One thing to keep in mind is the line between traditionaly plant breeding and GMO is starting to blur in places, thanks to technologies like DNA sequencing traditional breeding programs can acheive in months or maybe a few years what once took many decades as they are no longer being bound by having to wait for seedlings to mature to confirm the presense of desired traits.
1 Like
In my opinion this is fear mongering that gives undue credibility to retail seed sellers that are way-over-the-top with their no-gmo advertising. Consider similar scenarios in other industries, for example GM manufactures both consumer vehicles and very deadly munition deliver systems. I don’t see anyone crying out to boycott GM on that basis.
DNA sequencing has no comparison with the practice of producing hybrids by cross pollination, nor does any U.S. regulatory agency consider them equivalent.
2 Likes
GM sells cars; seed companies sell food. One is a luxury; the other is essential to life. GM selling every last vehicle on the planet does not have the inherent risk of one company selling every last seed on the planet. If GM has government support in its enterprise to litigate against anyone who they consider to be a threat against its franchise it is not the same as one seed company having a similar type of government support. We have already seen the second scenario: Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser because their patented seed was found in his fields. One can believe Monsanto - xttp://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx or one can look at a “peer reviewed” assessment - xttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser
With regard to fear mongering, the GMO discussion is without a doubt a emotionally charged rant with little examination of the facts. Let’s start with Monsanto’s product - xttp://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/genuity-roundup-ready-canola.aspx: > “Genuity® Roundup Ready® canola contains in-plant tolerance to Roundup® agricultural herbicides and increases yield potential for canola farmers.” Let’s unbundle the product into it’s two pieces - the genetically engineered seed and the herbicide Roundup. We know that the use of Roundup has exploded. We know that Roundup alters soil biology - xttp://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/08/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-soil-damage and reduces soil fertility.
As to the genetically engineered seed, one can choose to accept Monsanto’s test results which were the basis of the EPA decision to approve the product and the FDA’s GRAS ruling - xttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/generally-recognized-as-safe/ or one can look at the internal memo’s of EPA scientists - xttps://web.archive.org/web/20020806082501/http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html,
If one chooses to accept Monsanto’s testing results, I would point to the tobacco industry - xttp://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full. No company is going to provide evidence that is anything less than positive. There was no independent testing of GMO products. There were no long term studies. Monsanto actively fights independent research - xttp://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html#.Vzb4gUIX6ZM
So why would a company knowingly sell a product that eventually will cost them money? Short term profits and cost-benefit analysis. It’s not new - xttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Cost-benefit_analysis.2C_the_Pinto_Memo
Apologies to all but the forum does not new members to have more than two links in a post so I have changed http to xttp.
1 Like
Please take your monsanto rant elsewhere.
1 Like
That article says nothing of the sort, it basically said Ford was screwed and didn’t deserve to be targeted. Nice try though!
From the internal Ford Pinto memo:
Re: Monsanto rant, this thread started out with “Let’s get the facts straight:”. I was just trying to do that with facts. If I’ve got any facts wrong in what I posted, I’d be happy to have them corrected.
DG
1 Like
This a site about fruit, vegetables and flowers, not car manufacturers.
Agreed. Too bad they were introduced into the thread about seeds.
1 Like
Everyone please remember the basic principles of our TOS and treat each other with respect while discussing, not arguing. the topic. Personal issues are better handled privately. Staff is mindful of this thread, and will be quick to lock it down if gets further out of hand.
@DGGreen , this is a friendly community of individuals interested in growing fruit. I encourage you to utilize the Introducing Myself to Scott’s Forum thread to tell us a little about yourself and your fruit growing interests. Also, join in some other friendly fruit growing discussions so that others may become familiar with you on more comfortable ground.
Thanks, all. Let’s get this discussion back on a friendly, cooperative track so that we can all learn from one other, and avoid getting it locked down.
1 Like
@MuddyMess_8a, thanks for the invitation to introduce myself. I’ve done so. It would seem that my detailed info on genetically engineered seeds and the companies that sell them aggravated some members. It’s a very polarizing subject and it certainly wasn’t my intention to polarize but rather to educate. I would hope that this is an open forum where the subject can be discussed/debated without ranting, name calling or straying into hyperbole, or at least, not too far into hyperbole…
1 Like
That’s exactly what we strive for. 
There are many well educated members here who hold varying well thought out opinions on subjects. It’s a normal reaction for people to become defensive of their community when a stranger steps into a hot topic conversation without introduction. I hope you participate in and enjoy the more relaxing threads as well the occasional touchy ones.
I agree, I did not bring the subject up. I just saw a huge misconception, and spreading of a myth against a very good company. The memo was for all US cars, not pintos, not just Fords. As stated in the linked article. Yet the attempt to deceive continues. Ditto what Scott said too.
Drew dear, I was not speaking to you or your comments. I was addressing the new gent who is raging.
1 Like
You encountered some hostility because you “hijacked” the thread.
This thread is about the non-availability of GMO seeds at the retail level. Not about monsanto, or roundup, or the tobacco industry. Not even about the merits or pitfalls of GMO seeds.
2 Likes
DC,
As Muddy mentioned, in the spirit of discussion (not hostility). I don’t see some of the points you’ve listed the same way you do.
