Thing is, this never happened. In both cases where Monsanto sued farmers (Bowman and Schmeiser), the farmers had knowingly and deliberately planted and propagated patented seeds without paying the licencing fee. The farmers stole, and did so deliberately and knowing full well what they were doing. The anti-GMO crowd avoids that little detail as it ruins their david-vs-golliath myth.One part of this article that grabbed me is the genetic pool. So if say in 20 years I have natural bees and a natural queen mates with a GMO bee, does her offspring mean i will get sued for stealing the GMO technology? Kinda like Monsanto did with their corn genetics? I'm pretty sure whoever comes up with this Frankenbee will make it proprietary and go after people. First it was big Ag. Then Big genetics to make Ag even bigger. Next will be big polinators buisness. Just like in all the previous mentioned the little guys die out and commonsenseless college people will be in it for the money, not the morals.
It depends. If you knowingly & deliberately propagate a patented GMO, than you are guilty of patent infringement and/or theft. Accidental cross-breeding (cross-pollination, etc) is explicitly excluded as an actionable event, meaning that if it happens and you have no idea it happened, you are legally protected. Cross pollination (especially of corn, which is a broadcast pollinator) happens all the time, and no one gets sued over it. It wouldn't even be possible to regulate that.One part of this article that grabbed me is the genetic pool. So if say in 20 years I have natural bees and a natural queen mates with a GMO bee, does her offspring mean i will get sued for stealing the GMO technology?
Most of the stuff reported on by the reporter wasn't even transgenics (genes moved from one organism to another), but rather gene editing (where existing genes are rendered inactive).Biggest thing to me is that they didn't invent or create the genes... they moved them from somewhere to another place.
Almost all the research is done at unis or NGO's. None of them in the article received buildings, money or other compensation from industry, as is disclosed in the disclosure sections of the relevant publications.Some of the research was done at universities, and most that did research got a new building that they named after an executive, or the company, or a subsidiary, etc.
Generally speaking, you cannot get a patent on a naturally existing gene. You can patent organisms you've genetically modified, and you can patent applications (e.g. transferring resistance genes to an organism to allow a specific pesticide to be used on it).I don't see how you get a patent for something that you didn't create, you only used it in a new way and place. I realize extensive R&D dollars were invested, with the promise of a payback, but the patent variety protection act has set the stage for abuse, imo.
That was then case (the patent has aged out). However, Monsanto doesn't own the resultant seeds (e.g. the farmer can still sell them for feed/etc), nor can Monsanto sue them for having the genetics present in their seeds.When I worked for a big ag firm 20 years ago, we were told that cross pollination of Roundup ready soy beans with regular soy beans meant that what was then Monsanto owned those beans that showed the resistant traits, even if the farmer had never bought the patented beans. I doubt much has changed.
I was unable to find any legitimate documentation showing this to be the case - e.g. court filings or reports from non-activist sources. I challenge you to provide links to the relevant court decisions or other documents showing this. In fact, your exact claim has been tested in court, and the court ruled that not one of Monsanto's ~700 lawsuits and out-of-course settlements involved farmers who unwittingly had patented seed on their property (both GMO and non-GMO variants): http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1298.Opinion.6-6-2013.1.PDF>So if say in 20 years I have natural bees and a natural queen mates with a GMO bee, does her offspring mean i will get sued for stealing the GMO technology? Kinda like Monsanto did with their corn genetics?
Monsanto likes to act like that didn’t happen but the farmers tell a very different story. In fact they say they notified Monsanto when a powerline easement was sprayed with roundup and the Canola there didn’t die. He asked Monsanto to get their plants off of his property. So Monsanto sued him.
Then they started suing corn farmers and soybean farmers even if they never bought Monsanto seed.
Who are you going to believe? I’m sure the court transcripts should clarify things some.
Exactly. We've grown both GMO (from KWS) and non-GMO sugar beets on our farm* and have had cases of GMO beets growing from spillage in non-GMO fields. Not only did KWS not give a ****, they helped identify the contaminated area so that we could separate the beets so that they wouldn't go to the wrong processor. Contrary to what people seem to believe, these companies are not monsters and in most cases are an absolute pleasure to work with. Monsanto (now Bayer) knows we have a dozen or so seed suppliers to work with - it is not in their interest to treat us poorly or to work against us. Steal from them, and yes, they will come down on your with an army or lawyers - same as any other big firm. But work with them honesty and they'll treat you well.You can't get sued for AP (Adventitious Presence). At the same time you have to be careful about it though as the traits may have restrictions. For example, if you deal with a distributor or grain elevator that may deal only with non gmo grain and their customers expect as much. Knowingly propagating and selecting for the traits is where people got into trouble or buying bags of bulk grain from elevators knowing full well it was traited material and not for planting is where people were getting sued over. MB's story may have some validity but it typically played out like this... well, you didn't know you had AP... but then why is 99% of your field traited.....
True sir. I do as well but for me its a moral thing. lots of people do their thing just for money and aren't happy, probably cause they screw over other people or get screwed over to make that money. I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and hate life. Id say im closer to the latter. lol.Hey guys and gals, let's keep this thread about GMO's and not get sidetracked on a money tangent. Money is a good thing. I wish I had more of it.
There is nothing natural about the way that our current non-GMO crops and livestock have been bread. You'd be hard pressed to find anything on your table, farm or even backyard garden that doesn't have radiation/chemical mutagenesis, induced polypolidy, interspecies hybridisation, line breeding, marker-assisted breeding, reverse breeding, or double-haploids in its breeding history. None of those happen in nature, and all but two (mutagenesis and double-haploids) have been used by humans (largely unwittingly) for millennia.I just dunno if id want to get into it being that its not naturally bread like livestock and crops once were. I guess we'll see in the years to come...
Mutagenesis is you nail the seeds with a s***-ton of radiation or mutagenic chemical (usually to the point where 60-70% of the seeds die), grow out the mutants that survive, and then try to cross out as many of the tens of thousands of mutations present to keep the few you want. This tech has been around since the 1920's. Double-haploids is a bit harder to explain...essentially for you force the sperm/egg (pollen/seed) to double their chromasomes and then breed with that, giving you offspring with either 3 or 4 (instead of the normal 2) copies of each chromasome. That tech's a bit newer - invented in the 1960's, but not really used until the 80's.I've never heard of mutagenesis and double-haploids.
Except that it didn't work out. History is filled with repeated famines and agricultural collapses. These are the number one reason why cultures have gone extinct. The high cultures of the bronze age (Sumaria, Babylon, etc) all died because of this, as have hundreds of societies since. Even in the modern era its an issue - as examples the Irish potato famine of the mid-1800's, and the collapse of Somalia in the 1990's. Traditional agriculture is many things, but reliable is not one of them.As far as breading goes we got to what we had before GMO's through milleniums of just breading. It worked out for our ancestors and they were primitive.
When consumed they act as nutrition. For transgenic foods, the transgenes are simply DNA, which is present in every piece of food you've ever consumed. When you eat DNA It gets digested, and your body then uses it to make more DNA or breaks it down further for energy. Those transgenes genes in turn encode proteins, which are what do the actual work. And those proteins are digested when you eat them, just as is all the other proteins present in every bite of food you've consumed. Neither the DNA, nor the resulting proteins, make it past your stomach intact. From the perspective of your body, a transgenic organism is inseparable from a non-transgenic organism.What do these mods truly do to us when we eat them though?