Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Options
Replies
-
Foods have been "genetically modified" for hundreds of years via selective breeding. That's why the bananas we eat have no seeds, the tomatoes we eat (unless grown in the garden) have harder skins to survive transport, etc. The big difference now is that the modifications are being made directly vs. via breeding.1
-
The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.4
-
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »Almost every food we eat is a GMO - from apples to bananas; broccoli to carrots; grains to meat; legumes to pop tarts. Cross-pollination - intentional or unintentional has changed our food supply over the years. There are few foods available that aren't a GMO....I can't think of any, but I'm sure there has to be one or two with all the fuss.
I work in the Ag industry.
GMO is not the same thing as cross-pollination
GMO is not the same thing as hybridization
GMO is created in a lab using high-tech techniques like GENE splicing. (Try doing that at your kitchen table! )
Example of GMO: genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather, thereby yielding a larger crop when the weather is less than favorable.
Example of Hybridization: The fertilization of the flower of one species by the pollen of another species-or artificial cross pollination.
If you're interested learning more about the difference, here's a link
http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos
I agree with you but I also understand people who say all of our foods are genetically modified. It's a semantic argument and one I don't like very much. The fact is "genetically modified organism" is a pretty vague and inaccurate term for what is actually meant which is "products which are made in part utilizing the process of genetic engineering". I understand that is what is actually meant by the term GMO so I don't make the semantic argument. That said I do agree that taken literally at its actually meaning all of our farm crops are genetically modified.
Bottom line though I wish people would stop making that "argument" to people who stand against "GMOs" or want them labeled because it is the debate equivalent of just repeatedly correcting someone's spelling rather than addressing their actual concerns or point of view.
5 -
eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.6 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.15 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Debbie_Ferr wrote: »Almost every food we eat is a GMO - from apples to bananas; broccoli to carrots; grains to meat; legumes to pop tarts. Cross-pollination - intentional or unintentional has changed our food supply over the years. There are few foods available that aren't a GMO....I can't think of any, but I'm sure there has to be one or two with all the fuss.
I work in the Ag industry.
GMO is not the same thing as cross-pollination
GMO is not the same thing as hybridization
GMO is created in a lab using high-tech techniques like GENE splicing. (Try doing that at your kitchen table! )
Example of GMO: genes from salmon can be spliced into tomatoes to make them more resistant to cold weather, thereby yielding a larger crop when the weather is less than favorable.
Example of Hybridization: The fertilization of the flower of one species by the pollen of another species-or artificial cross pollination.
If you're interested learning more about the difference, here's a link
http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos
I agree with you but I also understand people who say all of our foods are genetically modified. It's a semantic argument and one I don't like very much. The fact is "genetically modified organism" is a pretty vague and inaccurate term for what is actually meant which is "products which are made in part utilizing the process of genetic engineering". I understand that is what is actually meant by the term GMO so I don't make the semantic argument. That said I do agree that taken literally at its actually meaning all of our farm crops are genetically modified.
Bottom line though I wish people would stop making that "argument" to people who stand against "GMOs" or want them labeled because it is the debate equivalent of just repeatedly correcting someone's spelling rather than addressing their actual concerns or point of view.
Thank you for explaining.
0 -
Gene splicing is not that terribly complex. You could absolutely do it in your kitchen if you knew what you were doing. You can order the appropriate enzyme kits. Although I'd suggest a dedicated refrigerator and incubator.
I'm not saying you'd be doing ag scale work, but seriously, most biochemical and chemical labs ate glorified kitchens with some very expensive specialized appliances.5 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, ecosystem.
@sunnybeaches105 FTFY1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, eco system.
The farmer who gets them mixed in his crop gets recompensed for it and the plants removed.3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, eco system.
Ecosystem? I find that words used in context generally result in more effective communication. Is this something about natural ecosystems and farmland? Care to elaborate?
Let's start with Patent Law 101. Today's case assignment is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
Consider the purpose of patent and licensing laws and how they are used to encourage R&D. Now, apply this area of law to drug and software development.
As for the claims about inadvertant use of Montsanto seeds, these are worth reading: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/commitment-farmers-patents.aspx
http://www.patentdocs.org/2013/07/organic-seed-growers-trade-assn-v-monsanto-co-fed-cir-2013.html
I can only access the actual case on Lexis (Organic Seed Growers & Trade *kitten*'n v. Monsanto Co., 718 F.3d 1350, 1361 (Fed.Cir. 2013)), so if someone has a web link please post it.
3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, eco system.
Ecosystem? Can you say it? I knew you could. I find that words used in context generally result in more effective communication.
Let's start with Patent Law 101. Today's case assignment is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
Consider the purpose of patent and licensing laws and how they are used to encourage R&D. Now, apply this area of law to drug and software development.
Drugs and software aren't blowing into anyone's space. Now if Monsanto can modify the "weed" seed...0 -
eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
Too late. You do every single day.
5 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, eco system.
Ecosystem? Can you say it? I knew you could. I find that words used in context generally result in more effective communication.
Let's start with Patent Law 101. Today's case assignment is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
Consider the purpose of patent and licensing laws and how they are used to encourage R&D. Now, apply this area of law to drug and software development.
Drugs and software aren't blowing into anyone's space. Now if Monsanto can modify the "weed" seed...
Apparently neither do soybean seeds absent hurricane force winds. Read the rest of what is posted above. You're relying on B.S. scare sites for your information rather than federal case law and Monsanto's own (enforceable) statements to the court. For anyone too lazy to use the link, here's a rather important point to understand:
"Thus the Federal Circuit was faced with determining whether an express covenant was required or if Monsanto's reassurances would do.
The Court found that they would. "Taken together, Monsanto's representations unequivocally disclaim any intent to sue appellant growers, seed sellers, or organizations for inadvertently using or selling 'trace amounts' of genetically modified seeds," the panel found, wherein the panel interpreted "trace amounts" to be approximately one percent. "We conclude that Monsanto has disclaimed any intent to sue inadvertent users or sellers of seeds that are inadvertently contaminated with up to one percent of seeds carrying Monsanto's patented traits," said the Court.
Important to the panel decision was the effect of judicial estoppel on Monsanto and its representations to the Court that it had "no intention of asserting patent-infringement claims" against plaintiffs or other "inadvertent" infringers. The opinion set forth the "main factors" that raise the estoppel:
(1) a party's later position is "clearly inconsistent" with its prior position, (2) the party successfully persuaded a court to accept its prior position, and (3) the party "would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped," citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750–51 (2001).
Any future lawsuit brought by Monsanto against these plaintiffs would satisfy "all three [of these] factors," according to the Court. Somewhat wryly, the opinion notes that this conclusion was "wisely acknowledged" by Monsanto's counsel at oral argument."
Monsanto has developed a number of products and is protecting its patents like any other company that depends on patents to protect its property rights. The shame is that people are falling for the silly arguments being used to discredit them in the public eye, but people rarely read case law or even understand it when they do.6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Are we unfairly bashing foods that contain genetically modified organisms (G.M.O. foods)?
Yes or no? Please explain.
Roger that. Farmers are in it for the money, they really are. The public is easily confused by the loudest screamers. That's why we kill more cows because the public screamed against "pink slime". It would be cheaper to kill fewer cows and mix pink slime into the ground beef, but no, the public irrationally fears words like "pink slime". In the same way, the public has been taught to fear Genetically Modified Organisms, especially those grown from seeds produced by Monsanto. Every academic scientific analysis of every proposed GMO food has concluded that the food is safe for human consumption. Until the public learn what an organism is, their dog is a genetically modified organism, by the way, the farmers will continue to try to serve the market with more costly and more profitable genetically modified organisms which were genetically modified the old-fashioned way, by selective breeding.
Can you explain how my dog is a GMO? Or are you using a definition for the term other than the common useage?
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.
Your dog is an organism. It is descended from a long line of mommies and daddies. Humans domesticated dogs thousands of years ago. Domestication of dogs has given some humans the controlling choice in the genetic combinations of dogs. These people are called "dog breeders". That's how.
My point was that wild is wild, domesticated and improved is modified. Roundup-ready and bt-included are domesticated, yes, and improved, yes. Golden rice is also domesticated and improved.1 -
Talking about kitchen science...
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/watch-japanese-high-school-students-hatch-a-chick-outside-its-egg/
I was wondering what sort of genetic modifications are being considered by Monsanto, so I looked it up. It's not just about developing roundup-ready wheat. There's work on developing crops with a shorter stalk, for instance, for greater yield per acre (plant puts energy in to seed instead of stalk).
As a Canadian, I am personally grateful that a modified corn that can mature in our shorter season. I never saw corn fields when I was a kid. Driving through the country this fall, I noticed a fair amount of heavy rain and hail damage in barley and canola fields, but the few corn fields showed no damage.3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, eco system.
Ecosystem? Can you say it? I knew you could. I find that words used in context generally result in more effective communication.
Let's start with Patent Law 101. Today's case assignment is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
Consider the purpose of patent and licensing laws and how they are used to encourage R&D. Now, apply this area of law to drug and software development.
Drugs and software aren't blowing into anyone's space. Now if Monsanto can modify the "weed" seed...
Apparently neither do soybean seeds absent hurricane force winds. Read the rest of what is posted above. You're relying on B.S. scare sites for your information rather than federal case law and Monsanto's own (enforceable) statements to the court. For anyone too lazy to use the link, here's a rather important point to understand:
"Thus the Federal Circuit was faced with determining whether an express covenant was required or if Monsanto's reassurances would do.
The Court found that they would. "Taken together, Monsanto's representations unequivocally disclaim any intent to sue appellant growers, seed sellers, or organizations for inadvertently using or selling 'trace amounts' of genetically modified seeds," the panel found, wherein the panel interpreted "trace amounts" to be approximately one percent. "We conclude that Monsanto has disclaimed any intent to sue inadvertent users or sellers of seeds that are inadvertently contaminated with up to one percent of seeds carrying Monsanto's patented traits," said the Court.
Important to the panel decision was the effect of judicial estoppel on Monsanto and its representations to the Court that it had "no intention of asserting patent-infringement claims" against plaintiffs or other "inadvertent" infringers. The opinion set forth the "main factors" that raise the estoppel:
(1) a party's later position is "clearly inconsistent" with its prior position, (2) the party successfully persuaded a court to accept its prior position, and (3) the party "would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped," citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750–51 (2001).
Any future lawsuit brought by Monsanto against these plaintiffs would satisfy "all three [of these] factors," according to the Court. Somewhat wryly, the opinion notes that this conclusion was "wisely acknowledged" by Monsanto's counsel at oral argument."
Monsanto has developed a number of products and is protecting its patents like any other company that depends on patents to protect its property rights. The shame is that people are falling for the silly arguments being used to discredit them in the public eye, but people rarely read case law or even understand it when they do.
Things that stand out to me are "one percent" and quoting from Monsanto.com.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, eco system.
The farmer who gets them mixed in his crop gets recompensed for it and the plants removed.
Yep. As I'm sure we all know, it's been litigated. ;-)
(And people often are mistaken or misled as to the actual case.)
I wrote about the Bowman case which is usually the one that is misrepresented as some poor farmer who got seeds blown onto his land in some thread last year. In addition to the excellent sources posted by sunnybeaches, here is the NYT (hardly on Monsanto's PR team) on the Bowman case: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0
The text of the opinions are easily available too.3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, eco system.
Ecosystem? Can you say it? I knew you could. I find that words used in context generally result in more effective communication.
Let's start with Patent Law 101. Today's case assignment is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
Consider the purpose of patent and licensing laws and how they are used to encourage R&D. Now, apply this area of law to drug and software development.
Drugs and software aren't blowing into anyone's space. Now if Monsanto can modify the "weed" seed...
Apparently neither do soybean seeds absent hurricane force winds. Read the rest of what is posted above. You're relying on B.S. scare sites for your information rather than federal case law and Monsanto's own (enforceable) statements to the court. For anyone too lazy to use the link, here's a rather important point to understand:
"Thus the Federal Circuit was faced with determining whether an express covenant was required or if Monsanto's reassurances would do.
