# Panel finds GMO foods to be safe



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Will this change your mind about GMO foods? Will this change anyone's mind about GMO foods?

Coming just days after the successful cancer killing GMO virus trial, we now have a collection of studies, reports and trials that dispel the myths of the anti-GMO group.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/genetically-modified-crops-are-safe-report-says-n575436

Happy reading. :icecream:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Two concerns, and I am not anti-GMO. 

1) GMO's have been around for a couple of decades, what happens with 50 years of exposure? 

2) Just because some are "safe" doesn't mean that all are safe. 

For example, a GMO virus (really not the correct terminology) A virus containing recombinant DNA/RNA would be the more scientifically accurate description, but, tomato/tomato. If it can be altered to kill cancer cells, could one not be tweaked to kill cardiac cells?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Two concerns, and I am not anti-GMO.
> 
> 1) GMO's have been around for a couple of decades, what happens with 50 years of exposure?
> 
> ...


One can "what if" anything to death and make it look bad.

There is no scientific evidence GMO crops are really any different from conventional crops in their effects.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One can "what if" anything to death and make it look bad.
> 
> There is no scientific evidence GMO crops are really any different from conventional crops in their effects.


Who "what ifed"? The "if" you highlighted spoke of something that has already happened. I will break down the language because you seem to be having trouble with it, across many different posts and posters, on a regular basis. I said if one can alter the genes of a virus to attack cancer cells (which has already happened), then one can create one that can attack other types of cells. That is not a "what if" scenario, it is a if/then scenario. That is different. Do you understand now? 

Again, I didn't say that there was any current evidence. I simply stated the fact that the data only goes back some 20 years, what would the next 30 show?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Two concerns, and I am not anti-GMO.
> 
> 1) GMO's have been around for a couple of decades, what happens with 50 years of exposure?
> 
> ...


I'm betting the boys and girls at Ft. Detrick, and whatever Russia calls their research facility are hard at work on this.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Two concerns, and I am not anti-GMO.
> 
> 1) GMO's have been around for a couple of decades, what happens with 50 years of exposure?
> 
> ...


Well, the anti-GMO folks were saying that a couple decades ago, came up with nothing. I guess they'll have to set their sights farther into the future. What happens with 50 years of exposure. Heck, why stop there, let's ban them until we are sure they are safe after 200 years of exposure.

No one is saying that every altered DNA strand is beneficial. But the hysteria over the mundane, widely tested is insane.

A national champion Holstein cow, the kind everyone wants in their herd, was cloned and the hysteria prevented the cow from being added to a dairy herd.
Even in this news story, the camera pans over grocery store fruits and vegetables, as if they are the results of GMO. Then they say that GMO makes crops drought resistant. Since when? 

Seems like no one wants to pare away the hype and see it for what it really is. BT in corn, while BT is allowed in organic gardens, common in plants and animals; Roundup Ready crops that simply don't react to this specific herbicide like other plants do. That in a few cases, weeds, natural non-GMO weeds, adapted, through natural selection, this very same trait. That's it. All the hand wringing over two alterations.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Alrighty. You champion GMO crops. No problem with that. Can you tell me why the industry adamantly refuses any and all labeling so that consumers can make a choice in how they spend their money?

Could it be because that GMO piece of squash on the shelf might command a price of say a nickel per 18 wheeler when placed next to non GMO squash at 99 cents a pound? 

So by political power and a HUGE bank account, you are taking a product that is virtually worthless and making people buy it. 

I can purchase nonGMO feed for my pigs, but not for my kids. Is that messed up or what? Why?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Alrighty. You champion GMO crops. No problem with that. Can you tell me why the industry adamantly refuses any and all labeling so that consumers can make a choice in how they spend their money?
> 
> Could it be because that GMO piece of squash on the shelf might command a price of say a nickel per 18 wheeler when placed next to non GMO squash at 99 cents a pound?
> 
> ...


I could explain why labeling isn't a solution, but that dead horse has been beat to burger on a couple previous GMO threads. Simply put, costly, meaningless and misleading.
But some companies are getting on board with it. I see consumers mislead every day. Notice the recent no BGH for ice cream and yogurt ads? Meaningless since dairies haven't used BGH for over a decade. "Chicken with no added hormones", when there aren't and never were added chicken growth hormones. But people select these products over those without labels because they believe it is somehow better, when it is exactly the same. Gluten-free oatmeal or corn muffins when there is no gluten in oats or corn. No different than "Fat-free Cane Sugar" or "No high fructose corn sugar Lard". 

Spend a few minutes in an upscale grocery store as people try to sort through white eggs, EB eggs, brown eggs, cage free eggs, vegetarian eggs, free range eggs and organic eggs. It is pure craziness. No one knows exactly what each choice really means.

If you want to avoid GMO foods buy organic. That simple. If, after you read the report and 800 studies, you still want to avoid GMO, it seems likely you'd also be fearful of food raised with chemicals. So, you'll be buying organic anyway. More room for me in the rest of the store.

Anyone that has any interest in what they eat, should be able to remember that the only fresh vegetables in the store that possibly could be GMO is corn and summer squash. Not tomatoes, not potatoes, not rutabaga, not seedless watermelons.
In the other areas, processed foods, you will have to figure where you draw the line against GMO. White Sugar from GMO sugar beets doesn't contain any of the altered DNA, but your purchase might trickle down to Monsanto. Same for corn oil and canola oil. No GMO DNA, but ties to the evil empire.

Within your world, you might perceive that most people want organic and oppose GMO. But if you honestly walk around your local grocery, you'll see that people buy based on price. Organics is a small part of the market. 

Given the choice between sweet corn with a few corn borers and GMO sweet corn, you might be surprised what most consumers pick. I know a guy that runs a roadside farmers market for tomatoes and sweet corn. People don't want chemicals and the don't want grubs in their food GMO sweet corn gives them what they want.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

haypoint said:


> I could explain why labeling isn't a solution, but that dead horse has been beat to burger on a couple previous GMO threads. Simply put, costly, meaningless and misleading.
> But some companies are getting on board with it. I see consumers mislead every day. Notice the recent no BGH for ice cream and yogurt ads? Meaningless since dairies haven't used BGH for over a decade. "Chicken with no added hormones", when there aren't and never were added chicken growth hormones. But people select these products over those without labels because they believe it is somehow better, when it is exactly the same. Gluten-free oatmeal or corn muffins when there is no gluten in oats or corn. No different than "Fat-free Cane Sugar" or "No high fructose corn sugar Lard".
> 
> Spend a few minutes in an upscale grocery store as people try to sort through white eggs, EB eggs, brown eggs, cage free eggs, vegetarian eggs, free range eggs and organic eggs. It is pure craziness. No one knows exactly what each choice really means.
> ...


Similar to a previous tactic, I notice your scenarios did not include nonGMO summer squash at 99 cents a pound next to GMO summer squash for 89 cents a pound. I am trying to give a fair estimate of the price advantage of genetically altered crops in production costs, but lets not get hung up on that completely estimated number, ok?

Certain executives of a certain company have been quoted as saying the reason they will not label is because noone would buy. Smart people. 

And why do you say there can be only two GMO crops in the grocery store? Why are there numerous tomato and cucumber GMO seeds available? Monsanto bought the largest vegetable seed company. They have numerous GMO seeds. 

I do not wsnt to pay organic prices. I want the production benefit of fertilizer and reasonably used chemicals to keep costs low. I do not want GMO. 

This study you posted is not done or released because suddenly, after 20 years of shut up and eat it, Monsanto finally gained an ounce of respect for consumers. It is because their prediction of the demise of organic did not come true. Between organic, farmers markets, and CSA models, billions of dollars are NOT going to GMO producers. In a desperate attempt, SEE ITS SAFE. WE ARE SORRY WE EXPERIMENTED ON YOUR KIDS FOR 20 YEARS. ITS OK NOW. I dont care. Label the food. Let the market decide if your product is worth a darn.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Alrighty. You champion GMO crops. No problem with that. *Can you tell me why the industry adamantly refuses any and all labeling so that consumers can make a choice in how they spend their money*?
> 
> Could it be because that GMO piece of squash on the shelf might command a price of say a nickel per 18 wheeler when placed next to non GMO squash at 99 cents a pound?
> 
> ...


That horse has been beaten flat many times before but let's go again. For a "GMO free" label to be true and verifiably so, there would have to be extra record keeping starting at the farm, testing, segregation of products that are moved by the hundreds of tons and so on. 

There are already "non GMO" labels on food products but no standards have been established and verification of the claim is not really possible unless it's a product where there isn't a GMO version in the first place. Kinda like putting the "fat free" label on the hard candy when "fat free" was what was in vogue. And now you see a lot of "gluten free" labels on foods that never contained gluten. But if you fear GMO, just stick with what you raise yourself and what has the "organic" label on it from the store.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes that has been beating down the same long road to nothing but misinformation brought on by the anti folks so much it is sicken to read anymore about such anti gmo stuff. ( Insert pound head against wall.), it is HERE, and it is HERE to stay. Want something not gmo, READ and BUY organic. THERE is your Label. Period~!


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

MO_cows said:


> That horse has been beaten flat many times before but let's go again. For a "GMO free" label to be true and verifiably so, there would have to be extra record keeping starting at the farm, testing, segregation of products that are moved by the hundreds of tons and so on.
> 
> There are already "non GMO" labels on food products but no standards have been established and verification of the claim is not really possible unless it's a product where there isn't a GMO version in the first place. Kinda like putting the "fat free" label on the hard candy when "fat free" was what was in vogue. And now you see a lot of "gluten free" labels on foods that never contained gluten. But if you fear GMO, just stick with what you raise yourself and what has the "organic" label on it from the store.


Cant they just go ask the organic people how they do it? And once again, you build an impossible argument to support your desired outcome. You plant a nonGMO seed, you have a marketable nonGMO crop. Simple eh? No need for testing. No need for all that strawman false argument you talked about. 

Remind me again, why can I buy nonGMO pig food, but not kid food? Tell me how we can shoot a probe to the 4th moon of Saturn and not put a sticker on a squash?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Similar to a previous tactic, I notice your scenarios did not include nonGMO summer squash at 99 cents a pound next to GMO summer squash for 89 cents a pound. I am trying to give a fair estimate of the price advantage of genetically altered crops in production costs, but lets not get hung up on that completely estimated number, ok?
> 
> Certain executives of a certain company have been quoted as saying the reason they will not label is because noone would buy. Smart people.
> 
> ...


 
Studies have shown that many consumers say that they prefer organic and would pay more for it, it fails at the point of sale when people generally buy what is cheaper. I havenât any solid data on what the price difference would need to be between GMO squash and non-GMO squash. 
Because Iâm not interested in Summer Squash, I canât begin to estimate the cost advantages to this rather obscure part of the GMO discussion.

âCertain executives of a certain company have been quoted as saying the reason they will not label is because noone would buy.â Certain executives of a certain company have been quoted as saying they are coming to your house and smashing your mailbox. What kind of baseless quote is that? Sounds like the beginning of most of Snopes rumors.
I havenât been able to locate any GMO cucumbers or tomatoes. When I searched all I came up with was a report that GMO cucumbers caused groin hair to fall out. Thanks for the chuckle. Just another joke that people eager to find a GMO failure. 
What seed company can I go to buy my supply of GMO seeds? Iâve been waiting for popcorn with milk glands for self-buttering.

My Rupp Seed catalog only has sweet corn and no mention of Monsanto.
No, you are not getting labeled GMO so stop asking or I'll send you to bed without your supper.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And pretty soon people don't even have a Monsanto to blame anymore. 
They are in the process of getting bought out by Bayer. I Love It. And then they can try to take down a company that has been around since the 1800's and from a foreign country at that. LOL


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

The vegetable company owned by Monsanto is called Seminis. Spend some time on the site. They are open, or were at last look, about the GMO tomato, squash, pepper, and cucumbers they have. Here is a link about the first GMO tomato granted license. It dates from the early 90s. Seems this is the second time I have used hard evidence to show you are willing to spread untrue statements to support your claims. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato


----------



## CountryMom22 (Nov 27, 2014)

For me, the argument about labeling isn't whether I believe GMOs are harmful, it's about having the right to the info so I can make an informed decision about where to spend my money. Based on what is important to me.

Kind of like being an NRA member even though I personally don't own a gun. I don't want anyone to take away my right to do so if I want to.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Cant they just go ask the organic people how they do it? And once again, you build an impossible argument to support your desired outcome. You plant a nonGMO seed, you have a marketable nonGMO crop. Simple eh? No need for testing. No need for all that strawman false argument you talked about.
> 
> Remind me again, why can I buy nonGMO pig food, but not kid food? Tell me how we can shoot a probe to the 4th moon of Saturn and not put a sticker on a squash?


"Once again"? "False strawman"? I believe you have lost track of who you've been arguing with. This is the first time I engaged you.

Speaking of strawman, there aren't any GMO squash on the market.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Who "what ifed"? The "if" you highlighted spoke of something that has already happened. I will break down the language because you seem to be having trouble with it, across many different posts and posters, on a regular basis. I said *if* one can alter the genes of a virus to attack cancer cells (which has already happened), then one *can* create one that can attack other types of cells. That is not a "what if" scenario, it is a if/then scenario. That is different. Do you understand now?
> 
> Again, I didn't say that there was any current evidence. I simply stated the fact that the data only goes back some 20 years, what would the next 30 show?


So, as I said, it's all about "what if" instead of what is
You just think it's "different".

IF you reword it once more, THEN the results will still be identical.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Alrighty. You champion GMO crops. No problem with that. Can you tell me why the industry adamantly refuses any and all labeling so that consumers can make a choice in how they spend their money?
> 
> Could it be because that GMO piece of squash on the shelf might command a price of say a nickel per 18 wheeler when placed next to non GMO squash at 99 cents a pound?
> 
> ...


You can purchase all the non-GMO food you want
Don't pretend someone needs to label it for you 

Why would you lie and say the product is "worthless" when there's no detectable differences in GMO and conventional


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CountryMom22 said:


> For me, the argument about labeling isn't whether I believe GMOs are harmful, it's about having the right to the info so I can make an informed decision about where to spend my money. Based on what is important to me.
> 
> Kind of like being an NRA member even though I personally don't own a gun. I don't want anyone to take away my right to do so if I want to.


Do I have the "right" to know what breed of cow my Big Mac came from? Do I have a right to know what variety those tomatoes are in the market? Do I have the right to know what chemicals were sprayed on the peanut fields that grew the peanuts in my peanut butter?
Do I have the right to know if a white guy harvested my cabbage?

Just because these things matter to someone, doesn't mean that we need labels for everything. Since it is quite clear that it is safe, when is it time to just accept it and move along.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> The vegetable company owned by Monsanto is called Seminis. Spend some time on the site. They are open, or were at last look, about the GMO tomato, squash, pepper, and cucumbers they have. Here is a link about the first GMO tomato granted license. It dates from the early 90s. Seems this is the second time I have used hard evidence to show you are *willing to spread untrue statements to support your claims. *
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato


LOL
Again you accuse others of doing what you yourself are doing

Did you bother to read past the headline on your link?:



> Currently there are no genetically modified tomatoes available commercially


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

MO_cows said:


> "Once again"? "False strawman"? I believe you have lost track of who you've been arguing with. This is the first time I engaged you.
> 
> Speaking of strawman, there aren't any GMO squash on the market.


Mo, I am so sorry if I made a mistake. Pls accept my apology. It is ofered sincerely. There are GMO summer squash. That is fact. Here is a link to the third generation for just one type. 

http://www.seminis-us.com/product/conqueror-iii/114


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> Again you accuse others of doing what you yourself are doing
> 
> Did you bother to read past the headline on your link?:


Did you get to the GMO tomato Flavr Saver? Or was that too many words?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

The Seminis website has been redesigned post Monsanto buyout. There used to be a big label on any GMO seed for sale clearly identifying it as such. I no longer see that label.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

CountryMom22 said:


> For me, the argument about labeling isn't whether I believe GMOs are harmful, it's about having the right to the info so I can make an informed decision about where to spend my money. Based on what is important to me.
> 
> Kind of like being an NRA member even though I personally don't own a gun. I don't want anyone to take away my right to do so if I want to.


Reasonable request, right? But we live in a country that has a law called The Monsanto Protection Act. Now how is that for owning some senators?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> The vegetable company owned by Monsanto is called Seminis. Spend some time on the site. They are open, or were at last look, about the GMO tomato, squash, pepper, and cucumbers they have. Here is a link about the first GMO tomato granted license. It dates from the early 90s. Seems this is the second time I have used hard evidence to show you are willing to spread untrue statements to support your claims.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato


 
http://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/Home-Gardeners.aspx
No GMO available to gardeners.
http://www.seminis-us.com/e-licensing/cucurbit-technologies/
Methods explaining culturing tissue from a resistant variety to a commercial variety. Sort of a stretch to call it GMO.
http://www.seminis-us.com/e-licensing/watermelon-technologies/ 
Seminis is offering to license their methods of producing superior seedless watermelon. 
[FONT=open_sanslight]âAbstract[FONT=open_sanslight]: The invention provides methods for producing seeds in watermelon. In one embodiment methods are provided comprising grafting of a seed parent onto a stress tolerant rootstock, pollinating the seed parent with pollen from a pollen donor, and cultivating the seed parent until seed is formed. In specific embodiments, triploid seeds produced by a method of the invention are rendered conspicuously distinguishable from tetraploid seeds, and thus readily selected manually or by an automated machine. Methods for increasing seed yield and/or quality are also provided.â[/FONT][/FONT]
Nearly every fruit tree, worldwide, is a graft. Suddenly this is GMO?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One can "what if" anything to death and make it look bad.
> 
> There is no scientific evidence GMO crops are really any different from conventional crops in their effects.


Um... this is a discussion. Discussions contain "what if" statements. Please try to broaden the discussion instead of being a person who always tries to control what people are allowed to post by shutting them down, please?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Did you get to the GMO tomato Flavr Saver? Or was that too many words?


What does that have to do with your claims as to what is available *now*?

It was first sold in 1994, and was only available for a few years before *production ceased in 1997*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> The Seminis website has been redesigned post Monsanto buyout. There* used to be a big label* on any GMO seed for sale clearly identifying it as such. I no longer see that label.


So you say, but earlier you complained because GMO's weren't being labeled.
You argue both sides quite often


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Um... this is a discussion. Discussions contain "what if" statements. Please try to broaden the discussion instead of being a person who always *tries to control what people are allowed to post* by shutting them down, please?


The way you're doing now?
"If you want to control the content, buy the forum"


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

haypoint said:


> http://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/Home-Gardeners.aspx
> No GMO available to gardeners.
> http://www.seminis-us.com/e-licensing/cucurbit-technologies/
> Methods explaining culturing tissue from a resistant variety to a commercial variety. Sort of a stretch to call it GMO.
> ...


