Get Sued If You Save Your Own Seed !

[fishinwrench]

I'm pretty convinced that Monsanto has made ENOUGH money already.

[jdmidwest]

There are many things in life you buy that you never own. The software running your computer is not yours, it still remains the property of Microsoft and you have a license to use it with their stipulations. You buy a car, but you still pay for the taxes on it year after year, same with a house or any other personal property.

Genetically altered seeds, hybrids, etc, are designed for a one shot use for the most part and not good for seed crop the next year except in controlled environments. But unless you breed the same genes back into the seeds with no pollution from other neighbors crops, the seed is altered and, it is not really the same design as the one you bought. But you could take their genes, make your own cross, and make a better product than what they offered last year. You could sell the seed and make a profit off of their design and your research, so technically, they own part of your product.

What is the issue? I think this only affects large farms, not the everyday backyard gardener. Companies spend alot of money to design a seed to produce a crop with x design. X design may be performance, resistance to a disease, resistance to a climate, or a whole new plant all together. Monkeying with plants seems acceptable to most, it is when you alter mammalian life, it raises eyebrows.

[fishinwrench]

mammalian

Dude, did you just invent a word ?

It's ok to call you "dude", right ? I had a "MAN" jump me for that once.

[Chief Grey Bear]

No he didn't make it up. But remember, he is a self proclaimed Google expert.

Are you sure it was a man that jumped you??? Is this that kind of forum???

[denjac]

Japan has banned the use and importing of geneticly altered seeds and there products. They said they were going to study the United States children for 10 years before they gave it a thumbs up.

[denjac]

What is the issue? I think this only affects large farms, not the everyday backyard gardener. Companies spend alot of money to design a seed to produce a crop with x design. X design may be performance, resistance to a disease, resistance to a climate, or a whole new plant all together. Monkeying with plants seems acceptable to most, it is when you alter mammalian life, it raises eyebrows.

One of the guys in the story had a canola field. He didnt plant with Monsanto seed. He had some volunteer canola that was Monsanto come up from a neighbors field across the road. When Monsanto sampeled his plants ( they just come and do it dont ask for permission) and found a few of theres in the bunch they sued him. He didnt want it on his place. Monsanto won the case. I just think thats wrong . I am more worried about the health aspect of it more than the other. I feel they need to label all vegetable products and let us make the choice. What would you guys choose to eat ?

[3wt]

Turns out monsanto isn't a charity. Whether or not you like the fact that they make money is irrelavant. Buy a product if you like it, don't if you don't. Farmers like the product, they see the benefit. If they want more of the same technology then putting Monsanto out of business dosn't make much sense.

I'm all for fair marketing of engineered crops. I'm not so sure that the health "concerns" are anything but a reaction of ignorance, but it's everybody's right to do what they want.

Why shouldn't genetic material be patented? Do you understand that it's not natural genetic material, but engineered? They're not just claiming something in nature to be their own, but they are combining genes from one organism into another. If you can't patent that, nobody will ever do it - and all fearmongering aside, there are benefits to the world that you would throw away.

This argument has to be more than wanting monsanto to put up a ton of money and work (that nobody else could or did do in the beginning) and then expect them to give it away and go away. Seed saving is a thing of the past and has been since f1 hybrids. This is a non issue for just about anybody that is not trying to steal. I feel for the guys that get sued for incidental seed spillage or hybridizing engineered genes from normal pollination, but blame the government. If monsanto doesn't protect their patent against all violators, they will loose the right to protect it at all. It's the way it works, and they didn't invent it.

And yes mammalian is a word like reptilian, avian etc.

[3wt]

And google golden rice some time. Ignorance at it's best. It's better to let kids die than to feed them a crop modified with nutrients that would save them. Did anybody bother to ask the dying kids?

[denjac]

I'm all for fair marketing of engineered crops. I'm not so sure that the health "concerns" are anything but a reaction of ignorance, but it's everybody's right to do what they want.

.

Ignorance ? I think not.

