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)?
Replies
-
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.
I think the greatest thing that has been done done through genetic modification is the development of Golden Rice. It was genetically modified to include beta carotene, in other words Vitamin A, a nutrient that is sorely lacking in many third-world countries, which tend to be major rice consumers. Golden Rice could save lives if the fear mongering surrounding it would stop. It isn't commercially available, yet, though. The Chinese government, where scientists were testing the bioavailability of the Vitamin A from the rice in schools, stopped all testing and fired the scientists involved when Greenpeace found out about it and started fear mongering.9 -
AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »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.
I think the greatest thing that has been done done through genetic modification is the development of Golden Rice. It was genetically modified to include beta carotene, in other words Vitamin A, a nutrient that is sorely lacking in many third-world countries, which tend to be major rice consumers. Golden Rice could save lives if the fear mongering surrounding it would stop. It isn't commercially available, yet, though. The Chinese government, where scientists were testing the bioavailability of the Vitamin A from the rice in schools, stopped all testing and fired the scientists involved when Greenpeace found out about it and started fear mongering.
The Chinese also aren't exactly known for their respect for foreign patents and trademarks.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Justice Kagan, that bastion of conservative, pro-big business ideology . . .
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I love how these forums rarely even get to the true controversies that exist among the informed. Everyone is way too busy stamping down the silliness.6 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
Here's another one-liner for you:
What happens when big corporations own all the seeds?
(How long can they hold such patent?)1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
Here's another one-liner for you:
What happens when big corporations own all the seeds?
If their products increase productivity (as they do) then I suppose more of the world's people are fed due to such increased productivity. Interestingly enough, I think we will eventually get there because it will be absolutely necessary in order to feed the world's growing population. The days of casually casting one's leftover seed to the fields are long gone. The fertilizer companies are also working with farmers to increase yields and that involves putting Ph.D.s in farmer's fields to help pinpoint exactly what fertilizer mix will help them based on humidity and rainfall levels, soil, specific crops and seeds, temperature, etc.
Crops are commodities being planted, produced, financed, and distributed by major corporations, which are run and staffed by a host of specialists with advanced degrees. This involves a value chain that goes from mining for mineral fertilizer, industrial level chemical production, production of seeds, the futures and finance markets, to the railcar, trucking and shipping industries, distribution companies, all the way to large and small grocery chains. Investment funds have also entered the market looking for farms that are promising investments. You can put the romatic notion of the little 'ol farmer out of your mind. He quit plowing the fields years ago and got his Ph.D.
8 -
This content has been removed.
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »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.
I think the greatest thing that has been done done through genetic modification is the development of Golden Rice. It was genetically modified to include beta carotene, in other words Vitamin A, a nutrient that is sorely lacking in many third-world countries, which tend to be major rice consumers. Golden Rice could save lives if the fear mongering surrounding it would stop. It isn't commercially available, yet, though. The Chinese government, where scientists were testing the bioavailability of the Vitamin A from the rice in schools, stopped all testing and fired the scientists involved when Greenpeace found out about it and started fear mongering.
The Chinese also aren't exactly known for their respect for foreign patents and trademarks.
Golden Rice and Golden Rice 2 are patent free. It is a humanitarian project.
Greenpeace came in and scared the parents involved and then found little loopholes in the paper work presented to the parents involved in the experiment to make it look they didn't have informed consent. The Chinese government cancelled it, for once concerned about appear to be concerned about human medical consent.
Now what is interesting is when China refused GMO - I believe soy - products from the US with the Bt Trait, but they accepted the same products from Brazil. Why? They had worse futures trading agreements with the USA and needed an excuse for not overpaying the price for their poor prediction of bad crop yields that year. They started claiming the futures contracts didn't allow for GMO products. That lead to a lawsuit for the seed sellers by farmers. Quiet the mess.
That's a good point in regard to Golden Rice. I was making a flippant remark in regard to my experiences in China.0 -
The genetics lab I am teaching is getting ready to do their GMO lab this coming week, so I have been bringing myself back up to speed. I have learned from this thread. For instance, I did not know about the new labeling law that was signed in the US, so that will be useful information. There is such a fear of GMOs in the classroom.
One of the up and coming controversies to this whole GMO debate is where the new gene editing technology CRISPR/cas fits in (ok, it is not entirely new, but stories on it have exploded in the last several months). Precise genetic modification of organisms can be accomplished without introducing genes from another organism. Since we have mainly been discussing plants, the plants would be indistinguishable pretty much, despite the fact that changes were made in the lab using genetic engineering.