You stated there are no GMO tomatoes in the store. That is false. You provide evidence about backyard gardener seed to support your claim? Does Kroger buy from backyard gardeners? You have supplies, again, false statements to mislead as many as possible to further your goals. Would you be willing to share what you do for a living, or if you have a significant holding in Monsanto?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you say, but earlier you complained because GMO's weren't being labeled.
> You argue both sides quite often


I will explain this for you speshul. 

There used to be labels on seeds. 
There are no longer labels on seeds. 
There was NEVER a label in the store.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The way you're doing now?
> "If you want to control the content, buy the forum"


If I were to hit the lottery, it would be high on the list, and I know the first 4 things I would do there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> You stated there are no GMO tomatoes in the store. That is false. You provide evidence about backyard gardener seed to support your claim? Does Kroger buy from backyard gardeners? You have supplies, again, false statements to mislead as many as possible to further your goals. Would you be willing to share what you do for a living, or if you have a significant holding in Monsanto?


You're the one who brought Seminis into the discussion, with claims of their statements about GMO's, which you now say are no longer there. 
How convenient.



> Originally Posted by thericeguy View Post
> The vegetable company owned by Monsanto is called Seminis. Spend some time on the site. They are open, or were at last look, about the GMO tomato, squash, pepper, and cucumbers they have.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the one who brought Seminis into the discussion, with claims of their statements about GMO's, which you now say are no longer there.
> How convenient.


Their naming convention was that Toman numerals were reserved for GMO. Please look and find Roman Numerals. Now they are buying genes off third parties. Please see the Registered trademark next to a plant attribute. Do you even care about facts?

I knew a really stupid guy once. He seems like a genius now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> I will explain this for you speshul.
> 
> There used to be labels on seeds.
> There are no longer labels on seeds.
> *There was NEVER a label in the store*.


That's false too.

It simply proves you just want to argue and will say anything in order to do so
It too boring though since you don't pay attention to what you post, and you don't really know what you're talking about as evidenced by all the misinformation posted.



> In the UK, Zeneca produced a tomato paste that used technology similar to the Flavr Savr.[6] Don Grierson was involved in the research to make the genetically modified tomato.[7] Due to the characteristics of the tomato, it was cheaper to produce than conventional tomato paste, resulting in the product being 20% cheaper.
> 
> Between 1996 and 1999, 1.8 million cans, *clearly labelled as genetically engineered*, were sold in Sainsbury's and Safeway. At one point the paste outsold normal tomato paste but sales fell in the autumn of 1998.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

haypoint said:


> Do I have the "right" to know what breed of cow my Big Mac came from? Do I have a right to know what variety those tomatoes are in the market? Do I have the right to know what chemicals were sprayed on the peanut fields that grew the peanuts in my peanut butter?
> Do I have the right to know if a white guy harvested my cabbage?
> 
> Just because these things matter to someone, doesn't mean that we need labels for everything. Since it is quite clear that it is safe, when is it time to just accept it and move along.


Soon as they cross a cow with a fish, I would argue yes. Until there is a GMO cow, lay off the ridiculous immaterial arguments. Where do you work again?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> If I were to hit the lottery, it would be high on the list, and I know the first 4 things I would do there.


You can start your own forum for little to nothing.

Several here have done it, and made themselves moderators and Administrators, although they seem to spend more time here than there.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's false too.
> 
> It simply proves you just want to argue and will say anything in order to do so
> It too boring though since you don't pay attention to what you post, and you don't really know what you're talking about as evidenced by all the misinformation posted.


There is only two relevant letters to the whole story. UK. Feel free to keep trying.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The USA is NOT the UK nor do we ever want to be like ANY other country. So quit that what otters countries are doing like them so much? Well.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> There is only two relevant letters to the whole story. UK. Feel free to keep trying.


You didn't specify any locations
There are no GMO tomatoes for sale here.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

I will continue to have questions about GMO operations. Evolution takes a very long time to produce the most minute changes in a being or plant for that matter. What I see GMO doing is speeding up the evolutionary process in plants without taking the multiple generations to see what those "plant" changes are doing to mammals on the planet. It was not long ago that we thought and were told that smoking tobacco was not dangerous...now we know different. It was not that long ago when we thought this or that was safe or not dangerous...everything from margarine to alcohol to fatty acids. Now we know different. For some reason humans are very adept at making the world work for them rather than us working "with" our world. I will continue to eat as naturally as I can and pray for a long healthy life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Soon as they cross a cow with a fish, I would argue yes. Until there is a GMO cow, lay off the ridiculous immaterial arguments. Where do you work again?


Google is your friend
GMO cows exist


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> You stated there are no GMO tomatoes in the store. That is false. You provide evidence about backyard gardener seed to support your claim? Does Kroger buy from backyard gardeners? You have supplies, again, false statements to mislead as many as possible to further your goals. Would you be willing to share what you do for a living, or if you have a significant holding in Monsanto?


You told me that seed companies are selling GMO tomatoes and cucumbers. I asked where. You gave me the seminis web site. That address YOU sent me says that there are no GMO seeds sold to gardeners. I posted that and stated what this page was about. I also posted a couple other pages from the site you selected as your proof. But I came up empty handed. I spent a bit of time searching through the many pages on the site you sent. Why did you mislead me about GMO seeds on that site? Were GMO vegetables on there and then after you posted it to me it vanished?

Yes, I know a GMO tomato existed. As far as I know, it had been pulled years ago. I'm always interested in learning about new developments. I'm still looking for proof that there is still a GMO vegetable, beyond the summer squash discussed earlier. No apples, potatoes, carrots.

You said there were seed companies selling these seeds. The site you sent was a dead end. Where are these seed companies you spoke of?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

sisterpine said:


> I will continue to have questions about GMO operations. Evolution takes a very long time to produce the most minute changes in a being or plant for that matter. What I see GMO doing is speeding up the evolutionary process in plants without taking the multiple generations to see what those "plant" changes are doing to mammals on the planet. It was not long ago that we thought and were told that smoking tobacco was not dangerous...now we know different. It was not that long ago when we thought this or that was safe or not dangerous...everything from margarine to alcohol to fatty acids. Now we know different. For some reason humans are very adept at making the world work for them rather than us working "with" our world. I will continue to eat as naturally as I can and pray for a long healthy life.


In less than 20 years, weeds have developed the same resistance to Roundup that the Monsanto scientists created in a decade of research. I'd say that is pretty strong proof that Nature can move fairly quickly when she wants to.
Modern agriculture, along with GMO and chemicals provides enough food so that you can eat your natural food in peace. Without these advances hunger comes close to home, quickly. When that happens, me and a hoard of thousands will scour the earth and take your natural food.
If you want to advocate abandoning modern farming methods for a more natural approach, get out from under the Big Ag umbrella that provides you the ready access to the life you cherish.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Google is your friend
> GMO cows exist


And as soon as they figure out how to splice a set of genes that give cattle salmonella resistance, but are part of a "red with pigment" color code, you bet your bippy that they will splice them into black Angus cattle to maintain their market share.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

There are no gmo tomatoes or cucumbers available commercially.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

So, some of the things coming out of this report appear to be that GMO crops really don't yield as much as previously thought. Also, as plant's and pests evolve, the benefits of GMO could be short lived. The added expense of genetically modifying plants could prove prohibitive, if in time it is discovered that they don't really have a lasting advantage. They might turn out to be an expensive flash in the pan in some cases. If this happens, maybe the GMO companies will even stop suing people who keep seed from plants fertilized by drifting pollen, thereby stealing their patented genetic material. There is a lot of hype on both sides of the issue.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...-are-safe-but-dont-always-deliver-on-promises


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

barnbilder said:


> So, some of the things coming out of this report appear to be that GMO crops really don't yield as much as previously thought. Also, as plant's and pests evolve, the benefits of GMO could be short lived. The added expense of genetically modifying plants could prove prohibitive, if in time it is discovered that they don't really have a lasting advantage. They might turn out to be an expensive flash in the pan in some cases. If this happens, maybe the GMO companies will even stop suing people who keep seed from plants fertilized by drifting pollen, thereby stealing their patented genetic material. There is a lot of hype on both sides of the issue.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...-are-safe-but-dont-always-deliver-on-promises


A study done in 13 showed organic farms of the same comparable size of standard ag farms produced 33% more crops and faired better against drought. I'm not saying all gmo is bad but it's not needed to the extent they say. Organic could feed the world just as easy.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

To believe that GMO is needed as a pest control, one would have to reject the balance that nature has been establishing since complex ecosystems began. Lots of insects? Birds eat good and reproduce. Overeat the insects, pushing populations low, and starve to death allowing insects to flourish .... Rinse and repeat for as long as you desire. 

Diseases are a little trickier and GMO may have a definate edge over traditional breeding, but breeding can certainly do an adequate job. The "starving world" argument is a farce to gain money. 

Regardless, I do not want buffalo genes in my salad. Thank you.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Vahomesteaders said:


> A study done in 13 showed organic farms of the same comparable size of standard ag farms produced 33% more crops and faired better against drought. I'm not saying all gmo is bad but it's not needed to the extent they say. Organic could feed the world just as easy.


Lots of acres of GMO corn is now back to traditional hybrids. Just cant justify the cost of the bag of seed on the bottom line. There is now a hybrid corn that resists cross pollination from GMO corn.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> So, some of the things coming out of this report appear to be that GMO crops really don't yield as much as previously thought. Also, as plant's and pests evolve, the benefits of GMO could be short lived. The added expense of genetically modifying plants could prove prohibitive, if in time it is discovered that they don't really have a lasting advantage. They might turn out to be an expensive flash in the pan in some cases. If this happens, maybe the GMO companies will even stop suing people who keep seed from plants fertilized by drifting pollen, thereby stealing their patented genetic material. There is a lot of hype on both sides of the issue.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...-are-safe-but-dont-always-deliver-on-promises


Suing people for drifting pollen? Won't that myth ever die? Monsanto isn't/hasn't sued anyone for drifting pollen. Originally, (here we go again) a seed dealer in Canada was selling GMO Canola, the second year it was on the market. He had sold a huge amount, like the harvest of 160 acres. Claimed all sorts of excuses, one of them pollen drift. Didn't make sense to me and didn't to the Judge either. 

Along with the advantages of GMO, plant breeders are getting better at combining traits that help in less than ideal conditions.

Maybe the crop yields aren't improving as much as some want, but corn yields around Michigan are in the 200 bu per acre range. This was unheard of 25 years ago. With 90% of the corn GMO, I'd have to say there is an advantage of some sort.

I talked to the largest farmer in my home county, central Michigan. He plants 5000 acres of corn, rotated with soybeans and wheat. He uses GMO corn, Bt, but not GMO Roundup Ready corn. He does use Roundup Ready Soybeans. This way, when corn plants sprout into his soybean fields, from seeds left the year before at harvest, Roundup will kill the corn, so it won't bother his soybean harvest. 

I don't have the time to explain the steps taken to limit effects of insect pest adaptation to GMO Bt. But if GMO Bt were just a flash in the pan, there was a major reduction in pesticide use for awhile, due to GMO.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Lots of acres of GMO corn is now back to traditional hybrids. Just cant justify the cost of the bag of seed on the bottom line. There is now a hybrid corn that resists cross pollination from GMO corn.


Just where do you come up with this stuff? Show me the link that any corn is resisting the pollen from another corn plant, GMO or otherwise.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> A study done in 13 showed organic farms of the same comparable size of standard ag farms produced 33% more crops and faired better against drought. I'm not saying all gmo is bad but it's not needed to the extent they say. Organic could feed the world just as easy.


If organic could feed the world, just as easily, why is organic more costly? Seems that without the costly GMO seeds and no chemicals, organic would be cheaper?
Where is that 2013 study, I'd like to read it, if it exists. If it was done by Rodale Press or Mother Earth News, forget it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So, as I said, it's all about "what if" instead of what is
> You just think it's "different".
> 
> IF you reword it once more, THEN the results will still be identical.


No, you got it wrong, as you often do, and are now trying to cover. It has been seen, many times before, from you. Nothing new here.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Wow nice to start the day with such exaggeration about GMO that I nearly spit up my coffee. These back to earth type publications are so far out of their minds that is is laughable at best. Organic can feed the world just as well. Such a laugh. &#9749;&#65039;


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Cant they just go ask the organic people how they do it? And once again, you build an impossible argument to support your desired outcome. You plant a nonGMO seed, you have a marketable nonGMO crop. Simple eh? No need for testing. No need for all that strawman false argument you talked about.
> 
> Remind me again, why can I buy nonGMO pig food, but not kid food? Tell me how we can shoot a probe to the 4th moon of Saturn and not put a sticker on a squash?



The organic market is a relatively small niche market where people are willing to pay more to be assured there food is organic. Labeling food organic adds value for the producer. I would rather not pay to label safe food products a GMO free. GMOs are designed to increase production and keep food prices affordable. The added cost of keeping GMOs from NonGMOs through out the supply line separate would be an added cost with no added value. If you buy processed food it is safe to assume you are consuming a modified product. 

Jim


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Jim Bunton said:


> The organic market is a relatively small niche market where people are willing to pay more to be assured there food is organic. Labeling food organic adds value for the producer. I would rather not pay to label safe food products a GMO free. GMOs are designed to increase production and keep food prices affordable. The added cost of keeping GMOs from NonGMOs through out the supply line separate would be an added cost with no added value. If you buy processed food it is safe to assume you are consuming a modified product.
> 
> Jim


It may not add value for you. It would for me. Funny how that works.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

haypoint said:


> Just where do you come up with this stuff? Show me the link that any corn is resisting the pollen from another corn plant, GMO or otherwise.


http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may08/gene_blocking_corn.php

You can find any further reading on the topic. I got you the name and developer. Should be enough.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

thericeguy said:


> http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may08/gene_blocking_corn.php
> 
> You can find any further reading on the topic. I got you the name and developer. Should be enough.


 It won't be enough, he won't be able to find any information in your link, and will probably call you names.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> So, some of the things coming out of this report appear to be that GMO crops really don't yield as much as previously thought. Also, as plant's and pests evolve, the benefits of GMO could be short lived. The added expense of genetically modifying plants could prove prohibitive, if in time it is discovered that they don't really have a lasting advantage. They might turn out to be an expensive flash in the pan in some cases. If this happens, maybe the GMO companies will even stop suing people who keep seed from plants *fertilized by drifting pollen,* thereby stealing their patented genetic material. There is a lot of hype on both sides of the issue.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...-are-safe-but-dont-always-deliver-on-promises


I don't believe there's ever been a case where that actually happened

Yields are dependent on a lot of variables, not just the variety of crop being grown. 

They aren't the only factor in the popularity of GMO's

It's just one the organic crowd likes to bring up, even though it generally takes them a decade to equal production levels


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Just where do you come up with this stuff? Show me the link that any corn is resisting the pollen from another corn plant, GMO or otherwise.


He just makes a lot of it up, like the GMO tomato/cucumber claims earlier


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> No, you got it wrong, as you often do, and are now trying to cover. It has been seen, many times before, from you. Nothing new here.


Nope, you were clearly voicing concern about "what if" something harmful is discovered in the future.

Why deny it, other than just to disagree with me?
It's nothing new for you either


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Vahomesteaders said:


> A study done in 13 showed organic farms of the same comparable size of standard ag farms produced 33% more crops and faired better against drought. I'm not saying all gmo is bad but it's not needed to the extent they say. Organic could feed the world just as easy.


That makes my BS detector go off. IF organic could produce 33% more, plus it sells for a premium price, every grower with two brain cells to rub together would have gone organic already. More product selling for a higher price, sure, all those farmers are just too dumb to want that!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> That makes my BS detector go off. IF organic could produce 33% more, plus it sells for a premium price, every grower with two brain cells to rub together would have gone organic already. More product selling for a higher price, sure, all those farmers are just too dumb to want that!


All the studies I've seen said it took organic producers an average of 10 years to reach the same production levels

Another thing they often overlook is those huge "organic" operations are often owned by larger conventional AG corporations


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All the studies I've seen said it took organic producers an average of 10 years to reach the same production levels
> 
> Another thing they often overlook is those huge "organic" operations are often owned by larger conventional AG corporations


Yes, the "organic" you buy at the store is usually a large scale commercial "Big Ag" operation or else, duh, how could they provide enough product to satisfy the grocery chain? For the practices and standards that most people like to think of as "organic", you are better off to grow your own, or else shop at the farmer's market buying something locally produced from somebody who hasn't jumped thru all the hoops to get the certification and labeling. But to each their own.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Haypoint, did you catch that link? Its going to allow contract satisfying nonGMO crops to be grown everywhere. No more strongarming the globe by tossing your genetic pollen around. Might consider dumping your Monsanto stock right after the buyout bump.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> It may not add value for you. It would for me. Funny how that works.


How much more would you pay for a can of corn with a label on it saying this can may contain genetically modified corn?

Jim


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Jim Bunton said:


> How much more would you pay for a can of corn with a label on it saying this can may contain genetically modified corn?
> 
> Jim


Nothing if there was a can next to it that said "this can does NOT contain GMO products" and was no more than 20% higher.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Seems like people have a variety of agendas that allow them to rationalize their choices. Doesn't seem to be legitimate concerns over GMO as it is a hate for Monsanto and Big Ag. 
Some are fine with the Farmers Market organic food, but object to organic food, raised under the same requirements, when Big Ag does it.
I want everyone to buy local. If they can do it organically, all the better. 

Given the choice between organic sweet corn with grubs/corn borers or sweet corn sprayed with insecticides without grubs/corn borers or GMO sweet corn, without insecticides or grubs/corn borers, I'll eat GMO every time. It is because I want to reduce insecticide use and don't want insects in my food. 

If sweet corn was labeled organic GMO, (set aside, for the moment, that GMO cannot be organic), raised without chemicals, fertilized with composted manure, would you buy it? I think many have drawn a line and 600 studies won't alter their opinion. 6,000 studies or 60,000 studies won't change their mind.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Haypoint, did you catch that link? Its going to allow contract satisfying nonGMO crops to be grown everywhere. No more strongarming the globe by tossing your genetic pollen around. Might consider dumping your Monsanto stock right after the buyout bump.


Catch it? Heck, I posted it. 

Lots of Monsanto's products are leased to other companies. That's all this page in their web site is about.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

haypoint said:


> Catch it? Heck, I posted it.
> 
> Lots of Monsanto's products are leased to other companies. That's all this page in their web site is about.


You posted the link to the gene that prevents GMO corn cross pollinating? I could have sworn I did that and you implied I made it up.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> You posted the link to the gene that prevents GMO corn cross pollinating? I could have sworn I did that and you implied I made it up.


Sorry, I did miss your posting. I thought you were referring to the leasing of cucumber seed production patents. I posted that from the site you suggested.

But, just as you wouldn't accept any assurance of the safety of GMO from Monsanto's web site, a web site devoted specifically to Anti-GMO is suspect to me. But in fairness, I'll see if I can find that information from a less bias site.

Years ago, the production of hybrid seed corn involved the hiring of many teenagers to cover the ears with paper bags to prevent pollination. The tassels of that plant was cut and removed by hand prior to pollen formation.

