for those that purchase seeds through US seed companies you might probably want to read the thread in the vegetable garden forum. Looks like the company that is going to be bought by Monsanto supplies companies such as Johnnys

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/cornucop/msg011135295015.html?13

regards

Helen

I hope you detected the obvious sarcasm in my words. Don't get me started there is not enough space for my rantings about Monsanto and GE seed.

Mantis

my opinions

len

PP

If you missed the Corporation, I urge you to see it - most video stores carry it. I'll happily arrange a Sydney screening if anyone is interested. The content is infuriating. Its extremely difficult to ensure that your dollars (and this is what it is all about - a few dollars from many, many people) are not being used against your beliefs. What are you wearing today? Who made it - someone paid a few cents? Probably. What about your shoes? Your morning tea? Your dinner tonight? Your car, the carpet on your floor, your PC. Yes, its hard. What do you do - I don't know. I wish I could make the world watch this program and at least think about it. Many of us will probably think hard and carry on as normal.

Another must do - read Bob Brown's Memo for a Saner World. Don't read it at night when you want to go to sleep. Its very anger-producing.

As, no doubt, is my soap-boxing. Off now

I wonder how long this tread will last.
D

Can anyone tell me, if I'm growing my traditional nonhybrid open pollinated sweet corn and saving seeds and it gets cross pollinated with with someones GE corn with the Terminator Gene, will the seed from the crossed seed germinate?

You all make it scary but I want to know more.
Neil

Mantis

"Inserting terminator genes into crops would prevent them from producing fertile seeds, meaning farmers would have to buy new seeds, rather than saving part of their harvest to plant next year's crop."

Can your seeds be contaminated? YES. Plants are promiscuous and spread their pollen around via wind, insects, birds etc. GE buffer zones have repeatedly been shown to be inadequate. The release of GE corn in American has contaminated ancient and wild crops. We will never have access to pure strains of these plants again. You won't know if you have terminator genes in your seeds unless you test the DNA - they just won't grow. GE doesn't end with terminator technology - the biggest efforts are in pest resistance and glyphosate resistent crops. The pest resistant crops produce their own pesticides and there are no long term studies to assess side effects. Glyphosate resistance allows farmers to spray the crop (cotton, canola, soy) with glyphosate throughout its growing cycle without the plant being harmed, so increasing the use of a chemical for which Monsanto holds the patent (Zero). So the farmer pays twice. Glyphosate has been banned in many European countries because of ground water contamination.

GE foods are sold on the basis of preventing world hunger. This is simply nonsense. World hunger is not a supply issue, its a distribution issue. There is already enough food. It needs to be shared, but there is no profit in that. How can the loss of traditional cultural practices around saving and sowing crops enrich the lives of subsistence farmers? Paying Monsanto when the seed is purchased and again when the crop is sold benefits Monsanto, not developing world farmers who used to have well adapted seed as a cultural right. Its is now considered shocking to foist Western religious beliefs onto developing countries. But we seem largely unconcerned that Capilatism, that great Western religion, is pushed into every part of globe, with cries of "we must look after our shareholders". More damning is the part governments have to play. Several US senators come out of big US biotechs, including Bayer and Monsanto, and considerable political donations have been made by such companies. In 2003-2004, no one, not even starving African countries would take the US's GE grains. We did. Thousands of tonnes of GE is now in Australia's food chain, feed to beef and dairy herds as stockfeed.

If you really want to boycott GE food, get a copy of the True Food Guide or search for it on the net. Its a Greenpeace publication. Make sure you get the Australian version and not the NZ one. Because the Kiwi Gov't has more backbone than ours, they have much less GE in their foodchain.

I hope this clarifies a few issues.
Danielle

*memories from my future grandchildren*

I don't understand patent law and its implications but, it seems to me absolute nonsense that a company should be allowed to sue a farmer because the wind carried some pollen over the fence (I'm referring of course to Monsanto practices)! There is clearly something wrong with our legal system when such cases even get to court, and that they should be winnable is, is, I don't know, I'm rendered speechless!

