It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs - Full Length Movie

page: 2
42
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Where are you getting your 1996 year from?
NOT from any links I posted.

Just the facts, NOT according to Monsanto.


Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology. The court heard the question of whether intentionally growing genetically modified plants constitutes "use" of the patented invention of genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it does.[1]

The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed.


However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-5-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Where are you getting your 1996 year from?
NOT from any links I posted.



Back in this post of yours, you brought up the topic of the 1997 crop:

In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm...


...with the question being asked about where he got the roundup resistant seeds from:

Well, you make it sound like Percy bought the seed from Monsanto, when he did not.


To this, I replied that all testing of that 1997 crop showed that it was substantially Roundup resistant, and that he must have bought the seeds, because wind blown contamination would not be enough.

In response to that, you replied in this post of yours:

He did not buy the seed, he saved it from his crop, and then planted it.


And thats why we're talking about the 1996 crop. Because thats the one you yourself claim he saved the seed from.

So now I've recapped the thread so far, I will ask a second time... please explain how the seed from the 1996 crop could be so contaminated with Roundup resistance, if the windblown contamination did not happen until 1997.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1
And thats why we're talking about the 1996 crop. Because thats the one you yourself claim he saved the seed from.



So, then I never said 1996, the story does not say 1996. YOU said 1996,
are you trying to mislead everyone?

Sorry, your mistaken. How could he save seed in 1996 from a crop growing in 1997?
So you have wasted an entire page of the thread on your mistake.
The seed was saved from a later year, which is evident by the account,
I am not going to waste any more time with this.



So now I've recapped the thread so far,


Yes, thanks to you. I suspect that may have been your goal all along.



edit on 28-5-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
So, then I never said 1996, the story does not say 1996. YOU said 1996,
are you trying to mislead everyone?


Let me make it simpler then.
1. Despite the court case being about the 1998 crop, YOU mentioned the 1997 crop.
2. I said he must have bought roundup resistant seed for it.
3. You said no, didnt buy it, was saved seed from a previous year.
thus... 1996.

Get it now?

Personally, I'd rather discuss the 1998 crop since thats the one he is being sued for. Dont know why you bothered mentioning the 1997 crop in the first place.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Because the 1997 crop is where the contamination is said to have occurred. It has every relevance with the case as the 1998 crop.

I think you and the court doubt the effects of wind blown pollination. I'm sure the ones that decided this were farmers that have experienced such situations in the past.
Living in a farming area, I know for a fact that it is very possible for wind pollination to spread for several miles, especially if there are no forests in the way and the wind naturally blows in the direction of the field. It is simply common sense.

The story is simply. The guy has his own seeds in 1996 that he got from that years harvest. He takes those seeds and plants them in 1997. It is during the 1997 growing period that the cross pollination occurs, and the plants develop roundup resistance. I would guess that the plants "growing nearby" were the result of bird seed migration, and it could be said as well that nearby plants would have aided in the cross pollination.

Guy keeps seeds from the 1997 harvest that are already roundup resistant. This does not constitute that his entire field is roundup resistant, but simply that the seeds he kept for replanting were. Obviously the farmer does not keep ALL the seeds or else what would be the purpose of planting canola if not to use the seeds for oil?

Come the 1998 planting, all or nearly all the seeds kept were roundup resistant as tests proved.

When it comes to crops, why would the man have bought new seeds considering he was raising crops the year before? Having a successful canola crop for many years, why would anyone go out and buy new seeds when you are producing the necessary seeds yourself? It is a completely useless thing to do.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Great movie. Pretty much everything that I have learned in the last few years in one movie. Right up there with Food Inc. and Farmageddon. Extremely important info movies imho



new topics

top topics
 
42
<< 1   >>

log in

join