A more recent development eliminates that hand labor. The corn variety that they want to use the ear from grows a foot or more taller than the variety they want to use the pollen from. A cutting machine cuts the taller corn, while leaving the pollen producing tassels that is desired for pollination. So the desired cross comes from the variety with the undisturbed tassels and the desired cross comes from the ears of the variety that lost the tassels. The results is that they combine the desired traits in a cross that produces extremely pure, consistent crops.

I reviewed the website of the purported inventor of the non-cross pollenating corn, from the Anti-GMO site you supplied. Not only is there no mention of this amazing breakthrough, but the company markets GMO corn and was bought out by Pioneer eight years ago. I'd suggest you follow up on your sources, first.

http://www.therightseed.com/news/118


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

There now exists a gene to stop unwanted genes. It is sweet candy to noGMO growers surrounded by GMO. They now have a choice. Companies like Frito Lay who had to abandon Nogmo stances due to supply now have choices. 

I only hope the gene is stable in further crosses. There are two hybrid corn seeds that I know of with the gene.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

thericeguy said:


> Nothing if there was a can next to it that said "this can does NOT contain GMO products" and was no more than 20% higher.


If the market is there to justify the higher cost some company will be selling certified non GMO products.

Jim


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> There now exists a gene to stop unwanted genes. It is sweet candy to noGMO growers surrounded by GMO. They now have a choice. Companies like Frito Lay who had to abandon Nogmo stances due to supply now have choices.
> 
> I only hope the gene is stable in further crosses. There are two hybrid corn seeds that I know of with the gene.


They had choices before, since all it takes to stop cross pollination of corn is some distance between fields

Staggering planting dates is also quite effective


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They had choices before, since all it takes to stop cross pollination of corn is some distance between fields
> 
> Staggering planting dates is also quite effective


Just guessing here, based on that "just have to" attitude a few things. 

1) you have absolutely no clue how large a buffet zone is needed

2) you have no idea how much it would cost to purchase such a buffer zone

3) you have no idea how critical a plant date can be to yield

Choices that are not choices are not choices.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Staggering planting dates? Not as effective as one would think. I have always tried to do that with sweet corn, so as to prolong the harvest. The early planted stuff ends up getting stunted from cool weather, the late planted stuff grows fast and tassels short, and it all comes in about the same time.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

And a rainy season, when everything goes in together? Yesh, you just dont get to plant. 

As I said, choices that are not choices are not choices. Stick to sheep.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Just guessing here, based on that "just have to" attitude a few things.
> 
> 1) you have absolutely no clue how large a buffet zone is needed
> 
> ...


1) corn pollen seldom drifts far. Your neighbor's corn pollen getting on your heritage strain has always been a concern, not specific to GMO nor have anything to do with this thread about safety of GMO crops.

2) you don't plant your specialty corn right to the fence line and then buy the neighbor's land to get your buffer. 

3) apparently you have no idea either. Currently, late season, planted early to insure maturity and dry down, and early season, planted late are setting yield records. As more hybrids are adapted to thrive in colder soils, withstand drought, planting dates become less of a factor. But again, germination, stand ability and yield are not part of the GMO breeding. 

As has always been the case with farming, you learn to adapt to your surroundings. Maybe not choices but decisions none the less.

If your heirloom strawberry popcorn tassels out in early August, ask you neighbor when his Frankenstein GMO is in pollen and adapt.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

haypoint said:


> 1) corn pollen seldom drifts far. Your neighbor's corn pollen getting on your heritage strain has always been a concern, not specific to GMO nor have anything to do with this thread about safety of GMO crops.
> 
> 2) you don't plant your specialty corn right to the fence line and then buy the neighbor's land to get your buffer.
> 
> ...


I want to plant 500 acres of non GMO corn. A 1/4 mile buffer is needed or I stand too great a chance of cross pollination from nearby GMO crops. 

Assuming a square field, or near it, calculate how msny acres of buffer are needed, then quote me land values per acre in your region. 

Let us determine if Monsantos' position of "you need a buffer" is reasonable.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Monsanto doesn't really have a good record of having much interest in people's health and farmers well being. The very nature of GM seed is that it costs a lot of money to develop. This cost is handed off, in the form of high seed prices, and in suing farmers for millions when they get caught saving seed. If there is any question about it not meeting it's claims, a lot of farmers probably won't be inclined to bother with it. 

Heck, I've gone to the feed mill and bought corn and planted it. Never tried spraying it with roundup, but who knows. Of course it won't grow many ears, but makes good cover strips. Hope I don't get sued. As cheap as the stuff is, I don't see why people are worried about getting bigger yields, maybe if they shot for smaller yields, it would have more demand and bring more. Do the subsidies pay by the acre, or by the bushel?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> I want to plant 500 acres of non GMO corn. A 1/4 mile buffer is needed or I stand too great a chance of cross pollination from nearby GMO crops.
> 
> Assuming a square field, or near it, calculate how msny acres of buffer are needed, then quote me land values per acre in your region.
> 
> Let us determine if Monsantos' position of "you need a buffer" is reasonable.



Here's an article that I think explains methods of segregating crops to keep you from having GMO tainted corn...

https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.00/gmo_issues-000307.html

I like you don't have to give up productive land, just segregate the grains during harvest and storage/shipping.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Just guessing here, based on that "just have to" attitude a few things.
> 
> 1) you have absolutely no clue how large a buffet zone is needed
> 
> ...


You'd be wrong on your guesses
Don't give up your day job to be Miss Cleo

You're suffering under the misconception that this topic hasn't been done to death here:
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...life-organic-crop-yields-vs-conventional.html

https://hort.purdue.edu/ext/HO-98.pdf



> Distance.
> 
> Since pollen is carried by the wind rather than insects, distance can be used as an effective barrier. A distance of 250 feet between different types will result in some contamination, but not enough to materially affect the quality of the produce. *A distance of 700 feet should give complete isolation*; however, complete isolation is only necessary for scientific and plant breeding purposes.





> Maturity. The number of days to maturity can be used to prevent different types from being at a pollinating stage at the same time. Maturity isolation can be achieved by staggering planting dates or by selecting cultivars that mature at different times. A minimum of 14 days should separate the tasseling time of the different types.





> Barrier/Border Rows. A considerable amount of contaminating pollen can be diluted by planting two to five border rows between different types. Most of the cross-pollination would occur in these border rows so that isolation distances could be reduced.


Cross pollination by wind is mostly a myth perpetuated by the ignorant, and those with an agenda


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Just because man thinks they can play god does not mean they should play god


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nope, you were clearly voicing concern about "what if" something harmful is discovered in the future.
> 
> Why deny it, other than just to disagree with me?
> It's nothing new for you either


 That is a valid concern and you know it, or, perhaps you don't? Remember that asbestos was once a miracle substance.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

haley1 said:


> Just because man thinks they can play god does not mean they should play god


 All he is doing is speeding up the process, nothing wrong with something that would take place sooner or later, might as well make it NOW, for the well being of mankind and the rest of the world. After all, God made man and made his mind to work in a way to create many things, and gave many a gift for creating things for the better, and so what if one is by speedup up many thing to the benefit of everyone. 
- This is good, now better not say too much against this, with a mouth full of some of that food that was speed up in time for the better.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Since pollen is carried by the wind rather than insects,
> 
> Cross pollination by wind is mostly a myth perpetuated by the ignorant, and those with an agenda


Two of your statements in your post appear to contradict each other. Could you explain? 

I will make the calculation for the buffer zone for a 500 acre field. You will see it is not trivial.

1 acre is 43,560 sq ft
500 acres is 43560 * 500 = 21,780,000 sq ft
4,667 * 4,667 = 21,780,889 (close enough)
add 700 feet to all sides of the field and our new field is 6,067 * 6,067
6,067 * 6,067 = 36,808,489
The difference is 36,808,489 - 21,780,889 = 15,027,600
Converting to acres we get:
15,027,600 / 43,560 = 344.98 acres of buffer zone.

Plug in your regions land values and see if you think you would like to pay that just to plant the crop you want to plant 

345 * $3500 = $1,207,500
345 * $5000 = $1,725,000
345 * $7500 = $2,587,500

So how much is decent corn land where your from? Pick a number. How much extra cash do you have laying around to have a "choice". Is the buffer land even available to buy if you DID have the cash? Maybe not, so let's subtract the buffer zone and see how big our new field is.

4,667 - 1400 = 3,267
3,267 * 3,267 = 10,673,289
Convert to acres:
10,673,289 / 43,560 = 245

We just lost 255 acres of land to buffer. We have less corn than buffer. Seems fair, right? They have real choices, right?

Just putting the math out there for everyone in case anyone not used to large land areas has an incorrect assumption we are talking about 5 or 10 acres here.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Two of your statements in your post appear to contradict each other. Could you explain?
> 
> I will make the calculation for the buffer zone for a 500 acre field. You will see it is not trivial.
> 
> ...


You don't have to loose that land at all, you can just segregate 20 rows away from the rest it all still gets sold, saved or whatever.

Plus the chances of the whole 500 acres being surrounded by GMO corn are pretty slim.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

coolrunnin said:


> You don't have to loose that land at all, you can just segregate 20 rows away from the rest it all still gets sold, saved or whatever.
> 
> Plus the chances of the whole 500 acres being surrounded by GMO corn are pretty slim.


Typically, farmers are betting life savings on each crop they plant. Often, the life savings of many generations. Would you be willing to bet all that on random wind speed, maturation time and sequence, and all the other variables a farmer must face to produce a crop?

If you have signed a futures contract with a buyer for a nonGMO crop, and that contract carries a price premium, and it will, would you bare the drop in production from not planting the absolute highest yielding GMO variety, then due to contamination be forced to sell that crop alongside the GMO varieties because it was contaminated and not feel like you have been wronged?

If across the street from you the city built a sewer plant and you had to live in constant stench, would you be mad? Would you want to govt that built that plant to compensate you based on the value of your property before the stench? or would you just say OH WELL like you seem to be saying to that farmer?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> I want to plant 500 acres of non GMO corn.
> 
> * A 1/4 mile buffer is needed* or I stand too great a chance of cross pollination from nearby GMO crops.
> 
> ...


That's not true, proving once again you just make things up as you go


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> That is a valid concern *and you know it*, or, perhaps you don't? Remember that asbestos was once a miracle substance.


It's a "what if" and you know it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Two of your statements in your post appear to contradict each other. Could you explain?
> .


It needs no explanation nor math.

The university did the research and you're trying to divert attention away from what they said about buffers now that your "guesses" have been shown to be false



> Since pollen is carried by the wind rather than insects, distance can be used as an effective barrier.
> 
> A distance of *250 feet *between different types will result in some contamination, but not enough to materially affect the quality of the produce.
> 
> A distance of 700 feet should give complete isolation; however, complete isolation is only necessary for scientific and plant breeding purposes.





> Let us determine if Monsantos' position of "you need a buffer" is reasonable.


Where did Monsanto make any statement about buffers? You're making things up again.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a "what if" and you know it


You really need to work on your reading comprehension. You seem to be saying that any question about the long term consequences of GMO's are all "what if" scenarios and not valid, by your rules of debate. (very convenient for you BTW).

You can have your little tag lines to try and stifle debate, such as "what if", "parroting rhetoric", or, whatever pejorative you wish to use when the questions are a little to difficult for you to answer, which seems to be more often than not, but, as I have said before, more and more are seeing you for what you are and I am loving it. 

Time for the weekend, and some time away from this circus.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> You really need to work on your reading comprehension. You seem to be saying that any question about the long term consequences of GMO's are all "what if" scenarios and not valid, by your rules of debate. (very convenient for you BTW).
> 
> You can have your little tag lines to try and stifle debate, such as "what if", "parroting rhetoric", or, whatever pejorative you wish to use when the questions are a little to difficult for you to answer, which seems to be more often than not, but, as I have said before, more and more are seeing you for what you are and I am loving it.
> 
> Time for the weekend, and some time away from this circus.


You need to work on yours.

"What if's" are worthless without some basis in fact, and no facts can be shown that GMO's cause any health problems.

There was no "question to answer" because your "question" was pointless speculation. 



> more and more are seeing you for what you are and I am loving it.


You say that quite often and don't realize you're doing the same things you whine about.

I'm not trying to win any popularity contests, and I'm not trying to make everyone happy. You can always put me on ignore. It makes no difference to me.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You need to work on yours.
> 
> "What if's" are worthless without some basis in fact, and no facts can be shown that GMO's cause any health problems.
> 
> ...


Good googly woogley you are thick aren't you? I was speaking generally not specifically. Did I use the word's "what if". No. I simply stated the fact that the data is only some 20 years old, at the oldest and we are not sure what the results of 50 years of exposure would do. I did no speculating at all. You saw something that wasn't there. That is a fact. There was no "what if" in 50 year x happens, was there? 

I admit that I am hard on you because of your attitude towards me and others. I don't treat others like that, you are special. :whistlin: I can't abide a bully. I ignore no one. I have no names on any ignore list, and I won't have any name on any ignore list. I have never reported any post and can't think of a scenario where I would.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Good googly woogley you are thick aren't you? I was speaking generally not specifically. *Did I use the word's "what if". No*. I simply stated the fact that the data is only some 20 years old, at the oldest and we are not sure what the results of 50 years of exposure would do. I did no speculating at all. You saw something that wasn't there. That is a fact. There was no "what if" in 50 year x happens, was there?
> 
> *I admit that I am hard on you because of your attitude towards me and others. *I don't treat others like that, you are special. :whistlin: I can't abide a bully. I ignore no one. I have no names on any ignore list, and I won't have any name on any ignore list. I have never reported any post and can't think of a scenario where I would.


Just like I stated.
You whine about something while doing the same things yourself

Ramble all you like about me , your first statement was a "what if" and you've been trying to deny it ever since.





> Two concerns, and I am not anti-GMO.
> 
> 1) GMO's have been around for a couple of decades, *what* happens with 50 years of exposure?
> 
> ...


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Typically, farmers are betting life savings on each crop they plant. Often, the life savings of many generations. Would you be willing to bet all that on random wind speed, maturation time and sequence, and all the other variables a farmer must face to produce a crop?
> 
> If you have signed a futures contract with a buyer for a nonGMO crop, and that contract carries a price premium, and it will, would you bare the drop in production from not planting the absolute highest yielding GMO variety, then due to contamination be forced to sell that crop alongside the GMO varieties because it was contaminated and not feel like you have been wronged?
> 
> If across the street from you the city built a sewer plant and you had to live in constant stench, would you be mad? Would you want to govt that built that plant to compensate you based on the value of your property before the stench? or would you just say OH WELL like you seem to be saying to that farmer?


You don't farm much do you? Every season is a crap shoot what's your point of all that.

And you never ever sell futures on your whole projected yield, come guy come up with at least a mediocre argument.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

coolrunnin said:


> You don't farm much do you? Every season is a crap shoot what's your point of all that.
> 
> And you never ever sell futures on your whole projected yield, come guy come up with at least a mediocre argument.


Tell that to the farmers whos crops are tested and rejected at that elevators due to the presence of GMO material. Tell them it happened because my argument was bad. Ignore all the things I said so you dont have to consider them. Blame someone else so you can retain a belief that you want to believe.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ANd do those same elevators have ALL the testing equipment and the correct kind of people that can READ and interpret those findings to make sure there REALLY is GMO mixed in?? i find it Very Hard to believe a elevator can make such a Quick and POSITIVE discussion to reject a load about ready to get dumped in. Hmmmmm


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Tell that to the farmers whos crops are tested and rejected at that elevators *due to the presence of GMO material*. Tell them it happened because my argument was bad. Ignore all the things I said so you dont have to consider them. Blame someone else so you can retain a belief that you want to believe.


That could be from contamination in the combines, trucks or grain bins.
You've shown no proof "cross pollination" is a real problem


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Its not a problem, some just want to blow it up way out of proportion thats all.,


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> ANd do those same elevators have ALL the testing equipment and the correct kind of people that can READ and interpret those findings to make sure there REALLY is GMO mixed in?? i find it Very Hard to believe a elevator can make such a Quick and POSITIVE discussion to reject a load about ready to get dumped in. Hmmmmm



In answer to your question, and to highlight the knowledge you bring to this discussion, yes. There is no fancy equipment required, simple strip tests. A one eyed monkey could interpret the results.

So, if you were contracted to have GMO free grain, and some volunteer seed popped up in your field, neighbors truck hit a bump, etc. You could be forced to sell your GMO tainted grain at the lower price. Or worse yet, if you don't have a seed receipt, you could join ranks with 150 other farmers that have been sued by Monsanto, sometimes for millions of dollars.

Most people think that the reason that lots of countries have banned GMOs because of health concerns. This is not entirely the case. Most countries have banned GMOs to protect their farmers, (and thereby their food supply) from legal issues. Also, to save their farmers from buying high priced seed that doesn't really deliver the advertised results. 

Yes, while we can do amazing things, what takes 20 years in a lab, ma nature can do in half the time, as evidenced by insects that can now eat BT corn like it was birthday cake, and weeds that drink roundup like it was sweet summer rain. The faulty system that GMO enables, planting the same crop on the same ground year after year, is the perfect petri dish to grow these new super pests. So yes, GMO is harmful, because it allows poor land management, and encourages farmers to rely on a handful of magic beans instead of traditional crop rotation practices.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

I don't care one way or another, I grow my food from time tested heirloom seeds and never think about GMO. My fruit orchard is heirloom, antique, and old varieties. I may not get the yield as some, but the taste is second to none. If you do eat food from a store, just remember, any so called fresh, organic, or other label...that food started to rot the moment it was picked.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> That horse has been beaten flat many times before but let's go again. For a "GMO free" label to be true and verifiably so, there would have to be extra record keeping starting at the farm, testing, segregation of products that are moved by the hundreds of tons and so on.
> 
> There are already "non GMO" labels on food products but no standards have been established and verification of the claim is not really possible unless it's a product where there isn't a GMO version in the first place. Kinda like putting the "fat free" label on the hard candy when "fat free" was what was in vogue. And now you see a lot of "gluten free" labels on foods that never contained gluten. But if you fear GMO, just stick with what you raise yourself and what has the "organic" label on it from the store.


It's been beaten flat so many times the pancake can''t even be found anymore.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Good googly woogley you are thick aren't you?
> I admit that I am hard on you because of your attitude towards me and others. I don't treat others like that, you are special. :whistlin: I can't abide a bully. I ignore no one. I have no names on any ignore list, and I won't have any name on any ignore list. I have never reported any post and can't think of a scenario where I would.


Yes, that results in some extremely humorous conversations between you and the Bear.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just like I stated.
> You whine about something while doing the same things yourself
> 
> Ramble all you like about me , your first statement was a "what if" and you've been trying to deny it ever since.




Only to you, because you have earned it. 

