Happy farmers, court ruling.

The terminator gene would protect the GMO product but what about protecting the non-GMO farmer from contamination of his crops?

I admit that I'm wary of GMO claims. I think that there should be a lot more testing.

If the companies that create GMO products are concerned only about improving agriculture, why do they sue farmers who plant GMO tainted seed, when the GMO strains are what contaminated the non-GMO farmer's seed? Frankly I would sue the GMO farmer.

So yeah, put me in the anti-GMO, anti- corporate control of our food chain camp.

I also am not Happy, I still think some of the GMO`s are what is killing our bee`s, but that is my opinion.That and all the sprays. >Thanks Marc

__________________
Our Diversified Stock Portfolio: cows and calves, alpacas, horses, pigs, chickens, goats, sheep, cats ... and a couple of dogs...
http://springvalleyfarm.4mg.com

While I think it was dumbed down and weak, I would recommend the GM supporters check out "Food Inc" as it does overall present a decent argument for staying clear of one supplier/non harvestable seed sources.
And they never even got into the environmental ramifications of multiple glyphosate applications.

I live next to a field (owned by FIL & rented to a twerp) where Roundup ready corn & soybeans are grown year after year. It may be more profitable for the twerp, however weeds get bigger and better every year, so since we don't spray, we have to live with them. He sprays the weeds before planting & once or twice after and then all the noxious weeds (illegal) grow into the fall and spread their seeds for the next circle of life. Roundup only kills the stuff long enough for the crops to grow & then the weeds run rampant. I hate GMOs & Monsanto, but we are doomed. If they would label all food that contained GMOs then we would be getting somewhere. People could choose, but instead, Monsanto rules the world.

__________________
Cindy in PA

Are you saying the weeds sprayed with Roundup are becoming super weeds and you have a worse weed problem because of that? Hardly. If twerp's weeds were tolerent of Roundup and you were depending on Roundup to quell your weed problem, then, maybe.

The fact that the weeds are supressed only to the point of securing a crop, that isn't news. Farmers that use mechanical cultivation have been doing that for a hundrd years.

Not much of the GMO crop goes into human comsumption.

As long as feelings rule this debate it'll never end. Find the facts and educate yourself. Don't be a dupe for the urban myths.

People have not been sued for keeping the seeds of crops that were infected from neighbors GMO crops. That's what they are saying, after being caught violating the agreemant they signed about not replanting the product from their patented GMO seeds. Those farmers were caught selling their crop for replanting in direct violation to that agreement.

I don't agree with those types of agreements, but if you sign it, you become liable.

Becides, very, very few farmers save their seed for planting next year. They buy seed from seed companies. Have for a hundred years. It is called hybridization.

If anyone is replanting the soybeans harvested along the fence row of a GMO crop, we all know their intent.

Then where is it going? Are the animals we eat eating it?

I wonder how those opposed to GMO production propose to handle the increase in soil erosion were we to no longer have GMO seed? Also, how would you propose to handle the significant increase in fuel usage that would be required to produce the same amount of food without GMO seed?

This absolutely not true!!!! You need to do your research try googling Percy Schmeiser. He saved his own seeds for 30 years and lost all that work due to pollen drift from GMO canola.

Again do some research: raising crops organically does not cause soil eroison, it builds up soil. Once the soil fertility is restored organic crops produce as much or more than GMO's. GMO's actually produce less and less over the years as weeds become resistant and require more petroleum based fertilizers as the soil is depleted.

Are you against modern fertilizers as well as GMO seed varieties? Is your position that plowing, disking, harrowing, seeding, and cultivating twice cause less soil erosion than spraying, seeding and perhaps spraying again without disturbing the soil surface?

No-till min till have enjoyed much success recently due to the emergence of herbicides and plants bred to be resistant to them
No till and min till allow the organic matter of the soil to be replenished, they reduce soil erosion by allowing farmers to forgo the moldboard plowing that used to be required to quell weeds or even certain hay crops.
The stuff you're blathering has little to do with actual modern farming practices.

__________________
Deja Moo; The feeling I've heard this bull before.

That's totally false. He obtained enough seed from a another farmer to plant over 1,000 acres of RR canola in a single year and was found guilty of doing so. The only thing not determined was who he bought the seed from.

Martin

I'd say maybe you need to get out more.

These people have an enormous farm where they grow wheat chemical free. So it is perfectly possible. "Modern farming practices" don't mean the best farming practices you know! These people not only raise their crops in the best possible way they also make more money off them.

http://www.wheatmontana.com/about.php

What have you read to back that up?
Here is a link to percentages of GM crops planted by State, up to 2009:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops/

GM Soy for example in 2009, per the USDA ranged from 83% to 98% of planted beans. That doesn't leave much non-GM soy available for all the human food uses that soy, in one form or another is used for:
soy flour, TVP, soy bean oil, soy protein isolate, soy lecithin, etc......Then start over for corn and all its derivatives that is in food. Anyone can google soy or corn and their derivatives in human food and find plenty of info.

I don't think this is totally black and white...GMO=evil, non-GMO=good. I also do not think that this is a case of "emotions" versus the thinking man (my words). I do think that the results are not in and it may be a long time before anyone knows the true answers. What concerns me is that there are a bunch of highly educated scientists, researchers, and others NOT associated with Monsanto who are seeing problems, potential problems and hypothesizing future problems in a very non-emotional manner.

That is not true, you must be thinking of somebody else. He won in his settlement with Monsanto.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

Nope, that's the crook that I was thinking of!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

And here's some of the facts which can not be disputed in that case:

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_tod..._schmeiser.asp

All of that information is available from reputable sources.

Martin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...._v._Schmeiser

__________________

Paquebot you work for Monsanto right? I keep forgetting that....

From another wiki link on the actual case:

As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Schmeiser first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[2] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...ser.27s_fields

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Monsanto, saying that plant genes and modified cells can be patented. However, the court ruled the Schmeisers free of damages.

More of the genetically modified canola seeds appeared in the Schmeiser's field the following year. They pulled the plants out themselves and sent Monsanto a bill for $660.

Monsanto agreed to pay the costs associated with removing the canola seeds in 2005, but the Schmeisers refused the offer because the company insisted the couple sign a release stating they would not talk about the terms of the agreement.

"That release was a gag order", Mr. Schmeiser said. "We could never talk to anyone for the rest of our lives about what the terms of the settlement were. There was no way we were going to give up our freedom of speech to a corporation."

The Schmeisers filed a claim against Monsanto in small claims court. On March 19, 2008, Monsanto agreed out of court to pay the Schmeisers the $660 in settlement of their case without them signing the release. According to Mr. Schmeiser, "By settling out of court, Monsanto now realizes the seriousness of the liability issue."
http://www.naturalnews.com/022918.html

Stephanie, you are correct. Animals are eating it, lots and lots of it. Yummmmm.

I guess it is a matter of how far you want to take it.
Is a chicken organic if it eats only organic feed? How about the seed from that organic feed? Must that seed be organic? How far back do you need to go?

If there is no difference in the meat from that chicken and the meat from a chicken fed non-organic, there is no chemical residue, down to the billionth particle, is it the same?

If there is no difference in the meat from that chicken and the meat from a chicken fed GMO grains, tested down to the strructure of the cells in every bite of meat, is it the same?