Since there has been discussion on the semantics of GMO and what exactly constitutes a GMO, I thought some might find this interesting.
ensia.com/voices/crispr-is-coming-to-agriculture-with-big-implications-for-food-farmers-consumers-and-nature/
3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
Here's another one-liner for you:
What happens when big corporations own all the seeds?
(How long can they hold such patent?)
So why would they "own all the seeds"?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
Absolutely every word of this.
Also, the question sort of assumes that GMOs need to be treated fairly, or their feelings will be hurt. No. Instead, people need to take responsibility for their health, and make wise, informed decisions.
I'm not concerned so much that science will get its feelings hurt, I'm concerned that senators and congressmen will demand unreasonable levels of oversight and defund current studies on the basis of an unwarranted witch-hunt fear-driven public response to internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that they are dangerous. I think fear is a dangerous thing especially when acted upon.
How do you think that danger compares to the risk of blanket, unquestioning approval prompted by competing internet blogs proclaiming by fiat that there's no danger whatsoever to any type of GMO because they read online that one of them was safe?
While we're at it, do you think hypotheticals like this are a good basis for legislation?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
Here's another one-liner for you:
What happens when big corporations own all the seeds?
(How long can they hold such patent?)
So why would they "own all the seeds"?
Questions based on slippery slopes rarely concern themselves with the whys or the hows.5 -
My real problem with some GMOs is the fact that they're engineered to stand up to large amounts of pesticides. I don't want any extra Roundup on my plate.2
-
cinnag4225 wrote: »Most definitely. The vast majority of studies show no evidence of GMOs being the scary devil's fruit that the rabid extremes of hipster and new age cultures have made it out to be. A very small minority of people are affected by the so-called harms and generally suffer from underlying conditions that would be present even without GMOs, and the special snowflakes are yet again taking advantage of and trivializing others' medical conditions because it's a convenient and trendy way to elevate their sense of superiority.
My question to you... who do you think is funding these studies? Billion dollar industries that aren't interested in what you have to say, or what is "right" for that matter.
And while GMOs aren't necessarily toxic to the human body... it is becoming evident that the important microbiome within the body (primarily the gut) is affected by the pesticides that these GMO foods are engineered to withstand. An altered gut flora can cause an outstanding amount of change in one's body... your metabolism for example and also how your genes are expressed through your offspring!3 -
definately. there is no scientific proof that they have any negative effects. most people just dont like them because they don't know what they are and theyre scared of big science words
2 -
cinnag4225 wrote: »Most definitely. The vast majority of studies show no evidence of GMOs being the scary devil's fruit that the rabid extremes of hipster and new age cultures have made it out to be. A very small minority of people are affected by the so-called harms and generally suffer from underlying conditions that would be present even without GMOs, and the special snowflakes are yet again taking advantage of and trivializing others' medical conditions because it's a convenient and trendy way to elevate their sense of superiority.
My question to you... who do you think is funding these studies? Billion dollar industries that aren't interested in what you have to say, or what is "right" for that matter.
And while GMOs aren't necessarily toxic to the human body... it is becoming evident that the important microbiome within the body (primarily the gut) is affected by the pesticides that these GMO foods are engineered to withstand. An altered gut flora can cause an outstanding amount of change in one's body... your metabolism for example and also how your genes are expressed through your offspring!
Who else would fund those studies? You? That's a bad argument.3 -
AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »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.
I think the greatest thing that has been done done through genetic modification is the development of Golden Rice. It was genetically modified to include beta carotene, in other words Vitamin A, a nutrient that is sorely lacking in many third-world countries, which tend to be major rice consumers. Golden Rice could save lives if the fear mongering surrounding it would stop. It isn't commercially available, yet, though. The Chinese government, where scientists were testing the bioavailability of the Vitamin A from the rice in schools, stopped all testing and fired the scientists involved when Greenpeace found out about it and started fear mongering.
I'd say the greatest product developed through genetic engineering is human insulin for the treatment of diabetes.
You all realize that genetic engineering is a method that is open source and usable by anyone and has been used to develop millions of products over 40+ years. Because talking to the public you get the sense they think all genetically engineered products are from Monsanto and Monsanto somehow owns genetic engineering.12 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think it depends on who you mean when you say "we".
I don't believe many people are actually against the development of GMO/GE foods. A good number are against them being introduced into the food supply unlabeled. Wanting information on what you are buying/consuming is not even close to bashing.
I also think it is completely asinine to group all GMO/GE foods together as if one being safe means they are all safe, or vice versa. Just as with other foods, each should be evaluated on their own merits.
This is where I am on the issue today. It may be years before we have hard data on this subject.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »AmandaHugginkiss wrote: »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.
I think the greatest thing that has been done done through genetic modification is the development of Golden Rice. It was genetically modified to include beta carotene, in other words Vitamin A, a nutrient that is sorely lacking in many third-world countries, which tend to be major rice consumers. Golden Rice could save lives if the fear mongering surrounding it would stop. It isn't commercially available, yet, though. The Chinese government, where scientists were testing the bioavailability of the Vitamin A from the rice in schools, stopped all testing and fired the scientists involved when Greenpeace found out about it and started fear mongering.
I'd say the greatest product developed through genetic engineering is human insulin for the treatment of diabetes.
You all realize that genetic engineering is a method that is open source and usable by anyone and has been used to develop millions of products over 40+ years. Because talking to the public you get the sense they think all genetically engineered products are from Monsanto and Monsanto somehow owns genetic engineering.
The "controversy" (for want of a better word) is with Monsanto and crops, which is why I think there's so much focus there. My understanding is that the first commercial product was insulin and it was a game changer because it replaced the use of pigs with a much more efficient process. I'm personally hoping we get to the removal or repair of the BRCA1 gene very soon, but again, no one seems to be so worried about that on a fitness and nutrition website.0 -
tamms_1965 wrote: »My real problem with some GMOs is the fact that they're engineered to stand up to large amounts of pesticides. I don't want any extra Roundup on my plate.
They're actually designed to use LESS pesticide and herbicide, with fewer applicators necessary, than conventional farming. This is why they're so attractive to farmers.13 -
I think it depends on what type of GMO you are talking about. We have been eating GMO foods since the beginning of the human race. Bees fly from flower to flower and cross pollinate. That is their job. The flowers and trees depend on it. Once we began farming, we chose which seeds we liked and planted them. People figured out if you mixed this apple with that apple you got an apple different from both parents and that sometimes it was a really great apple! And bees have been doing that for us for millions of years.
But, when you start splicing genes to be resistant to a pesticide, or including proteins from a fish to make an tomato have longer shelf life, THATS when I have a problem.
Americans fear their food. Some one comes out with a claim, usually a result of really bad science, and everyone jumps on the wagon.0 -
GMO bashers = people who don't know what GMOs are. The act of agriculture itself is genetic modification.
Source - Jewish Scientists-1 -
Yes, and it's not surprising given that most people don't even know what genetic modification entails. If they did, they'd know it's not all sterilized lab settings, radiation-induced mutations, mutagen injections and freaky hybridization. People have been genetically selecting and breeding organisms since the beginning of agriculture.0
-
tamms_1965 wrote: »My real problem with some GMOs is the fact that they're engineered to stand up to large amounts of pesticides. I don't want any extra Roundup on my plate.
They're actually designed to use LESS pesticide and herbicide, with fewer applicators necessary, than conventional farming. This is why they're so attractive to farmers.
Plus, a good portion of the Roundup is gone within one rainfall after application...
(Modern pesticides are designed to break down quickly in the environment. Sun & rain take care of most of it, and soil bacteria handle the rest...)5 -
I believe lab modifications could potentially be hazardous, but not in the way it is currently being used. People hear "potentially hazardous" and then companies relying on smaller farms use those words as a scare tactic to retain their business.0
-
ConeheadAlpha wrote: »I believe lab modifications could potentially be hazardous, but not in the way it is currently being used. People hear "potentially hazardous" and then companies relying on smaller farms use those words as a scare tactic to retain their business.
Well yeah, genetic engineering is dangerous in the way a hammer is dangerous. Both are tools, both could cause potential harm if misused. That said I haven't yet seen the movement to have all products made in part utilizing hammers labeled hammer-made-objects (HMOs) by federal mandate. People have the right to know!
If Monsanto misused genetic engineering (GE) tech then go after Monsanto, not GE itself. If a serial killer bludgeon people to death with a hammer you prosecute the serial killer, you don't start labeling things made with hammers.
The whole GE-labeling push just seems so bizarre and misguided to me. GE is just a tool okay...it's not magic.
9 -
What is all this ruckus about Genetically Modified Orgasms, anyway?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWB1wxxfZuA 1 -
Yes, it's just part of the ridiculous hippie anti-modernism cult.2
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions