Anti-GMO activists should be purged from the Earth with fire! :angry:
Lots of embedded links within this article
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate0/2013/02/gm_food_golden_rice_will_save_millions_of_people_from_vitamin_a_deficiency.single.html
Quote
The Deadly Opposition to Genetically Modified Food
Vitamin A deficiency has killed 8 million kids in the last 12 years. Help is finally on the way.
By Bjørn Lomborg|Posted Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013, at 7:30 AM
Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods, so-called "golden rice" with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?
Golden rice is the most prominent example in the global controversy over GM foods, which pits a technology with some risks but incredible potential against the resistance of feel-good campaigning. Three billion people depend on rice as their staple food, with 10 percent at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which, according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year. A study from the British medical journal the Lancet estimates that, in total, vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the age of 5 each year.
Yet, despite the cost in human lives, anti-GM campaigners—from Greenpeace to Naomi Klein—have derided efforts to use golden rice to avoid vitamin A deficiency. In India, Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist and adviser to the government, called golden rice "a hoax" that is "creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it."
The New York Times Magazine reported in 2001 that one would need to "eat 15 pounds of cooked golden rice a day" to get enough vitamin A. What was an exaggeration then is demonstrably wrong now. Two recent studies in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition show that just 50 grams (roughly two ounces) of golden rice can provide 60 percent of the recommended daily intake of vitamin A. They show that golden rice is even better than spinach in providing vitamin A to children.
Opponents maintain that there are better ways to deal with vitamin A deficiency. In its latest statement, Greenpeace says that golden rice is "neither needed nor necessary," and calls instead for supplementation and fortification, which are described as "cost-effective."
To be sure, handing out vitamin pills or adding vitamin A to staple products can make a difference. But it is not a sustainable solution to vitamin A deficiency. And, while it is cost-effective, recent published estimates indicate that golden rice is much more so.
Supplementation programs costs $4,300 for every life they save in India, whereas fortification programs cost about $2,700 for each life saved. Both are great deals. But golden rice would cost just $100 for every life saved from vitamin A deficiency.
Similarly, it is argued that golden rice will not be adopted, because most Asians eschew brown rice. But brown rice is substantially different in taste and spoils easily in hot climates. Moreover, many Asian dishes are already colored yellow with saffron, annatto, achiote, and turmeric. The people, not Greenpeace, should decide whether they will adopt vitamin A-rich rice for themselves and their children.
Most ironic is the self-fulfilling critique that many activists now use. Greenpeace calls golden rice a "failure," because it "has been in development for almost 20 years and has still not made any impact on the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency." But, as Ingo Potrykus, the scientist who developed golden rice, has made clear, that failure is due almost entirely to relentless opposition to GM foods—often by rich, well-meaning Westerners far removed from the risks of actual vitamin A deficiency.
Regulation of goods and services for public health clearly is a good idea; but it must always be balanced against potential costs—in this case, the cost of not providing more vitamin A to 8 million children during the past 12 years.
As an illustration, current regulations for GM foods, if applied to non-GM products, would ban the sale of potatoes and tomatoes, which can contain poisonous glycoalkaloids; celery, which contains carcinogenic psoralens; rhubarb and spinach (oxalic acid); and cassava, which feeds about 500 million people but contains toxic cyanogenic alkaloids. Foodstuffs like soy, wheat, milk, eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, sesame, nuts, peanuts, and kiwi would likewise be banned, because they can cause food allergies.
Here it is worth noting that there have been no documented human health effects from GM foods. But many campaigners have claimed other effects. A common story, still repeated by Shiva, is that GM corn with Bt toxin kills Monarch butterflies. Several peer-reviewed studies, however, have effectively established that "the impact of Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly populations is negligible."
Greenpeace and many others claim that GM foods merely enable big companies like Monsanto to wield near-monopoly power. But that puts the cart before the horse: The predominance of big companies partly reflects anti-GM activism, which has made the approval process so long and costly that only rich companies catering to First World farmers can afford to see it through.
Finally, it is often claimed that GM crops simply mean costlier seeds and less money for farmers. But farmers have a choice. More than 5 million cotton farmers in India have flocked to GM cotton, because it yields higher net incomes. Yes, the seeds are more expensive, but the rise in production offsets the additional cost.
Of course, no technology is without flaws, so regulatory oversight is useful. But it is worth maintaining some perspective. In 2010, the European Commission, after considering 25 years of GMO research, concluded that "there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms."
Now, finally, golden rice will come to the Philippines; after that, it is expected in Bangladesh and Indonesia. But, for 8 million kids, the wait was too long.
True to form, Greenpeace is already protesting that "the next 'golden rice' guinea pigs might be Filipino children." The 4.4 million Filipino kids with vitamin A deficiency might not mind so much.
The article is a strawman, there's already more than enough food in the world to give everyone a decent varied diet, it's just badly disturbed.
Whatever the pros and cons of GM modified food and it may well have a role to play, but its silly to say opposition to it directly kills millions.