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD-A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK

Genetically engineered foods containing genes derived from bacteria and viruses are now starting to appear in the shops, and foods with insect, fish, and animal genes will soon follow. These genetic changes are radically different from those resulting from traditional methods of breeding. Yet, the sale of these foods is being permitted without proper assessment of the risks and without adequately informing the public, even though many scientists say that genetically modified foods could cause serious damage to health and the environment.

WHAT IS GENETIC ENGINEERING?

Genes are the blueprints for every part of an organism. Genetic engineering is the process of articficially modifying these blueprints. By cutting and splicing DNA-genetic surgury-genetic engineers can transfer genes specific to one type of organism into any other organism on earth.

WHY DO IT?

Scientists want to transfer desirable qualities from one organism to another, for example, to make a crop resistant to an herbicide or to enhance food value.

IS IT NECESSARY?

At first sight it may seem appealing. However, closer examination reveals that commercial and political motives are taking precedence with little regard to the possible dangers. We already have the ability to feed the world's population without the risks posed by genetic engineering. Why subject humanity to these unnecessary risks?

WHAT ARE THE DANGERS? (Please see more detailed discussion below.)

Those identified so far include:

• New toxins and allergens in foods
• Other damaging effects on health caused by unnatural foods
• Increased use of chemicals on crops, resulting in increased contamination of our water supply and food
• The creation of herbicide-resistant weeds
• The spread of diseases across species barriers
• Loss of bio-diversity in crops
• The disturbance of ecological balance
• Artificially induced characteristics and inevitable side-effects will be passed on to all subsequent generations and to other related organisms. Once released, they can never be recalled or contained. The consequences of this are incalculable.WHAT IS THE SITUATION NOW?
  Genetically modified foods available, or about to appear, in U.S. markets include tomatoes, squash, yeast, corn, potatoes, and soybeans (which are used in 60 % of all processed foods, such as bread, pasta, candies, ice cream, pies, biscuits, margarine, meat products and vegetarian meat substitutes). Genetically modified organisms are also used to produce cheeses and canola oil. But this is just the beginning. In a few years it may be almost impossible to find natural food.
  The food industry and government appear to be complacent. They assume that these new foods are not substantially different from existing foods and pose no special risks. But this assumption is wrong and dangerous. The radical changes being made by biotechnologists could never happen in nature, and have already caused toxic side-effects. Current regulations require only minimal safety testing for some foods, and none at all for others. In no case do regulations require evaluation of long term impacts on health.
  Most genetically modified foods will not be labelled. Under present regulations manufacturers are already introducing genetically modified ingredients into many processed foods without informing consumers. The government is ignoring the wishes of the public. Surveys consistently find that 85-90% of consumers want clear labelling of all genetically engineered foods.
  
  DESPITE INTENDED BENEFITS, MANY TECHNOLOGIES PRODUCE DISASTROUS SIDE-EFFECTS.
  Increasingly, society is recognizing side-effects such as nuclear pollution, global warming, and the toxic effects of pesticides and herbicides. Medicines are often withdrawn because the side-effects turn out to be too poisonous. In every case, it has taken time for hazards to come to light and for action to be taken.
  Genetic engineering poses the greatest danger of any technology yet introduced. Because many of the damageing effects of genetic engineering are irreversible, we must prevent problems before they occur. The precautionary approach is essential if we are to protect ourselves, our children, and all generations to come. We must take action now, if we want to prevent an avalanche of genetically engineered foods from inundating the market and placing virtually everyone at risk.
  
  WE MUST ACT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
  Genetically engineered foods are being introduced without due regard for health, yet many damaging effects will be irreversible.
  
  
  What is needed
  
  TO PROTECT OUR HEALTH:
  
  
  • Any food produced through genetic engineering should be banned until scientifically shown to be safe and safe for everyone.
  • In the meantime, labeling should be required for any food that contains even one genetically engineered ingredient, or that has been produced using genetically modified organisms or enzymes.
  • Full disclosure labelling will allow consumers to choose what they eat. It will also help scientists trace the source of health problems arising from these foods.
    
    
    • All applications of genetic engineering should be banned that carry the risk of accidental or intentional release of genetically modified organisms into the environment.
      
      
    • Write to members of Congress, food producers, supermarkets, the press and consumer groups, expressing your concern and enclosing this leaflet.
    • Make copies of this document for friends, family, colleagues, students, trades unions, clubs and societies. Alert everyone to the dangers.
    DANGERS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

    The scientific facts demonstrating the need for an immediate worldwide ban

    Because living organisms are highly complex, genetic engineers cannot possibly predict all of the effects of introducing new genes into them. This is the case for even the simplest bacterium, not to mention more complex plants and animals.

    THIS IS BECAUSE:

    [*]the introduced gene may act differently when working within its new host[*]the original genetic intelligence of the host will be disrupted[*]the new combination of the host genes and the introduced gene will have unpredictable effects; and therefore[*]there is no way of knowing the overall, long-term effect of genetically engineered foods on the health of those who eat them.

    THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME OF THE FACTS:

    [*]Unnatural gene transfers from one species to another are dangerous. Biotechnology companies erroneously claim that their manipulations are similar to natural genetic changes or traditional breeding techniques. However, the cross-species transfers being made, such as between fish and tomatoes, or between other unrelated species, would not happen in nature and may create new toxins, diseases, and weaknesses. In this risky experiment, the general public is the guinea-pig.[*]Biotechnology companies also claim their methods are precise and sophisticated.

    In fact, the process of inserting genes is quite random and can damage normal genes. Genetic research shows that many weaknesses in plants, animals, and humans have their origin in tiny imperfections in the genetic code. Therefore, the random damage resulting from gene insertion will inevitably result in side-effects and accidents. Scientists have assessed these risks to be substantial. (Refs: Palmiter, R.D. et al (1986) ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENETICS 20: 465; Inose, T. et al (1995) INT. JOUR. FOOD SCIENCE TECH. 30:141.)[*]Unpredictable health damaging effects.

    When genetic engineers insert a new gene into any organism there are "position effects" which can lead to unpredictable changes in the pattern of gene expression and genetic function. The protein product of the inserted gene may carry out unexpected reactions and produce potentially toxic products. There is also serious concern about the dangers of using genetically engineered viruses as delivery vehicles (vectors) in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. This could destabilise the genome, and also possibly create new viruses, and thus dangerous new diseases. (Refs: Green, A.E. et al (1994) SCIENCE 263:1423; Osbourn, J.K. et al (1990) VIROLOGY 179:921.)[*]Genetically engineered products carry more risks than traditional foods.

    The process of genetic engineering can thus introduce dangerous new allergens and toxins into foods that were previously naturally safe. Already, one genetically engineered soybean was found to cause serious allergic reactions, and bacteria genetically engineered to produce large amounts of the food supplement, tryptophan, have produced toxic contaminants that killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 more. (Refs: Nordlee, J.A. et al (1996) THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 688; Mayeno, A.N. et al (1994) TIBTECH 12:364.)[*]Increased pollution of food and water supply.

    More than 50% of the crops developed by biotechnology companies have been engineered to be resistant to herbicides. Use of herbicide-resistant crops will lead to a threefold increase in the use of herbicides, resulting in even greater pollution of our food and water with toxic agrochemicals. (Ref: Goldberg, R.J. (1994) WEED TECHNOLOGY 6:647.)[*]Health-damaging effects caused by genetic engineering will continue forever.

    Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, genetic pollution is self-perpetuating. It can never be reversed or cleaned up; genetic mistakes will be passed on to all future generations of a species.[*]Inadequate government regulation.

    Biotech companies claim that government regulatory bodies will protect consumers. However DDT, Thalidomide, L-tryptophan, etc. were approved by U.S. regulators with tragic results. Recently it was found that 80% of supermarket milk contained traces of either medicines, illegal antibiotics used on farms, or hormones, including genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH). The facts show that regulators are not protecting the public adequately. (Ref: Epstein, S.S. (1996) INT. JOUR. HEALTH SERVICES, 26:173.)[*]Ethical concerns.

