Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest

TimG · May 30, 2013

And no I do not agree with companies having the ability to patent a life form.

For a patent to be legitimate is must cover a novel idea that likely would not have been discovered without effort on the part of the patent owner. Development of unique plant strains fits this definition. There are other patents on things like software or business processes which are not legitimate because they are obvious solutions to a technical problem that anyone with the required technical background would have discovered. Edited May 30, 2013 by TimG

Archanfel · May 30, 2013

Quote system is problematic indeed.

As stated there are 3 potential categories, and I agree with them.

GMO

NON-GMO

Organic.

It's also stupid to have a nutritional label with everything at a 0%. I love it when I am handed a bottle of water and several ingredients are listed as well as saying 'not a significant source of vitamins/minerals', while listing other items and showing 0%.

How can anyone understand them when they are not properly labeled? Deliberate obfuscation is why people are confused.

Agreed.

Hudson Jones · May 30, 2013

segnosaur sure put me and the study I posted in our place by posting a study done by none other than Monsanto.

segnosaur · May 30, 2013

segnosaur sure put me and the study I posted in our place by posting a study done by none other than Monsanto.

Do you really not understand the concept of peer review?

What is it about the idea of publishing in establish scientific journals that are reviewed by fellow scientists that you don't understand?

Yes, the study was done by Monsanto. But guess what? Other scientists (i.e. not Monsanto) reviewed the findings and found no fault with them.

And just how many established scientists reviewed your little chart? You know, the one that claimed that corn was somehow made of rock because the organic content was so low?

GostHacked · May 30, 2013

For a patent to be legitimate is must cover a novel idea that likely would not have been discovered without effort on the part of the patent owner. Development of unique plant strains fits this definition. There are other patents on things like software or business processes which are not legitimate because they are obvious solutions to a technical problem that anyone with the required technical background would have discovered.

Not only the product, but the process is patented as well I believe. Anyone else engaging in GMO could be subject to copy-write and patent infringement lawsuits from Monsanto. You cannot do anything legally without that license from Monsanto.

Actually already happened.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/13/monsanto-patent-grain-biotechnology-soybeans-supreme-court/2116333/

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court usually isn't friendly toward questionable patents, but it came down overwhelmingly on the side of agribusiness giant Monsanto Monday in a case that's bound to resonate throughout the biotechnology industry.

The court ruled unanimously that an Indiana farmer violated Monsanto's patent on genetically modified soybeans when he culled some from a grain elevator and used them to replant his own crop in future years.

You agree to use a Monsanto product the way Monsanto tells you to use their product. And this article brings some other things that we need to take note of..

Who it helps: Inventors and entrepreneurs who have patents on products that can be self-replicated, from computer software to cell lines. While Kagan's decision is limited to the Monsanto case, it bolsters the argument that self-replicating products can be protected from patent infringement even if their challengers go through third parties.

Who it hurts: Consumers paying high prices. The Center for Food Safety released a report in February that showed three corporations control much of the global commercial seed market. It found that from 1995-2011, the average cost to plant 1 acre of soybeans rose 325%.

What's to come: Still pending is a decision on whether human genes can be patented. That case tests a company's patent on the genes that can identify an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. During oral arguments in April, the justices seemed far more skeptical of the merits of that patent.

I don't think you quite understand what Monsanto has accomplished here.

TimG · May 30, 2013

You agree to use a Monsanto product the way Monsanto tells you to use their product. And this article brings some other things that we need to take note of.

I dont see what your issue is. If you grow a variety which Monsanto invented then you have to pay them. If you don't want to pay Monsanto then you grow a different variety. The problem comes up because farmers need to be competitive and that requires that they use the latest technology. But that is why we have patents to provide incentive to companies like Monsanto to develop new technologies for farmers to use. It is not clear why you think people should be free to use Monsanto technologies that would not exist without Monsanto R&D? Edited May 30, 2013 by TimG

GostHacked · May 30, 2013

I dont see what your issue is. If you grow a variety which Monsanto invented then you have to pay them. If you don't want to pay Monsanto then you grow a different variety. The problem comes up because farmers need to be competitive and that requires that they use the latest technology. But that is why we have patents to provide incentive to companies like Monsanto to develop new technologies for farmers to use. It is not clear why you think people should be free to use Monsanto technologies that would not exist without Monsanto R&D?

What kind of future is in store for us if and when all seeds are GMO and you cannot obtain organic or 'heirloom' seeds?

So, I will say again that many if not most of the seed companies out there carry a Monsanto product. Dekalb, Pioneer, and others are all owned/affiliated with Monsanto.