If you want to call my statement a "what if" statement, fine. Call it that. I know and others know that you are full of it. It doesn't matter, there are no rules against "what if" scenarios anyway, you simply seem to have a real mental problem when it comes to them to the point that you attack statements that use one or the other word, like you are, somehow, the arbiter of what is good and proper here at HT. 

BTW, look back at how our conversations start. Almost without fail it is YOU responding to one of my posts, not the other way around. (I say "almost" because, while I don't remember a case where I initiated one, doesn't mean I never have)


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, that results in some extremely humorous conversations between you and the Bear.


You must have a unique sense of humor. For me it's more like an eye roll and "there he goes again".


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> You must have a unique sense of humor. For me it's more like an eye roll and "there he goes again".


Snark can be entertaining, unless it's directed in my direction, then it's just rude.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Only to you, because you have earned it.
> 
> If you want to call my statement a "what if" statement, fine. Call it that. I know and others know that you are full of it. It doesn't matter, there are no rules against "what if" scenarios anyway, you simply seem to have a real mental problem when it comes to them to the point that you attack statements that use one or the other word, like you are, somehow, the arbiter of what is good and proper here at HT.
> 
> BTW, look back at how our conversations start. Almost without fail it is YOU responding to one of my posts, not the other way around. (I say "almost" because, while I don't remember a case where I initiated one, doesn't mean I never have)


You read my posts by choice.
If you choose to read, you shouldn't whine so much about them



> If you want to call my statement a "what if" statement, fine.


That's what it was.
I don't know why you pretend otherwise


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> You must have a unique sense of humor. For me it's more like an eye roll and "there he goes again".


I feel the same about lots of others.
They like to pretend they are somehow different
You aren't forced to read anything you don't choose to.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You read my posts by choice.
> If you choose to read, you shouldn't whine so much about them
> 
> 
> ...


Again, believe it, or, not you don't get to pick what kinds of statements I make or any  other poster makes. No more than I can control how you mischaracterize them.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

I don't profess to being a food expert. My motto is, " you gotta eat " so I try to do the best I can and not worry too much. Some things make me SMH though. While unpacking and getting my husbands and my hunting clothes ready for this past deer season I found an apple hubby left in his coveralls. It still looked fresh picked not a mark on it anywhere and when I cut into it it was still perfect and crisp after a year of being there. How is that even possible?


----------



## JohnP (Sep 1, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Will this change your mind about GMO foods? Will this change anyone's mind about GMO foods?


No and No


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralini...ry-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research/

Not that I exactly trust the 'news', if you're looking for evidence either way, it's not hard to find.

I don't support labeling GMO's. Mostly because, it's easy to find food that is GMO-free if you're halfway good at reading ingredient labels. Better yet, don't buy anything with an ingredient label-! 

GMO's themselves may not be dangerous. What is dangerous, imo, is the increased pesticide and herbicide load these plants inherently entail, and the damage to soils, reduced crop rotation, legal issues regarding seed, etc. When a few companies own 95% of the seed, and 95% of farmers are indebted to those companies, we have a problem.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

DisasterCupcake said:


> http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralini...ry-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research/
> 
> Not that I exactly trust the 'news', if you're looking for evidence either way, it's not hard to find.
> 
> ...


The riddle goes like this. You are one of two people left on the planet. You can choose to own all food sources or all wealth. Which do you choose? Hint: take the food or you will be broke and starving in a week.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Again, believe it, or, not *you don't get to pick what kinds of statements I make* or any other poster makes. No more than I can control how you mischaracterize them.


I never once said what you could or couldn't post

I merely pointed out it's a *lame tactic *since "what if" is nothing but fantasy crafted to support something when you have nothing factual.

You want to make it about me instead of simply reading what I said, because you get hostile whenever anyone doesn't nod in agreement with you


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> http://www.gmo[COLOR="Red"]seralini...ry-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research/
> 
> Not that I exactly trust the 'news', if you're looking for evidence either way, it's not hard to find.
> 
> ...


If Seralini is the best you can offer, you've already lost the battle


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If Seralini is the best you can offer, you've already lost the battle


Just as you predicted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Just as you predicted.


It's all they've got


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never once said what you could or couldn't post
> 
> I merely pointed out it's a *lame tactic *since "what if" is nothing but fantasy crafted to support something when you have nothing factual.
> 
> You want to make it about me instead of simply reading what I said, because you get hostile whenever anyone doesn't nod in agreement with you


That is not what you did and you know it. You mischaracterized my post to meet your version of a "lame tactic" then proceeded to attack based on that false narrative. 

I only get hostile in response to the hostility of others. As you are nearly always hostile, I can see how you might think that "I get hostile when anyone doesn't nod in agreement with me".


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If Seralini is the best you can offer, you've already lost the battle


What battle are you referring to?


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

From the FAQ/TOS/Rules page:

*What rules govern the board?

Homesteading Today asks that all participants do their best to follow one simple rule: Be nice. Being nice means being civil, polite, disagreeing in a civil manner, not calling names, and using tact when stating your opinion.*


It surprises me that these threads are allowed to continue as long as they are. At this point, there really is no new or useful information being added and "nice", "civil" and "polite" aren't exactly the words I would use to describe most of the posts of the last few pages.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bellyman said:


> From the FAQ/TOS/Rules page:
> 
> *What rules govern the board?
> 
> ...


They are continuing because of the few that had their way with the mods. Now this is what this site has turned into. very very few treads should be going on and on and on like these few have made this site into. A shame isn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> That is not what you did and you know it. *You mischaracterized my post* to meet your version of a "lame tactic" then proceeded to attack based on that false narrative.
> 
> I only get hostile in response to the hostility of others. As *you are nearly always hostile*, I can see how you might think that "I get hostile when anyone doesn't nod in agreement with me".


No, I didn't

It was and remains a "what if" statement, no matter how much you deny it or try to divert the attention to me personally.

You merely prove what I said about becoming hostile if someone disagrees with you, since you're doing it again


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> What battle are you referring to?


GMO Vs Anti-GMO


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Did too.

Did not.

Did too.

Did not. 

There boys I took care of your light work. We can move on now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Did too.
> 
> Did not.
> 
> ...


No one forces you to read it.
Put me on ignore if it bothers you


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

MO_cows said:


> Did too.
> 
> Did not.
> 
> ...


I love ignore. Changed my whole perception of gen chat.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

I don't know much about GMO. But I find it interesting that we worry so much about boosting food production while we have an obesity epidemic. And being more efficient so fewer people need to grow food, so they can sit around and get fat.

As for labeling, it is all useless. Can't trust it, and responsible people would go see where their food came from. The more local the better, especially from their yards.

Of course people aren't going to be responsible. It isn't going to happen, because few really care about their food. They just want someone else to be responsible for it. And government will try to be the food police for us, so they can have more jobs, and make us more helpless and irresponsible.

We are cattle.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> Did too.
> 
> Did not.
> 
> ...


You are 100% correct. No point to it. Moving on.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Only really emotional people tattle tail and use the ignore feature.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> Did too.
> 
> Did not.
> 
> ...


Did not.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

I listened to Jimmy Kimmel rant that basically any one does not espouse the human cause of global warning is totally ignorant, because they don't accept y\the science. I'll bet he believes that Gmo's aren;t safe. Emotional beliefs on any side of an argument do not respond to logic,


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bruce2288 said:


> I listened to Jimmy Kimmel rant that basically any one does not espouse the human cause of global warning is totally ignorant, because they don't accept y\the science. I'll bet he believes that Gmo's aren;t safe. Emotional beliefs on any side of an argument do not respond to logic,


Actually those who think climate science is legitimate typically don't have a problem with GMOs. Not sure where you got your generalization, but it's safe to say you haven't read any peer reviewed journals lately.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

I was not referring to the scientific community.that you refer to but the general population. Those are not quoted in peer review journals. Thanks for inferring that I am a ignorant dummy.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bruce2288 said:


> I was not referring to the scientific community.that you refer to but the general population. Those are not quoted in peer review journals. Thanks for inferring that I am a ignorant dummy.


Nope I was not inferring that, only that I thought you were unaware of what scientists agreed on. (At least in the journals. the "quack" doesn't get published.)


----------



## rininger85 (Feb 29, 2016)

I typically avoid these debates because I've got better things to do... but I'll add my two cents and if anyone listens good, if not I don't care because I won't be coming back to see what anyone has to say about it...

The entire GMO discussion is BS. It's selective breeding/hybridization not genetic modification. My wife does it every day... it's her job to sequence the genome of whatever crop they are working on at the time (she is specifically working on tomatoes, potatoes, mints currently), then they cross them with something else and sequence the genome and see if it had the effects that they wanted. They aren't modifying the DNA/RNA through scientific experimentation, they are cross breeding (which yes does result in modified DNA just like you breeding with anyone but yourself causes modification to the DNA of your offspring) and then studying the outcomes by sequencing the DNA/RNA to see if it gets them what they wanted. The only reason to even call it science is because they are sequencing the genome just to see what traits they have and which ones they want to cross breed moving forward.

Nature has done it forever by having pollen from one species of plant intermingle with another plant... so by that standard it is natural... scientists are just speeding it up by crossing them faster than they would on their own to find preferable traits quicker, be it shorter growth period, more flavor, disease resistant, whatever. 

Anyone who thinks GMO is a real thing is just a racist that doesn't support inter-species breeding! =) I don't see people complaining about their kids being GMO, but it's the same thing, you breed with someone who has the traits you like and you get a kid that has pieces of both of you.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

rininger85 said:


> I typically avoid these debates because I've got better things to do... but I'll add my two cents and if anyone listens good, if not I don't care because I won't be coming back to see what anyone has to say about it...
> 
> The entire GMO discussion is BS. It's selective breeding/hybridization not genetic modification. My wife does it every day... it's her job to sequence the genome of whatever crop they are working on at the time (she is specifically working on tomatoes, potatoes, mints currently), then they cross them with something else and sequence the genome and see if it had the effects that they wanted. They aren't modifying the DNA/RNA through scientific experimentation, they are cross breeding (which yes does result in modified DNA just like you breeding with anyone but yourself causes modification to the DNA of your offspring) and then studying the outcomes by sequencing the DNA/RNA to see if it gets them what they wanted. The only reason to even call it science is because they are sequencing the genome just to see what traits they have and which ones they want to cross breed moving forward.
> 
> ...


Big difference in cross breeding and infusing plants with chemical makeups like roundup so that they are resistant to it. Basically giving the plant a round up vaccine. You are still ingesting glyphosate. Even in small bits it builds up over time.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nobody is INGESTING glyphosate. Wow where to SOME get this BS from? Oh Ya I KNOW it is written, and posted on the Internet. Ya thats the ticket, if it is THERE it MUST be the truth. Baloney~!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Big difference in cross breeding and infusing plants with chemical makeups like roundup so that they are resistant to it. Basically giving the plant a round up vaccine. You are still ingesting glyphosate. Even in small bits it builds up over time.


Do people really believe Roundup Resistant Corn has been infused with Roundup?
Do people really believe that corn, sprayed with Roundup when it is knee high, July 4th, has Roundup in the corn kernels?
Do people believe that Roundup builds up in humans, or any other animal?

Plants have been able change/evolve/mutate naturally to become Roundup Ready, a term used for plants that are not effected by glyphosate. They are known as glyphosate resistant weeds. 

Roundup breaks down, into harmless compounds, in a short period of time, almost immediately when in contact with soil.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

rininger85 said:


> I typically avoid these debates because I've got better things to do... but I'll add my two cents and if anyone listens good, if not I don't care because I won't be coming back to see what anyone has to say about it...
> 
> The entire GMO discussion is BS. It's selective breeding/hybridization not genetic modification. My wife does it every day... it's her job to sequence the genome of whatever crop they are working on at the time (she is specifically working on tomatoes, potatoes, mints currently), then they cross them with something else and sequence the genome and see if it had the effects that they wanted. They aren't modifying the DNA/RNA through scientific experimentation, they are cross breeding (which yes does result in modified DNA just like you breeding with anyone but yourself causes modification to the DNA of your offspring) and then studying the outcomes by sequencing the DNA/RNA to see if it gets them what they wanted. The only reason to even call it science is because they are sequencing the genome just to see what traits they have and which ones they want to cross breed moving forward.
> 
> ...


Sorry but you're flat wrong. GE tech can't really be compared to natural breeding because it inserts novel genes directly into the genome of the plant. That's why they can patent them. I'm pretty sure that no matter how much crossing your wife does with your mint plants, you'll never get a patent for them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Do people really believe Roundup Resistant Corn has been infused with Roundup?
> Do people really believe that corn, sprayed with Roundup when it is knee high, July 4th, has Roundup in the corn kernels?
> Do people believe that Roundup builds up in humans, or any other animal?
> 
> ...


I don't know what other people believe. My concern is not that the corn is resistant to glycophosphate, but, what are the unintended changes, to the species, as a result of the novel gene inserted into the corn genome? Perhaps there are none, perhaps there are some that we cannot yet detect. I don't know, and no one else does either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yeah, what if........


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

haypoint said:


> Do people really believe Roundup Resistant Corn has been infused with Roundup?
> Do people really believe that corn, sprayed with Roundup when it is knee high, July 4th, has Roundup in the corn kernels?
> Do people believe that Roundup builds up in humans, or any other animal?
> 
> ...


Glyphosate is found in significant levels in food the world over. 

More alarming, this chemical selectively promotes gut bacterial growth that can break down Glyphosate, and kills other important gut flora. 

Poeople eating GMO foods have been shown to have abnormal gut flora shifts in favor of Glysphosate metabolism. 

The same pathways that Glyphosate disrupts is responsible for methylation of folate. Is there any wonder why neural tube defects and folate deficiencies suddenly spiked with the mass introduction of GMO crops? And shifted down again when government required Folic acid be added back to flour and grain products. 

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that GMO's do create a public health problem.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, what if........


Whatever, have your fun.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Some sure live in a fantasy world of make-believe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> Glyphosate is found in significant levels in food the world over.
> 
> More alarming, this chemical selectively promotes gut bacterial growth that can break down Glyphosate, and kills other important gut flora.
> 
> ...


And yet when we ask to see the proof, we get Seralini's rats.

2000 global studies say GMO foods are safe:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

GMO's not harmful to human health:

http://www.kgw.com/news/health/acad...rt-gmos-not-harmful-to-human-health/199160342

UN says "Glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer":
http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/17/un-who-glyphosate-cancer/

The addition of Folic Acid to breads doesn't seem to have anything to do with Glyphosate since it doesn't occur naturally in grains

The symptoms you listed are from a lack of the vitamin and not due to the presence of Glyphosate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folic_acid#Folate_in_foods_and_other_sources



> In 1960, experts first linked folate deficiency to neural tube defects.[68] In the late 1990s, US scientists realized, despite the availability of folate in foods and in supplements, there was still a challenge for people to meet their daily folate requirements, which is when the US implemented the folate fortification program.[68]


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

Government mandated addition of folic acid to bread because it's a ubiquitous component of the diet. There is no other reasoning; no one said a significant amount of folate was found in bread.

Because the ingestion of glyphosate disrupts the metabolic pathway in gut microbes responsible for synthesis of folate, a deficiency in the vitamin became widespread. The majority of b vitamins, including folate, are not obtained from food, but from our gut microbes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> Government mandated addition of folic acid to bread because it's a ubiquitous component of the diet. There is no other reasoning; no one said a significant amount of folate was found in bread.
> 
> Because *the ingestion of glyphosate* disrupts the metabolic pathway in gut microbes responsible for synthesis of folate, a deficiency in the vitamin became widespread. The majority of b vitamins, including folate, are not obtained from food, but from our gut microbes.


You implied it was a result of problems caused by Glyphosate when in fact it had nothing to do with anything other than poor diets. 

I


> s there any wonder why neural tube defects and folate deficiencies suddenly spiked with the mass introduction of GMO crops? And shifted down again when government required Folic acid be added back to flour and grain products.


The addition was proposed here before the widespread introduction of GMO crops, and there are still no GMO wheat varieties on the market

Reality is there isn't enough actual Glyphosate left in foods to cause any measurable problems

Study after study has reached those same conclusions
I've seen no credible sources linking Glyphosate to any Vitamin B deficiencies


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

Yes, I am explicitly implying that folate deficiency was caused by the dramatic increase of glyphosate in the food supply.
Reality is there are studies evidencing the pathological abnormal change in gut flora caused by very small, chronic exposure to glyphosate- much smaller than what is routinely measured in food for human consumption. 

While it would be incredibly difficult to come up with an epidemiological study that controlled for all factors like bad diet, the correlation is there for anyone to see. Because there is a proven mechanism for glyphosate to cause the problems we've been seeing, it is a valid theory.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I don't think "folates" and folic acid are necessarily the same thing, or behave the same way in the body. Think of the vast quantities of roundup that are sprayed in lawns, roads and right-of-ways, by people with far less concern of wasting chemicals, often inches away from drainage channels. Probably way more roundup finding it's way into municipal water supplies than into grain products, but all the more reason not to want ANY in the diet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> Yes, I am explicitly implying that folate deficiency was caused by the dramatic increase of glyphosate in the food supply.
> 
> *Reality is there are studies evidencing the pathological abnormal change in gut flora caused by very small, chronic exposure to glyphosate- much smaller than what is routinely measured in food for human consumption. *
> 
> ...


There are no *credible* studies which show that at all.

The mandate for adding Folic Acid came *before* the widespread use of Roundup-Ready crops

Show some of these "studies" that aren't tied directly to some anti-GMO organization


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are no *credible* studies which show that at all.
> 
> The mandate for adding Folic Acid came *before* the widespread use of Roundup-Ready crops
> 
> Show some of these "studies" that aren't tied directly to some anti-GMO organization


Sure THAT'S EASY. Because pro gmo will show studies that hurt their business. Any study not done by pro gmo company will be considered bias by you because it doesn't fir your agenda.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Sure THAT'S EASY. Because pro gmo will show studies that hurt their business. Any study not done by pro gmo company will be considered bias by you because it doesn't fir your agenda.


So what you're saying is you have nothing credible to show


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Plenty of credible evidence. You just won't accept it because you have convinced yourself there is nothing wrong with it. The govt just released a study linking cell phones to tumors in mice the other day. But hey its all good to stay in contact.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes that stupid cell phone scam about cancer. Do anyone with 10 times the amount, FORCE them to one reat many times over, in either studies, and subject them to what a HUMAN would do or be subject to, and yes SOMETHING MAY show up that can be construed as harmful. Same thing with these THEORIES, about gmo studies that have been debunked as bad science, and yes anyone can get hyped up results. And mice are not human beings either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> *Plenty of credible evidence*. You just won't accept it because you have convinced yourself there is nothing wrong with it. The govt just released a study linking cell phones to tumors in mice the other day. But hey its all good to stay in contact.


And again instead of simply *showing* it, you continue to make unsupported allegations


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes that stupid cell phone scam about cancer. Do anyone with 10 times the amount, FORCE them to one reat many times over, in either studies, and subject them to what a HUMAN would do or be subject to, and yes SOMETHING MAY show up that can be construed as harmful. Same thing with these THEORIES, about gmo studies that have been debunked as bad science, and yes anyone can get hyped up results. And mice are not human beings either.


Just admit it: You don't understand science, you ever have, and you never will.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes that stupid cell phone scam about cancer. Do anyone with 10 times the amount, FORCE them to one reat many times over, in either studies, and subject them to what a HUMAN would do or be subject to, and yes SOMETHING MAY show up that can be construed as harmful. Same thing with these THEORIES, about gmo studies that have been debunked as bad science, and yes anyone can get hyped up results. And mice are not human beings either.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-cancer-link-found-in-government-study-1464324146

Low but still there. Many are glued 24 7.


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

Folic acid was added to grain products because grain products are a part of virtually everyone's diet. Again, no one said there was gmo wheat, or glyphosate on wheat. 

Folic acid is not the same as folate; folate is the methylated, bioactive form of the vitamin. Folic acid is a synthetic. Folic acid requires a methyl group to become active, which the liver is capable of doing, at a cost. Methylation is a metabolically expensive operation, and depletes the methylation capacity of the liver. 

In my estimation, the precautionary principle in this instance would mean if there is any evidence of harm caused by this highly controversial invention, it should be studied ad nausium to everyone's satisfaction. GMO's are simply not the answer to our problems, and have added a slew of their own.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Everybody always wants to see scientific proof. If you are relying on our education system to produce those scientists, you are in trouble. Ever wonder why there was nobody left around to tell stories about how the pyramids were built? You are seeing it now. Somebody in the future will be telling their kids around a campfire, "yeah, they had these little boxes, they talked into them, and a voice would come back named Siri." Grandma is nuts. Achieve greatness, decay, no-one left smart enough to fix the gadgets, everybody too close to danger to write down history. Rinse and repeat.

Here are the facts, we know about as much about the human body, and the microorganisms and enzymes within it as we know about the universe. It's OK to play with neat stuff, but somebody better remember how to do it the old fashioned way, and we better have some non GMO seeds somewhere, in case we find out later that we need them.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Everybody always wants to see scientific proof. If you are relying on our education system to produce those scientists, you are in trouble. Ever wonder why there was nobody left around to tell stories about how the pyramids were built? You are seeing it now. Somebody in the future will be telling their kids around a campfire, "yeah, they had these little boxes, they talked into them, and a voice would come back named Siri." Grandma is nuts. Achieve greatness, decay, no-one left smart enough to fix the gadgets, everybody too close to danger to write down history. Rinse and repeat.
> 
> Here are the facts, we know about as much about the human body, and the microorganisms and enzymes within it as we know about the universe. It's OK to play with neat stuff, but somebody better remember how to do it the old fashioned way, and we better have some non GMO seeds somewhere, in case we find out later that we need them.


I'm in favor of saving as many seeds as possible, and I find Monsanto's actions to be abhorrent. Many other companies as well. I'm sure you dislike Monsanto, but what's wrong with Exxon? I'm sure they're fine. Maybe we'll sit down around the campfire and tell our kids how many species went extinct in the 21st century. "We made it mars, which was great, because half the species were gone by then!!"


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Just admit it: You don't understand science, you ever have, and you never will.


I wouldn't get too worked up like you do about this. 
IF you read the study, they found a pretty small increase,* only in male rats, and after subjecting them to very high levels of radiation*

Ya science THAT is NOT good science, no matter what you think, or others that believe such stuff as this.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> Folic acid was added to grain products because grain products are a part of virtually everyone's diet.
> 
> *Again, no one said there was gmo wheat, or glyphosate on wheat. *
> 
> ...


You claim it was added directly due to "glyphosate in the food", and have yet to explain how it got in the food when the mandate came before the widespread use of Glyphosate on food crops



> Glyphosate is found in significant levels in food the world over.





> Poeople eating GMO foods have been shown to have abnormal gut flora shifts in favor of Glysphosate metabolism.


Again, the folic acid/folate supplementation took place at at time when there were hardly any GMO crops available and the issue had been discussed long before that implementation



> There is *plenty of evidence* to suggest that GMO's do create a public health problem.


Still waiting to see it presented. All presented so far states the opposite


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

Glyphosate has been used on crops used in the food supply for decades. This is common knowledge (or should be). 
The year that roundup-ready crops were commercially available, 1996, the use of glyphosate increased enormously. 
Yes, the folate deficiencies were seen and addressed before widespread use of GMO's. That doesn't negate the fact that deficiencies became widespread with the increasing use of roundup in the food supply. 
GMO crops inherently increase the use and prevalence of glyphosate in the food supply. 
We no longer see a large number of neural tube birth defects from lack of folate, because of government intervention. Folic acid supplementation covers up only one deficiency that is created by overuse of this chemical. For those other deficiencies, we do see increases of diseases related to gut dysbiosis rising in extremely close correlation with the use of glyphosate. These include colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, celiac diseases, etc.
You keep asking for studies. There are many. This information is entirely accessible on the internet, really easy to find.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

All that stubble left standing after no till, it's carbon oxidizing into the air, instead of being buried, it's killing us, and the planet. Roundup is killing polar bears as we speak. (Kills the heck out of Monarch butterflies, too.)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> Glyphosate has been used on crops used in the food supply for decades. This is common knowledge (or should be).
> The year that roundup-ready crops were commercially available, 1996, the use of glyphosate increased enormously.
> Yes, the folate deficiencies were seen and addressed before widespread use of GMO's.
> 
> ...


You just keep repeating the same things without offering any evidence

Why is it so difficult for someone making the claims to* show them* if there are so many?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> All that stubble left standing after no till, it's carbon oxidizing into the air, instead of being buried, it's killing us, and the planet. Roundup is killing polar bears as we speak. (Kills the heck out of Monarch butterflies, too.)


Ridiculous. Plants are carbon negative in nearly every case.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

What about algae?


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

We both know that you're familiar with the studies. They are easily accessible and there is no reason to post. 

Just saying as an aside, we're talking about the very same people who assured everyone ddt and agent orange were perfectly safe. Food for thought.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Wow these anti GMO folks are sure making themselves out to be fools with what they are posting on here, and they THINK there are right? Wow.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> We both know that you're familiar with the studies. They are easily accessible and there is no reason to post.
> 
> Just saying as an aside, we're talking about the very same people who* assured everyone ddt and agent orange were perfectly safe.* Food for thought.


No one ever said DDT nor Agent Orange were "safe".

As a matter of fact, the Department of Defense was warned about the dioxin contamination in the 2-4-5-t portion of Agent Orange in 1952, but they used it anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange



> In 1969 it was also revealed to the public[how?] that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure.[15] TCDD has been described as "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man"





> Internal memoranda revealed that *Monsanto (a major manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government in 1952* that its 2,4,5-T was contaminated





> Glyphosate has been *used on crops* used in the food supply for decades.


Why would they *spray crops* that would be killed by Glyphosate?
That makes no sense at all.

It's becoming more and more clear you're just parroting what you've read on anti-GMO sites


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> What about algae?


What about it?


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation

I don't know why farmers would want to desiccate crops with glyphosate, but they do it. 

It's apparent that an intelligent conversation without being rude is beyond some people. 

Anyway, I'm done being insulted. Good day.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Glyphosate kills algae and prevents sequestering of the carbon that is killing us in algae. Tilled in stubble sequesters carbon longer than standing stubble.Says so on a climate change website I saw.

Farmers use roundup to kill crops so that they can be harvested. Sometimes, the weather gets kinda iffy, and if you want to get a crop put up, the window is small. Sometimes, one side of a field might be wetter than another, crop might be greener there, ground might have been cooler and delayed sprouting in spots. Harvesting crops that aren't dried out enough means they won't store well, so by killing a standing crop, all seed heads can start drying out uniformly.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Glyphosate kills algae and prevents sequestering of the carbon that is killing us in algae. Tilled in stubble sequesters carbon longer than standing stubble.Says so on a climate change website I saw.
> 
> Farmers use roundup to kill crops so that they can be harvested. Sometimes, the weather gets kinda iffy, and if you want to get a crop put up, the window is small. Sometimes, one side of a field might be wetter than another, crop might be greener there, ground might have been cooler and delayed sprouting in spots. Harvesting crops that aren't dried out enough means they won't store well, so by killing a standing crop, all seed heads can start drying out uniformly.


Plowing and tilling is common in organic farming - however, this is found to cause soil damage. No-till drilling is better for the environment. Carbon sequestration is good, but most plants will sequester carbon regardless.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
> 
> I don't know why farmers would want to desiccate crops with glyphosate, but they do it.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you feel the truth is an "insult", but you've really shown nothing to back your claims and I've shown data that refutes most of them

http://www.bakingbusiness.com/articles/news_home/Regulatory/2015/07/NAWG_counters_wheat_glyphosate.aspx?ID={E617FA48-9E0A-402E-9D46-6FC51DB9D8F2}&cck=1


> KANSAS CITY â The National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) has countered claims on the Internet that growers were âdrenchingâ wheat crops with glyphosate shortly before harvest.
> 
> â*The concern that Roundup is being dumped onto wheat plants is just patently not true,â* Brett Blankenship, a wheat grower from Washtucna, Wash., and president of NAWG, told Milling & Baking News. âWeâre very sensitive that we are the front line in the production of a consumer product. Weâre very aware that we produce a food product. Thatâs why we are very careful.





> Pre-harvest applications made seven days or more prior to harvest as a harvest aid to dry green weeds and even the maturity of a wheat crop so that it may be harvested before end of season frosts occur.
> 
> This is highly uncommon treatment *used in less than 2% of wheat *acres; however, it can be used to enable a harvest that would otherwise not be possible.â


Did you notice your source on dessication doesn't mention the US at all?
It did mention the levels found, which are minute:



> A survey of British wheat in 2006-8 found average levels of
> *0.05-0.22 mg/kg* with maximum levels of 1.2 mg/kg


There's nothing there that pertains to any health problems at all


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> All that stubble left standing after no till, it's carbon oxidizing into the air, instead of being buried, it's killing us, and the planet. Roundup is killing polar bears as we speak. (Kills the heck out of Monarch butterflies, too.)


Mulch. It's called mulch. No-Till farming allows crop residue to form mulch, reducing wind and water erosion. Roundup kills weeds without soil disturbing cultivation. Repeated cultivation results in tons of topsoil erosion per acres and greater fuel consumption than No-Till systems.

By eliminating the need for repeated cultivations, fossil fuel use is reduced and this results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions. 

While it is known that Roundup does not kill Monarch butterflies, one could speculate that since Roundup kills weeds and Monarch butterflies depend on one specific weed to survive, widespread use of any weed killer (or repeated cultivation) could impact their populations through a reduction of feed source. 

When crop residue is plowed under, the soil microbes turn it into compose and the carbon becomes available to the environment. The placement of crop residues on the surface or plowed into the soil does not determine the erosion of glaciers.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmers do not need to use glyphosate. They were able to kill weeds with other far more toxic chemicals that could leach into streams and ground water and wells. Plus, they could resume repeated cultivations that resulted in tons of topsoil erosion. 
We could return to the good old days of toxic insecticides to kill corn borers instead of the organic Bt in GMO corn. 
Crop yields could return to the historical number of bushels per acre of half what is normal today. This reduction would put corn and soybean prices out of reach for the World's poor and tens of thousands of family farms would be forced out of business by the whipsaw in commodity pricing.


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

I have no problem responding to critique of my theory. None at all. I realize that this is a controversial issue and there are heated moments, but that does not excuse anyone from making deragatory comments. 

The literature isn't difficult to find. A few minutes online;

https://www.researchgate.net/public...afety_Risks_Biodegradation_and_Bioremediation

Yes, I realize that wikipedia is not a good source. I don't consider it a source. It is merely showing that farmers have been using different agents to dessicate crops- not just wheat but also any number of grain crops- for decades. 

https://www.researchgate.net/public...es_in_Roundup_Ready_crops_is_an_ignored_issue

Creating a study to show that a substance is safe is rather easy. Industry does it all the time. Why shouldn't we trust industry studies? Are they really going to go the whole 9 yards to prove that their product is benign over the long term, and in every situation? 

We haven't seen the increased yeilds from GMO crops that were promised. The price hike in the seed alone is arguably driving more and more farmers into debt and bankruptcy. Those left acquire even more land, expand in hopes of meeting their needs with greater and greater volume. It's not working. 

I don't think any one type of farming is going to solve all of our problems. I don't think labeling GMO's will do anything for anyone. But, certainly consolidating the world's seed and food supply into a few giant corporations is not the answer, either.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> The price hike in the seed alone is arguably driving more and more farmers into debt and bankruptcy.


You need a better seed dealer then. I was able to buy triple stack hybrids this spring for 160 a bag which is quite comparable to standard hybrid prices.
Some were higher but seed price is a small factor in the profit or loss of a crop.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Good to not put too much weight on Wikipedia, but listing a Russian and a Norwegian Marine Biologist is a bit obscure, too, don&#8217;t you think?
But if you like Russians, here&#8217;s a site I just stumbled across:
http://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/7916/1/14.pdf

To state that farmers have been using different agents to desiccate crops for decades is a lot different than saying farmers commonly spray crops with Roundup. I don&#8217;t want to go back to the days when toxic chemicals, that persist in the environment, were used. Roundup&#8217;s ability to break down quickly is a key value. Do farmers spray Roundup on mature crops? Yes. Is it common? No, it is rare. 
One use of Roundup on a mature crop would be to kill the weeds. When a grain crop is maturing, the straw and grain naturally dies and dries. A weed infestation will stay green and hamper harvest. Killing the weeds a few weeks ahead of harvest will prevent moist green weed leaves from complicating harvest. But since most farmers rotate GMO corn and GMO soybeans with their non-GMO wheat, oats, barley crops, weed infestations are uncommon. By the time the effects of the Roundup are seen, well ahead of harvest, the chemical will have broken down into harmless compounds.

Most of the safety studies were done by universities not just industry.

GMO corn and soybeans account for over 80% of acreages. Average yields have never been this high. While great advances in soil science and hybridization have fueled these increases. However, reduction of corn borer damage from GMO BT and a reduction in nutrient and water robbing weeds from the use of GMO Roundup Ready crops clearly have played a part. It is working just fine. Why else would farmers switch to and stay with GMO? Free baseball caps with Monsanto emblems?
 http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increased-6x-since.html
No farmer is forced to buy GMO seed. Farmers have been going bankrupt for hundreds of years. Wide fluctuations in the price of farm commodities often results in huge losses for farmers. When a farmer can raise a bushel of corn for $3.00 a bushel and sell it at $5.00, buying more land and bigger equipment is tempting. But when it costs him $3.00 a bushel and corn drops below $3.00, the Banks end up owning lots of land and equipment.
There are very few absolutes in this world. Very difficult to prove an absolute. If a few billion meals with GMO products are consumed over a few decades, without any health risks, no one can say that GMO is absolutely safe. Just like no one can say that winning the Powerball lottery twice in a row is impossible. But both are such a long shot to be realistically absolutely safe as a two-fer Powerball win is realistically impossible.
Consolidation of seed sources isn&#8217;t fueled by GMO. There are several University of Minn. Apple varieties that are tightly controlled. 
Having one type of farming won&#8217;t solve all our problems nor is closing our minds to every advancement going to solve all our problems, either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We haven't seen the *increased yeilds* from GMO crops that were promised. The price hike in the seed alone is arguably driving more and more farmers into debt and bankruptcy. Those left acquire even more land, expand in hopes of meeting their needs with greater and greater volume. *It's not working*.


Actually yields have increased for some crops, and more importantly costs are reduced for most crops, increasing profits for farmers
http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves...-steadily-for-over-15-years.aspx#.V03oAb2sIpk



> Data from USDA&#8217;s Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) show that Bt corn *yields were 17 bushels per acre higher* than conventional corn yields in 2005 and about 26 bushels higher in 2010. Moreover, using an econometric model that controls for other factors, ERS researchers found that a 10-percent increase in the rate of Bt corn adoption was associated with a *1.7-percent increase in yields* in 2005 and a *2.3-percent increase in yields* in 2010. Researchers also found that a 10-percent increase in the adoption of Bt cotton in 1997 was associated with a *2.1-percent increase in yields*.





> An analysis of ARMS corn data indicates that stacked seeds (seeds with several GE traits) have *higher yields than conventional seeds* or seeds with only one GE trait. For example, 2010 ARMS data show that conventional corn seeds had an average yield of 134 bushels per acre.
> 
> By contrast, seeds with two types of herbicide tolerance (glyphosate and glufosinate) and three types of insect resistance (corn borer, corn rootworm, and corn earworm) had an average yield of 171 bushels per acre.


No farmers are "going into debt to buy seeds". Those costs are offset by less pesticide use and less tillage.



> Creating a study to show that a substance is safe is rather easy. Industry does it all the time. Why shouldn't we trust industry studies? Are they really going to go the whole 9 yards to prove that their product is benign over the long term, and in every situation?


I posted a link to around 2000 studies by multiple sources worldwide that all say GMO's are no different than any other crops, and you still don't want to believe them


> The literature isn't difficult to find. A few minutes online;


I can't get your links to work, and when I go to "researchgate.net" they want you to join to have access to the site



> *It's not working*


The evidence shows it's working quite well:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves...-steadily-for-over-15-years.aspx#.V03oAb2sIpk



> Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops by U.S. Farmers Has Increased Steadily for Over 15 Years


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

I confess to not knowing a whole lot about the plight of farmers. GMO seed takes ownership rights away from farmers, where at least with hybrid seeds they are not sued for keeping seed from year to year.

My argument is based on my area of expertise; human nutrition. To say any type of crop is the same as another is a bit ludicrous to me. It's like saying every tomatoe has the exact same nutritional qualities. You may be able to prove that a GE corn plant managed exactly the same way as an organic corn plant yields similar produce. The reality is they are managed completely differently. 

Our soils in the US are stripped of mineral. Our food routinely tests for fractions of the vitamins and mineral content they did 50 years ago. Our population is increasingly suffering from degenerative diseases. Our children have diabetes, cancer, are obese, even have heart attacks! Did gmos cause this? No, but they are simply anther step down the same road, exacerbating the underlying problem. I don't think this is working at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> I confess to not knowing a whole lot about the plight of farmers. GMO seed takes ownership rights away from farmers, where at least with hybrid seeds they are not sued for keeping seed from year to year.
> 
> My argument is based on my area of expertise; human nutrition. *To say any type of crop is the same as another is a bit ludicrous to me.* It's like saying every tomatoe has the exact same nutritional qualities. You may be able to prove that a GE corn plant managed exactly the same way as an organic corn plant yields similar produce. The reality is they are managed completely differently.
> 
> ...


