMO's is concerned.

GM is nothing more than a new adaption on an old concept, hybridization. Will it work out in the long run? Who knows. It is way, way, too early to tell. Anyone who claims to know either way at this point is just speculating based on their favorite bit of research. The long term affects may be extremely dangerous, rather mundane, or have profound benefits for mankind. There is just no way to know right now and we won't find out until we get there, just as with all things. That's one of the fascinating things about science. Sometimes it works the way you think it will, sometimes it is a disaster, and sometimes research into one area yields enormous benefits in another. But if no one is pushing the envelope, how will anything progress? Unless we all believe that we have reached the pinnacle of human achievement, people will continue to push things forward as they always have, and I suspect always will.

I have seen papers by scientists who are convinced that the world is going to disappear into a black hole created when the new super-collider comes on line over there in Europe. Are they right? Who knows. But I'm not going to condemn the research because it might have an adverse affect. Nor can I condemn GM because it may have an adverse affect. I'm not omnipotent, or prescient. Given that, how can I condemn something that may work out well and save the lives of millions of people? It would be rather presumptuous of me to do so.

Now as far as Monsanto goes, are they right in forcing anyone to use their product either directly or through government interference? Obviously not. Monsanto has engaged in questionable business practices before there were GMO's and may well continue with their new ideas and inventions. As long as the government helps them along, they and other companies like them will continue to take advantage of the systems in place. I don't begrudge their making a profit. That is after all why any company is in business, unless they are a charitable organization. I do take exception with their manipulation of markets and their coercive methods.

George

[kola]

These folks seem to have an opinion.
-----------------------------------------

The current generation of genetically modified (GM) crops unnecessarily risks the health of the population and the environment.
Present knowledge is not sufficient to safely and predictably modify the plant genome, and the risks of serious side-effects far outweigh the benefits.

We urge you to stop feeding the products of this infant science to our population and ban the release of these crops into the environment where they can never be recalled. "

-from an Open Letter by the Independent Scientists', read at the Joint International GMO Opposition Day, April 8, 2006
=================================

GMO producing less

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html
===================================

Scientists Find Evidence Of Pest Resistance To GMO Crops
AFP via Morningstar.com, February 8, 2008
Straight to the Source


PARIS (AFP)--Scientists say they have found the first confirmation insects have developed resistance to genetically-modified crops.

University of Arizona entomologists looked at data from six experiments to monitor pests in fields sown with transgenic cotton and corn in Australia, China, Spain and the U.S.

They found evidence of genetic mutation among bollworms in a dozen cotton fields sown in Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006. But no such evidence was found among five other major pests monitored elsewhere.

The mutation entails a slight change in the bollworm's DNA to help it resist a toxin the cotton plant exudes thanks to a gene inserted by biotechnologists.

These GM toxins are produced in nature by a widespread bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, which goes by the abbreviation Bt. The type of Bt toxin to which these bollworms have become resistant is called Cry1Ac.

"What we're seeing is evolution in action," said lead researcher Bruce Tabashnik. "This is the first documented case of field-evolved resistance to a Bt crop."

Tabashnik said a new variety of Bt cotton was successfully combatting the resistant bollworms as it combined a second toxin, Cry2Ab, with Cry1Ac.

Green groups, who are fierce opponents of GMO technology in agriculture, have long predicted pests would become resistant to transgenic toxins, as happens frequently in the case of chemical insecticides.

To overcome the resistance, scientists would have to use higher levels of toxins or different kinds, they say.

On the other hand, the paper, published Thursday in the U.K. journal Nature Biotechnology, found no evidence of resistance among the other insect pests being monitored. They remained susceptible to Bt toxin.

Worst-case scenarios sketched by critics of GM crops have predicted pests would become resistant to Bt crops in as little as three years, said Tabashnik.

"The resistance occurred in one particular pest in one part of the U.S.," Tabashnik said. "The other major pests attacking Bt crops have not evolved resistance. And even most bollworm populations have not evolved resistance."

Bt cotton and Bt corn, introduced by U.S. agri-giant Monsanto Co. (MON) in 1996, have been grown on more than 162 million hectares worldwide, "generating one of the largest selections for insect resistance ever known," notes the paper.

Resistance among the bollworms developed faster in places where there was little or no "refuges," the term for areas where there are non-BT crops, the review found.

The idea behind refuges is to provide a haven for pests that don't have the genetic mutations.

This boosts the probability a resistant pest will mate with a non-resistant pest, creating a hybrid that would still be susceptible to the toxin. In most pests, offspring are resistant to the novel toxins only if both parents are resistant.

[kola]

Dr. Arpad Pusztai on the Toxicity of Genetically Engineered Bt Crops
By Dr, Arpad Pusztai
GM WATCH, January 8, 2008
Straight to the Source


NOTE: This is a very slightly edited version of an affidavit provided in evidence by Dr. Arpad Pusztai to India's Supreme Court. It usefully summarises research done worldwide on the toxicity of Bt crops. Dr. Pusztai, incidentally, is widely acknowledged as being the world's foremost nutritional expert on lectins, and the Bt toxin is a form of lectin.

EXTRACT: The MON 863 study revealed that feeding rats on transgenically expressed Bt toxin in maize caused kidney and liver problems in addition to interfering with the normal growth of young rats (Seralini et al. 2007). Bt toxin expressed in potatoes caused major changes in the small intestine of mice (Fares, N.H. and El-Sayed, A.K. (1998). Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes (Natural Toxins 6, 219-233). The evidence for the survival of the Bt toxins in the digestive tract and internal organs is clear-cut. --- --- Dr Arpad Pusztai, FRSE

AFFIDAVIT

I am afraid, we come back to the same old problem: the absence of data in the submission for allowing the large scale field trial of Bt brinjal (eggplant) makes it  impossible to formulate a critical evaluation of the proposal. Unless there is now access to the GEAC* arguments (in favour of the Bt brinjal large-scale field trials) based on actual results, hard data and SCIENCE and not PR, one can only exchange opinions and insults with the GEAC. Their assurances that they have these results but will not disclose them to us for evaluation are worthless. (*the GEAC is India's apex GM regulatory body)

In contrast, there is now plenty of evidence that some Bt toxins are harmful for insects by binding to surface receptors in the digestive system. Evidence that lectin binding to the digestive system of insects is the main reaction mechanism for the insecticidal effect of lectins in transgenic plants is now generally accepted. The evidence for binding of the various Bt toxins to the digestive system of insects is particularly strong (I. Gomez, D.H. Dean, A. Bravo and M. Soberon: Molecular basis for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab specificity: Two structural determinants in the Manduca sexta Bt-R1 receptor interact with loops ?-8 and 2 in domain II of Cry1Ab toxin. Biochemistry 42, 10482-10489 (2003);   J.L. Jurat-Fuentes, L.J. Gahan, F.L. Gould, D.G. Hechel and M.J.Adang: The HevCaLP protein mediates binding specificity of the Cry1A class of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in Heliothis virescens. Biochemistry 43, 14299-14305 (2004);   P.J.K. Knight, J. Carroll and D.J. Ellar: Analysis of glycan structures on the 120kDa aminopeptidase N of Manduca sexta and their interactions with Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 34, 101-112 (2004);   X. Zhang, M. Candas, N.B. Griko, L. Rose-Young and L.A. Bulla, Jr: Cytotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin depends on specific binding of the toxin to the cadherin receptor BT-R1 expressed in insect cells. Cell Death and Differentiation 12, 1407-1416 (2005);   X. Zhang, M. Candas, N.B. Griko, R. Taussig and L.A. Bulla, Jr: A mechanism of cell death involving adenylyl cyclase/PKA signalling pathway is induced by the Cry1Ab toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences US 103, 9897-9902 (2006);   H. Barros Moreira Beltrao,de and M.H.Neves Lobo Solva-Filha: Interaction of Bacillus thuringiensis svar. israelensis Cry toxins with binding sites from Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae midgut. FEMS Microbiology Letters 266, 163-169 (2007);   L. Pardo-Lopez, I. Gomez, C. Rausell, J. Sanchez, M. Soberon and A. Bravo: Structural changes of the Cry1Ac oligomeric pre-pore from Bacillus thuringiensis induced by N-acetylgalactosamine facilitates toxin membrane insertion. Biochemistry 2006, 10329-10336 (2006).) The Bt toxin directly and specifically binds glycolipids and this binding is carbohydrate-dependent and relevant for toxin action in vivo (J.S. Griffitts, S.M. Haslam, T. Yang, S.F. Garczynski, B. Mulloy, H. Morris, P.S. Cremer, A. Dell, M.J. Adang and R.V. Aroian: Glycolipids as receptors for Bacillus thuringiensis crystal toxin. Science 307, 922-925 (2005)).