You are providing incentives to Monsanto, when the incentives should go to the farmer. No longer can they save seeds for next years crops. Breaking the centuries old chain of sustainability. Once you get into a Monsanto product, you are locked into their guidelines. Using anything but Monsanto pesticides on Monsanto seeds could be seen as a violation of their patent.

Edited May 30, 2013 by GostHacked

segnosaur · May 30, 2013

I'm not taking up whether MLW member Hudson Jones' comparative link has merit; however, you are incorrect in your labeling/categorization of his (apparent) source - that source markets products for both conventional/probiotic as well as organic production...

You're right... they do market conventional argiultural products.

Of course, I have no idea how their business works (what portion is organic vs. conventional.) I could also point out that they also sell "vitamins" (not exactly something you would expect from a more, well, mainstream site.)

However, the main point is still relevant: a private or company web site does not have the same standards for ensuring quality as a peer reviewed scientific journal.

...additionally, perhaps you didn't note the affiliations of the 8 authors of your linked study... all employees of Monsanto.

I never denied that. (In fact, it mentioned Monsanto right on the very first page as well.)

But as I mentioned before... even if it was paid for by Monsanto... even if Monsanto employees worked on it... even if the crops were grown personally by the president of Monsanto and watered with the tears of a thousand children... the article was still peer reviewed. That means somewhere along the line, experts from outside the company reviewed the work and had no problem with it.

The article by HJ had no such peer review. And, as I pointed out, there were problems with it.

Do you even know what the term 'peer reviewed' paper actually means?

It means a scientific article which has been passed to other experts in the field for evaluation. They examine the paper for flaws, and if there are any problems with (for example) the methodology used in the experiments, the paper will get rejected. (Even if it was Montanto itself that was funding a study, those doing the reviews have nothing to do with the company.)

yours is quite a 'purist' definition of peer-reviewed.

And what exactly is your problem with the 'purist' definition?

Granted, there can be a little more complexity... different journals may have more or less reputation (even if they're all considered "peer reviewed"), and mistakes do get made. But, 'Nature' is one of the more reputable journals, with a strong reputation and a large reader base. They published an article that gave roughly equivalent levels of various nutrients in GM vs. Non-GM foods.

Here's another reference. This one was posted on a web site run by the University of California. It included multiple references to various peer reviewed journals, government and international organizations pointing out similar results, that the nutritional content of GM vs. Non-GM foods does not vary significantly:

http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=30

again, I am not taking up the validity of the study reference posted by MLW member 'Hudson Jones'. You also could have/should have identified your actual source that steered you to the Nature study as well as provided you with a few of your 'sound-bites'... the 'Monsanto Blog'

While I did encounter the "monsanto blog", its rather irrelevant, since the study itself was published in a peer reviewed journal. And while the blog did discuss some problems, I still 1) made sure it was accurate by consulting the peer reviewed study, and 2) made sure I stated things in my own words.

While I'm not a chemist or botanist, I did take a lot of courses in chemistry and biology, both at the high school and university level. As such, I do have a basic understanding of the flaws in the reference provided by HJ.

(edited to fix tags)

Edited May 30, 2013 by segnosaur

segnosaur · May 30, 2013

Not only the product, but the process is patented as well I believe. Anyone else engaging in GMO could be subject to copy-write and patent infringement lawsuits from Monsanto. You cannot do anything legally without that license from Monsanto.

Actually already happened.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/13/monsanto-patent-grain-biotechnology-soybeans-supreme-court/2116333/

The court ruled unanimously that an Indiana farmer violated Monsanto's patent on genetically modified soybeans when he culled some from a grain elevator and used them to replant his own crop in future years.

Ummm... I really don't think you understand the specifics of that case.

The farmer in question was not doing "original GMO research". Instead, he was taking crops that came from seeds provided by Monsanto, spraying them with roundup, and harvesting the survivors as his own version of "roundup ready" crops.

He wasn't doing anything new or unique.He wasn't doing any genetic manipulation. He thought he found a loophole in a law, but found that the loophole didn't exist.

What kind of future is in store for us if and when all seeds are GMO and you cannot obtain organic or 'heirloom' seeds?
So, I will say again that many if not most of the seed companies out there carry a Monsanto product. Dekalb, Pioneer, and others are all owned/affiliated with Monsanto.

You know, I really think you're over-estimating Monsanto's ability to dominate the market.

There are still plenty of seed companies out there that provide organic or conventional seeds. A 2 minute search with google found these:

http://www.organicxseeds.com/oxs/static/pdf/SupplierCropgroupUK.pdf (dozens of organic seed companies in the UK)

http://www.organicgrains.ncsu.edu/cropproduction/seedsuppliers.htm

It should also be noted that despite the uproar over GM foods, its actually used in very few crops... most crops farmers grow use are produced the conventional way. (See: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted)

So, organic/conventional seeds are not going to disappear any time soon. And if Monsanto gets too greedy and drives up the price, what will happen? Farmers will realize that the improved crop yields are not worth the added expense. If farmers have been using Monsanto products, its because they find it works better for them.

TimG · May 30, 2013

What kind of future is in store for us if and when all seeds are GMO and you cannot obtain organic or 'heirloom' seeds?

That will only happen if their no demand for organic or 'heirloom' seeds. Nothing stops vendors from selling them.

You are providing incentives to Monsanto, when the incentives should go to the farmer. No longer can they save seeds for next years crops.

If they want to save seeds like they did 100 years ago they should use the plant strains that they used 100 years ago.

Personally, I think that laws preventing farmers from replanting seeds are good for sustainability because it means Monsanto does not feel the need to make their products sterile. That means when the patents run out they can be used freely.

segnosaur · May 30, 2013

Sorry, overlooked a few things in my previous post...

You are providing incentives to Monsanto, when the incentives should go to the farmer.

Actually, both the farmers and Monsanto benefit...Monsanto because it gets to sell its seeds; the farmers because they end up with a better crop (either pesticide resistant, more durable or in some way "improved"). This gives them more produce to sell at the end of the year.

Now, if you don't allow Monsanto to protect their work through patents and contracts, a farmer could just take Monsanto seed and continually replant it. Monsanto would have no incentive to produce additional products if they didn't have some method for enforcing contracts related to its use. (And while I'm sure you'll be all happy with the idea of Monsanto being pushed out of business like that, there are a lot of farmers who actually would like having new GMO varieties at their disposal.

No longer can they save seeds for next years crops. Breaking the centuries old chain of sustainability.

The problem with that argument... farmers had already started shifting away from the idea of saving seeds, and had started purchasing from seed companies years before Monsanto ever sold its first GMO seed.

From: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.

By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century.

Once you get into a Monsanto product, you are locked into their guidelines. Using anything but Monsanto pesticides on Monsanto seeds could be seen as a violation of their patent.

Depends on the terms of the contract... If the contract says "use seeds in a certain way", then the farmer is obligated to follow those terms. If the farmer doesn't like those terms, then he does not have to sign the contract. He is still able to go to a conventional seed producer.

You have any proof that Monsanto requires Monsanto pesticides to be used on their seeds?

segnosaur · May 31, 2013

Hey, how's this for a compromise....

We require food producers to label any products with GMO food, but we get to let them choose the wording of the label. Here's my suggestion: Use the exact phrase "This product contains foods that every reputable major food organization has found to be completely safe. Furthermore, you're far less likely to get food poisoning from this food than eating 'organic' food".

Unlike simply sticking the label "GMO" on it, at least the above label actually tells you valuable information. (And its true... you're roughly 8 times more likely to get sick from eating organic produce than you are from eating conventionally produced food.) And hey, if you really want to avoid GM food, at least you know what to look for on the package.

Think Greenpeace would go for it?

Archanfel · May 31, 2013

Hey, how's this for a compromise....

We require food producers to label any products with GMO food, but we get to let them choose the wording of the label. Here's my suggestion: Use the exact phrase "This product contains foods that every reputable major food organization has found to be completely safe. Furthermore, you're far less likely to get food poisoning from this food than eating 'organic' food".

Unlike simply sticking the label "GMO" on it, at least the above label actually tells you valuable information. (And its true... you're roughly 8 times more likely to get sick from eating organic produce than you are from eating conventionally produced food.) And hey, if you really want to avoid GM food, at least you know what to look for on the package.

Think Greenpeace would go for it?

I am fine with it if the company stand behind that statement (with no fine prints). I wouldn't write that if I was the company. It brings no benefits since most consumers wouldn't understand it and it put the company in a legally binding position. In fact, it's likely the consumers will not understand that sentence and be scared off.

Hudson Jones · May 31, 2013

Next, in a few years, some people will be up in arms because others will be asking and expecting companies to label meat that have come from animals which have been genetically modified and pumped with steroids. Like chickens with 6 breasts. Mmmm!

Edited May 31, 2013 by Hudson Jones

Hudson Jones · May 31, 2013

Monstanto spends millions a year doing their own favourable research, buying research labs in order to control their findings, paying millions to doctors to come out as experts who support Monsanto, paying millions to squash unfavourable internet links and pushing up favourable pro-monsanto links into the top 10 pages of google. Let's not forget the millions they pay political prostitutes around the world in order to protect them from those pesky 'tree huggers' and 'leftists' and 'liberals' and 'vegetarians' and 'sean penn'.