I'm seeing more allegations of things that really don't sound true, although you did say:


> Did gmos cause this? *No*


Much of what you said is suspiciously similar to the anti-GMO hype


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> I confess to not knowing a whole lot about the plight of farmers. GMO seed takes ownership rights away from farmers, where at least with hybrid seeds they are not sued for keeping seed from year to year.
> 
> My argument is based on my area of expertise; human nutrition. To say any type of crop is the same as another is a bit ludicrous to me. It's like saying every tomatoe has the exact same nutritional qualities. You may be able to prove that a GE corn plant managed exactly the same way as an organic corn plant yields similar produce. The reality is they are managed completely differently.
> 
> Our soils in the US are stripped of mineral. Our food routinely tests for fractions of the vitamins and mineral content they did 50 years ago. Our population is increasingly suffering from degenerative diseases. Our children have diabetes, cancer, are obese, even have heart attacks! Did gmos cause this? No, but they are simply anther step down the same road, exacerbating the underlying problem. I don't think this is working at all.


GMO seeds come with a contract that the farmer agrees to not save seed to plant the following season. Farmers do not save hybrid seed. The hybridization process, crossing one variety that has a specific set of traits with another variety is very trait specific. Farmers do not save hybrid seeds for that reason. It has been 50 years or more since farmers saved corn or soybean seeds. Seed ownership isn&#8217;t an issue beyond the Anti-GMO drama web sites.
Nutrition varies among differing varieties. Nutrition varies between the same varieties in differing years. Nutrition varies between the same varieties in different areas of the same field. Nutrition varies between the same varieties cared for the same way. Mother Nature just does things that way. 
In my imagination, the one where Lassie is waiting at the end of the driveway, heritage varieties of sweet corn, hoed by hand, watered with warm manure tea just before daylight each morning, fertilized by well composed garden waste and sheep manure, would produce larger, sweeter, more nutritious sweet corn than GMO BT and Roundup Ready Sweet Corn planted by a huge planter, side dressed with a blend of nitrogen, phosphorous, potash and trace minerals, irrigated from a center pivot deep well, pumped by a 200 horsepower diesel engine, harvested by a $100,000 sweet corn picker.
But the harsh reality is that by and large, the measured sweetness and nutrition is going to be the same. GMO isn&#8217;t going to account for nutritional differences as much as differences between varieties. You can buy GMO sweet corn or non-GMO sweet corn of the same variety. 
The worst stripping of US soils has been the loss of topsoil through erosion. This loss of soil nutrients is greatly reduced through no-till farming practices. This allows the crop residue (plant material left from the previous crop) to remain on the surface as a mulch. Plowing is eliminated. After the soil is planted, the soil isn&#8217;t cultivated again. Cultivation subjects the soil to wind and rain erosion. GMO Bt corn doesn&#8217;t need insecticides to kill corn borers that chew the stalks and infest the kernels. BT is safely used on organic vegetables, is found in soil and in us, naturally. GMO Bt corn has this in the plant. GMO Roundup Ready corn doesn&#8217;t need any of the previously used herbicides that were blamed for contaminating streams and water wells, before glyphosate was invented.
You admit no connection between GMO and degenerative diseases, childhood diabetes, cancer, obesity and heart attacks. But imagine it as some sort of evil step towards a worsening problem.
You and I share the desire for the world to be different, but I refuse to rail against things that aren&#8217;t how I imagine things to be. I accept the reality. I want every farm to be like grandpa&#8217;s, except with high-speed internet, health insurance, talented doctors, modern medicines, blacktop highways and weather forecasting. But, deep down I know that the &#8220;good old days&#8221; really weren&#8217;t. I&#8217;m accepting my need for things beyond my control.


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

I'm not hyping. I'm not a dramatic person. It's simply a fact. Minerals are depleted throughout farmland in the US. Food is far less nourishing now than it was 50 years ago. 

Maybe chemical farming is less damaging than mechanical farming. Though, we are so far in the hole already I'm not sure we can make a comeback. Our nation, like any other, is dependant on its soils and fertility. nutrition varies, but is dependant on the conditions and soil in which it is grown. 

And we have way too much corn and soybeans.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> I'm not hyping. I'm not a dramatic person. It's simply a fact. Minerals are depleted throughout farmland in the US. Food is far less nourishing now than it was 50 years ago.
> 
> Maybe chemical farming is less damaging than mechanical farming. Though, we are so far in the hole already I'm not sure we can make a comeback. Our nation, like any other, is dependant on its soils and fertility. nutrition varies, but is dependant on the conditions and soil in which it is grown.
> 
> And we have way too much corn and soybeans.


 I understand that you believe what you wrote.
Most soils in the US have always had various soil deficiencies. The study of soils is a science. Where do you get the idea that throughout the US soil minerals are depleted? Where do you get the idea that nutrient levels of most foods is far less than in the 1960s? Was it the Atrazine or the DDT that made it better?
While you concede that chemical farming saves the soil better, do you think going back to multiple cultivations, plowing under the crop residue, utilizing insecticides at 1960 levels is better, since we are already going to heck in a hand basket?
Could farmers harvest record setting levels of corn on depleted soils? Modern seed planters are able to extrapolate previous yearâs yields by the location in the field and adjust seed rates and fertilizer amounts to optimize yield, without adding more fertilizer than the crop can use.
How can it be so bad that we can never recover, while setting production records? Truth is, the soil has never been healthier. With the price of good farm ground, most farmers believe their stewardship will insure it remains productive for a long time into the future.
Too much corn and soybeans? With smaller crops, the price goes up, due to increased demand for less product. Which third world population do you want us to price out of the food market and starve to death?
 Agriculture is our main export. Stop exporting and our balance of trade worsens. The World value of the dollar slips. Foreign investors pull their money. Inflation wipes out your savings and retirement.
Nutrient levels are about the same over the past 100 years. A highly irrigated potato is going to have a higher water content than a non-irrigated potato. But on a dry matter basis, most vegetables are about the same as they have always been.

But, I fear that you and I have strayed far from the topic of GMO foods deemed safe after exhaustive review of 200 studies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> I'm not hyping. I'm not a dramatic person. It's simply a fact. *Minerals are depleted throughout farmland in the US. Food is far less nourishing now than it was 50 years ago.
> *
> Maybe chemical farming is less damaging than mechanical farming. Though, we are so far in the hole already I'm not sure we can make a comeback. Our nation, like any other, is dependant on its soils and fertility. nutrition varies, but is dependant on the conditions and soil in which it is grown.
> 
> And we have way too much corn and soybeans.


Show the data that supports those claims.
The data I've seen doesn't suggest that at all, or that GMO's would have anything to do with those conditions.

*Any time* you plant a crop and remove it from the fields, you "deplete" minerals. That's why farmers since the beginning of time have used fertilizers.

To make that an 'issue" is both hype and drama as near as I can tell


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

Soil depletion is a major factor in the reduced vitamin and mineral content of foods today. Because I study human nutrition and food, these low levels of nourishing content point to defunct agriculture. Mineral levels have not been the same.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/

WHY are the soils depleted? I'm not sure. You say it's because we were tilling and using mechanical methods. Howver, I never said that chemical farming saves soil better. It doesn't save soil at all, and arguably continues to destroy it. Maybe a little slower. I'm not in any way advocating for going backwards. Saying we used to have more mineral in our soils is just that; It doesn't mean we should go backwards. We SHOULD be looking at the practices that have done the damage and be working to reverse it.

Fertility used to be a local phenomenon; it was produced and kept on-farm in a recycled manner. We no longer have that, with monocrop agriculture practices, the fertility must be shipped in from across the globe. If that were to stop for any reason, our land would be desolate. I believe that healthy soil, capable of yeilding crops for generations, needs far more care and attention than it currently gets.

To answer your questions; yes, we can have enourmous yeilds of grain of abysmal quality on poor soils. Metabolism and biology in general is like that; when there isn't enough calcium and magnesium to make hard, dense bones, the bones actually get bigger. For generations now Americans have grown in stature. It's not because of better food. It's becaue of worse food. We know that good nutrition creates smaller, denser bones in humans, and likewise less grain but of far better quality.

To come to a point of no recovery, in biological terms, is about the 3rd or 4th generation of low quality nutrition or chronic subclinical deficiencies. We are well on our way, as Americans. The generation of Americans eating junk and getting little nutrtion started (mostly) with my parents. We don't see a lot of problems there except in old age. The second generation (mine) we are seeing debilitating diseases much earlier, in 30's, and some in 20's even. Now, our kids are seeing these diseases in early childhood.

Generational epigenetics is not common knowledge and neither is good nutrition. We have government agencies that tote their lines about grains and vegetables, but they are not in it for the public interest.

I'm not an economist so I can't say what in the world we would do without gobs and gobs of corn and soybeans. I'm sure we could think of something. 

To the topic of GMO safety- I've personally been part of clinical studies that looked specifically at GMO foods in the diet (not just conventional). Removal of these foods for a majority of participants improved or completely cured their condition. We're talking about gastric diseases-the same ones that have been on the rise since introduction of GMO crops.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Cupcake, 

If you can give the journal cite for the study publication, I would be interested in reading it.

Regards,
Loki


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

Most of the time, you can have either quality or quantity; very rarely both.

It is not an acute safety issue to feed the masses with cheap empty calories. The masses do need to be fed. However, there are those who are educated enough to want better food than the cheap calories that commercial ag produces so prolifically. These people are willing to pay a higher price for a better quality product. The problem comes in when the (industrial) scientific community uses their might economically to tell everyone that one is just as good as another, when that is not true.

The safety issue is twofold; economic and biologic. Biologically, they pose a health issue over the long term as I stated by exposing humans to small chronic doses of glyphosate. And since corn, soy and wheat are 70% of calories for most people, the exposure is significant. Economically, GMO takes the ownership of seeds a step further than even hybridization did. Hybridization at least ensured that those farmers buying the seed would have to buy more next year. GMO patented seed means the company owns the information contained in each and every plant you grow, and you can get sued for accidentally keeping seed a year, or allowing it to cross pollinate with other crops, and growing those crops.

But that is just the difference between GMO and conventional. The Safety issues of conventional food are great to start with.


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

Loki, if you're referring to the clinical I was a part, it is not published. I do not know if it will be, as I am not an author, and it's merely a personal experience at this point.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

You can get double the protein in some of the older open pollinated corn varieties compared to the modern hybrids. Of course, you won't get as much yield, but who needs yield if they have high protein corn? It's not like the starving people in third world countries are going to get any of it any way, the warlords and dictators hoard nearly everything we send them. For a neat trick, plant a heritage open pollinated strain next to a modern hybrid, and then monitor the bee activities.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Just a little statistic that I found: 

About 40% of the production of the US corn crop has nothing to do with food. It goes into ethanol production.

About 13% is exported and most of that is for animal feed.

Thank you, DisasterCupcake, for bringing out the idea that quantity and quality are not the same thing.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Let's not forget these companies also have a fondness for persecuting farmers who have GMO pollen drift into their crops. The biotech industry likes to believe it can control the wind.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Let's not forget these companies also have a fondness for persecuting farmers who have GMO pollen drift into their crops. The biotech industry likes to believe it can control the wind.


 I've heard this myth for over a decade, but never found anything to support it.
Are you referring to the Canadian seed dealer/farmer that sold the harvest of 160 acres of canola the second year Round up Ready canola was available? He claimed it was pollen drift but the jury didn't believe him.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I've heard this myth for over a decade, but never found anything to support it.
> Are you referring to the Canadian seed dealer/farmer that sold the harvest of 160 acres of canola the second year Round up Ready canola was available? He claimed it was pollen drift but the jury didn't believe him.


https://www.geneticliteracyproject....s-organic-farmers-claim-of-gmo-contamination/

The conventional farmers will be fine because pollen drift doesn't affect them - they're the ones paying, so they don't get attacked. The organic farmers, on the other hand, have financial stakes in the endeavor. They cannot sell their crops if contaminated with GMO DNA.



> Marsh sued his neighbor and former friend, Michael Baxter, claiming that GM canola from Baxterâs land drifted onto his organic oats, rye and sheep farm in Kojonup, Western Australia. The National Association of Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA) temporarily suspended Marshâs organic certification on about 70 percent of his Kojonup property in late 2010. Marsh wanted financial compensation of $85,000 from Baxter, as well as a permanent injunction issued by the Western Australia Supreme Court banning Baxter from planting GM crops.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
From the link above:


> A similar study of British nutrient data from *1930 to 1980*, published in the British Food Journal,found that in 20 vegetables the average calcium content had declined 19 percent; iron 22 percent; and potassium 14 percent.


That was before GMO's were developed
The entire article was geared towards the "organic is better" faction:



> The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings:





> What can be done? The key to healthier produce is healthier soil. Alternating fields between growing seasons to give land time to restore would be one important step. Also, foregoing pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic growing methods is good for the soil, the produce and its consumers. Those who want to get the most nutritious fruits and vegetables should buy regularly from local organic farmers.


It's an organic farmer commercial


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Quote:
> Marsh sued his neighbor and former friend, Michael Baxter, claiming that *GM canola from Baxter&#8217;s land drifted* onto his organic* oats, rye and sheep* farm in Kojonup, Western Australia. The National Association of Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA) temporarily suspended Marsh&#8217;s organic certification on about 70 percent of his Kojonup property in late 2010. Marsh wanted financial compensation of $85,000 from Baxter, as well as a permanent injunction issued by the Western Australia Supreme Court banning Baxter from planting GM crops.


Please explain how grain "drifts" unless it's in water, and how would Canola affect Rye, Oats or Sheep


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> You can get double the protein in some of the older open pollinated corn varieties compared to the modern hybrids. Of course, you won't get as much yield, but who needs yield if they have high protein corn? It's not like the starving people in third world countries are going to get any of it any way, the warlords and dictators hoard nearly everything we send them. For a neat trick, plant a heritage open pollinated strain next to a modern hybrid, and then monitor the bee activities.


How does that work? I mean, since we both know bees don't pollenate or collect nectar from corn.

Exactly what variety of older open pollenated corn has double the protein of modern varieties? Source? 

There are many things in life that offer both quality and quantity. In plant breeding that is the most basic goal. To say that they are mutually exclusive is just wrong.

There are numerous "specialty" corn varieties, each with distinct characteristics. Any demand for increased protein can be easily met without sacrificing quantity.

Never before has a population had the easy availability of a wide variety of fresh fruits, vegetables and grains. Despite the resulting obesity rate, as a population we are living longer with each generation. 

Anyone that understands even the most basic human health needs understands that the sedentary life styles plays an obviously greater effect in our health than corn from a plant that is herbicide resistant.


----------



## DisasterCupcake (Jan 3, 2015)

That would be an interesting case to follow, to see if they win for contamination. It would mean farmers of gm crops are responsible for containing the genetic material. And why not- ag chemical drift is a contamination problem as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> That would be an interesting case to follow, *to see if they win for contamination*. It would mean farmers of gm crops are responsible for containing the genetic material. And why not- ag chemical drift is a contamination problem as well.


Most such lawsuits are dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence, which seems to also be the outcome in this case.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....s-organic-farmers-claim-of-gmo-contamination/



> In the 150-page judgment summary, Justice Kenneth Martin wrote there had been no unreasonable interference with Marsh&#8217;s crops.





> During the 11-day hearing in February, scientists testified that Roundup Ready canola swathes were harmless to animals, people and land even if consumed.





> Anti-GMO groups have gotten a lot of traction by branding cross-pollination as &#8220;contamination.&#8221; Cross-pollination occurs naturally but is considered unacceptable to organic purists, who want organic crops to be completely free of pollen from GM crops and want those demands incorporated into legislation.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

DisasterCupcake said:


> That would be an interesting case to follow, to see if they win for contamination. It would mean farmers of gm crops are responsible for containing the genetic material. And why not- ag chemical drift is a contamination problem as well.


As far as I know, farmers have always been responsible for chemical drift.

Throughout the history of farming, pollen from one farm drifts to other farms. While I bet it is tempting to push for regulations that would punish farmers that "allowed" their GMO pollen to escape their boundaries, you might not like it when you face the same restrictions for allowing your crop's pollen to drift beyond your domain. 

When you file suit because my GMO canola pollen got on your lamb's back, I see that as an indication you've gone over the edge.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> https://www.geneticliteracyproject....s-organic-farmers-claim-of-gmo-contamination/
> 
> The conventional farmers will be fine because pollen drift doesn't affect them - they're the ones paying, so they don't get attacked. The organic farmers, on the other hand, have financial stakes in the endeavor. They cannot sell their crops if contaminated with GMO DNA.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...ion-rebuffing-organic-activists/#7e80959f22cb

âMr. Baxter was not to be held responsible as a broadacre farmer merely for growing a lawful GM crop and choosing to adopt a harvest methodology (swathing), which was entirely orthodox in its implementation,â he wrote. âNor could Mr. Baxter be held responsible, in law, for the reactions to the incursion of the Marshesâ organic certification body, NCO, which in the circumstances presented to be an unjustifiable reaction to what occurred.â Martin added there was âa very strong body of evidence in this trial to suggest that there was no legitimate contractual basis for NCO to decertifyâ Marshâs farm.
During the 11-day hearing in February, scientists also testified that Roundup Ready canola swathes were harmless to animals, people and land even if consumed"

The quote you posted was from The Guardian, not a reputable source.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

For those that want to learn more about the claims that Monsanto is suing farmers for pollen drift or any other crazy myths, I'd suggest you read this:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Personally I think the cannons are pointed at the wrong target. So many people freaking out about GMO, when what those food companies are doing to the raw food products before you buy it in the grocery store is what should have you up in arms. Over processed junk, all the natural goodness stripped out of it by the processing and fake stuff added back in. But I have yet to see a thread about Kraft or Nestle or the handful of other mega giants who control almost the whole food supply. So you tell yourself, I don't buy processed food. Really? Ketchup, yogurt, you name it and it's been thru a process. Many of those yogurt cups they advertise as "healthy" have as much sugar as a can of soda pop. But keep right on fearing and hating the GMO's while the "value added" sector of the industry kills you.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Personally I think the cannons are pointed at the wrong target. So many people freaking out about GMO, when what those food companies are doing to the raw food products before you buy it in the grocery store is what should have you up in arms. Over processed junk, all the natural goodness stripped out of it by the processing and fake stuff added back in. But I have yet to see a thread about Kraft or Nestle or the handful of other mega giants who control almost the whole food supply. So you tell yourself, I don't buy processed food. Really? Ketchup, yogurt, you name it and it's been thru a process. Many of those yogurt cups they advertise as "healthy" have as much sugar as a can of soda pop. But keep right on fearing and hating the GMO's while the "value added" sector of the industry kills you.


Right on!
Like folks that chose Cane Sugar over Beet Sugar or Corn Sugar, to avoid GMO Sugar Beets or GMO corn, when there isn't any GMO DNA in sugar and they lose focus on the fact that it is non-nutritive white sugar.

People are angered over Monsanto market share of the seed industry, yet ignore Smithfield, Tyson and ConAgra.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

haypoint said:


> How does that work? I mean, since we both know bees don't pollenate or collect nectar from corn.
> 
> Exactly what variety of older open pollenated corn has double the protein of modern varieties? Source?
> 
> ...



