reply to post by resistor
Oh Resistor, I understand what you are saying. I try to grow as much as my own, heirloom, organic produce each year, and supplement that with
selections from the local farmer's market or Natural Food Store. I have not eaten 'box-store' vegetables by my choice in six years, but I won't
refuse a meal by a friend who may have bought their veggies there. When I eat out, I try not to support companies that support GMO based products.
I guess what I was alluding to, is that it is my understanding that at least in the Percy Schmeiser case, he was planting an heirloom variety that his
great grandparents started. They had been selecting the best seed for over 80 years. Its traits we perfectly acclimated to the soil and micro
climate of his farm. Maybe I am confusing his case with another Canola/Rapeseed case from Saskatchewan.
Also, if a blight were to occur to the Monsanto lines, I imagine we would need to do 24 hour security of our own heirloom gardens to prevent theft. I
imagine that a blight to the GMO lines would cause a massive famine, similar to what happened in Ireland with the Potatoes. It is my understanding
that although there are thousands of Potato varieties in the Andes, the people of Ireland were only growing two species of cultivars, and when the
blight struck them, their staple starch (which had only been introduced to Europe less than two hundred years prior) vanished from the food supply
almost overnight. I have read articles stating that even though the Famine happened nearly 300 years ago, Ireland's population is still not at Pre
Famine levels.
Maybe that the kicker. Maybe that is the real reason that Monsanto pushed so hard to eliminate the seed stocks that were not representative of their
patents. So that they can orchestrate a worldwide famine at the time of their choosing. I imagine that if scientists are in labs genetically
manipulating plants around the world, they are probably manipulating fungus blights as well.
I could go into my own experiences with Genetic Engineering when I worked as a teen intern in the late 80s, but this thread is about Monsanto
accepting responsibility, not me. I will say that the realizations I have had since that time have weighed heavily on my heart, and are a personal
demon of sorts. I was so excited back then to be doing something so cool and cutting edge, that my naiveté clouded my actions. I just wonder where
those seeds went that I created.
These days, I have serious issues with anyone who cannot see how Genetic Engineering of our foodstuffs is one of the gravest experiments against
mankind in the history of the world. Supporters of GMO must be either naive themselves, complete idiots, or have an agenda against mankind. Anyone
who thinks it is a good idea must have dollar signs clouding their vision, and not the best interests of mankind.
Thats my opinion at least...
DocMoreau
P.S. To the people who say that GMOs are higher producers, I laugh at you. How can a uniform seedlot that is grown in different climates and sub
climates out produce plants hand selected over generations to grow specifically in that specific locale? You are telling me that a plant that was
grown in Kansas, and then has a gene making it resistant to round-up, is going to grow better in Nebraska, or even Russia, than the plants that have
been growing there for years? You truly don't understand plants.
I leave you with this:
The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its
closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.
The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional
ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could
lead to a “decrease” in yields.
But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very
process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.
A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over. (See graphic
above.)
Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped.
It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would.
Critics doubt whether the company will achieve this, saying that it requires more complex modification. And Lester Brown, president of the Earth
Policy Institute in Washington - and who was one of the first to predict the current food crisis - said that the physiology of plants was now reaching
the limits of the productivity that could be achieved.
A former champion crop grower himself, he drew the comparison with human runners. Since Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile more than 50
years ago, the best time has improved only modestly . “Despite all the advances in training, no one contemplates a three-minute mile.”
www.commondreams.org...