The Court found that they would. "Taken together, Monsanto's representations unequivocally disclaim any intent to sue appellant growers, seed sellers, or organizations for inadvertently using or selling 'trace amounts' of genetically modified seeds," the panel found, wherein the panel interpreted "trace amounts" to be approximately one percent. "We conclude that Monsanto has disclaimed any intent to sue inadvertent users or sellers of seeds that are inadvertently contaminated with up to one percent of seeds carrying Monsanto's patented traits," said the Court.
Important to the panel decision was the effect of judicial estoppel on Monsanto and its representations to the Court that it had "no intention of asserting patent-infringement claims" against plaintiffs or other "inadvertent" infringers. The opinion set forth the "main factors" that raise the estoppel:
(1) a party's later position is "clearly inconsistent" with its prior position, (2) the party successfully persuaded a court to accept its prior position, and (3) the party "would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped," citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750–51 (2001).
Any future lawsuit brought by Monsanto against these plaintiffs would satisfy "all three [of these] factors," according to the Court. Somewhat wryly, the opinion notes that this conclusion was "wisely acknowledged" by Monsanto's counsel at oral argument."
Monsanto has developed a number of products and is protecting its patents like any other company that depends on patents to protect its property rights. The shame is that people are falling for the silly arguments being used to discredit them in the public eye, but people rarely read case law or even understand it when they do.
Interestingly, a lot of the myths surrounding cross-pollination of GMO soy into adjacent farms comes from a case that didn't even involve soybeans. It was a case involving canola. Canola pollen, unlike soy pollen, can blow for several miles. And even in the case involving canola, the court found that the farmer engaged in selective seed collection to make use of the monsanto modifications. The tested crops were something like 95% monsanto, and on the low end still over 50%.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
Hating on Monsanto has become a pseudo-intellectual shortcut. It's cool to rail against them. Many people do so in an attempt to sound more educated on matters than they really are.
10 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, eco system.
Ecosystem? Can you say it? I knew you could. I find that words used in context generally result in more effective communication.
Let's start with Patent Law 101. Today's case assignment is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
Consider the purpose of patent and licensing laws and how they are used to encourage R&D. Now, apply this area of law to drug and software development.
Drugs and software aren't blowing into anyone's space. Now if Monsanto can modify the "weed" seed...
Apparently neither do soybean seeds absent hurricane force winds. Read the rest of what is posted above. You're relying on B.S. scare sites for your information rather than federal case law and Monsanto's own (enforceable) statements to the court. For anyone too lazy to use the link, here's a rather important point to understand:
"Thus the Federal Circuit was faced with determining whether an express covenant was required or if Monsanto's reassurances would do.
The Court found that they would. "Taken together, Monsanto's representations unequivocally disclaim any intent to sue appellant growers, seed sellers, or organizations for inadvertently using or selling 'trace amounts' of genetically modified seeds," the panel found, wherein the panel interpreted "trace amounts" to be approximately one percent. "We conclude that Monsanto has disclaimed any intent to sue inadvertent users or sellers of seeds that are inadvertently contaminated with up to one percent of seeds carrying Monsanto's patented traits," said the Court.
Important to the panel decision was the effect of judicial estoppel on Monsanto and its representations to the Court that it had "no intention of asserting patent-infringement claims" against plaintiffs or other "inadvertent" infringers. The opinion set forth the "main factors" that raise the estoppel:
(1) a party's later position is "clearly inconsistent" with its prior position, (2) the party successfully persuaded a court to accept its prior position, and (3) the party "would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped," citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750–51 (2001).
Any future lawsuit brought by Monsanto against these plaintiffs would satisfy "all three [of these] factors," according to the Court. Somewhat wryly, the opinion notes that this conclusion was "wisely acknowledged" by Monsanto's counsel at oral argument."
Monsanto has developed a number of products and is protecting its patents like any other company that depends on patents to protect its property rights. The shame is that people are falling for the silly arguments being used to discredit them in the public eye, but people rarely read case law or even understand it when they do.
Things that stand out to me are "one percent" and quoting from Monsanto.com.
They went to court and told the judges that they will never sue outside those conditions, or else they can throw the case right out the door.2 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »The problem I see with GMOs is not human health, but environmental risk. Even a small probability of catastrophic consequences is not one I'm willing to contribute to.
And yet pretty much everything you eat - every plant, every animal - has been genetically modified via selective breeding by humans.
Monsanto is evil because of their IP practices and because having our food supply controlled by a handful of multinationals is a terrible idea, not because of GMOs.
Feeding a large portion of the world's population is some evil business. All those chemical fertilizer companies too. People need to leave the cities and grow organic so billions can starve. That will help the environment.
^ The realistic result of removing modern corporate agricultural practices.
On the flip side, stop artificially inseminating to create more births.
Something to think about: Who owns the seeds of the GMO foods? What happens to the small farmer who gets those seeds mixed into his crop?
And, I want to leave with this, eco system.
Ecosystem? Can you say it? I knew you could. I find that words used in context generally result in more effective communication.
Let's start with Patent Law 101. Today's case assignment is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
Consider the purpose of patent and licensing laws and how they are used to encourage R&D. Now, apply this area of law to drug and software development.
Drugs and software aren't blowing into anyone's space. Now if Monsanto can modify the "weed" seed...
Apparently neither do soybean seeds absent hurricane force winds. Read the rest of what is posted above. You're relying on B.S. scare sites for your information rather than federal case law and Monsanto's own (enforceable) statements to the court. For anyone too lazy to use the link, here's a rather important point to understand:
"Thus the Federal Circuit was faced with determining whether an express covenant was required or if Monsanto's reassurances would do.
The Court found that they would. "Taken together, Monsanto's representations unequivocally disclaim any intent to sue appellant growers, seed sellers, or organizations for inadvertently using or selling 'trace amounts' of genetically modified seeds," the panel found, wherein the panel interpreted "trace amounts" to be approximately one percent. "We conclude that Monsanto has disclaimed any intent to sue inadvertent users or sellers of seeds that are inadvertently contaminated with up to one percent of seeds carrying Monsanto's patented traits," said the Court.
Important to the panel decision was the effect of judicial estoppel on Monsanto and its representations to the Court that it had "no intention of asserting patent-infringement claims" against plaintiffs or other "inadvertent" infringers. The opinion set forth the "main factors" that raise the estoppel:
(1) a party's later position is "clearly inconsistent" with its prior position, (2) the party successfully persuaded a court to accept its prior position, and (3) the party "would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped," citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750–51 (2001).
Any future lawsuit brought by Monsanto against these plaintiffs would satisfy "all three [of these] factors," according to the Court. Somewhat wryly, the opinion notes that this conclusion was "wisely acknowledged" by Monsanto's counsel at oral argument."
Monsanto has developed a number of products and is protecting its patents like any other company that depends on patents to protect its property rights. The shame is that people are falling for the silly arguments being used to discredit them in the public eye, but people rarely read case law or even understand it when they do.
Things that stand out to me are "one percent" and quoting from Monsanto.com.
I do enjoy those short answers to complex questions and issues. It shows me that you're really doing your homework. Yes, Monsanto appears very concerned about retaining their patent rights against those who aren't inadvertantly using their seeds. If you read the cases then you will see that they were well within their rights (absent that statement) to enforce their patents against those using their seeds below that threshold. Legally, there isn't a threshold on infringement. They set that threshold to calm the nerves of those making this inadvertant use argument, save themselves tons of headaches and legal fees against harrasment suits, and funny enough, pulled the rug from underneath the entire class of plaintiffs who brough that suit. You did notice that it was the group of farmers (more accurately the Cardozo Law School's Public Patent Foundation) that brought the suit against Monsanto against their patents, not the "evil" Monsanto going after farmers inadvertantly using the seeds?
Did you notice the reference to the number of suits? "Monsanto has brought 144 infringement suits between 1997 and 2010, and settled ~700 more over that time." That's 144 cases over the course of 13 years, or just over a 11 cases a year, for a company that sells seeds to hundreds of thousands of farmers. That's miniscule for a company of that size. It's an expensive process to pay the legal fees necessary to protect one's patents, but that's the system in which we live. I'm not saying that Monsanto is a great company, I'm not saying it's not either, but you need to learn where to get accurate information and understand the context of what is going on.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions