IMHO What a bully!!!!

Check this story out. Thoughts please.

http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=244

Pete,

This is an old story, all part and parcel of the green revolution. Monsanto and its ilk do nothing but lie about GMOs and their benefits, and lie even stronger about the drawbacks---which the agri-chem companys say are non-existent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Nor do you hear much about the other side of the coin---the farmers who sue Monsanto and win because of gross misrepresentations of the facts. Check out, for instance, the group of cotton farmers who, so far, have recouped in excess of five million dollars after planting Roundup Ready cotton seed that did not live up to the claims made for it.

Always amazes me the number of farmers who buy into this [deleted], too. I recently had a---call it a heated---discussion with a farmer who was trying to explain how terminator technology was in his interests.

So, let me get this straight. He buys the seed. Plants it. Then has to spray it with an unnecessary and expensive chemical or else it dies. And then he has to buy seed again the following year, because it is patented and he's not allowed to save it.

Yet he belives this is in his interest.

The point about soybeans is well taken. There are virtually no pure soybeans anymore. Not in North America, at any rate. And corn is problematical as well.

Anybody who has doubts about growing heirlooms need only read stories like this to understand why we are so concerned.

Whether you agree your disagree with Monsanto and GMO they spent millions of dollars developing the product. Why don't you think they have the right to protect it and profit from it. Poor or rich the farmer was stealing. Brook I understand your a writer what would you say if a magazine took one of your stories and published it without paying you. It the same think. BTW I have nothing to do with Monsanto I just believe in free markets and capitalism. I also have no feeling either way about heirlooms. What is great about our country is that if you think heirlooms are better then you can grow them and attempt to compete against the other guy. If you don't want to buy GMO then you don't have to. I'm not sure I would buy GMO stuff right now. In defense of U.S. farmers they must be doing something right. They are the most productive in the world. They produce so much that it drives the price down to the point of breaking them.

Sari,

You're absolutely right. Owners have the right to protect what is theirs. Except those times when the Federal government decides that the patent system has to be put on hold (ie, IBM and copying machines, Kodak on instant film, and dozens of other cases).

However, you are assuming that the farmer in the story did steal it. Such may not be the case at all.

The fact is, every claim made by that farmer can be substantiated in other cases. GMOs do transfer. And, in the case of soybeans, it is virtually impossible to obtain pure seed anymore.

As far as freedom of choice vis-a-vis GMOs, better check your facts. You have no choice in the matter if you want non-modified soybean products, non-modified corn products, and, we're approaching the point with non-modified potatoes.

Most of the time you don't even know that you are getting GMOs, except those rare times when something untoweard happens. Like a GMO corn specifically banned for human consumption getting into the tacos. All of a sudden, then, the same government agencies that allow all the false claims go gunning for for the evil company that put this on the market.

GMOs and their effects on world food production are a very complex problem, one that impinges on more than the growing of crops. In order to further the goals of the green revolution, the agencies that are supposed to protect us lie doggo, even when their own testing demonstrates problems.

The dangers of monoculture and the accellerated use of agri-chemicals are self-evident to anybody willing to open their eyes. You may not remember the corn crop disaster of the 1970s. But trust me, no southern corn farmer has forgotten it, nor the reasons for it.

Finally, the idea that surplus production is what keeps prices depressed is a myth. More than half the world is starving, and there would be no problem disposing of this "surplus" at fair market prices. The fact is, the farmer is at the bottom of the pile. He has no choice but to accept the artificially low prices being paid for his crops, while the costs of everything else skyrocket.

If you are such a believer in capitalism and free markets, why don't you believe the farmer has the right to compete that way, instead of being in chatle to the seed and chemical companies?

IMHO, he who controls the food controls the world. The same applies to those that control the seeds. I find it most interesting that the USDA was/is in bed with Monsanto on the terminator seed technology. BTW, that's a fact and not supposition on my part.

USDA, Commerce Department, State Department and even the EPA, Petesey, not just USDA.

The reasons are geo-political, by the way.

Another point lost is the shuffle is the safety angle. GMO's are not required safety tests. All of the volumes of paperwork the proponents point to as proof of their testing has to do with the concept called "Significant Equivalency." They have to show that a GMO strain is significantly equivalent to a non-modified strain in order to get approval. That's the extent of government requirements (some minor caveates, like allergy sensitivity).

Let's always remember that it took 60 years to recognize the dangers of DDT. But now we're supposed to accept these genetic modifications just on the say so of chemical companies and government agencies that are in bed together.

I don't think so.

"That's the extent of government requirements (some minor caveates, like allergy sensitivity)."

Do you remember that Brazilian nut fiasco? A Brazil nut was spliced into a soybean. Can you imagine the havoc that could have caused in people allergic to it?

Sure do remember it, Pettikins.

But it's true, the only safety testing done is in the area of allergies. And the testing protocols are woefully lacking.

Take that jellyfish modified corn. Will it effect somebody with a seafood allergy? I don't know. But chances are, the watchdog agencies (USDA, EPA, FDA) don't know, either. Then, when somebody dies, it will be too late.

BTW, your comments re: controlling the world. A friend of mine said it best: "Who controls the seed controls the feed."

And that's what's really behind the silence from regulatory agencies that know better. The green revolution is a form of imperialism. In a nutshell, the thinking is that if we convert the third world to monoculture and factory farming, we make them dependent on our seeds, our chemicals, etc. This makes them a captive market, certainly. But it also puts us in control of the country or entire region.

Imagine an African country dependent on Monsanto for seed and chemicals. Then, for whatever reason, we institute a trade embargo on that country. You can, I'm sure, foresee the results.

Pettikins? ROFL

Oh yes! I foresee the results and frankly it sickens me.

Now there are GM insects. Did you know that? Here's the article. What's the fascination with the *$#@ jellyfish???
http://www.purefood.org/ge/pinkbullworm.cfm

Just a comment on surpluses and prices.

Farmers have nothing to do with the price of their product. We take what the government tells the processor to pay us. One small example: USDA figures the cost to produce a hundred pounds of milk in the area of $15. The base price in January of this year is listed on our first half check as $9.37. Granted, it will be more like $13 when the supply premium and butterfat and protein price are added, but then they will subtract hauling, marketing, and promotion. In December, we got $12.44. And the grain farmers are having it worse than we. The Ag bills that the Congress works on are not programs for the benefit of the farmer. They are designed to provide cheap food for the American people.

Throw in Monsanto and controversy and giant hog, chicken and dairy corporations, and you have a farm population that is quickly losing ground. And don't tell me about free enterprise, because when all the food is factory originated, you'll be screaming for us to come back, but we won't be there.

OK, I'm done...
Kathleen

There is one more thing that no-one has addressed yet. What about a few years down the road when they finally get the data that shows the health problems that result from the gmo's, and then the whole crop is contaminated? I think that if you don't have any feeling towards heirlooms yet, there may be a day when you will wish that you had. I hope that we all start taking this seriously and educate people about the future implications. Thank heavens for those of us that are trying to keep some pure strains existing. I hope it may be able to make a difference some day. It's time to pull our heads out of the sand and realize that politically correct isn't realistic for our futures. We do need to care, and we do need to help. We need to get involved.
Well, that's my two cents, Birdie

Well said, Kathleen, and a point I tried making in one of my posts above. It is frightening how little most people know about the food distribution system in this country. They see the high prices at the supermarket, and figure the farmer is getting rich. Ha!

Something you left out that I always find ironic. Ask the average person the difference between supported crops and subsidized crops. They think those are the same thing.

The only hope I see is the growing interst in CBAs, co-ops, and other sustainable-agricultural projects. People may be supporting them for the wrong reasons, but they are supporting them

Birdie: The word you're really looking for is bio-diversity. Heirlooms are certainly a part of that concept, but it goes much, much further. Do we, for instance, want to maintain the numerous strains of wild salmon? Or do we want to replace them with a single genetically modified one?

What really bothers me is that if you ask the average person what the controversy is all about, they will answer "labeling." They will still happily eat GMOs, apparantly. They just want to be told about it.

Me, I could care less about labels. I just want the evil to stop.

Brook,
Actually you would be surprised at how close we are on this issue.I do believe in free markets but as you pointed out we don't have free markets. I truthfully fear our government I am not holed up or so wacko or anything like that. My fear comes from the fact that our government can be bought by corporations and foreign governments. My god Clinton sold missle guidance technology to China for campain contributions. I also fear the all natural back to nature people. Everything in nature is not good radon, cynide, ozone, radiation to name a few. Soap is not natural is it good? millions and millions of people have died in the world because they did't wash their hands. What about the millions saved by vacines polo, small pox, chicken pox... What about antibiotics and all the other wonderful medications. Science has it's failures too.
Even you have to admit that your heirlooms can not compete with todays say corn for yield per acre. I'm talking on a 1,000 acre farm not a little farm.
The solution to our problem is very very simple. All we need to do is become informed voters. The answer is to elect people to government that will look at the facts and data not myths or money. Most americans are to lazy to do this. That's why government gets away with what it does.
Maybe we need some GMO, some heirloom. But without hard truthful scientific fact we will never know who is telling the truth. I think both sides lie and destort to make themselves look beter. DH used to be a computer guy at one of the big chemical companies. All I will say is that some what Brook says is true for sure. They talked about "exceptable exposure" and stuff. They also talked about people going off and twisting the facts.
Let me leave you with this thought. Do you know what an MSD is? It stands for Material Safety Data sheet. They describe the dangers of basically all chemical compounds know to man. Do you know that if you put water to the test it would be considered hazardous for a number of reasons. 2 tablespoons can kill you, if it's in your lungs. That's the kind of warped science and half truths both sides use.

Heirlooms and organic ag could keep up if the same money invested in the green revolution and biotech were spent on OP and organic research.

I am constatnly amazed at the scary science fiction movie we have found ourselves in. All we can do is speak out by writing to oiur gov't officials, protesting when needed and boycotting companies that we don't approve of (you must write the company a polite letter saying why you are boycotting them or it isn't effective). But all of these things are very effective. remember it is the quiet people who change the world one at a time.

I agree with this, Ohiorganic, and I've got to tell you that we've thought long and hard about becoming organic here, but it isn't feasible. We are making it - Stan is a great manager and we have always kept it to the size where we can do it all ourselves. But we are both unhappy with what we see coming and it really has gotten kind of beyond one letter at a time. Stan has been to meetings sponsored by Monsanto - they also make BST and love to feed dairy farmers a free meal and propaganda - but he doesn't go for the hardsell, he goes to speak up and say, "Check the figures! Tell us what difference it is REALLY making." The reps are getting to the point where they try to stay away from him, but he is getting through to a couple of County Ag agents. They don't necessarily sop up the heavy syrup anymore when monsanto speaks. It is a hard row to hoe, and we've passed our prime - both ending 40s and headed into a new decade along with a new millenium and it gets harder everyday.
Unfortunately, I think here, we're probably preaching to the choir!
Oh well, fight the good fight.
Kathleen

I agree, Kathleen. We all should do what we can. :)

Stan sounds like a remarkable man and I'm sure you are very proud of him for having the guts to speak out like that. What I wouldn't give to go to a Monsanto meeting!!! My, my the trouble I could cause!!! (evil grin)

Terri

Well, Sari, I said it was a complex question.

I do take exception to one of the things you said, re: heirlooms. First, they are not _my_ heirlooms. They are the world's, part of the global genetic biobase.

More to the point, the idea that heirlooms do not produce yeilds as high as hybrids is one of the myths purpetrated by the seed and agri-chemical companies. Not only can they match production, there are many varieites that surpass the hybrids. And virtually any commercial varietiy---heirloom or hybrid---outproduces the GMOs.

The lies, misinformation, and propaganda put out by the agri-giants is not new to GMOs and terminator technolgy. The whole "hybrids are better" message that has bombarded us for more than 50 years is built on a bed of sand.

It's interesting to note, historically, that for 50 years the seed and chemical guys kept telling us that hybrids were the only way to go. That they solve all the problems of agriculture, and introduce no new problems of their own. Then came GMOs, and the message was, this will solve all the problems of the hybrids.

Huh? Wanna play that again?

I want to add something to this whole thread, so that there is no misunderstanding.

Hybrids, GMOs, terminator technology are all part and parcel of one agricultural trend---and that is towards greater and greater use of monocultural factory farms. The purpose of the green revolution is to export that system. That's where the danger lies.

Most of us do not remember (if we ever knew it) the corn crop failure of 1970. 15% of the North American corn crop perished, and virtually the entire southern crop. The reason: Virtually all the commercial corn grown in North America came from three genetically related strains. When a new blight appeared that these strains were not resistent to, the crop failed.

Not dramatic enough for you? Surely you know about the Irish potato famine---a documentable result of mono-culture.

Only through bio-diversity can we assure a steady food supply in the future. To turn the world into one or two or six giant factory farms is to court a Malthusian catastrophe unlike any even he envisioned.

When I tell you that I will not knowingly put a hybrid in the ground, this is not a statement based on science. It is purely a political statement. I will _not_ support Monsanto in this madness.

I grow heirlooms for many reasons. One of them is, that when agriculture as we know it fails, my family will still eat.

I think what scares me the most about all of this is...once something is released, it can't be taken back. With the discovery of new technology comes responsibility. The responsibility to the world is to "DO NO HARM". It is impossible for these big companies like Monsanto to give us that guarantee because they really don't know the long term effects. And frankly, I just don't buy their altruistic act. IMHO, it's about money and greed but mostly it's about power.

This message was edited Thursday, Feb 22nd 11:56 AM

I read your posts with great interest - thanks for directing me here Brook. Some parts of Europe have banned GMF whilst others choose to ignore the warning signs. I am not a farmer, nor do I profess to know much about politics and since I am not an American I can hardly put in my two cents worth here. What I do know is there is too much apathy on the part of the layman and perhaps I am guilty of this as well. I know what horrors are coming and feel powerless to stop it. How many people, I wonder, have even heard of GMF. I send out messages to everyone I can reach to notify them of this sinister threat. I can tell you, I am scared, not for me, but for my children and their children and all the peoples of the world, and what will happen when all the insects have gone!

Louisa,

First, let me say that you not being an American does not preclude you from expressing an opinion. Indeed, having the British experience to draw on, you probably have some valuable insights we'd like to hear.

The politics of the situation is that those in charge have decided to promote GMOs, despite any contrary evidence, and despite the expressed wishes of their populations. We see it here in the U.S., in Canada, and, to a growing degree, in Europe where many countries have bowed to pressure are are allowing GMOs.

How countries ignore their people and continue the madness is moth overt and insidious. Of the funds it allocates for biotech research, for instance, he USDA earmarks only 1% to risk assessment. Big surprise when they can't find any problems----they don't have the resources to look for them.

They even ignore the economics of it. In 1998, for instance, Canada lost between $300 and $400-million in rapeseed sales to Europe. The sale went to Australia---at the time the largest export of such seed from Australia in history---because Australia was the only country that could guarantee GMO-free product. Neither country, apparently, learned anything from that. Canada continued to accelerate the adoption of GMOs, and Australia now approves them.

This is not a new story, by any means. Been going on for a long time. Since the 1940s, when the big push began to use pesticides, for instance, crop loss due to insect pests in the U.S. has actually _increased_ by 13%. Somehow or other, we don't hear about that from the agri-chemical companies.

I don't think it's apathy, so much. People aren't upset because they don't know about the problem. They've only been getting one side of the story, so, until something bad happens like the recent taco problem, they are unaware of the dangers.

Yes Brook, I have known about the problems for some time now. So what can we do about it, surely we are helpless! Would marching to Washington with our banners make any difference?

For some ideas, see the Help Mr. Bud thread on the market growers forum, which has sort of evolved into a similar topic.