And lastly, I have a question. Wouldn't the terminator gene, by its very nature, wipe itself out? Let's suppose there's some canola with this gene. It's pollen is carried into the bush and pollinates a wild relative. It stops there doesn't it? In the wild I mean, because those plants don't produce viable seed, and so can't pass on the terminator gene. Or have I completely misinterpreted this? Is it a question of gene alleles or something that I've missed? I don't mean of course that we can't continue to produce seed ourselves with this gene, but it's lifespan in the wild seems limited, to say the least! Though limited, if that's correct, I can see that even one generation is enough to wipe out a species, or sub-species!!

a) if the GE corn had no Terminator Gene then all the seed I saved, including the 10% crossed with the GE with the BT gene would germinate and my strain would be irreversably poluted.

b) if the GE corn had the Terminator Gene inserted then only the 90% that wasn't crossed with the GE corn would germinate and my strain of Golden Bantam would remain uncontaminated?

Had the Terminator Gene been compulsory in all GE corn then the corn varieties of the indiginous Mexicans would never have been irreversably poluted?

Sorry to be so dumb and need to have everything explained to me.
Neil

a) without the terminator gene, would have resulted in an edible, though contaminated crop, from which it would be not only pointless, because of contamination, but illegal to save the seed and replant it. The modified genes are patented and you'd be infringing that patent. And I'm sorry, but it's your responsibilty to identify each and every seed containing the modified gene, regardless of how it came to be among your crop!!!

b) with the terminator gene inserted, would have produced corn, but those corn seeds would not have been able to produce viable plants. So you could save seed and grow it, because only the non-contaminated seed would grow!

I don't know enough about the genetics to be 100% certain, but it would seem the case that the presence of this gene would prevent contamination, as it shows it presence by not reproducing! That's not to say of course, that there wouldn't be some major disaster - massive crop failure leading to starvation for example as locals followed their centuries old practice of saving seed for the next crop (never mind of course that such practices suddenly become illegal, because someone, somewhere owns that modified gene).

The GE crops are all patented anyway so it is illegal to save your own seed.

The Terminator Gene would stop people from illegally growing GE crops that many of us believe they shouldn't be able to grow legally in the first place.

The Terminator Gene would also prevent the flow of GE traits such as herbicide resistance to related weeds.

So, my Golden Bantam, as well as any remaining wild/indiginous strains of corn could be at risk of contamination because we are opposing the Terminator Gene rather than suporting it being compulsory?

It all becomes a bit hard for me to work out.
Neil

(Then when you're through with that look at his little baby:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/The-mechanics-of-waging-war-by-remote-control/2005/02/02/1107228765897.html)

Enough to make you want to wage war yourself.

I don't like Nestle either, they ruined every lollie they ever bought, Minties are quite safe for anyone with 50 fillings now it's just terrible AND have gelatine in them!@!!@!@! may as well call them mint chewing gums without gum :P. Kitt Kats taste nothing like they did, I could go on for hours if I thought about all the things they bought and ruined grrrrrrrrrrr

I believe much the same thing has happened in India where basmati rice has been grown for thousands of years. The rice has been patented by an US company and the farmers will not be allowed to grow their own crops without paying royalties. Its still before the courts, but the Indian government has been dragging its feet contesting it. Of course the huge, rich , multinationals count on this happening because they can afford to spend years fighting this in courts where the poor farmers can't.

Adamus said "I still believe that the world has enough people like me to keep things okay."

The Indian rice farmers, or the Iraqi farmers, or the Canadian corn farmers probably thought the same.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that GM could potentially be the saviour of the environment, eliminating the need for sprays, reducing the need for fertilizer application, improving nutritional content of crops to increase value from smaller acreages. It can be used to control weediness in crops and is the only feasible way at this point to actually eliminate weeds and feral animals from the environment completely. Some very exciting applications with potential to do huge good. just a thought.

Re: Plant patenting. Is there anyone not opposed to it under the present circumstances where the Patent Law seems to be totally inapropriate for plants which cross pollinate?

Do we have consensus on that?
Neil

To be fair, traditional plant breeding has its failures too. The pest resistant potato being a classic case in point. Pests wouldn't eat it, but humans couldn't either. It was too toxic!

Areas where GM might really come into its own are disease resistances, specifically resistance to viral diseases. But there's very little money, on the whole, to be made in GM technology that is actually beneficial. Hence the likes of Monsanto pushing "Round-up Ready Soy" etc. It's so they can sell more of their Round-up. Period. Similarly the Terminator gene. If you can get farmers dependent, you have a captive market and can then set prices as you please. That particular technology serves no other purpose that I can see. I find the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And, unfortunately, it gives GM technology a very bad name.

GM technology has great potential, but so far I see nothing to cheer about. I think it's probably in the wrong hands!

Patenting is one of the many issues, it was the sole legal issue in the case of the Canadian canola grower, Percy Schmeiser in his legal case with Monsanto. Patenting law is totally inapropriate for promiscuious plants.

Much of the fear based opposition to GE comes from the organic movement who seem to be trying to use fear to get higher prices for their organic produce. I attended a forum in Bairnsdale where the speaker on behalf of the organic sector made a tirade agaisnt Monsanto for suing Percy Schmeiser for growing their GE canola (which he wasn't. It was pointed out to him that the organic movement certified patented plant varieties and when questioned on this he didn't seem to have any idea where he was comming from.
There seem to be a lot of people blindly following the fear campaign against GE and blindly supporting the organic movement with its certification of patented varieties.

There are many rational reaqsons to oppose GE and also many rational reasons to speak out against the fear based, values deficient anti GE campaign.

Haver a think about it mates- Neil

There is financial benefit to the farmer. If he doesn't spray the crop he has two options; either he weeds it manually costing $$ or he lets the weeds grow and reduces the value of saleable crop meaning less $$.

In the end a particular farmer may not need to spray at all as over the years he would have killed the weeds and not allowing them to seed. I can see this would financially benefit a lucerne farmer for example, who gets paid more for the purity of the lucerne.

In the end a farm is a business and I think we put way too much emphasis on the nobility of a farmer. Not to say they are any lesser but most farmland, in Australia, is owned by money-making corporations and conglomerates. After all we have no Amish here, do we?

Did you know caulies are selling for about $5each in the supermarket (or so I've been told). The farm I've been working on has had caulies rejected because they were 2cm over size. Makes it very expensive to grow and unaffordable for many. We don't need GE to feed the world we just need a rethink.
Neil

Mantis

...or...we could just go organic and reduce wasteage. (It was recently reported that most households are throwing out a third of the fresh produce they buy.) It might also help if we didn't cover our most fertile land with kilometre after kilometre of suburbia.

The saviours of our environment being maufactured by the companies that are largely responsible for the chemical overload they now claim to be rescuing us from; the chemicals being necessary to save us from the invasive plants that a previous corporation suggested we couldn't live without.....oh my....time for my medication...and then I'll take the medication I have to take because of my medication..............once upon a time people ate, worked, shat and slept without all of this...sigh...I'm too young to be nostalgic.

mudlark

BTW, here's a possible good use of genetic engineering. The CSIRO is very close now to developing a carp that spawns only male offspring. Carp, another great introduction, are the scourge of our river systems. If released, within a very short space of time, carp would cease to be a problem. Males carrying this modified gene would soon overwhelm others, effectively wiping themselves out in a few generations!

Now, I say possible because I don't now if carp can interbreed with any native species. If they can, then it may be very unwise, indeed, unbelievably stupid to unleash this modified fish. If they can't, then I say go for it!!!