I wonder why there are people here who are being their mouth piece for free.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Hudson Jones

GostHacked · June 2, 2013

Well with the recent discovery that GMO wheat was found in the USA meant for exports, Japan and others said the are not importing wheat from the USA.

Now here is the thing to understand. Organic simply does NOT exist in the pure sense these days.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-wheat-control-idUSBRE94U06H20130531

The questions arose after the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday that it was investigating the mysterious appearance of experimental, unapproved genetically engineered wheat plants on a farm in Oregon. The wheat was developed years ago by Monsanto Co to tolerate its Roundup herbicide, but the world's largest seed company scrapped the project and ended all field trials in 2004.

The incident joins a score of episodes in which biotech crops have eluded efforts to segregate them from conventional varieties. But it marks the first time that a test strain of wheat, which has no genetically modified varieties on the market, has escaped the protocols set up by U.S. regulators to control it.

Experimental strains that Monsanto discontinued are now showing up. I don't see how people think this stuff can be experimented on in an environment that will ensure cross contamination. Also it seems in the USA that most of their wheat is intended for export, therefore not GMO, because countries like Japan won't import it.

A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2008 highlighted several gaps in regulations designed to prevent genetically altered crops from escaping test plots.

The report's conclusions were based on USDA data that there were 712 violations of its regulations from 2003 to 2007, including 98 that could lead to a possible release of unauthorized crops.

There are many countries that will not import GMO foods. What do they know that we don't?

Many international buyers will not accept genetically modified grain, and several U.S. food companies also reject GMOs. When Monsanto in 2004 shelved its Roundup Ready wheat research, the move came amid a backlash from foreign buyers who said they would reject U.S. wheat if DNA-altered wheat was commercialized.

Wilber · June 3, 2013

Just wondering how people feel about eating food that has been sprayed with Roundup and other herbicides.

bush_cheney2004 · June 3, 2013

Roundup is a glyphosate enzyme inhibitor, one of the most commonly used family of herbicides used on the planet. I would be far more concerned by the lack of food than eating residual amounts on ag crops. Glyphosates in sufficient quantity are toxic or fatal when consumed by humans.

Wilber · June 3, 2013

Roundup is a glyphosate enzyme inhibitor, one of the most commonly used family of herbicides used on the planet. I would be far more concerned by the lack of food than eating residual amounts on ag crops. Glyphosates in sufficient quantity are toxic or fatal when consumed by humans.

We already eat foods that have been sprayed with pesticides, now we can get a dose of herbicides as well. Bonus.

bush_cheney2004 · June 3, 2013

We already eat foods that have been sprayed with pesticides, now we can get a dose of herbicides as well. Bonus.

Right, but we're not insects or plants. There is certainly some toxicological risk at some level, but there is no direct evidence of widespread harm because of glyphosate usage since the 1970's. Crop yields would certainly suffer without pesticides and herbicides, so for now the risk reward equation supports continued usage.

Those who don't wish to eat food produced in such a way can choose other sources, but even those methods still have "natural" risks for health and safety.

Wilber · June 3, 2013

Right, but we're not insects or plants. There is certainly some toxicological risk at some level, but there is no direct evidence of widespread harm because of glyphosate usage since the 1970's. Crop yields would certainly suffer without pesticides and herbicides, so for now the risk reward equation supports continued usage.

Those who don't wish to eat food produced in such a way can choose other sources, but even those methods still have "natural" risks for health and safety.

This is different, until GMO's came along hebicides like Roundup could not be used on the crops themselves. Roundup would be used to get rid of weeds before planting, not applied to the crop itself. DDT was used for decades before it's long term effects were realized.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Wilber

bush_cheney2004 · June 3, 2013

This is different, until GMO's came along hebicides like Roundup could not be used on the crops themselves. Roundup would be used to get rid of weeds before planting, not applied to the crop itself. DDT was used for decades before it's long term effects were realized.

Two different issues...ingesting produce grown in soil treated with pre-emergent herbicides or treated directly because of gene resistance. Banning DDT had a very negative effect on the control of malaria, resulting in many more deaths.

To answer your question directly, and this goes for many aspects of modern food production, the risks are not yet defined or high enough to offset the benefits in yield, efficiencies, and food safety. People would be aghast at the methods for food production and storage just 100 years ago compared to today. With such a huge population of food consumers, I have adopted a herd mentality when it comes to such things, waiting for the first "victims" to sound the alarm and potential problem.

Wilber · June 3, 2013

Roundup is only effective when applied to actively growing vegitation not by treating the soil. Weed comtrol is possible without using herbicides on the stuff we actually eat. This is a matter of economics, not maximizing food production.

Anyway, getting back to the original question, I don't see any reason why people shouldn't know whether their food has been geneticaly modified and therefore in all likelyhood sprayed with herbicides.