Marching on Washington, or London, or Bonn or Nairobi won't accomplish anything. The powers that be have already demonstrated that they don't care what the people want, they're going to cram this down our throats anyway.

So the solutions lie on the local level, through alternative agriculture; and nationally and globally by supporting the groups who support sustainable agriculture and bio-diversity.

I think there is a certain amount of paranoia over GMOs because we have already done some of that for generations by hybridizing. Of course that doesn't mean that we were able to insert the genes of other organisms into certain species. But that isn't necessarily bad; there are good traits in everything, much related to everyday substances that we continually come into touch with. There is always some concern every time science comes up with something new; especially when there's a big company that stands to profit from it.
As for the farming family, they knew the law, and I don't understand why they bothered anyway if they found the yield inferior, except because they had a weed problem. If you have to use more pesticides and have a lower yield, why did they continue to go after that seed?
What concerns me, is how did Monsanto know they saved seed and were replanting it without spying on them? The plot thickens.

I guess time will tell all, woodspirit1 be it good or be it bad.

It's not spying, Woodspirit.

When you buy GMO seed, or any patented seed, for that matter, you sign a contract with the seller. Part of that assures him the right to inspect. The inspection methodology usually is spelled out in the contract.

As to that particular farming family, it's a common scenerio. Monsanto came to them and said, "hey, we've got this great new product that will increase yields and reduce the amount of chemicals you have to use."

Two very important messages because the impinge on the farmer's bottom line. So that family decided to do a trail, to see if the claims were true. When they found that Monsanto had lied, they backed away, and said, "we don't want this new product anymore."

All in all, a fairly standard approach. What's at issue here are several things: 1. Did the family violate Monsanto's patent, and their contract, by saving seed and replanting it? 2. Did Monsanto do it's testing in an above-board and honest manner. 3. Are impartial third parties going to become part of this and similar cases.

Right now, the only answer anybody can provide is to the third question. Because both parties objected to it, the answer in this case is "no." As to questions one and two, none of us have enough information to answer them. That's what courts are all about.

There are some other legal questions implied in the case as well. For instance, if Monsanto said that higher yields and lower chemical use are a benefit of this seed, and such was not the case, what is their liability? If the entire soybean crop has been infected, what responsibility for patent violation is shared by the elevator operator? By the seed salesman? And so on.

Understand that this case, from a legal standpoint, has nothing to do with GMOs per se. It has to do with patent rights, truth in advertising, and similar questions.

Brook,
You stated that "Since the 1940s, when the big push began to use pesticides, for instance, crop loss due to insect pests in the U.S. has actually _increased_ by 13%."
What is your source? What reason do they give for the increase?

Sari, I don't know the exact answer...only a guess so I'll wait for Brook's response. I can't wait to see if I'm right.

P2

Sari:

J. Juskevich and C. Guyer, "Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation," Science, Vol. 249, as quoted by Luke Anderson in "Genetic Engineering, Food, and Our Environment".

Anderson doesn't go into reasons. But they are presumably because of pest resistance---an on-going problem. What happens (and we're seeing great concerns, now, with this same syndrome and antibiotics in humans) is that pests build up tolarances to pesticides. It then takes greater use of stronger pesiticides to do the job; which the pests quickly become resistent to. Etc. Etc.

There is a gap between developing a "stonger" pest and developing a "stronger" pesticide to combat it. During that period, the resistant bugs eat crops to their hearts content.

I would also presume that monoculture contributes to this. Let's say you have a bug that eats, say, squash. But next year you grow corn instead of squash. Then that bug has nothing to eat, and you need no pesticide to control it. The following year you grow, say, beans. Again, nothing for that bug. By the time you get back to squash after three or four years, you have dramatically reduced the infestation probability of that bug.

This is an oversimplification, of course, presented for the sake of clarity. And it highlights one of the basic differences between monoculture and bio-diverse culture, and explains why those places practicing bio-diverse culture do not need the massive influxes of chemicals we take for granted on our factory farms.

Resistance was my guess. There's an interesting article about Bt corn and the beginning of the same resistance in CropChoice.

P2