You are a big boy. Look it up. There are several varieties that have 20 or 30 percent more protein than conventional varieties. If you consider the fact that most of the corn planted is high in proteins that are hard for the human body to use, and some of these more traditional varieties aren't, you can easily get double the available protein levels.

Bees, come come my good man, don't spread rumor and supposition of which you have no idea what you are talking about. Typical white man, you say "bee" and he automatically thinks of the white man's fly. There are species of bees in this country, that have been here for as long as we have grown corn. Plant a field of real corn and you will see bees you didn't know existed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> *You are a big boy. Look it up*. There are several varieties that have 20 or 30 percent more protein than conventional varieties. If you consider the fact that most of the corn planted is high in proteins that are hard for the human body to use, and some of these more traditional varieties aren't, you can easily get double the available protein levels.
> 
> *Bees, come come my good man, don't spread rumor and supposition of which you have no idea what you are talking about*. Typical white man, you say "bee" and he automatically thinks of the white man's fly. There are species of bees in this country, that have been here for as long as we have grown corn. Plant a field of real corn and you will see bees you didn't know existed.


It's your claim, therefore it's up to you to prove it's true.

It's not a "rumor" that corn is a wind pollinated crop


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I never said that it wasn't. That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of beneficial insects that love a good mess of corn pollen if they can recognize it as such.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> You are a big boy. Look it up. There are several varieties that have 20 or 30 percent more protein than conventional varieties. If you consider the fact that most of the corn planted is high in proteins that are hard for the human body to use, and some of these more traditional varieties aren't, you can easily get double the available protein levels.
> 
> Bees, come come my good man, don't spread rumor and supposition of which you have no idea what you are talking about. Typical white man, you say "bee" and he automatically thinks of the white man's fly. There are species of bees in this country, that have been here for as long as we have grown corn. Plant a field of real corn and you will see bees you didn't know existed.


You tell me that there are older heritage varieties with double the protein level of today's corn. But now you want to keep your secret. You've hedged your statement with the additional claim that humans cannot digest corn protein, unless it is from your secret heritage variety that has that easy to digest protein. 

You tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, but keep on with your bee tale. Keep you white man insults to yourself.

Cattle get much of their protein from corn and soybean. I get much of my protein from eating cattle. I refuse to get too worked up over proteins in corn that cows digest that I can't. When I'm rubbing butter across a hot corn muffin or rustling around in a bag of Fritos, I'm not checking the protein levels.
All that aside, you are still wrong.

After hundreds of extensive studies spanning decades and GMO is safe, but you cannot stand to be on the wrong side of the facts. Tell me again how the Bt that is in GMO Bt corn is causing irritable bowel syndrome. But Bt exists in the soil, animals and us naturally, and always has.

Over the past 25 years there has been a spike in distracted driving accidents. This increase follows the increase in GMO. Don't you see the direct connection?:umno:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...ion-rebuffing-organic-activists/#7e80959f22cb
> 
> âMr. Baxter was not to be held responsible as a broadacre farmer merely for growing a lawful GM crop and choosing to adopt a harvest methodology (swathing), which was entirely orthodox in its implementation,â he wrote. âNor could Mr. Baxter be held responsible, in law, for the reactions to the incursion of the Marshesâ organic certification body, NCO, which in the circumstances presented to be an unjustifiable reaction to what occurred.â Martin added there was âa very strong body of evidence in this trial to suggest that there was no legitimate contractual basis for NCO to decertifyâ Marshâs farm.
> During the 11-day hearing in February, scientists also testified that Roundup Ready canola swathes were harmless to animals, people and land even if consumed"
> ...


Where's it was from is irrelevant; the info was the same on various sites. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> Please explain how grain "drifts" unless it's in water, and how would Canola affect Rye, Oats or Sheep


Last time I checked, pollen blows on the wind. That's why people get allergies in the spring. Why do conventional farmers get more rights than organic farmers?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Bees love corn pollen. Even honey bees. You can plant hybrid corn and will hardly see a bee of any kind. Plant an open pollinated variety and you will see clouds of bees, right beside hybrid corn with none on it. I don't need a link, I have seen it. There have been some studies on Hopi blue corn. Most of the flints run around 11 or 12 percent protein. Some even more. Cornbread is good, along with beef.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

No Link, No Source, no credibility in what is posted.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Bees love corn pollen. Even honey bees. You can plant hybrid corn and will hardly see a bee of any kind. Plant an open pollinated variety and you will see clouds of bees, right beside hybrid corn with none on it. I don't need a link, I have seen it. There have been some studies on Hopi blue corn. Most of the flints run around 11 or 12 percent protein. Some even more. Cornbread is good, along with beef.


I'm no expert, but I don't see a reason why bees would avoid hybrid corn. Hybrids are completely "natural," compared to GMO, which are technologically created.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Is Monsantos GMO corn registered as a pesticide?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm no expert, but I don't see a reason why bees would avoid hybrid corn. Hybrids are completely "natural," compared to GMO, which are technologically created.


I think it is the difference between dent corn and flint corn. Pollen tastes better or something. There are hybrid flints. I've never planted any. There are even hybrid flints that can't be pollinated by dents. To my knowledge, most if not all of the GMO is dent. This might be something to look into for someone that was worried about gmo pollen drift. The yield is not nearly as good, but the protein is way higher, and the digestibility in non ruminants. I got into it for bird feed, and with most of the colored varieties it is easy to tell if you have been tainted with anything.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Is Monsantos GMO corn registered as a pesticide?


No. But some apparently believe it is an insect repellant:stirpot:.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

haypoint said:


> No. But some apparently believe it is an insect repellant:stirpot:.


Does it have any part to it's genetic makeup that would be considered a pesticide by the FDA? Yes or no?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

https://gmoanswers.com/


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Does it have any part to it's genetic makeup that would be considered a pesticide by the FDA? Yes or no?


All of the current GMO crops, except GMO Bt Corn are simply resistant to the effects of glyphosate. Roundup Ready GMO crops do not create Roundup in them.

GMO Bt corn has a part of the Bt bacteria that kills grubs. Bt is natural and considered organic. It is common in the soil, in plants and in animals. I can't think where it isn't found. 

So, I guess my question should be: Are you listed as an insecticide since you have the complete DNA strand of Bt in you? Is your garden listed as a pesticide, since it has the complete strand of Bt in the soil? Is your dog listed as a pesticide since he has the complete strand of Bt in him?

Are you suggesting that the above listed things, with complete strands of Bt bacteria shouldn't be listed as a pesticide, but GMO Bt corn that has a short segment of Bt DNA in it should be a pesticide?

Rationalization is a powerful human emotion. Seems some folk can justify anything if you sprinkle a bit of rationalization over it first.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

haypoint said:


> https://gmoanswers.com/


Is BT a registered pesticide or not?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Is BT a registered pesticide or not?


Please refer to post 220 and 223. If that doesn't work, go ahead and pinch that boil and let's see if we can figure where you are going with this mysterious question.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Where's it was from is irrelevant; the info was the same on various sites.
> 
> Last time I checked, *pollen blows on the wind*. That's why people get allergies in the spring. Why do conventional farmers get more rights than organic farmers?


So how does Canola pollen have any detrimental effect on Oats and Rye?

All farmers have the same "rights" which don't include freedom from drifting pollen, so that's a pointless question


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So how does Canola pollen have any detrimental effect on Oats and Rye?
> 
> All farmers have the same "rights" which don't include freedom from drifting pollen, so that's a pointless question


Don't forget sheep. The guy was suing because pollen from GMO Canola got on his organic sheep.
Someone is poking a hornet's nest and it could turn out badly. If you can sue for your neighbor not controlling his GMO pollen, why couldn't a GMO seed producer sue for an organic farmer's pollen infesting his GMO crop? I think accepting a bit of pollen drift, as has been the norm since the dawn of farming, might be more realistic.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So how does Canola pollen have any detrimental effect on Oats and Rye?
> 
> All farmers have the same "rights" which don't include freedom from drifting pollen, so that's a pointless question


Your first question is rhetorical. Actually so is your second line. You're rhetorical.



haypoint said:


> Don't forget sheep. The guy was suing because pollen from GMO Canola got on his organic sheep.
> Someone is poking a hornet's nest and it could turn out badly. If you can sue for your neighbor not controlling his GMO pollen, why couldn't a GMO seed producer sue for an organic farmer's pollen infesting his GMO crop? I think accepting a bit of pollen drift, as has been the norm since the dawn of farming, might be more realistic.


WHy would someone do that? The point is, pollen drift from GM crops can contaminate organic crops which require stringent genetic controls. This results in loss of profit when GM DNA is in their organic crop. Why does the conventional farmer have more protection?

Further, since the genes are patented, why can the companies sue organic farmers for getting pollen in their plants?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Your first question is rhetorical. Actually so is your second line. You're rhetorical.
> 
> WHy would someone do that? The point is, *pollen drift from GM crops can contaminate organic crops *which require stringent *genetic* controls. This results in loss of profit when GM *DNA is in their organic crop*. Why does the conventional farmer have more protection?
> 
> Further, since the genes are patented, why can the companies sue organic farmers for getting pollen in their plants?


It's not rhetorical.

The farmer in the suit complained about Canola "contaminating" his Oats and Rye

How does Canola "contaminate" Oats and Rye if they can't cross pollinate?
How did it affect the *genetics* of his crops at all?

How does the DNA of what amounts to *dust* get *into* and alter their crops?

Why do you keep parroting the myth of farmers being sued for cross pollination?


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Bear,

Farmers are being sued for getting GMO material in their crops. Monsanto sues roughly 13 farmers a year for 'patent infringement,' a euphemism that covers trying to save GM seed and having excess levels on GM contamination in your homegrown stocks (from drifted pollen.) For many of the farmers sued, they were saving seed from year to year, and got contaminated by their neighbors, resulting in unwanted hybridization in their crops. This aggressive enforcement of IP law is one of several reasons that Monsanto is hated by the Ag. research and the commercial ag. communities. 

Loki


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

hoddedloki said:


> Bear,
> 
> *Farmers are being sued for getting GMO material in their crops*. Monsanto sues roughly 13 farmers a year for 'patent infringement,' a euphemism that covers trying to save GM seed and having excess levels on GM contamination in your homegrown stocks (from drifted pollen.) For many of the farmers sued, they were saving seed from year to year, and got contaminated by their neighbors, resulting in unwanted hybridization in their crops. This aggressive enforcement of IP law is one of several reasons that Monsanto is hated by the Ag. research and the commercial ag. communities.
> 
> Loki


That myth was shot down long ago.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked

Monsanto is "hated" because people don't care about reality and will fall for the internet hype


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

elevenpoint said:


> Does it have any part to it's genetic makeup that would be considered a pesticide by the FDA? Yes or no?


So the answer is yes.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Your first question is rhetorical. Actually so is your second line. You're rhetorical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


GMO Canola pollen on your oats, barley or sheep doesn't alter their genetics. The Australian Organic Organization attempted to declare a part of the guy's crop as non-organic. Any organization can set any sort of regulation, from a secret handshake to a nonsensical GMO pollen is Kooties. The Judge threw it out.

So far Monsanto hasn't sued anyone for incidental or accidental pollen drift. Pollen drift has existed for hundreds of years. If you want to bust some myths, click on the Monsanto website I posted and read the list of lawsuits and a detailed explanation of each.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx

Here is the best known Monsanto suit, detailed from the web site, complete with a link to the court documents:

"
If you&#8217;ve heard much about agricultural biotechnology, you&#8217;ve potentially heard of Percy Schmeiser. Schmeiser is a Canadian canola farmer who Monsanto successfully sued for patent violation after unlicensed Roundup Ready canola was found growing on his farm.
Starting from when we began our efforts to settle the matter out-of-court, Schmeiser claimed the biotech plants in his fields got there by accident and were not planted by him. It&#8217;s a claim he continues to make to this day. He&#8217;s become something of a folk hero in some circles, playing the role of David to Monsanto&#8217;s Goliath. He&#8217;s often quoted in the press and is a frequent speaker around the world at events hosted by groups opposed to agricultural biotechnology.
The truth is Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. He&#8217;s simply a patent infringer who knows how to tell a good story. Unlike his neighbors, and the vast majority of farmers who plant patented seeds, Schmeiser saved seed that contained Monsanto&#8217;s patented technology without a license. As indicated by the trial court in Canada, the seed was not blown in on the wind nor carried in by birds, and it didn&#8217;t spontaneously appear. Schmeiser knowingly planted this seed in his field without permission or license. By doing so, he used Monsanto&#8217;s patented technology without permission. In fact, the courts determined this in three separate decisions.
Consider just a few of the facts.
In the first trial, Schmeiser claimed in 1997 he sprayed Roundup on three acres of his canola field because he was suspicious it might be Roundup tolerant. If his story were true, this would kill any canola plants other than those tolerant to Roundup. After killing more than half his crop, he then harvested the remaining plants that did not die and segregated this seed. The next year (1998) he had this seed treated and used this seed to plant 1,030 acres on his farm.
Why would he harvest seed that he says he didn&#8217;t want on his farm and deliberately plant it the following year?
As expressed in the Canadian Supreme Court judgment documents:
Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000.​ Schmeiser didn&#8217;t have a few Roundup Ready plants in his field. His fields had mostly Roundup Ready plants in them&#8211;far more than could have ever grown there by accident. Again, in the words of the Canadian court judgment:
&#8230;tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of this 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. &#8230;The trial judge found that &#8220;none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality&#8221; ultimately present in Schmeiser&#8217;s crop.​ Consider Schmeiser&#8217;s legal history with this situation:


Schmeiser was first found to have violated Monsanto&#8217;s patent in 2001 when the federal court found he &#8220;knew or ought to have known&#8221; he had saved and planted Roundup Ready seed and infringed Monsanto&#8217;s Roundup Ready patented technology. You can read the original Canadian court decision at http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html.
He lost again upon appeal in 2002, when the three-member Canadian Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed _all 17_ grounds of appeal submitted for Mr. Schmeiser. Read the entire decision at http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2002/2002fca309/2002fca309.html.
He lost again, in 2004, in an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court--exhausting all his legal options. See the court judgment document at http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-cs...m/2147/index.do?r=AAAAAQAJc2NobWVpc2VyAAAAAAE
 During his frequent lecture tours, Schmeiser continues to say he didn&#8217;t plant Roundup Ready seeds. He&#8217;s even stated he _won _the case in the Canadian Supreme Court. What he doesn&#8217;t say is that three separate court decisions, including the Supreme Court decision, say exactly the opposite."


Now, is Monsanto suing people over pollen drift?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> So the answer is yes.


Is it?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Is it?


Well, its yes or no with no other options.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

elevenpoint said:


> Well, its yes or no with no other options.


Most difficult yes or no I've seen yet.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

hoddedloki said:


> Bear,
> 
> Farmers are being sued for getting GMO material in their crops. Monsanto sues roughly 13 farmers a year for 'patent infringement,' a euphemism that covers trying to save GM seed and having excess levels on GM contamination in your homegrown stocks (from drifted pollen.) For many of the farmers sued, they were saving seed from year to year, and got contaminated by their neighbors, resulting in unwanted hybridization in their crops. This aggressive enforcement of IP law is one of several reasons that Monsanto is hated by the Ag. research and the commercial ag. communities.
> 
> Loki


That is just not true. For a detailed report of each of the few cases Monsanto took to court, read this :http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pa...-lawsuits.aspx

When a seed dealer sells the crop from over 1,000 acres, the second year GMO Canola was on sale, and its all GMO, it isn't a build up from pollen drift. But he may tell you that it is.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Is BT a registered pesticide or not?


Registered with who? It is allowed for use in organic gardens for use on organic vegetables. 

Is table salt a registered herbicide or not? Sure kills most plant life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Well, its yes or no with no other options.


Well which is it?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> GMO Canola pollen on your oats, barley or sheep doesn't alter their genetics. The Australian Organic Organization attempted to declare a part of the guy's crop as non-organic. Any organization can set any sort of regulation, from a secret handshake to a nonsensical GMO pollen is Kooties. The Judge threw it out.
> 
> So far Monsanto hasn't sued anyone for incidental or accidental pollen drift. Pollen drift has existed for hundreds of years. If you want to bust some myths, click on the Monsanto website I posted and read the list of lawsuits and a detailed explanation of each.
> 
> ...


Don't insult my intelligence by suggesting I thought canola genes were going to affect corn of soy plants. I do have that much grasp on biology. 

Now, showing the lawsuits themselves may be useless. How many farmers just get intimidated and kowtow to their whims? How farmers do you know who can afford an actual lawsuit? I know very few. Most of them if threatened by a major company would probably buckle. To be fair, there's no crop land near me - it's all crappy grazing-quality soils.

And for seed-sellers, there is a very real risk of GM pollen affecting their seed crop. This could lower their income. 

No matter how you twist it, Monsanto has a history of being vicious. They like to come across as just another company, but just like any other company their size, they get vicious readily.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And for* seed-sellers*, there is a very real* risk *of GM pollen affecting their seed crop. This could lower their income.


And yet they do it successfully every year.

The "risk" is minute, and can be nearly totally alleviated with a minimum of planning 

Seed companies will often plant different varieties of corn side by side in the same field, and just sacrifice a few adjacent rows of each


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Cute, but that is not how corn breeders work in the field. The only time Ag companies or researchers do plant 2 varieties side by side with open pollination is to make hybrids. Check the publications (books and papers) by McWhirtter, Jerry Kermicle, and Saghai Maroof for how these field are actually run. Guys that run research fields and are credentialed in this field, unlike you or I. The research field (academic and corporate) tend to control pollination with paper bags and glassine shoot bags

Loki


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

hoddedloki said:


> Cute, but that is not how *corn breeders work in the field*. The only time Ag companies or researchers do plant 2 varieties side by side with open pollination is to make hybrids. Check the publications (books and papers) by McWhirtter, Jerry Kermicle, and Saghai Maroof for how these field are actually run. Guys that run research fields and are credentialed in this field, unlike you or I. The research field (academic and corporate)* tend to control pollination with paper bags and glassine shoot bags*
> 
> Loki


"Corn breeders" who want to sell seed seem to manage quite well with not getting any GMO contamination.

The cases that get hyped in the media most often turn out to be false claims

One can also control pollination with separation of fields and by using windbreaks, along with staggered planting dates

It only takes 700 feet to get a 99.9% reduction


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> Don't insult my intelligence by suggesting I thought canola genes were going to affect corn of soy plants. I do have that much grasp on biology.
> 
> Now, showing the lawsuits themselves may be useless. How many farmers just get intimidated and kowtow to their whims? How farmers do you know who can afford an actual lawsuit? I know very few. Most of them if threatened by a major company would probably buckle. To be fair, there's no crop land near me - it's all crappy grazing-quality soils.
> 
> ...


They only paid 90 million for the Agent Orange fiasco. Of course there was no wrongdoing on their part.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

These anti gmo posts are getting more ridiculous with each post that is on here. Wow.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> They only paid 90 million for the Agent Orange fiasco. Of course there was no wrongdoing on their part.


