Monsanto can't explain how GMO wheat survived

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Monsatan. Cute. Original?

What does Monsanto due? Sue farmers who, in purchasing seed, agree to not reseed? Sue farmers who violate a contract? Terrible. How many times have they done so?

edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

They've done so on several occasions wrongly, when the farmers had not saved the seeds - and won. Worst of all ,they've become quite infamous for suing farmers whose crops were infected with GMO blown over by another crop - and won.

reply to post by thebtheb


It's funny too (not in a comical way, but in a @#$% way) that [most] GMO plants don't produce seeds. Makes me think that they don't want people doing their own research on their seeds, and only want to provide their own "special" seeds for scientific evaluation.

Thats just my opinion.

-SAP-

reply to post by thebtheb

They've done so on several occasions wrongly, when the farmers had not saved the seeds - and won. Worst of all ,they've become quite infamous for suing farmers whose crops were infected with GMO blown over by another crop - and won.

Please cite these cases.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by thebtheb

 

They've done so on several occasions wrongly, when the farmers had not saved the seeds - and won. Worst of all ,they've become quite infamous for suing farmers whose crops were infected with GMO blown over by another crop - and won.

Please cite these cases.

What kind of citations would you like? Case file links? I went to Monsanto.com and found they host a list of names of people they are/have been involved in litigation with. I'm sure there are other examples out there, but I find it interesting they post this on their own website? Reputation Management?

Monsanto.com - Why does Monsanto sue farmers who save seeds?

Monsanto.com - Moe Parr

Maurice Parr operates a seed cleaning business in Indiana. Monsanto took legal action against Parr when we became aware that he was involved in the cleaning of patented seed.

Monsanto.com - Percy Schmeiser

If you’ve heard much about agricultural biotechnology, you’ve potentially heard of Percy Schmeiser. Schmeiser is a Canadian canola farmer who Monsanto successfully sued for patent violation after unlicensed Roundup Ready canola was found growing on his farm.

Starting from when we began our efforts to settle the matter out-of-court, Schmeiser claimed the biotech plants in his fields got there by accident and were not planted by him. It’s a claim he continues to make to this day. He’s become something of a folk hero in some circles, playing the role of David to Monsanto’s Goliath. He’s often quoted in the press and is a frequent speaker around the world at events hosted by groups opposed to agricultural biotechnology.

Monsanto.com - Pilot Grove Co-op

In 2004, Monsanto received an anonymous phone call claiming the central Missouri-based Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator, Inc. was cleaning Roundup Ready soybeans and helping farmers save patented seed. After a full investigation, Monsanto presented this and other evidence in a formal lawsuit against Pilot Grove Co-Op for patent violations in October 2006.

Monsanto.com - Troy Roush

Farmer Troy Roush has appeared in films and been quoted in several articles concerning his dealings with Monsanto relative to a legal case centered on patent infringement. Roush has alleged that Monsanto trespassed on his property illegally. He has suggested that GMOs are not healthy. He has also stated that patented plants have “torn apart rural communities”.

For sources outside of Monsanto.com, a quick search led to these:

MNN.com - Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer

Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed company, has prevailed in another lawsuit against a U.S. farmer, earning a ruling from a federal appeals court that protects Monsanto's interests even when its patented seeds are sold in a mix of undifferentiated "commodity" seeds.

There are more, but that was just a quick dig around =)

reply to post by Philippines

What kind of citations would you like? Case file links?

The kind I asked for.
I would like citations of cases against farmers who had not saved seeds or whose crops were accidentally pollinated.

Originally posted by Phage
The kind I asked for.
I would like citations of cases against farmers who had not saved seeds or whose crops were accidentally pollinated.

The Percy Schmeiser case is interesting.
My take is Monsanto doesn't deny their plants initially got on his farm accidentally.
But what Monsanto had a problem with was his spraying his field with roundup, and then saving the seeds from the "accidental" plants that survived. So yes, he was saving the seeds; that's why he was sued, and convicted even on supreme court appeal.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So yes, he was saving the seeds; that's why he was sued, and convicted even on supreme court appeal.

Thanks for pointing me in that direction. Small note, in a civil case no one is convicted. He did lose the case but neither did Monsanto receive damages. He wasn't just saving seeds. He was selling crops produced with them. Nor was it a matter of pollination. The plants were "volunteers". "Finders keepers" does not apply here.

Here are couple of the judge's findings.