This to me is an example of the technology put to possible good use. And notice that it is government (read taxpayer) funding that is supporting it. I don't see Monsanto or indeed any other company with the technological knowhow stepping up to the plate, as it were!

Like most new developements and technologies, there are many good uses to which this technology COULD be put! Technology and new developments aren't wrong or bad, it's just how it is implemented and used.

However many of the things that seem to me to be the good things (ie would have social, moral or environmental gains) won't make the big corporations any money and so most won't be interested in developing these avenues. As has been previously stated and becomes evident if you look into our society, corporations are only interested in profits. Our society as a whole puts no real value on environment, or global social justice. It's all Money, Money, Money (go ABBA).

The only hope for GE (or really any developments) as I see it is for non-profits, governmental organisations and the very few socially aware companies (who care about more than excessive profit and continuous growth) to become involved and this means slow and few projects seeing light of day. Unless we have a fundamental change in the way society views the world then this won't change.

I try very hard to only invest in companies who can prove a good triple bottom line, and are serious about enviroment, social justice and corporate governance issues. And same with buying products and services. If this costs a little more, or make me a little less profit, well so be it.

If each person started to care a little more about this type of stuff then that would cause a shift, as corporations would suddenly find that they needed to do more than report good profits to keep their company afloat!

Anyway - that's my rant for today - and I'll now climb off my soapbox too :-)

Adam, I believe you must mean that Monsanto has become a major donor to UNICEF. As a non-profit NGO, UNICEF can have no stakeholders. Neverthless...

Jennifer, the quiet Canuck :>) who watched in horror as the SH govs bellied up to the Terminator Tech table with our gov earlier this month

I decided to make an appointment with my local MP to voice my concerns about Australia and NZ's support, which is counter International consensus on the issue. As I understand it, Australia's protection agency for all new foods seeking endorsement for release here is a combined Aus/NZ agency that rubber stamps most items as long as the supporting documentation is there. Supporting documentation includes any trials or tests on animals and the results.

I heard a local doctor speak on this issue, voicing her medical concerns that even when actual results are held back (they are mentioned as being available upon request!) that this agency neither requests them, nor carries out any independent testing. Therefore, mice showing enlarged livers after 2 weeks of exposure to a GE food have their livers frozen (just as an example) in case of future litigation, so that a company can state that it offered the relevant items for testing, but that no requests were received.

BTW, this doctor became interested in the pollutions affecting the food supply because of noticing an increase this past decade in food and other allergies, and a rise in more serious things like cancers and leukemia. Her concern with GE modified crops that are bred to be resistant to insecticides, herbicides, fungicides etc is that while it may result in bumper crops, it won't remove the effects of the chemical residues in the food chain! She believes that in 20 - 30 years time, the effects will be obvious and that the eventual human toll will be huge.

PP, who think that a farmer should be able to sue a company whose patented genetically engineered pollen pollutes his crop.

At the bottom of the page, I saw a link to the original source of this information, an organisation called GRAIN (article here), an NGO which promotes sustainable development in agriculture. So I decided to take a look.

It seems that while the situation is still dire, it's not quite what the first article would have us believe. The legislation sets up the recognition of PVRs, (to which I'm totally opposed, but that's a different issue), and under this legislation, it is only illegal to save the PVR seed without due compensation to the PVR holder. So Iraqi's can still save their traditional seeds, but they'd better not let pollen from any PVR plant contaminate their crop! Look at what happened to poor old Percy Schmeiser in Canada. Moreover, they will never be able to afford to register their own varieties.

But that's the whole point, isn't it!

I'm reminded of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot, who would always ask his sidekick, 'astings, whether his information was from the source. If not, Hercule would "Zen you do not know zis to be true. It is, 'ow you say, ze 'eresay" or words to that effect.

Raymondo *repeating his new mantra "Always check sources!"*

And this is exactly what is being proposed in Canada. "Iraq lite" minus the bombing.

Jennifer

Jennifer