Waste, unaffordable prices, poor logistics and now price manipulation play a real part in causing malnutrition, hunger and starvation.
Its stupid all around.
Its stupid to point fingers and its stupid to opposite GMO in the first place. If you don't agree with it, don't eat it.
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2013, 06:09:35 PM
The article is a strawman, there's already more than enough food in the world to give everyone a decent varied diet, it's just badly disturbed.
Whatever the pros and cons of GM modified food and it may well have a role to play, but its silly to say opposition to it directly kills millions.
Waste, unaffordable prices, poor logistics and now price manipulation play a real part in causing malnutrition, hunger and starvation.
Price manipulation? What are you talking about?
And why is it that the GM claim is silly, but not the waste, unaffordable prices, poor logistics and price manipulation(!?). Why are those real and GM is silly?
Because.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2013, 06:25:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2013, 06:09:35 PM
The article is a strawman, there's already more than enough food in the world to give everyone a decent varied diet, it's just badly disturbed.
Whatever the pros and cons of GM modified food and it may well have a role to play, but its silly to say opposition to it directly kills millions.
Waste, unaffordable prices, poor logistics and now price manipulation play a real part in causing malnutrition, hunger and starvation.
Price manipulation? What are you talking about?
And why is it that the GM claim is silly, but not the waste, unaffordable prices, poor logistics and price manipulation(!?). Why are those real and GM is silly?
Yi, you don't seem to be as widely read as you think, why not google, it's been a major news story for the last couple of years.
I'll help you out, why not start here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/barclays-stops-speculative-agricultural-commodity-trading-2-.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/barclays-stops-speculative-agricultural-commodity-trading-2-.html)
Because those are real, to repeat my point, there's already enough food in the world for everyone, but those and other factors result in poor distribution ie fat westerners, thin African, Asians and Latin Americans.
Yes, the claim that the anti-GM crowd is dirrectly responsible for killing millions is silly, just as Timmays OTT comment is.
It is a bit of a silly claim. I guess they're trying to tap into the commonly repeated thing about the green revolution saving millions.
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2013, 06:25:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2013, 06:09:35 PM
The article is a strawman, there's already more than enough food in the world to give everyone a decent varied diet, it's just badly disturbed.
Whatever the pros and cons of GM modified food and it may well have a role to play, but its silly to say opposition to it directly kills millions.
Waste, unaffordable prices, poor logistics and now price manipulation play a real part in causing malnutrition, hunger and starvation.
Price manipulation? What are you talking about?
And why is it that the GM claim is silly, but not the waste, unaffordable prices, poor logistics and price manipulation(!?). Why are those real and GM is silly?
Yi, you don't seem to be as widely read as you think, why not google, it's been a major news story for the last couple of years.
I'll help you out, why not start here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/barclays-stops-speculative-agricultural-commodity-trading-2-.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/barclays-stops-speculative-agricultural-commodity-trading-2-.html)
Because those are real, to repeat my point, there's already enough food in the world for everyone, but those and other factors result in poor distribution ie fat westerners, thin African, Asians and Latin Americans.
Yes, the claim that the anti-GM crowd is dirrectly responsible for killing millions is silly, just as Timmays OTT comment is.
That says nothing about how price speculation affects world hunger.
Quote from: chipwich on February 17, 2013, 07:10:35 PM
That says nothing about how price speculation affects world hunger.
It does show how immoral selfish scumbags try to make money be speculating on food sold to rich westerners.
However, the GMO free status that european states demand for allowing imports from third world countries have resulted in some former european colonies banning GMOs preventing them from taking part in the modern food trade, while it allows them to continue their colonial era food trade.
Quote from: Viking on February 17, 2013, 07:20:29 PM
Quote from: chipwich on February 17, 2013, 07:10:35 PM
That says nothing about how price speculation affects world hunger.
It does show how immoral selfish scumbags try to make money be speculating on food sold to rich westerners.
No it doesn't.
Your thread is stupid Tim.
For one thing, not a one of the people who have died are in any way valuable. Third-world trash remains third-world trash forever.
Also, wouldn't general inequality have killed far, far more people than the lack of patented foodstuffs.
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
Yi, you don't seem to be as widely read as you think, why not google, it's been a major news story for the last couple of years.
I'll help you out, why not start here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/barclays-stops-speculative-agricultural-commodity-trading-2-.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/barclays-stops-speculative-agricultural-commodity-trading-2-.html)
Being snotty is a luxury reserved for people who are right. Your link has nothing to do with agricultural price manipulation.
I guess I don't get the anti-GM food arguments.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2013, 06:00:19 PM
Anti-GMO activists should be purged from the Earth with fire! :angry:
Who the fuck else is going to help control the earth's untenable population boom? The derfetuss crowd? Fuck you.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2013, 10:26:30 PM
I guess I don't get the anti-GM food arguments.
"Its unnatural and involves science we don't understand therefore it scares us"
What I find particularly funny about the anti-gm idiots is they moan on and on about how dangerous GM is and the risks of it spreading into the wild....yet they're always the ones who destroy all the fences and protective netting around the GM crops thus allowing them to spread.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2013, 10:51:43 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2013, 06:00:19 PM
Anti-GMO activists should be purged from the Earth with fire! :angry:
Who the fuck else is going to help control the earth's untenable population boom? The derfetuss crowd? Fuck you.
Birth rate is dropping everywhere, it won't be a problem beyond the short term.
Quote from: Viking on February 17, 2013, 07:20:29 PM
Quote from: chipwich on February 17, 2013, 07:10:35 PM
That says nothing about how price speculation affects world hunger.
It does show how immoral selfish scumbags try to make money be speculating on food sold to rich westerners.
However, the GMO free status that european states demand for allowing imports from third world countries have resulted in some former european colonies banning GMOs preventing them from taking part in the modern food trade, while it allows them to continue their colonial era food trade.
Commodities trading doesn't affect the food supply--it's a essentially a bet about the size of the future supply of a particular item.
Coal kills thousands every year when we could use nuclear instead.
Quote from: Tyr on February 17, 2013, 11:04:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2013, 10:26:30 PM
I guess I don't get the anti-GM food arguments.
"Its unnatural and involves science we don't understand therefore it scares us"
What I find particularly funny about the anti-gm idiots is they moan on and on about how dangerous GM is and the risks of it spreading into the wild....yet they're always the ones who destroy all the fences and protective netting around the GM crops thus allowing them to spread.
Not really. There are several layers to it, ranging from luddite to pretty valid concerns, many of them having more to do with farming than consumption.
And then there is the issue of non-reproducing crops, which could lead to quick Malthusian disasters.
While I do not support an outright ban, this is not a simple matter either and requires quite a comprehensive regulation. And the fact that a number of big GMO producers have acted quite dishonestly in the past does not help trusting them either.
Quote from: dps on February 17, 2013, 11:25:47 PMCommodities trading doesn't affect the food supply.
Of course it does. Assuming the commodity is not quickly perishable (storage-prepared soybeans are a good example), it's a normal practice to try to strangle the supply by buying low and then not selling on before prices go up. :huh:
That's like economy 101.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2013, 10:26:30 PM
I guess I don't get the anti-GM food arguments.
Smart Rich Happy people make it so it must be Imperialism.
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2013, 02:21:38 AM
Quote from: dps on February 17, 2013, 11:25:47 PMCommodities trading doesn't affect the food supply.
Of course it does. Assuming the commodity is not quickly perishable (storage-prepared soybeans are a good example), it's a normal practice to try to strangle the supply by buying low and then not selling on before prices go up. :huh:
That's like economy 101.
It's the part of Economics 101 that deals with monopolies.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2013, 10:26:30 PM
I guess I don't get the anti-GM food arguments.
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
Want to keep seed from last years crop to plant next years crop? Cant do that. You need to buy the seed every year from the GM seed company. Trying to produce your own GM seed from their product is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
The net result. More expensive seed = more expensive product.
Now for the real kick in the nuts. Because of the way in which the US subsidizes its food market (particularly grains) those poor starving folks cant begin to compete in their markets. The result is hunger where there should be plenty.
And Yi, that is the kind of price manipulation I think Mongers is talking about. As discussed in the other thread. US food policy has had dramatic impacts on the world for a very long time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 07:31:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2013, 02:21:38 AM
Quote from: dps on February 17, 2013, 11:25:47 PMCommodities trading doesn't affect the food supply.
Of course it does. Assuming the commodity is not quickly perishable (storage-prepared soybeans are a good example), it's a normal practice to try to strangle the supply by buying low and then not selling on before prices go up. :huh:
That's like economy 101.
It's the part of Economics 101 that deals with monopolies.
Yeah, that is a good reason to stop the massive subsidies given to US food producers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
And Yi, that is the kind of price manipulation I think Mongers is talking about.
Then he picked a very strange link to try to make his point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:20:46 PM
Yeah, that is a good reason to stop the massive subsidies given to US food producers.
I don't follow.
I guess the guys who made the orange carrot had their patent expire a long time ago.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 04:21:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:20:46 PM
Yeah, that is a good reason to stop the massive subsidies given to US food producers.
I don't follow.
Your answer of how monopolies are broken only holds if the market is not distorted.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 04:24:00 PM
I guess the guys who made the orange carrot had their patent expire a long time ago.
To be more correct, there was no patent on food until GM food made its debut.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 04:21:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
And Yi, that is the kind of price manipulation I think Mongers is talking about.
Then he picked a very strange link to try to make his point.
I assume that is what he was talking about since that is the standard argument.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 04:24:00 PM
I guess the guys who made the orange carrot had their patent expire a long time ago.
They forgot to pay the lobbyists.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
Yeah, but the part that you leave out is that it's all your fault, lawyer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2013, 10:26:30 PM
I guess I don't get the anti-GM food arguments.