Here the defendants grew canola in 1998 in nine fields, from seed saved from their 1997 crop, which seed Mr. Schmeiser knew or can be taken to have known was Roundup tolerant. That seed was grown and ultimately the crop was harvested and sold. In my opinion, whether or not that crop was sprayed with Roundup during its growing period is not important. Growth of the seed, reproducing the patented gene and cell, and sale of the harvested crop constitutes taking the essence of the plaintiffs' invention, using it, without permission. In so doing the defendants infringed upon the patent interests of the plaintiffs.

125] That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop. I have found that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiffs' patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant.

[126] Other farmers who found volunteer Roundup tolerant plants in their fields, two of whom testified at trial, called Monsanto and the undesired plants were thereafter removed by Monsanto at its expense.

decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca...

Probably had the F.B.I do a night recon mission and switch the seeds out. Huh? what?,,,,,we don't know anything about that!!!! We didn't here about it until the president heard about it. (snicker,snicker)

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Small note, in a civil case no one is convicted. He did lose the case but neither did Monsanto receive damages.

I stand corrected, he lost the case. And that was the most promising of the cases ATS member Philippines posted, based on my take of the summary to support the claim that they were wrongly sued and were not saving seeds. Apparently, they were saving the seeds.

Regarding damages, Monsanto has an interesting policy even when they are awarded damages:

www.monsanto.com...

Whether the farmer settles right away, or the case settles during or through trial, the proceeds are donated to youth leadership initiatives including scholarship programs.

That is probably intended to demonstrate they aren't suing to get the damages since they donate them when they are awarded or obtained through settlement.

Originally posted by Phage

I've been doing a lot of boring legal reading, but you make a good point on knowing just how many lawsuits exist from people/groups suing Monsanto (or vice versa) for patent infringement.

I think the Percy Schmeiser case is the precedent, and only one that really applies as a case wherein the farmer claims that he did not intend to or ever purchase Monsanto's GMO patented seeds. I don't think "he knew or ought to have known" is a good enough reason if his spirit was against ever using their seeds on purpose.

In the case of OSGATA vs. Monsanto, the following was noted about cross-pollenation:

Despite these restrictions, some unlicensed -- and unintended -- use of transgenic seeds is inevitable. Like any other seeds, transgenic seeds may contaminate non-transgenic crops through a variety of means, including seed drift or scatter, crosspollination, and commingling via tainted equipment during harvest or post-harvest activities, processing, transportation, and storage. Seed businesses and farmers may, at some expense, test their seeds and crops to ensure that no contamination has occurred, and non-transgenic farmers may establish buffer zones between themselves and farmers using transgenic seed in order to reduce the risk of crosstransmission. No plaintiffs claim that contamination has yet occurred in any crops they have grown or seed they have sold.

I have also seen a repeated statement from Monsanto about their litigation policy:

Indeed, defendants [Monsanto] have expressly declared that it is not their policy “to exercise [their] patent rights where trace amounts of our seed or traits are present in [a] farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”

So far it seems to me like monsanto is "auditing" fields using private agencies who potentially trespass and then "borrow" seeds from local farms, to then test the seed for the GMO traits/genes. If it finds the patented genes, the agency will cross check who has licenses, who doesn't, and figure out what farmer(s) are growing the patented seed. I wonder what the limits of "trace amounts" in the seeds are found before litigation?

What I would be most curious to know are the stories of farmers vs. Monsanto who settle out of court. How many cases are out there due to cross pollenizing which we won't know about? Link to text below

Monsanto’s history of aggressive investigations and lawsuits brought against farmers in America has been a source of concern for organic and non-GMO agricultural producers since Monsanto’s first lawsuit brought against a farmer in the mid-‘90s. Since then, 144 farmers have had lawsuits filed against them by Monsanto for alleged violations of their patented seed technology. Monsanto has sued more than 700 additional farmers who have settled out-of-court rather than face Monsanto’s belligerent, and well-financed, litigious actions.

Lastly, here is a Lawsuit of Geertson Seed farms vs. Monsanto, where they cite that Monsanto did not complete their Environmental Impact Statement, in particular about the effects of bees for their roundup ready alfalfa:

This case arises out of a decision by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to deregulate a variety of genetically engineered alfalfa. The District Court held that APHIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U. S. C. §4321 et seq. , by issuing its deregulation decision without first completing a detailed assessment of the environmental consequences of its proposed course of action.
...
(“Since alfalfa is pollinated by honey, bumble and leafcutter bees, the genetic contamination of the Roundup Ready seed will rapidly spread through the seed growing regions. Bees have a range of at least two to ten miles, and the alfalfa seed farms are much more concentrated”)

Just some more info =)

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Devino

 

How much damage to local eco-systems is being caused by the increased use of herbicides?

And the reduced use of pesticides and artificial fertilizers?

The paper I linked to earlier claims the reduced use of pesticides is far outweighed by the increased use of herbicides.

Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

www.enveurope.com...

As for a reduced use of fertilizers do you have a link? All I could find are claims by biotech companies for possible reductions yet no real comparison to the increase of herbicide use. Does the reduction of pesticides and fertilizer use outweigh the increased use in herbicides (are we gaining here or losing)?

There are also other problems like the increase in roundup resistant weeds and insects that are resistant to Bt corn.

Evolution of insect resistance threatens the continued success of transgenic crops producing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins that kill pests.

Nature.com

A new generation of insect larvae is eating the roots of genetically engineered corn intended to be resistant to such pests. The failure of Monsanto's genetically modified Bt corn could be the most serious threat ever to a genetically modified crop in the U.S.

Mercola.com

This article doesn’t paint a very nice picture of GE crops.

There can be little doubt that genetically engineered crops are the most dangerous aspect of modern agriculture. Not only are we seeing rapid emergence of super-weeds resistant to glyphosate, courtesy of Roundup Ready crops, we now also have evidence of emerging Bt-resistant insects. Add to that the emergence of a brand new organism capable of producing disease and infertility in both plants and animals, and a wide variety of evidence showing harm to human health, and the only reasonable expectation one can glean is that humanity as a whole is being seriously threatened by this foolhardy technology.

That article goes on further about evidence of compromised health effects on humans due to Bt corn.

Yeah, links, articles, etc., blah, blah. None of them really prove or disprove anything. Too many of them are surrounded by politics, media manipulation pro or con, It must be remembered that just because a court says yay or nay and the "conclusions" promulgated thereafter, certainly does NOT make it true or false. As far as I'm concerned, you have to look into each specific case further than whatever 'truths' were published on Monsanto's site, in the media or on some organic food site.

It's up to me, and you, to figure out what we really think is happening. And if you think that Monsanto is some great company to be lauded for their invention, I'd have to say I disagree. And there's no link for that.

reply to post by Devino


So it's something like this... Life finds a way. Insects (and some Roundup Resistant plants), after countless deaths and generations over decades of years, have evolved to resist the manipulated genes of these GMO plants. It makes one wonder about the need for even trying to be in the transgenic business at all if you're going to fight mother nature. Then again, I suppose that makes for a business that always has to evolve with more creative ingenuity of gene manipulation.

The problem I have with it, is that humans probably don't evolve as fast as the insects/organisms affected by the GMO organisms.

reply to post by Devino

The study shows that in places where Roundup ready crops are used there is more Roundup used. In places where Bt crops are used there is less insecticide used. For a net increase. Sounds reasonable. But there has always been more herbicide use than pesticide use. I wonder though, do you think the acreage of each may have something to do with it? What I mean is, I understand the reasoning but does it really make sense to compare them on that level? Would make sense to compare the levels of application?

The study shows an increase of herbicide use from 1.98 lb/acre in 1996 to 2.06 lb/acre in 2011. An increase 0.08 lb or 4% increase.
At the same time pesticide use went from 0.22 lb/acre to 0.07 lb/acre. A decrease of 0.15 lb or a 65% decrease.

So when approached from a per acre standpoint there would seem to be a substantial reduction.


It should also be noted that, at the same time the use of Roundup increased, the use of other herbicides (2,4-d and Dicambra) declined. A statement from the study:

In light of its generally favorable environmental and toxicological properties, especially compared to some of the herbicides displaced by glyphosate, the dramatic increase in glyphosate use has likely not markedly increased human health risks.

www.enveurope.com...
supplemental data

The inoculant strain had been tested in small-scale field trials for four years prior to the limited commercialization approval. RMBPC-2 was shown to improve alfalfa yields in some soils where RMBPC-2 exhibited efficient nodulation of the host
plant, particularly in those soils low in organic matter and low in numbers of indigenous rhizobia. I

source
aem.asm.org...

There are also other problems like the increase in roundup resistant weeds and insects that are resistant to Bt corn.

Resistance shows up with or without GMOs. It's called evolution.

That article goes on further about evidence of compromised health effects on humans due to Bt corn.

That article is a bunch of alarmist nonsense. Stick to the science.

Originally posted by Phage

That article goes on further about evidence of compromised health effects on humans due to Bt corn.

That article is a bunch of alarmist nonsense. Stick to the science.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Is science evolving as fast as evolution with many Bt resistant strains of organisms being reported?

Are humans evolving as fast as Bt organisms in their food?

reply to post by Philippines

Is science evolving as fast as evolution with many Bt resistant strains of organisms being reported?

It's always been a battle between farmers and pests. With hybridization, GMOs, pesticides, and herbicides, we're staying ahead.

Are humans evolving as fast as Bt organisms in their food?

I'm not sure what that means. Bt organisms are teh result of genetic modification, they don't actually evolve. The pesticides producted by Bt plants have been around (and used) since long before there were GMOs.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

Is science evolving as fast as evolution with many Bt resistant strains of organisms being reported?

It's always been a battle between farmers and pests. With hybridization, GMOs, pesticides, and herbicides, we're staying ahead.

Are humans evolving as fast as Bt organisms in their food?

I'm not sure what that means. Bt organisms are teh result of genetic modification, they don't actually evolve. The pesticides producted by Bt plants have been around (and used) since long before there were GMOs.

Thanks for the reply. On your first point, what are your metrics for "staying ahead" for GMO, pesticides, and herbicides? Money, food, ecology? Whatever you consider the metrics of staying ahead and their long term impacts on the Earth =)

In regards to the second point (which I think we agree on evolution), there are reports of various organisms growing resistant to these transgenic GMO organisms. Because of the short lifespans of the organisms (compared to humans) that are dying after eating GMO organisms, they evolve over time and grow resistant to the GMO genes -- placing the biotech company in a position to evolve their genes again.

My point is, is that humans don't have a lifespan the same amount of time as an insect and can probably not evolve as fast as smaller organisms with a short lifespan. Are there studies from monsanto that span 40+ years of human ingestion of the same transgenic GMO product they sell?

I would like to thank everyone who contributed their findings on the subject unfortunately I was not able to find in my own search for evidence to back up many claims of GM foods being harmful perhaps I am not as good with the search function as others here. I would still be happy to read any links others may have showing GM foods are harmful to consume. Below are links to some of the best studies on the subject that I have found. I was a little concerned on the soybean issue because I am allergic to nuts.

jxb.oxfordjournals.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.foodstandards.gov.au...

www.food.gov.uk...


This link addressed some of the same concerns on the rat study I had
blogs.discovermagazine.com...


As I stated before my primary concern was if there were any health risks involved I understand many have issues with their business and political practices but for myself those are not issues that I am considering.

I did find many articles and sites claiming much of what has been claimed here but unfortunately they did not provide evidence either. While I do have some concerns about genetically modifying things I am not willing to jump to any conclusions without supporting evidence. I have learned that I have been eating GM foods for quite some time. It is amazing how much of them have found their way into the grocery store to date. I certainly would like more conclusive data on tests but until then I will just wash vegetables thoroughly as recommended before eating them. I do believe the more expensive organically grown foods probably have more nutrients however price remains an issue with me and until I see evidence showing they are harmful it will remain an issue.

reply to post by Philippines

On your first point, what are your metrics for "staying ahead" for GMO, pesticides, and herbicides?

Feeding people, and clothing them. Yes, money is involved. Do you expect free food? Seed suppliers are paid, farmers are paid, transporters are paid, manufacturers are paid, distributors are paid, retailers are paid. And all of them are doing it for the money. Is there something wrong with that?

Whatever you consider the metrics of staying ahead and their long term impacts on the Earth

Again the idea that there is something inherently wrong with genetic modification?

In regards to the second point (which I think we agree on evolution), there are reports of various organisms growing resistant to these transgenic GMO organisms.

And herbicides, and pesticides. It happens continually.

placing the biotech company in a position to evolve their genes again.

And produce new herbicides and pesticides.
Again the idea that there is something inherently wrong with genetic modification?

My point is, is that humans don't have a lifespan the same amount of time as an insect and can probably not evolve as fast as smaller organisms with a short lifespan.

Obviously, but I don't see the point. The pesticides which GMOs produce have been directly applied to crops for decades and are not dangerous to animals. The only difference is now the crops don't have to be sprayed with that pesticide because the plant produces it itself.

Are there studies from monsanto that span 40+ years of human ingestion of the same transgenic GMO product they sell?

Foods from GMOs have not been available for 40+ years. How do you suggest such studies be undertaken?

Originally posted by Phage

Are there studies from monsanto that span 40+ years of human ingestion of the same transgenic GMO product they sell?

Foods from GMOs have not been available for 40+ years. How do you suggest such studies be undertaken?

Then I guess the science is sound, and not in hindsight, and we're not living in a lab?