When will it die? Monsanto myths

Here is some of the skinny, when you look at the links, of the 3 trials.

If anything on this page is "Monsanto lies", I guess Percy could always sue them for libel.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pa...schmeiser.aspx

well if you want to get technical, a cross breed with a GMO is no more patented then the non patented parent. it may contain material that was protected under original patent but is not the original patent!
Patent and copy right laws have been perverted so much I'm all for tossing the bunch and leave it to the wind to decide... No pun intended!

In many circles, rapeseed and canola are interchangeable.

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

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

Martin

Monsanto is a person too, your hurting their feelings. Did you send them a Christmas card?

yup but the lawyers influence and the Judge directs... Courts are not perfect and never have been more so when you mix in the local feel of things.

Now perhaps the judge and prosecuting lawyer hang in the same circle?

Unheard of , I think not!

Let's put this myth to bed:

the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's 1998 crop

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do
From the Canadian Supreme Court:” 2 In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize from the outset that we are not concerned here with the innocent discovery by farmers of “blow-by” patented plants on their land or in their cultivated fields. Nor are we concerned with the scope of the respondents’ patent or the wisdom and social utility of the genetic modification of genes and cells — a practice authorized by Parliament under the Patent Act and its regulations.”
In other words, we aren’t talking about any pollen drift, we aren’t talking about how GMO is created or how fair patents are.
Further down, “5 In the 1990s, many farmers, including five farmers in Mr. Schmeiser’s area, switched to Roundup Ready Canola, a canola variety containing genetically modified genes and cells that have been patented by Monsanto. Canola containing the patented genes and cells is resistant to a herbicide, Roundup, which kills all other plants, making it easier to control weeds. This eliminates the need for tillage and other herbicides. It also avoids seeding delays to accommodate early weed spraying. Monsanto licenses farmers to use Roundup Ready Canola, at a cost of $15 per acre.
6 Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. They may have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser’s land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and cell. The trial judge found that “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s crop ((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118).
Sounds like the Court isn’t believing that a thousand acres of RR Canola “just happened”.
“63 A Monsanto investigator took samples of canola from the public road allowances bordering on two of Mr. Schmeiser’s fields in 1997, all of which were confirmed to contain Roundup Ready Canola. In March 1998, Monsanto visited Mr. Schmeiser and put him on notice of its belief that he had grown Roundup Ready Canola without a license. Mr. Schmeiser nevertheless took the harvest he had saved in the pick-up truck to a seed treatment plant and had it treated for use as seed. Once treated, it could be put to no other use. Mr. Schmeiser planted the treated seed in nine fields, covering approximately 1,000 acres in all.”

To answer your question in the OP-seems it will end when you say so.

Boy do I agree with that.

The amount of misinformation that is spread around just because somebody sees it on the net OH MY IT MUST be true. Well that is so far from the truth. It is laughable at times. Pass the popcorn ah better yet pass the Orville Redenbacher Microwave Popcorn that is. LOL
And I am just gonna do that, as it will go down so nicely while reading all this.

__________________
Oh my, dishes yet to wash and dry

See My Pictures at
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/0903/arabianknight/

You can start here and then work through all of the reference links, the final court decision being the first one.

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

Martin

In some circles, yes. Some countries, namely in Europe, did not change the name when Canadian plant breeders perfected the new low erucic acid, low glucosinolate, low saturated fat cultivars, which became known as canola. Some decided to leave the name as rapeseed, even though it is actually canola. More or less the same plant, but much different oil qualities.

To the original question, it seems there are many myths, and people don't want to abandon them, or learn any about the topic.

Opinions on the topic are great, but I sure wish folks would learn more about it.

The Canadian canola farmer is a good example - you just look at the math, and his story doesn't hold up. It's obvious he was trying to breed the gmo crop he got, math tells us so.

Now, like many of you, I disagree with the patent laws, I don't think we should patent life forms. Bur that is the current law, and so that is what we have.

I also avoid the big company name brand products, I buy generic glyphosate nearly all the time. A non-Monsanto version of their Roundup.

As well I buy my seeds mostly from a small local seed grower.

I have no investment nor care in or about Monsanto.

Paul

(Edit - I found I answered an older message that was already covered, and so totally rewrote this message into something else. Hope that doesn't mess up the first person that 'liked' this, as its total different message now.)

We don't want to spend untold hours chasing a story (on both sides) when we have goats to milk, horses to train, dogs to love on, and end of the year bookkeeping to do.

Unless a person decides to become an activist, there is no way this discussion or my thoughts on it will affect ANYONE, the situation, the people DIRECTLY involved, or the long term mutation of our gene pool.

The goats await. Thank goodnes.

__________________
Alice
* * *
"No great thing is created suddenly." ~Epictitus

From your earlier comment, “Stirring the pot on the day after Christmas, eh? I hope NO ONE else posts here.”, can I assume you find this topic controversial or troubling? Sounds like your mind is made up and you seek to shutter the light of truth and render this post stillborn.
Then there were nearly two pages of comments, many supporting the myth, but including a few posts from people that had actual “on the ground” facts.
After reading Lazy J’s comment/request, I posted the Canadian Supreme Court Report web site and pertinent paragraphs that clearly show that this wasn’t a case of errant pollen infecting his crop, I thought that would settle this decade old myth. But when faced with facts that could threaten a myth that some seem to cling to, it becomes too time consuming to bother with.
I wondered when this Monsanto myth would die. You have answered that question. It seems that when a lie fits our belief system, you shield yourself from the truth.

[/QUOTE] I wondered when this Monsanto myth would die. You have answered that question. It seems that when a lie fits our belief system, you shield yourself from the truth.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Oh please. Did you not read all the posts on you own thread? Most of the people answered your question very simply. When the makers of GMOs will allow testing on there products BEFORE they are put into use, we'll be better informed to make a decision.

I wondered when this Monsanto myth would die. You have answered that question. It seems that when a lie fits our belief system, you shield yourself from the truth.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Oh please. Did you not read all the posts on you own thread? Most of the people answered your question very simply. When the makers of GMOs will allow testing on there products BEFORE they are put into use, we'll be better informed to make a decision.[/QUOTE]

OK, I haven't covered Monsanto's GMO testing. That is complex topic. But can you at least accept the myth about Monsanto's suit against the Canola farmer for pollen drift is false?

BTW, the belief that Monsanto only did 3 months testing on GMO is another myth. If we can agree that the Canola myth is dead, we can move on to one of the other myths.

Lol!!

I really wouldn't give a flying rat's fanny because I have no power to affect the outcome. There is no rule that says I have to get my panties in a wad about things that other folks care about. This does not mean I have no opinion or ignore the discussion.

I find reading these types of threads entertaining from the psychological, rhetorical, debate student point of view. Humans are interesting creatures.

__________________
Alice
* * *
"No great thing is created suddenly." ~Epictitus

Your previous posts in this thread contradict you last post.
Do want to discuss the Canola myth or are you busy milking your goats? Power to affect the outcome? I'm just asking about myths. Are you willing to accept the fact that there are people that spread myths about that Canola lawsuit and in truth, the farmer broke the law and wasn't a victim of pollen drift as ACRES mag claims?
I don’t have a dog in this fight, either. I live in an area that grows crops that are currently unavailable in GMO versions. But I am a big fan of truth.

At least what you believe to be true. A lot of people follow other "truths". And no one but God and the big gmo companies know the real truth.

Any who, I though I would toss in this pic to lighten the mood some. It was just sent to me and I thought it was too funny not to pass on. Lol

I'm disappointed in you, Alice. You seem to be more of a straight shooter than this.

The myths live on, belief is more real than actual truths.

Human nature certainly is puzzling.

Paul