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
Want to keep seed from last years crop to plant next years crop? Cant do that. You need to buy the seed every year from the GM seed company. Trying to produce your own GM seed from their product is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
The net result. More expensive seed = more expensive product.
Now for the real kick in the nuts. Because of the way in which the US subsidizes its food market (particularly grains) those poor starving folks cant begin to compete in their markets. The result is hunger where there should be plenty.
And Yi, that is the kind of price manipulation I think Mongers is talking about. As discussed in the other thread. US food policy has had dramatic impacts on the world for a very long time.
Has the rate of starvation around the globe increased or decreased since GM food came onto the market?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:48:40 PM
Your answer of how monopolies are broken only holds if the market is not distorted.
No it doesn't.
The EU ag market is without doubt very distorted through subsidies and import tarrifs. Yet I'm unaware of any single actor enjoying monopoly pricing power. There might be an exception for that Italian dairy or yogurt company.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
Want to keep seed from last years crop to plant next years crop? Cant do that. You need to buy the seed every year from the GM seed company. Trying to produce your own GM seed from their product is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
Seems rather unlikely that they'd be able to enforce these laws in third world countries.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 18, 2013, 05:30:44 PM
Seems rather unlikely that they'd be able to enforce these laws in third world countries.
They'd just hire gangs to murder farmers that didn't pay them.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 18, 2013, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
Want to keep seed from last years crop to plant next years crop? Cant do that. You need to buy the seed every year from the GM seed company. Trying to produce your own GM seed from their product is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
Seems rather unlikely that they'd be able to enforce these laws in third world countries.
lol, you missed the point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2013, 10:26:30 PM
I guess I don't get the anti-GM food arguments.
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
Want to keep seed from last years crop to plant next years crop? Cant do that. You need to buy the seed every year from the GM seed company. Trying to produce your own GM seed from their product is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
The net result. More expensive seed = more expensive product.
Now for the real kick in the nuts. Because of the way in which the US subsidizes its food market (particularly grains) those poor starving folks cant begin to compete in their markets. The result is hunger where there should be plenty.
And Yi, that is the kind of price manipulation I think Mongers is talking about. As discussed in the other thread. US food policy has had dramatic impacts on the world for a very long time.
Wow, that does sound really lame.
Somehow though I am doubtful that most of the anti-gm hysteria is down to such well thought out hate the business not the science reasons.
Quote from: Tyr on February 18, 2013, 06:50:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2013, 10:26:30 PM
I guess I don't get the anti-GM food arguments.
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
Want to keep seed from last years crop to plant next years crop? Cant do that. You need to buy the seed every year from the GM seed company. Trying to produce your own GM seed from their product is a violation of their intellectual property rights.
The net result. More expensive seed = more expensive product.
Now for the real kick in the nuts. Because of the way in which the US subsidizes its food market (particularly grains) those poor starving folks cant begin to compete in their markets. The result is hunger where there should be plenty.
And Yi, that is the kind of price manipulation I think Mongers is talking about. As discussed in the other thread. US food policy has had dramatic impacts on the world for a very long time.
Wow, that does sound really lame.
Somehow though I am doubtful that most of the anti-gm hysteria is down to such well thought out hate the business not the science reasons.
You are probably correct. I doubt very many people realize the kind of food monopoly that is being created. Its another good example of misdirect hysteria missing the point.
I'd still like some evidence that this has caused, "hunger instead of plenty".
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2013, 02:21:38 AM
Quote from: dps on February 17, 2013, 11:25:47 PMCommodities trading doesn't affect the food supply.
Of course it does. Assuming the commodity is not quickly perishable (storage-prepared soybeans are a good example), it's a normal practice to try to strangle the supply by buying low and then not selling on before prices go up. :huh:
In this scenario, what happens to the price when the hoarder resells before the product spoils?
Storage isn't free either. That strategy has limited utility.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
From the Bowman v. Monsanto oral argument:
QuoteJUSTICE KAGAN: So that -- you know, seeds can be blown onto a farmer's farm by wind, and all of a sudden you have Roundup seeds there and the farmer is infringing . . .So it seems as though -- like pretty much everybody is an infringer at this point, aren't they?
MR. WAXMAN: Certainly not . . . with soybeans, the problem of blowing seed is not an issue for soybeans. Soybeans don't -- I mean, it would take Hurricane Sandy to blow a soybean into some other farmer's field. And soybeans, in any event, are -- you know, have perfect flowers; that is, they contain both the pollen and the stamen, so that they -- which is the reason that they breed free and true, unlike, for example, corn.
The point that there may be many farmers with respect to other crops like alfalfa that may have some inadvertent Roundup Ready alfalfa in their fields may be true, although it's -- it is not well documented. There would be inadvertent infringement if the farmer was cultivating a patented crop, but there would be no enforcement of that.
The farmer wouldn't know, Monsanto wouldn't know, and in any event, the damages would be zero because you would ask what the reasonable royalty would be, and if the farmer doesn't want Roundup Ready technology and isn't using Roundup Ready technology to save costs and increase productivity, the -- the royalty value would be zero.
I've heard this windblown seed argument made before - but are there any actual cases where penalties were imposed on such a person?
I don't get how the windblown argument for royalties works here. In effect the GM windblown crops are weeds. Even if all parties knew I don't see how the farmer is liable for royalties. It's like Netflix demanding you pay for the movie your neighbor watched because the volume was so loud you couldn't not hear it and the screen was so big you couldn't not see it.
I thought this was interesting, including the back and forth discussion in the comments:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2013, 11:34:00 AM
I don't get how the windblown argument for royalties works here. In effect the GM windblown crops are weeds. Even if all parties knew I don't see how the farmer is liable for royalties. It's like Netflix demanding you pay for the movie your neighbor watched because the volume was so loud you couldn't not hear it and the screen was so big you couldn't not see it.
Or someone infecting my computer with a virus and demanding I pay royalties.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2013, 04:21:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2013, 11:34:00 AM
I don't get how the windblown argument for royalties works here. In effect the GM windblown crops are weeds. Even if all parties knew I don't see how the farmer is liable for royalties. It's like Netflix demanding you pay for the movie your neighbor watched because the volume was so loud you couldn't not hear it and the screen was so big you couldn't not see it.
Or someone infecting my computer with a virus and demanding I pay royalties.
This will probably happen in the future.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2013, 11:24:56 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
From the Bowman v. Monsanto oral argument:
QuoteJUSTICE KAGAN: So that -- you know, seeds can be blown onto a farmer's farm by wind, and all of a sudden you have Roundup seeds there and the farmer is infringing . . .So it seems as though -- like pretty much everybody is an infringer at this point, aren't they?
MR. WAXMAN: Certainly not . . . with soybeans, the problem of blowing seed is not an issue for soybeans. Soybeans don't -- I mean, it would take Hurricane Sandy to blow a soybean into some other farmer's field. And soybeans, in any event, are -- you know, have perfect flowers; that is, they contain both the pollen and the stamen, so that they -- which is the reason that they breed free and true, unlike, for example, corn.
The point that there may be many farmers with respect to other crops like alfalfa that may have some inadvertent Roundup Ready alfalfa in their fields may be true, although it's -- it is not well documented. There would be inadvertent infringement if the farmer was cultivating a patented crop, but there would be no enforcement of that.
The farmer wouldn't know, Monsanto wouldn't know, and in any event, the damages would be zero because you would ask what the reasonable royalty would be, and if the farmer doesn't want Roundup Ready technology and isn't using Roundup Ready technology to save costs and increase productivity, the -- the royalty value would be zero.
I've heard this windblown seed argument made before - but are there any actual cases where penalties were imposed on such a person?
Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing. I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.
Quote from: Viking on February 20, 2013, 11:34:00 AM
I don't get how the windblown argument for royalties works here. In effect the GM windblown crops are weeds. Even if all parties knew I don't see how the farmer is liable for royalties. It's like Netflix demanding you pay for the movie your neighbor watched because the volume was so loud you couldn't not hear it and the screen was so big you couldn't not see it.
Yes that would be a defence. And probably a good basis for a claim in nuisance if one did not want GM seed contaminating their crops.
But this kind of litigation is expensive and it is difficult for a lone farmer to stand against the GM manufacturing corporation.
Cue Neil's kill all the lawyers comment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 11:51:34 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2013, 11:24:56 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 18, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
One good argument is the intellectual property rights the GM seed producers have and the extent to which they go to enforce it. Have a farm close to a GM farm that has had cross contamination because the seed from your neighbours plot got blown onto yours? Too bad, you now owe the GM seed producer royalities.
From the Bowman v. Monsanto oral argument:
QuoteJUSTICE KAGAN: So that -- you know, seeds can be blown onto a farmer's farm by wind, and all of a sudden you have Roundup seeds there and the farmer is infringing . . .So it seems as though -- like pretty much everybody is an infringer at this point, aren't they?
MR. WAXMAN: Certainly not . . . with soybeans, the problem of blowing seed is not an issue for soybeans. Soybeans don't -- I mean, it would take Hurricane Sandy to blow a soybean into some other farmer's field. And soybeans, in any event, are -- you know, have perfect flowers; that is, they contain both the pollen and the stamen, so that they -- which is the reason that they breed free and true, unlike, for example, corn.
The point that there may be many farmers with respect to other crops like alfalfa that may have some inadvertent Roundup Ready alfalfa in their fields may be true, although it's -- it is not well documented. There would be inadvertent infringement if the farmer was cultivating a patented crop, but there would be no enforcement of that.
The farmer wouldn't know, Monsanto wouldn't know, and in any event, the damages would be zero because you would ask what the reasonable royalty would be, and if the farmer doesn't want Roundup Ready technology and isn't using Roundup Ready technology to save costs and increase productivity, the -- the royalty value would be zero.
I've heard this windblown seed argument made before - but are there any actual cases where penalties were imposed on such a person?
Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing.
However, investigation shows that this is a myth - Monsanto has not in fact sued anyone for "this very thing" at all, but instead has sued when they think that farmers have intentionally used their seed against their patents. And no damages have been assessed where it has been shown that any use of Monsanto's seeds was inadvertent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 11:51:34 AM
Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing. I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.
Could you perhaps find the farmers and show their individual cases? Not to be rude, but "I saw it in a movie", isn't exactly the best evidence.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 11:51:34 AM
Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing. I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.
Could you perhaps find farmers and show their individual cases? Not to be rude, but "I saw it in a movie", isn't exactly the best evidence.
Not best evidence, but, like the example from Gasland and any Michael Moore movie, sufficient for the unwashed masses.
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 12:45:16 PM
However, investigation shows that this is a myth - Monsanto has not in fact sued anyone for "this very thing" at all, but instead has sued when they think that farmers have intentionally used their seed against their patents. And no damages have been assessed where it has been shown that any use of Monsanto's seeds was inadvertent.
:lol:
I am glad you are so willing to believe the bona fides of Monsanto's investigation which determined that farmers "intentionally" commited a wrongful act.
Quote from: Viking on February 21, 2013, 12:49:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 11:51:34 AM
Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing. I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.
Could you perhaps find farmers and show their individual cases? Not to be rude, but "I saw it in a movie", isn't exactly the best evidence.
Not best evidence, but, like the example from Gasland and any Michael Moore movie, sufficient for the unwashed masses.
I qualify as an "unwashed mass", and this is insufficient.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 11:56:53 AM
Cue Neil's kill all the lawyers comment.
Yep. Bad bad lawyers are bad.
Then go take a shower, Razz. The weather is no excuse :)
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 21, 2013, 12:49:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 11:51:34 AM
Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing. I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.
Could you perhaps find farmers and show their individual cases? Not to be rude, but "I saw it in a movie", isn't exactly the best evidence.
Not best evidence, but, like the example from Gasland and any Michael Moore movie, sufficient for the unwashed masses.
I qualify as an "unwashed mass", and this is insufficient.
Well, you are a self declared gullible neophite.....
The really sad thing about neo-luddism and religious fundamentalism (in the original sense, not the modern one) is that their claims are so dubious and baseless a little learning can easily quash them all... but these claims remain because people value comfort and happiness over truth.
It doesn't help the anti-Monsanto argument that seemingly the one case of he said she said that was tested by a third party came back with 50-75% IP-protected soy beans.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 01:40:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 12:45:16 PM
However, investigation shows that this is a myth - Monsanto has not in fact sued anyone for "this very thing" at all, but instead has sued when they think that farmers have intentionally used their seed against their patents. And no damages have been assessed where it has been shown that any use of Monsanto's seeds was inadvertent.
:lol:
I am glad you are so willing to believe the bona fides of Monsanto's investigation which determined that farmers "intentionally" commited a wrongful act.
I don't have to trust Monsanto - we have courts who rule on such things.
And the courts have ruled for Monsanto, and against Monsanto. What I cannot find is a single example of what you claim happens - that Monsanto has forced someone to pay them damages under the circumstances you claim.
So lets see some evidence - you have made the positive claim that Monsanto has done this - can you provide a single credible example?
Quote from: Viking on February 21, 2013, 02:01:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 21, 2013, 12:49:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 11:51:34 AM
Watch the documentary Food Inc., they interviewed a number of farmers who have been sued by Monsanto for this very thing. I dont know of any decided cases but judging from the people interviewed in the documentary that is because none of these farmers can afford to continue the litigation and so eventually they all settle.
Could you perhaps find farmers and show their individual cases? Not to be rude, but "I saw it in a movie", isn't exactly the best evidence.
Not best evidence, but, like the example from Gasland and any Michael Moore movie, sufficient for the unwashed masses.
I qualify as an "unwashed mass", and this is insufficient.
Well, you are a self declared gullible neophite.....
The really sad thing about neo-luddism and religious fundamentalism (in the original sense, not the modern one) is that their claims are so dubious and baseless a little learning can easily quash them all... but these claims remain because people value comfort and happiness over truth.
We have a saying in Missouri: "Show me." Comes from an old quote ""I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me." "
The solution to the wind blown problem - if it truly exists - is simple. Courts can simply throw out cases where the defense is proven, and then use their authority under Section 285 to award attorney's fees to the farmer. Since Monsanto's lawyer has already stated to the Supreme Court that Monsanto should not prevail in such cases, it shouldn't be a problem.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2013, 04:30:52 PM
The solution to the wind blown problem - if it truly exists - is simple. Courts can simply throw out cases where the defense is proven, and then use their authority under Section 285 to award attorney's fees to the farmer. Since Monsanto's lawyer has already stated to the Supreme Court that Monsanto should not prevail in such cases, it shouldn't be a problem.
The entire claim that Monsanto is suing farmers who have their seed in their fields that was blown there by wind is just so fucking stupid.
I mean - why would Monsanto do something that dumb? I get the whole "ZOMG TEH CORPOATE EVIL GIANT IS OUT TO SCREW US ALL" thing that is so very cool, but doesn't that at least assume that the evil corporate monster is evil in a rational, intelligent manner?
What does Monsanto have to gain by suing their customers for NOT taking their product?
Weird. I'm with Berkut on this. Shame he don't know that, though.
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 02:25:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 01:40:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 12:45:16 PM
However, investigation shows that this is a myth - Monsanto has not in fact sued anyone for "this very thing" at all, but instead has sued when they think that farmers have intentionally used their seed against their patents. And no damages have been assessed where it has been shown that any use of Monsanto's seeds was inadvertent.
:lol:
I am glad you are so willing to believe the bona fides of Monsanto's investigation which determined that farmers "intentionally" commited a wrongful act.
I don't have to trust Monsanto - we have courts who rule on such things.
And the courts have ruled for Monsanto, and against Monsanto. What I cannot find is a single example of what you claim happens - that Monsanto has forced someone to pay them damages under the circumstances you claim.
So lets see some evidence - you have made the positive claim that Monsanto has done this - can you provide a single credible example?
Lets examine your assertion you dont have to trust Monsanto.
Your first post said that Monsanto only sues farmers when Monsanto determines that they ought to be sued and implicit in your statement is the assumption that Monsanto's judgment is correct and therefore ought to be trusted.
Now lets turn to your second assumption - that the courts are there to tell Monsanto if they are wrong. You are, of course, ignoring the significant cost of defending one of these cases.
So tell me again you dont have to trust Monsanto...
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2013, 04:30:52 PM
The solution to the wind blown problem - if it truly exists - is simple. Courts can simply throw out cases where the defense is proven, and then use their authority under Section 285 to award attorney's fees to the farmer. Since Monsanto's lawyer has already stated to the Supreme Court that Monsanto should not prevail in such cases, it shouldn't be a problem.
The entire claim that Monsanto is suing farmers who have their seed in their fields that was blown there by wind is just so fucking stupid.
I mean - why would Monsanto do something that dumb? I get the whole "ZOMG TEH CORPOATE EVIL GIANT IS OUT TO SCREW US ALL" thing that is so very cool, but doesn't that at least assume that the evil corporate monster is evil in a rational, intelligent manner?
What does Monsanto have to gain by suing their customers for NOT taking their product?
I am very surprised that JR is making the same fundamental error as Berkut. That an individual farmer can afford to get the case "thrown out".
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 22, 2013, 01:56:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 21, 2013, 04:30:52 PM
The solution to the wind blown problem - if it truly exists - is simple. Courts can simply throw out cases where the defense is proven, and then use their authority under Section 285 to award attorney's fees to the farmer. Since Monsanto's lawyer has already stated to the Supreme Court that Monsanto should not prevail in such cases, it shouldn't be a problem.
The entire claim that Monsanto is suing farmers who have their seed in their fields that was blown there by wind is just so fucking stupid.
I mean - why would Monsanto do something that dumb? I get the whole "ZOMG TEH CORPOATE EVIL GIANT IS OUT TO SCREW US ALL" thing that is so very cool, but doesn't that at least assume that the evil corporate monster is evil in a rational, intelligent manner?
What does Monsanto have to gain by suing their customers for NOT taking their product?
I am very surprised that JR is making the same fundamental error as Berkut. That an individual farmer can afford to get the case "thrown out".
I am surprised you don't understand how courts work...oh wait, no I am not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 22, 2013, 01:55:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 02:25:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 21, 2013, 01:40:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 21, 2013, 12:45:16 PM
However, investigation shows that this is a myth - Monsanto has not in fact sued anyone for "this very thing" at all, but instead has sued when they think that farmers have intentionally used their seed against their patents. And no damages have been assessed where it has been shown that any use of Monsanto's seeds was inadvertent.
:lol:
I am glad you are so willing to believe the bona fides of Monsanto's investigation which determined that farmers "intentionally" commited a wrongful act.
I don't have to trust Monsanto - we have courts who rule on such things.
And the courts have ruled for Monsanto, and against Monsanto. What I cannot find is a single example of what you claim happens - that Monsanto has forced someone to pay them damages under the circumstances you claim.
So lets see some evidence - you have made the positive claim that Monsanto has done this - can you provide a single credible example?
Lets examine your assertion you dont have to trust Monsanto.
Your first post said that Monsanto only sues farmers when Monsanto determines that they ought to be sued and implicit in your statement is the assumption that Monsanto's judgment is correct and therefore ought to be trusted.
Now lets turn to your second assumption - that the courts are there to tell Monsanto if they are wrong. You are, of course, ignoring the significant cost of defending one of these cases.
So tell me again you dont have to trust Monsanto...
I don't have to trust Mosanto.
Please provide the requested example of Mosanto suing a farmer for having seeds that were blown into their field.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 22, 2013, 01:56:28 PM
I am very surprised that JR is making the same fundamental error as Berkut. That an individual farmer can afford to get the case "thrown out".
That's a problem entirely independent of GMO or the state of patent law. It's always true that a wealthy litigant can bring a bogus lawsuit against a not-so-wealthy person and try to intimidate the latter into giving in for lack of resources. But this particular situation happens to a case where that risk is actually lesser than usual because federal patent law -- unlike most of the rest of US law - does permit fee shifting. Also because farmers tend to be somewhat more resourced than other ordinary joe types - say like immigrants or public assistance recipients who do in fact get screwed pretty regularly by the legal system, a fact which raises a fraction of the decibel level of faux outrage and fashionable documentaries than this rather outlandish scenario concerning Monsanto satellites tracking flying Frankenseeds.
The reality of course is that most large corporations try to structure their legal departments to minimize litigation, which is an expense that drags on the bottom line. Commencing a mass campaign of bogus lawsuits is not usually an attractive option for an institution.
You know, legal arguments aside, I'm not 100% convinved on the morality of patenting life.
Quote from: Neil on February 23, 2013, 10:00:34 AM
You know, legal arguments aside, I'm not 100% convinved on the morality of patenting life.
DNA is code, my main objection to patenting it is that is probably should be copywrited instead.
What is patented is the process which uses coded organisms or parts of organisms.
The problem here is a case of reversing into the expanded circle of sentiments. The attribution of some special properties to a large definition of life has come to bite us in the arse. Life isn't what we thought it was and what we colloquially think it is. All matter exists on a continuum and there really isn't a line in that continuum where you have life on one side and non-life on the other. The more we know about genetics and neurology the more we see that life isn't a thing at all, it is merely one end of the spectrum of chemical interactions.
To be blunt a fuel refinery is more like life than it is like inorganic chemistry.
Don't patents expire a lot quicker then copywriter? If so I think it's a good deal. I think I've got strong lefty credentials here, but I'm not seeing the evil corporation narrative working here. Maybe it's because I see GM foods as a fundamentally good thing. Maybe cause Monsanto is based in this state. Maybe cause I haven't seen any real evidence of maleficence here.
I can well imagine without seeing it that the documentary CC referred to is chock-full of salt of the earth farmers swearing on a stack of bibles that any Roundup Ready soybeans that got on their fields were wind blown, and I can well imagine it's full of earnest, bearded law school professors and passionate anti-GM activists eloquently explaining the impossibility of a hard working middle class family farmer defending himself in court against Monsanto's battery of high powered corporate attorney's. I can also well imagine that the only proof of the farmers' innocence they offer is their word.
That's why I find it so convincing that a writer for NPR (who's lefty credentials are none too shabby either) documents that in the one recognized case of an impartial, credible third party testing the farmer's claim they found 50-75% Roundup Ready beans on the farmer's field. That's a big ass wind.
I had generally accepted the claims of wind blown seeds and evil Monsanto up to reading that NPR blog; now it's up to the anti-Monsanto folks to put verifiable proof on the table.
The biggest thing for me is simply that the idea that this company would do this is preposterous.
I mean, the people the company would be suing would be their own customers. Monsanto sells seed to farmers - that is their business. Pissing off farmers with completely absurd lawsuits, even if they could get away with it because the poor farmers can't afford to defend themselves, would be...stupid. What would be the point? To nefariously extract a couple bucks from the poor farmer? Remember, this is a farmer that is so poor they cannot even defend themselves from completely farcical lawsuits.
For every farmer Monsanto forces to settle, how many would never buy their product again?
It simply makes no sense at all. Suing your customers is something companies do as a last resort, not as a way to make a little extra on the side of their primary business, which is to make money actually selling stuff to their customer base.
On the other hand, I can certainly see how this makes such a great story for people who don't care to think too much about what great little stories they are fed - it has all the right elements. The poor, family farmer struggling to get by. The giant mega-corp with their super tech product and battalions of high priced lawyers preying on the little guys.
It is just so...obvious. How are people so fucking gullible? Just because something sounds like something you want to hear doesn't make it true.
Supreme Court ruled for Monsanto in the Bowman case, 9-0.
Quote from: Tyr on February 17, 2013, 06:52:22 PM
It is a bit of a silly claim. I guess they're trying to tap into the commonly repeated thing about the green revolution saving millions.
I just noticed this. You can't possibly deny that the Green Revolution has saved hundreds of millions of people.
Lomborg is a hack and so is Timmy.
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 06:22:45 PM
Lomborg is a hack and so is Timmy.
Timmay is a hack, but Lomborg asks some hard questions you need to at least give serious answers to be able to be considered a serious person on the topic of dealing with climate change.