First, allow me to state I have no personal financial stake in GMOs. I don’t grow any GMOs. I am considering growing GM sweet corn at some point, but I don’t have to. I may choose to grow non-gmo sweet corn.
Aside from my opinion that automobiles are as essential to a high standard of living as purchased seed (both are luxuries from that perspective) it’s highly improbable (though not impossible) one car company could sell every last vehicle on the planet, but it’s impossible one seed company could sell every last seed on the planet. As you know, seeds occur naturally, so one needs not even purchase seeds to have the ability to grow food. One might argue all seeds could become GMO (again highly unlikely) which because of the risk of spread through natural means could come under control of one company, but recall patents only last for 20 years. The first GMO corn seeds Monsanto produced are no longer patent protected. Likewise w/ the first generation RR soybeans. The technology for these seeds is now “public domain”.
I did not find any substantial discrepancy between Monsanto’s page and the Wikipedia page. Both agree Schmeiser knowingly planted RR canola (1000 acres). In terms of how Mr. Schmeiser originally obtained the RR canola seed, the Wiki page indicated the court found Mr. Schmeiser’s argument it was brought in from wind pollination implausible. The Monsanto page basically says the same. The court found the real crux of the case was not how the original seed was obtained, but that Schmeiser knowingly concentrated the RR seed and planted it intentionally.
As someone who has honored plant patents for fruit trees (by never knowingly propagating a patented variety myself) I think I can offer a comparison. It’s one thing for someone to propagate a few patented trees for his/her backyard which could be overlooked, but a commercial grower propagating 100s or 1000s of patent protected trees to avoid paying patent fees is stealing. Likewise w/ someone planting 1000 acres of patent protected canola seed.
I looked at several of the documents in your link and could not find any from EPA scientists (one of the three regulatory agencies for GMO). There were memos from FDA scientists. Of course not all GMOs are safe (i.e. the tomato gmo mentioned in the papers which caused gastric lesions in rats) but the FDA position is that the GMOs currently allowed on the market are safe.
Even if there are some scientists who view all GMOs as unsafe, I look at the scientific consensus on issues like these. The nature of science is that almost never will all scientists agree unless it involves an established scientific law. However, it seems the current scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe.
To wit:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Medical Association
World Health Organization
National Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Medicine
European Commission
American Council on Science and Health
American Dietetic Association
etc.
I don’t think that’s the case.
Again, I’ve no ax to grind in this topic, and I think we can both agree there is a lot of rhetoric and emotion involved in topics like these. I also agree with you subjects should be able to be discussed without ranting. As one friend told me, so many people want to make a testosterone test out of each encounter. Not what I’m trying to do.
I’ll end my post the same as yours, If I’ve got any facts wrong in what I posted, I’d be happy to have them corrected. However, I reserve the right to maintain my opinions right or wrong.
4 Likes
I can’t believe some think it is hard to get GMO seed. I bought a bag the other day mail order. The retailer (not wholesaler) never even asked for my Monsanto number (although I do have one).
Also, after the planting season is over, what do you think happens to the unsold seed? Much of it is sold for pennies on the dollar through conservation organizations for wildlife plantings. Year old seed has a lower germination rate but that is easily overcome with ragdoll tests and increased seeding rates.
While not guaranteed as GMO, most of the beans and corn you can buy for animal feed is GMO.
Some like it, some hate it, but GMO seed, at least for some crops, is very easy to come by.
I certainly agree that “non-GMO” is a marketing ploy, but if we are going to criticize marketing ploys, we’re gonna need a much bigger database and server to handle the size of the thread.
1 Like
I bet the public would support GMOs more readily if they were used as intended to avoid resistance and not overplanted like Bt corn. Accepting the present “safe” versions also gives tacit permission to continue on a reckless path.
1 Like
Follow the money http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Genetic_Literacy_Project#Articles_and_Resources, specifically its director Jon Entine.
If you are going to respond to all that Olpea worked so hard to construct I think it would be helpful and only fair to actually do a little more work to explain your position. Otherwise this is just a battle about ideologies, which doesn’t belong here.
1 Like
I have to learn not to respond to propaganda. As is clearly littered all over this thread. I did find it funny that as proof of position links were provided that blew that position out of the water. that was actually extremely entertaining. Such as the Schmeiser case, in which the guy is clearly a thief, yet it is presented as if he was a victim, when clearly he is a criminal. Yet the other side still uses it. The public record is very clear. I have read the transcripts, he admitted it in the end. He confessed to wrong doing. At least use better propaganda than that! Any side that would do this, tells you a lot, it’s an eye opener for me. When the cause is more important than the truth, I run away, and run away fast!
I must admit being in the medical field I’m biased towards GMO’s, and in favor as I have seen how it has saved millions of lives. It would be near impossible for me to believe such a technology is bad. Yes it can be misused but it’s back to the old argument should we have the freedom, or should someone else decide we do not. A rifle is a tool, how it is used, it can be abused. Most anti-gun statements attack the gun itself. I once read five articles about SUV’s in accidents, and all five stories if read grammatically correct stated the SUV killed people, not the true cause, the drivers. It could have been a golf cart, I’m not sure why it matters at all what they were driving?
I do agree bad people, selfish, greedy etc exist, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
1 Like