With the work of Vazquez-Padron and others, however, it has been demonstrated that Bt toxins bind not only to the insect gut but also to the mammalian gut, leading to various immunity problems. (Bernstein, I.L., Bernstein, J.A., Miller, M., Tierzieva, S., Bernstein, D.I., Lummus, Z., Selgrade, M.K., Doerfler, D.L. and Seligy, V.L. (1999). Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides (Environmental Health Perspectives 107, 575-582) The claimed exclusiveness of the specificity of Bt toxin-binding to the insect gut can therefore no longer be maintained, as there is credible scientific evidence that some Bt toxins will also bind to the gut of mammalian species (A. Pusztai and S.Bardocz: GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. In: "Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals" (ed. Mosenthin, R. Zentek, J.and Zebrowska, T.) 2006 Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540).

The capacity of various A-B toxin-lectins, including Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry1Ac protoxin to stimulate and modulate both the systemic and mucosal immune systems is now firmly established (RI. Vázquez, L. Moreno-Fierros, L. Neri-Bazán, G.A. De la Riva and R. López-Revilla: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology 49, 578-584 (1999);   Vazquez Padron, R.I., Moreno Fierros, L., Neri Bazan, L., De la Riva, G.A. and Lopez Revilla, R. Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sciences 64, 1897-1912. (1999);   Vazquez-Padron, R.I., Moreno-Fierros, L., Neri-Bazan, L., Martinez-Gil, A.F., de la Riva, G.A. and Lopez-Revilla, R. Characterization of the mucosal and sytemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33, 147-155 (2000);   Vazquez Padron, R.I., Gonzalez Cabrera, J., Garcia Tovar, C., Neri Bazan, L., Lopez Revilla, R., Hernandez, M., Morena Fierros, L. and De la Riva, G.A. Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse small intestine.  Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 271, 54-58 (2000)). In a more recent study the cellular immune response induced by Cry1Ac and its mutants in mice has been analysed (G.G. Guerrero, W.M. Russel and L. Moreno-Fierros: Analysis of the cellular immune response induced by Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxins in mice: Effect of the hydrophobic motif from diphtheria toxin. Molecular Immunology 44, 1209-1217 (2007)). It was shown that the production of Th1 and Th2 type cytokines by Cry1Ac toxins was inhibited by N-acetylgalactosamine, in accordance with the lectinic properties of this Bt toxin.

Effect of Bt toxin on human cells: Tayabali AF and Seligy VL. Human cell exposure assays of Bacillus thuringiensis commercial insecticides: production of Bacillus cereus-like cytolytic effects from outgrowth of spores. Environ Health Perspect 108: 919-930, (2000).

The MON 863 study revealed that feeding rats on transgenically expressed Bt toxin in maize caused kidney and liver problems in addition to interfering with the normal growth of young rats (Seralini et al. 2007). Bt toxin expressed in potatoes caused major changes in the small intestine of mice (Fares, N.H. and El-Sayed, A.K. (1998). Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes (Natural Toxins 6, 219-233). The evidence for the survival of the Bt toxins in the digestive tract and internal organs is clear-cut. Thus, it is expected that the situation with Bt brinjal will not be different. Accordingly, all the already described potentially harmful effects on consumers of the Bt toxins can also be expected to occur with Bt brinjal. As their release into the environment is an irreversible act, sanctioning such large scale field trials would be highly irresponsible.

Dr Arpad Pusztai
August 30, 2007
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9576.cfm

[kola]

+ GM CORN MAY AFFECT AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS - STUDY Extremely important new study showing genetically engineered Bt corn (maize) byproducts could be endangering aquatic life. It also raises big questions as to how U.S. and other regulators gave the go ahead to Bt corn without undertaking sufficient testing of their impact on aquatic ecosystems. The study by scientists at Indiana University was published online by the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8358 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8368 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8422
===================================================


+ BT TRANSGENE DETECTED IN AQUATIC SYSSTEMS The Canadian Department of the Environment (also known as Environment Canada) has determined that the pesticidal Bt gene cry1Ab, found in GM corn, persisted in aquatic areas near the site where the Bt crop was planted. Varying amounts of the cry1Ab gene were found in sediment, soil, and surface water samples. The sediments were found to contain about 100-fold more cry1Ab DNA than the surface water. The cry1Ab transgene was also detected as far away as the Richelieu and St. Lawrence rivers - 82 km downstream from the corn cultivation plot. Because of the concern that the cry1Ab gene could be transferred to microorganisms through horizontal gene transfer, the researchers recommend monitoring and sustained attention to the fate of transgenes in the environment. Abstract in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, with links to the complete paper for subscribers at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2006.01.002
=========================================


+ CONTAMINATING THE WILD Useful introductory article to the report by Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman on the danger of permanent escape of transgenes, that have undergone little risk assessment, into the natural environment. http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/dgs1.php

=========================================

+ BT CORN SUSCEPTIBLE TO ROOTWORM Bt corn fails to protect against rootworms despite farmers paying Monsanto hefty sums for that protection, according to research carried out at the University of Illinois. Rootworms were found to have done significant early damage to GM varieties. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8126
=========================================


+ AERIAL SPRAYING OF ROUNDUP DAMAGES DNA Aerial spraying of the Roundup herbicide by the Colombian government on the border of Colombia and Ecuador has caused a high degree of DNA damage in local Ecuadorian people, according to a study. DNA damage may activate genes associated to the development of cancer, and may also lead to miscarriage or malformations in embryos. http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7899

==================================

+ ANOTHER MONSANTO MAIZE POTENTIALLY TOXIC New research into the health impacts of GM food already approved in Europe casts further doubt on the safety of the approvals system. The study, carried out by French scientific research institute CRIIGEN on the results of rat feeding trials using Monsanto's GM maize NK603, highlights 60 significant differences between the rats that were fed the GM maize and those fed normal maize (all for 90 days). The first group showed differences in their kidney, brain, heart and liver measurements, as well as significant weight differences. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8018
===============================

+ SKIN ALLERGY AND PULMONARY PROBLEMS REPORTED FROM BT COTTON In the Punjab, India, farmers and laborers are suffering with skin allergy and pulmonary diseases after picking Bt cotton. Dr Gurpiar Singh, who runs a private clinic, says that many cases have come to his notice. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8398

======================================

heres the link to a list of studies.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9449.cfm

[kola]

Independent Research Confirms - GMO Food is Dangerous

On October 10[2005], during the symposium over genetic modification, which was organized by the National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS), Doctor of Biology Irina Ermakova made public the results of the research led by her at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). This is the first research that determined clear dependence between eating genetically modified soy and the posterity of living creatures (Regnum, 2005).

Over half of the rats born to mothers who ate GM-soy (55-56%) were dead in three weeks, as opposed to a 9% mortality rate in rats whose mothers ate normal soy. "The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results we obtained very disturbing," said Irina Ermakova to NAGS press office. (Regnum, 2005)

Another glaring example of the dangers of GMO food is that of Syngenta and the German farmer, Gottfried Glockner of North Hessen. As William Engdahl explains in Seeds of Destruction,

This farmer found evidence that planting Syngenta Bt-176 genetically engineered corn to feed his cattle in 1997 had been responsible for killing off his cattle, destroying his milk production, and poisoning his farmland. Syngenta's Bt-176 corn had been engineered to produce a toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis, which they claimed was deadly to a damaging insect, the European Corn Borer (pg. 230).
=================================================
GMO Technology Threatens the World's Food Supply

Not only is GMO food harmful to the animals that eat it, but it also has the potential to overcome the crops around it. Insects, birds, and wind carry seeds into neighboring fields and beyond. This is cross-pollination, and cannot be controlled in an outdoor environment. Genetically engineered plants are no exception to this. The pollen from GM plants can cross-pollinate with normal plants and contaminate entire fields. With the proliferation of GM crops, this is a real danger.

In 1996, there were approximately 6,563 square miles of farmland in the world devoted to GMO crops. In 2006, there were 393,828 square miles devoted to GMO crops (GMO Compass, 2007). This is a 5900% increase in land devoted to GMO crops in a 10-year period! At this rate, the amount of GM crops will double in the next ten years, not including cross-pollination factors.

Is "Organic" Really Organic?

Even foods labeled "organic" are allowed a percentage of GMO contamination.

"EU Agricultural Ministers have decided to allow organic food accidentally contaminated with genetically modified organisms to be classified as organic as long as the GMO presence is less than 0.9%" (Shield, 2007).

In the United States, "the US National Organic Program (NOP) rules prohibit GMOs in organics but don't require methods to prohibit GMO contamination or establish thresholds for adventitious GM presence" (Roseboro, 2007).

Many organic companies simply do not want to undergo the expense and effort necessary to test their fields for GMO contamination, but some say that it is essential in order to maintain integrity.

Jack Olson is an organic farmer in Litchville, North Dakota, who grows organic soybeans, wheat, and other crops. "It's hard for one organic farmer to fight Monsanto," he says. Still, Olson puts up with the inconveniences because he is committed to organic agriculture. "At least we're clean, that's why we grow organic. It's God's way," he says. (Roseboro, 2007)
http://spktruth2power.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/gmo-a-dangerous-experiment/

[NJLiberty]

Kola, that's fine, you needn't cut and paste all day. I fully understand that there is a plethora of information available on both sides of the aisle on this subject, though I am not sure why you included the piece about Round Up being sprayed. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we are discussing.

I am going to preface this by saying that I personally am not comfortable with them crossing species. I find what they are doing to be potentially dangerous, but at the same time it has the potential to be very beneficial. Only time will tell which will prevail.

With regards to the general concept of GM, regardless of how many papers are available right now, they are all just speculating since none of them know the answer. They are all just guessing based on their limited data and their own personal interpretations of that data. With regards to specific GMOs, there is certainly irrefutable evidence that some have been disastrous, some have resulted in no benefit or harm, and some have been "new and improved" so to speak. That is to be expected in any "infant science." There will be successes and failures as they go along.

If you ask me if I personally support this, the answer is no. Do I have the right to tell anyone else that they cannot engage in this sort of research? No. They are free to seek any improvements to their products they wish, just as I am free to seek to improve the products I sell. However I also believe that they bear the responsibility for any damage their new products may cause, just as I am responsible for mine. Will I be buying seed from Monsanto and the others who engage in this research. No. But again that is my choice.

Quite frankly I am more afraid of the Frankenstein foods that are already on our shelves than I am some new hybrid of corn.

George

[Ron Helwig]

The problem with the stuff that kola posted is it misses the point.

Some GM products will turn out bad, that doesn't make GM itself bad.

At least they're trying to apply science, and will be much more likely to find problems than the old methods would.

[kola]

Some GM products will turn out bad, that doesn't make GM itself bad.

yeah, I guees I "missed the point" Ron.

I can't  honestly say that anyone can prove ALL GMO is bad. What would it take?

I can honestly say there is almost nothing that can be proven in which it is ALL bad.

So yeah, you're statement is pretty solid.

I think you are missing what I posted and not truely understanding the long term consequences of GMO. This stuff is in the air. There can be no "recall."
Ron..if we find out this stuff is a serious mistake, then what?
Thats what Dr Pusztai and other topnotched guys are talking about. We can't re-call air.

The food storage has begun (problem)
The people cry for help (reaction)
Enter Monsanto and GMO (solution)

I guess we will just have to watch and wait...and see if GMO saves the world from hunger. And for the people who do not want GMO products, well too damn bad. So much for freedom huh?

Kola

[NJLiberty]

I think you are missing what I posted and not truely understanding the long term consequences of GMO.

How can anyone understand the long term consequences of GMO Kola? You write as if you know what the consequences are going to be, when there is no way to know whether the long term consequences may be good or bad. You are making an assumption about the consequences and then criticizing Ron for not making the same assumption? Doesn't seem like a good way to reach a higher understanding if you ask me.

George

[kola]

the info I posted shows there is already problems happening.

the info discusses how it is already altering  plants and other living things in a negative way.

I am not predicting the future but the writing is clearly on the wall and even scientists admit it.


Why not ask these guys who said this? Are they more credible for you? Does it matter if I say it or they say it? Are they gypsy tarot readers and tinfoil hatters? Why do you (like the others) continually attempt to fault me when I post evidence that supports my opinion? They are not making this up just for the hell of it.
------------------------------------


The current generation of genetically modified (GM) crops unnecessarily risks the health of the population and the environment.
Present knowledge is not sufficient to safely and predictably modify the plant genome, and the risks of serious side-effects far outweigh the benefits.

We urge you to stop feeding the products of this infant science to our population and ban the release of these crops into the environment where they can never be recalled. "

-from an Open Letter by the Independent Scientists', read at the Joint International GMO Opposition Day, April 8, 2006

[kola]

this has nothing to do with research but has everything to do with FREEDOM. ( and yes this has happened and continues to happen)

one example:
Farmer Brown is a 3rd generation farmer and his family has used their own organic seeds which produce good yields. (depending on the weather) and are much safer for the enviroment than conventional farming. They have no interest in growing GMO's. Monsanto plants their GMO seeds across the road which later pollinate Farmer Browns fields.

Framer Brown is pissed and now his family tradition of seedlings are gone forever.

A Monsanto lawyer knocks on Farmer Browns door and gives him a summons to appear in court. He is being sued for stealing the patented Monsanto crop. Farmer Brown will lose his farm and his tradition of seeds. He will either have to hire expensive lawyers (but Monsanto has the topguns) and/or give up his farm. He will also have lost his family generation of seedlings.

Is this freedom?
Is this a sacrifice my neighbor will have to make in order to "save the world?"
Is this a severe violation of humankind?
How would you feel if you were a farmer or your Dad was a farmer?

[NJLiberty]

Yes, you posted that earlier. No, it doesn't matter to me if you say it or they do, it is still speculation regardless of how many acronyms follow the speaker's name.

They may wear tinfoil hats. I don't know. I don't know who they are, who they work for, who commissioned the studies that generated the data they are basing this opinion upon, or how much they tailored their message to the audience they were presenting to. Hell I haven't even seen the entire letter, just the edited version you posted here. And no, I don't need to see it thank you. Even assuming they are on the up and up, their opinion is just that, an opinion. They have no way of knowing what is going to happen as the science of GM evolves and matures.

It is certainly advantageous to be cautious in this area. There are bound to be many failures as they improve their understanding and methodologies, and minimizing the effects of these failures should be a priority for all involved. But because they may fail sometimes, or I may not like the fact that they are tampering with the natural order of things, does not mean they don't have the right to engage in this behavior. They clearly are going to explore this area whether you and I agree with their doing it or not. Perhaps we might be better served if there were more people working on developing the technologies and thereby reduced the risk of negative outcomes.

One thing is certain it is not in Monsanto's best interest as a business to create a deadly or dangerous product. Killing off your customers tends to be bad for business 

[kola]

Then tell me NJ, what group of scientists do you accept as valid and how do you base your opinions?
Whats your sources?

Kola 

[kola]

They may wear tinfoil hats. I don't know. I don't know who they are, who they work for, who commissioned the studies that generated the data they are basing this opinion upon, or how much they tailored their message to the audience they were presenting to. Hell I haven't even seen the entire letter, just the edited version you posted here. And no, I don't need to see it thank you.

You do not want to see it but are so quick to reject it?

Did I miss something?

Are you practicing what you preach?

If I was to state an opinion (and you posted a reference against it) and I then said I do not want to look at it nor care to read it, you would be cackling off like an overstuffed crow. I find this quick strange that you think it is ok to reject something "just becuz". Wheres YOUR "science"

??

Kola

[NJLiberty]

this has nothing to do with research but has everything to do with FREEDOM. ( and yes this has happened and continues to happen)

one example:
Farmer Brown is a 3rd generation farmer and his family has used their own seeds which produce good yields. (depending on the weather). They have no interest in growing GMO's. Monsanto plants their GMO plants across the road which later pollinate Farmer Browns fields.

Framer Brown is pissed and now his family tradition of seedlings are gone forever.

A Monsanto lawyer knocks on Farmer Browns door and gives him a summons to appear in court. He is being sued for stealing the patented Monsanto crop. Farmer Brown will lose his farm and his tradition of seeds. He will either have to hire expensive lawyers (but Monsanto has the topguns) and/or give up his farm. He will also have lost his family generation of seedlings.

Is this freedom?
Is this a sacrifice my neighbor will have to make in order to "save the world?"
Is this a severe violation of humankind?
How would you feel if you were a farmer or your Dad was a farmer?

Now you have entered into a whole other area. Yes, having your seeds contaminated by another farmer's crop is a problem, but that problem exists anyway. If Farmer Smith across the street plants a different variety than Farmer Brown, Farmer Brown's seed will invariably be "contaminated" anyway. If the two families have been planting different varieties across the street from one another for three generations then neither family has the original family seedlings, they will have a mishmash of hybrids, some stable, some not, scattered throughout their crops. Some of those will be an improvement on the original, some will be worse. That is how many new varieties of fruits and vegetables have arisen. Farmer Brown is unlikely though to have much if any of the family seedlings after a short while unless his neighbors all plant his family's seed. Of course that also depends on the plant. Many plants can be fairly close to one another without cross contaminating.

You are going to have to find someone else to discuss this area of the law with. It is not my field and I am sure someone on here can shed better light on this than I can. I do know that there are many companies aside from Monsanto who protect the patents on their plant varieties, not just on GMOs. The farmer across the driveway from me raises patented varieties of New Guinea Impatiens in his greenhouses (among other patented and unpatented plants) and he is only allowed to take so many cuttings from each plant. And yes, a rep does come out to count to make sure he is not violating his contract with the plant company. This has been going on for many years now.

You are right, if that is the case and Monsanto abuses their patent in that way, then they are violating Farmer Brown's rights.

George