    Transferring animal genes into plants raises important ethical issues for vegetarians and religious groups. It may also involve animal experiments which are unacceptable to many people.[*]Gene transfer across species and competition from new species damaging the environment.

    When new genetic information is introduced into plants, bacteria, insects or other animals, it can easily be passed into related organisms, through processes such as cross pollination. This process has already created "super weeds". Existing species can also be displaced from the ecosystem with disastrous effects, as happened with genetically modified Klebsiella soil bacteria. (Ref: Holms, M.T. and Ingam, E.R. (1994) Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America (Supplement), 75:97)[*]Crops are now being engineered to produce their own pesticides.

    This will promote the more rapid appearance of resistant insects and lead to excessive destruction of useful insects and soil organisms, thus seriously perturbing the ecosystem. In addition, the pesticide produced by the plant may be harmful to the health of consumers. (Refs: Union of Concerned Scientists (1994) GENE EXCHANGE, 5:68; Mikkelsen, T.R. et al (1996) Nature 380:31; Skogsmyr, I. (1994) THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS 88:770; Hama, H. et al (1992) APPLIED ENTYMOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY 27:355.)

    GLOBAL THREAT TO HUMANITY'S FOOD SUPPLY

    Giant transnational companies are carrying out a dangerous global experiment by attempting to introduce large numbers of genetically engineered foods widely into our food supply. Because genetic manipulations can generate unanticipated harmful side-effects, and because genetically engineered foods are not tested sufficiently to eliminate those that are dangerous, this experiment, not only jeopardizes the health of individuals, but could also lead to national or even global food shortages and large-scale health threats.

    There is no logical scientific justification for exposing society to this risk, nor is it necessary to take this risk for the purpose of feeding humanity. It is only of benefit to the biotech industry, which will obtain short term commercial gains at the expense of the health and safety of the whole population. Tampering with the genetic code of food is reckless and poses a serious threat to life. It could easily upset the delicate balance between our physiology and the foods that we eat. There is already ample scientific justification for an immediate ban on genetically modified foods in order to safeguard our health.

    CAMPAIGN TO BAN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD

    For further information or to offer your support for this campaign, please contact <A href="mailto:jfagan@mum.edu">jfagan@mum.edu

    Also, for further information and solutions read:

    GENETIC ENGINEERING: THE HAZARDS, EVEDIC ENGINEERING: THE SOLUTIONS by John Fagan Ph.D. - an award-winning geneticist who returned his government grants and began new research inMaharishi's Vedic Science. To order, phone 800-831-6523. John B. Fagan, Ph.D.

    Professor of Molecular Biology

    Maharishi University of Management

    (Maharishi International University 1971 to 1995)

    1000 North Fourth Street

    Fairfield, Iowa, 52557-1078

    Phone(515) 472-8342

    Fax (515) 472-5725

    email jfagan@mum.edu

[3wt]

Uh, dude, your expert is from the Maharishi school of management. Which has been called more of a cult than a university. Just realize that most probably would not give that much credence.

I won't go into a point by point critique of your data dump, but most of it is not technically wrong, but misapplied. You can talk about position shift problems, unintended changes, etc with transgenic organisms, but these are problems of research, not really problems that plague successful outcomes. They are things that make it tough to develop a transgenic organism.

Seriously look at the study dates. 1986, 1994, 1995. The world of biotech is a different place since then. This is like looking at articles on the dangers of computers taking over the world from the 1950's. Sure they probably made good points, but most of them have been studied and we are quantum leaps from those days. You couldn't even transfer credits in biology classes from those days anymore. The state of life science is literally completely different than it was then.

Further, the conclusions he reaches are fuzzy at best. To say that there is a possibility of unknown toxins is true (or possible) but we would know. We can determine what is in food, and as far as I know, nobody is finding toxins that will build up in us if we keep eating the crops. That's like saying that if we discovered a new fruit, we would have to study it for 100 years before we could sell it. NO. We would test it and see what's in it and deterimine if it's safe.

This really is propaganda and infromation to scare the ignorant. I'm not accusing you of anything or trying to start a flame war, but this is not very legit information.