It's cheaper to pay people off than to keep fighting ridiculous lawsuits

Monsanto told the DoD there was Dioxin contamination, and they used it any way. Blame the Govt


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's cheaper to pay people off than to keep fighting ridiculous lawsuits
> 
> Monsanto told the DoD there was Dioxin contamination, and they used it any way. Blame the Govt


You mean ridiculous lawsuits involving pollution that poisoned dozens of families in a small US town? Ridiculous indeed. I may be more lenient towards genetic technology, but I still think Monsanto, Dupont, and their ilk are despicable companies.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's cheaper to pay people off than to keep fighting ridiculous lawsuits
> 
> Monsanto told the DoD there was Dioxin contamination, and they used it any way. Blame the Govt


Sure, pay 90 million just for grins.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> You mean ridiculous lawsuits involving pollution that *poisoned dozens of families in a small US town*? Ridiculous indeed. I may be more lenient towards genetic technology, but I still think Monsanto, Dupont, and their ilk are despicable companies.


Show these specific suits you're talking about


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Sure, pay 90 million just for grins.


That's not what I said at all


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show these specific suits you're talking about


This one is for Monsanto, but only for failures in the manufacture of chemicals, the one Heritage is talking about is actually against Syntax and concerns times beach and Verona, Mo.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> This one is for Monsanto, but only for failures in the manufacture of chemicals, the one Heritage is talking about is actually against Syntax and concerns times beach and Verona, Mo.


No, I was referring to the Anniston PCBs case. But thanks for letting me know about that other case.

Oh, and Monsanto just got sued again for a similar issue:

http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-must-pay-damages-pcb-lymphoma-case-7341/



> Last week, a St. Louis Circuit Court jury awarded $46.5 million to 3 plaintiffs who alleged that PCBs made by Monsanto caused cancer. The plaintiffs alleged in the suit that Monsanto and the other defendants â Solutia, Pharmacia, and Pfizer â were negligent in their handling of PCBs.
> 
> PCB stands for polychlorinated biphenyls, a highly toxic and carcinogenic group of chemicals. Decades ago, PCBs were used in many different products, including electrical equipment, surface coatings, inks, adhesives, flame-retardants, and paints. Before morphing into the agritech giant it is today, Monsanto was the sole manufacturer of PCBs from 1935 to 1997.


That last date is suspect, but I read this lawsuit on several sites.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> No, I was referring to the Anniston* PCBs* case. But thanks for letting me know about that other case.
> 
> Oh, and Monsanto just got sued again for a similar issue:
> 
> ...


My comments were about *Agent Orange*:



> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> They only paid 90 million for *the Agent Orange fiasco*. Of course there was no wrongdoing on their part.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> My comments were about *Agent Orange*:


I don't care what you were talking about - I usually don't.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I usually kind of chuckle when I hear that "X got sued for YZ and lost to the tune of $?????"

As though that means they were guilty of something. The only thing you need to be found guilty of to lose a lawsuit is either having a lot of money or a lot of insurance. Juries LOVE giving other people's money away.

At one point, every singe tool sales, sharpeing and repair company in Tucson AZ had MULTIPLE lawsuitts stacked against them and were losing them left and right, because of stuff like Selling some guy a riding lawnmower when he was "obviously" to old to know how to run it properly, thus getting hurt. Crazyier stuff than that got big awards.

I was the sole exception. i got sued not at all. Was it because I never had a customer hurt themselves? Not hardly! The mower and saw business creates lots of puddles of blood in every city and every year. It was because I had no deep pockets and no insurance. Lawyers do not work for nothing, so all the frivolus lawsuits went elsewhere.

Losing a lawsuit (civil) is the very thinnest indication of any kind of guilt, in my opinion.....Joe


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't care what you were talking about - I usually don't.


Then don't quote me as if your response is somehow connected to my comments


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then don't quote me as if your response is somehow connected to my comments


:stars:Huh?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> :stars:Huh?


I'm sorry if you're confused.

It's not complicated though
Go back to post #244 and read through it all again and you should be able to figure it out


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I think you can hate capitalism and even hate Monsanto for something you think they did 50 years ago or something you think they did last week.
But in the context of this discussion, GMO, crops you haven't anything real to hate. The pollen drift lawsuits are myths, the bloody gut claims are fake, the rats with cancer is thrown out by 99% of scientists as badly flawed.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm sorry if you're confused.
> 
> It's not complicated though
> Go back to post #244 and read through it all again and you should be able to figure it out


Sorry, not playing your word games right now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Sorry, not playing your word games right now.


There is no "game"
It's a simple matter of being able to follow a conversation and understand the subject.
It shouldn't require any explanations


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "game"
> It's a simple matter of being able to follow a conversation and understand the subject.
> It shouldn't require any explanations


You've admitted to this being your version of entertainment. This is a game to you.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It only takes 700 feet to get a 99.9% reduction


 'Only' 700ft?? Lol and of course the onus for this 700ft (which, as you admit does not stop all genetic contamination) is on the seed farmer, not the guy planting the GMOs. So the GMO guy can plant right up to the property line, but the guy who doesn't want GMO must sacrifice 700+ ft of acreage to keep his seed strain '99.9%' free of genetically modified DNA. Sounds great, no wonder people villify the GMO companies. They put this stuff out into the environment and tell those who don't want it 'too bad'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> You've admitted to this being your version of entertainment. This is a game to you.


Entertainment can be many things.
It doesn't have to be a "game"

Right now I'm watching a James Bond movie that's highly entertaining, but certainly not a "game".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> 'Only' 700ft?? Lol and of course the onus for this 700ft (which, as you admit does not stop all genetic contamination) is on the seed farmer, not the guy planting the GMOs. So the GMO guy can plant right up to the property line, but the guy who doesn't want GMO must sacrifice 700+ ft of acreage to keep his seed strain '99.9%' free of genetically modified DNA. Sounds great, no wonder people villify the GMO companies. They put this stuff out into the environment and tell those who don't want it 'too bad'.


Both can plant right up to the line.
Non- GMO seed companies manage to do it all the time.

You probably don't realize GMO Bt corn growers are also required to grow a percentage of non GMO too, so as to help prevent the pests development of resistance

There are lots of ways to prevent cross pollination of a plant that's hard to pollinate anyway. The easiest way is to not grow your corn next to someone else's


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Both can plant right up to the line.


 Sure, if they both want their seed lines contaminated. If I had a wild dog that went around the neighborhood, impregnating all the females in the area, should I just say, 'Hey, you should have put a buffer zone around your property'? Seems like negligence on the part of the farmers... They can do what they want on thier own property, but when THIER pollen drifts onto MY land, there is a problem.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Both can plant right up to the line.
> Non- GMO seed companies manage to do it all the time.
> 
> You probably don't realize GMO Bt corn growers are also required to grow a percentage of non GMO too, so as to help prevent the pests development of resistance
> ...


So people should just move if someone happens to be planting the GMO corn next to them? That may not work for everyone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Sure, if they both want their seed lines contaminated. If I had a wild dog that went around the neighborhood, impregnating all the females in the area, should I just say, 'Hey, you should have put a buffer zone around your property'? Seems like negligence on the part of the farmers... They can do what they want on thier own property, but when THIER pollen drifts onto MY land, there is a problem.


No buffer zone is required with a few wind breaks and staggered planting dates.

A tall fence can contain dogs
A row of trees used as a windbreak can contain lots of pollen

https://hort.purdue.edu/ext/HO-98.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> So people should just move if someone happens to be planting the GMO corn next to them? That may not work for everyone.


You stagger planting dates and crop rotations to acheive your end goal
It obviously works for most farmers since I see no evidence of any seed shortages. Maybe you can show some instead of all the hypothetical scenarios


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You stagger planting dates and crop rotations to acheive your end goal
> It obviously works for most farmers since I see no evidence of any seed shortages. Maybe you can show some instead of all the hypothetical scenarios


Why should I do that just to avoid pollen I don't want? I'd like equal rights for farmers please, maybe you can make it the next thing everyone gets their knickers in a knot over.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> *Why should I do that* just to avoid pollen I don't want? I'd like equal rights for farmers please, maybe you can make it the next thing everyone gets their knickers in a knot over.


To get the results *you* want.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why should I do that just to avoid pollen I don't want? I'd like equal rights for farmers please, maybe you can make it the next thing everyone gets their knickers in a knot over.


What did farmers do a hundred years ago to protect their saved seed varieties from the neighbor's crops? They did nothing or they took steps to separate their crops. 

If I'm growing acorn squash and plan to save seed, I shouldn't plant my acorn squash next to my neighbor's Summer squash field.

Nothing has changed, except for those that think GMO pollen has kooties and want a standard against just GMO pollen, while ignoring all other pollen. Well, the topic of this thread should please the dickens out of you, now you know that GMO crops are safe and you can stop worrying.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> What did farmers do a hundred years ago to protect their saved seed varieties from the neighbor's crops? They did nothing or they took steps to separate their crops.
> 
> If I'm growing acorn squash and plan to save seed, I shouldn't plant my acorn squash next to my neighbor's Summer squash field.
> 
> Nothing has changed, except for those that think GMO pollen has kooties and want a standard against just GMO pollen, while ignoring all other pollen. Well, the topic of this thread should please the dickens out of you, now you know that GMO crops are safe and you can stop worrying.


I'm not saying GMO is good or bad, nor have I expressed an opinion on the matter (recently). Sometimes organic crops CAN be "contaminated" and it reduces their resale value, OR makes them unsaleable.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm not saying GMO is good or bad, nor have I expressed an opinion on the matter (recently). Sometimes organic crops CAN be "contaminated" and it reduces their resale value, OR makes them unsaleable.


Since the standards for Organic certification require no GMO products, then you would be effected. To acquire the premium for organic products, you have to figure out alternative fertilization, alternative seed treatment, alternative pest control, etc.

You cannot expect to be able to grow organic corn that tassels out at the same time as your GMO farming neighbor right next to your fence line. 

If I were growing GMO seed corn for Rupp Seed Company, I won't be able to plant near your pop corn field. Same as if I were growing organic pop corn next to your organic sweet corn. Either would make my products unsaleable.

Being mad at Monsanto for developing GMO corn because it can "contaminate", is like being mad a Johnny's Seeds for selling your neighbor tiny pumpkin gourds that can contaminate your Giant Pumpkin patch.

Pollen is free range, just like free range livestock. You don't require others to fence theirs in, you take steps to fence theirs out.

Since this is mostly about corn, I'd have to guess that far more organic sweet corn has been reduced in value or rendered unsaleable by corn borers in the ears than is ruined by the neighbor's GMO corn pollen.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Thankfully, there are several ways to deal with pollen drift. Distance is one. Another is TIME.

Corn pollen doesn't remain viable all that long. If you want to plant organic sweet corn next to someone else's non-organic corn field, it is possible to keep the lines pure by a separation of TIME. Several weeks of difference in the tassling of the corn should provide for separation needed to keep the two crops from cross breeding. 

People tend to think only in terms of distance and often forget about the time element. It's not always easy or convenient to be earlier or later than the farmers around you but it is often possible, sometimes necessary.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

If organic farmers can solve the problem simply be planting at a different time, what are they complaining about? The most common notion is that Monsanto will come after them for having trace GMO DNA in their corn.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> If organic farmers can solve the problem simply be planting at a different time, what are they complaining about? The most common notion is that Monsanto will come after them for having trace GMO DNA in their corn.


 Strangely, it is a notion that just won't die.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

haypoint said:


> Strangely, it is a notion that just won't die.


Kinda like this thread...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm not saying GMO is good or bad, nor have I expressed an opinion on the matter (recently). Sometimes organic crops CAN be "contaminated" and *it reduces their resale value*, OR makes them unsaleable.


It may reduce the "value"
It seldom means the crop can't be sold at all, and in the vast majority of cases the product isn't tested to begin with, so there is no detrimental effect at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> If organic farmers can solve the problem simply be planting at a different time, what are they complaining about? The most common notion is that Monsanto will come after them for having trace GMO DNA in their corn.


There's that myth again


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

All right, here's a challenge to get you out of your comfort zone. Go try and find a case or situation where Monsanto sued or bullied a farm or farmer because of pollen drift.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> All right, here's a challenge to get you out of your comfort zone. *Go try and find* a case or situation where Monsanto sued or bullied a farm or farmer because of pollen drift.


Why would anyone want to chase your wild geese?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would anyone want to chase your wild geese?


Oh, you know. To try and figure out if one is actually right. I wouldn't expect you to do that - you're as immobile as a religious zealot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Oh, you know. To try and figure out if one is actually right. I wouldn't expect you to do that - you're as immobile as a religious zealot.


It's your claim.
If you want to show proof, nothing is holding you back


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> All right, here's a challenge to get you out of your comfort zone. Go try and find a case or situation where Monsanto sued or bullied a farm or farmer because of pollen drift.


That case or situation is right next to the rainbow unicorns.:hysterical:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's your claim.
> If you want to show proof, nothing is holding you back


I didn't make a claim. I asked for someone to support it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Hey, folks, I think we've got a convoy. Bearfootfarm, Heritagefarm and Haypoint all know the Monsanto lawsuits over pollen drift are as fake as a three dollar bill.
Anyone ready to give up the myth and drink from the fresh clean fountain of reality?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Hey, folks, I think we've got a convoy. Bearfootfarm, Heritagefarm and Haypoint all know the Monsanto lawsuits over pollen drift are as fake as a three dollar bill.
> Anyone ready to give up the myth and drink from the fresh clean fountain of reality?


Nonsense. Not 3 dollar bills. I just got done with my last batch of 6 dollar bills - how many would you like?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I didn't make a claim. I asked for someone to support it.


It sounded like you did, after going on about pollen contamination for so long:



> Originally Posted by Heritagefarm View Post
> If organic farmers can solve the problem simply be planting at a different time, what are they complaining about?
> 
> The most common notion is that Monsanto will come after them for having trace GMO DNA in their corn.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It sounded like you did, after going on about pollen contamination for so long:


Read that post again. I never said it was my opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Read that post again. *I never said it was* my opinion.


You never said it wasn't either.
You just said it without any clarification


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You never said it wasn't either.
> You just said it without any clarification


I'm glad you're so obsessed with opinions about whether or not my opinions are actually my opinions. Since I'm confused, why not tell me which it is?:hysterical:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm glad you're so obsessed with opinions about whether or not my opinions are actually my opinions. Since I'm confused, why not tell me which it is?:hysterical:


I don't really care about what your opinions are.
You just tend to ramble sometimes so it's often unclear.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ramble ramble


What?


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

If you are looking for a case of Monsanto suing a farmer for use of seed contaminated by GMO material (pollen drift), try Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser. The farmer's field was contaminated by pollen drift, he planted the seeds from the field the next year, and was found guilty of breaking patent law because he planted the seeds from his own harvested field.

Monsanto has been a bully for quite some time, and have used the threat of expensive lawsuits to force compliance from farmers. (You can pay us now, or we can sue and force you to sell your farm to pay us later...)

Loki


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Course why don't the anti-gmo people tell the REAL TRUTH in the case???? Why? Cause it would prove them all lairs and spreading falsehoods for years and they these anti folks continue to do so today in quoting such a case as that~!. LOL
The truth is Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. He&#8217;s simply a patent infringer who knows how to tell a good story. Unlike his neighbors, and the vast majority of farmers who plant patented seeds, Schmeiser saved seed that contained Monsanto&#8217;s patented technology without a license. As indicated by the trial court in Canada, the seed was not blown in on the wind nor carried in by birds, and it didn&#8217;t spontaneously appear. Schmeiser knowingly planted this seed in his field without permission or license. By doing so, he used Monsanto&#8217;s patented technology without permission. In fact, the courts determined this in three separate decisions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

hoddedloki said:


> If you are looking for a case of Monsanto suing a farmer for use of seed contaminated by GMO material (pollen drift), try Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser. *The farmer's field was contaminated by pollen drift*, he planted the seeds from the field the next year, and was found guilty of breaking patent law because he planted the seeds from his own harvested field.
> 
> Monsanto has been a bully for quite some time, and have used the threat of expensive lawsuits to force compliance from farmers. (You can pay us now, or we can sue and force you to sell your farm to pay us later...)
> 
> Loki


Have you not noticed his case has already come up multiple times?
His fields were NOT "cross-pollinated"

He lied


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

hoddedloki said:


> If you are looking for a case of Monsanto suing a farmer for use of seed contaminated by GMO material (pollen drift), try Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser. The farmer's field was contaminated by pollen drift, he planted the seeds from the field the next year, and was found guilty of breaking patent law because he planted the seeds from his own harvested field.
> 
> Monsanto has been a bully for quite some time, and have used the threat of expensive lawsuits to force compliance from farmers. (You can pay us now, or we can sue and force you to sell your farm to pay us later...)
> 
> Loki


You do realize he sold the yield of over a thousand acres, the second year GMO Canola was available and he lost the lawsuit because the jury didn't believe his lies?

"
The truth is Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. He&#8217;s simply a patent infringer who knows how to tell a good story. Unlike his neighbors, and the vast majority of farmers who plant patented seeds, Schmeiser saved seed that contained Monsanto&#8217;s patented technology without a license. As indicated by the trial court in Canada, the seed was not blown in on the wind nor carried in by birds, and it didn&#8217;t spontaneously appear. Schmeiser knowingly planted this seed in his field without permission or license. By doing so, he used Monsanto&#8217;s patented technology without permission. In fact, the courts determined this in three separate decisions.
Consider just a few of the facts.
In the first trial, Schmeiser claimed in 1997 he sprayed Roundup on three acres of his canola field because he was suspicious it might be Roundup tolerant. If his story were true, this would kill any canola plants other than those tolerant to Roundup. After killing more than half his crop, he then harvested the remaining plants that did not die and segregated this seed. The next year (1998) he had this seed treated and used this seed to plant 1,030 acres on his farm.
Why would he harvest seed that he says he didn&#8217;t want on his farm and deliberately plant it the following year?
As expressed in the Canadian Supreme Court judgment documents:
Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000.​ Schmeiser didn&#8217;t have a few Roundup Ready plants in his field. His fields had mostly Roundup Ready plants in them&#8211;far more than could have ever grown there by accident. Again, in the words of the Canadian court judgment:
&#8230;tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of this 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. &#8230;The trial judge found that &#8220;none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality&#8221; ultimately present in Schmeiser&#8217;s crop.​ Consider Schmeiser&#8217;s legal history with this situation:


Schmeiser was first found to have violated Monsanto&#8217;s patent in 2001 when the federal court found he &#8220;knew or ought to have known&#8221; he had saved and planted Roundup Ready seed and infringed Monsanto&#8217;s Roundup Ready patented technology. You can read the original Canadian court decision at http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html.
He lost again upon appeal in 2002, when the three-member Canadian Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed _all 17_ grounds of appeal submitted for Mr. Schmeiser. Read the entire decision at http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2002/2002fca309/2002fca309.html.
He lost again, in 2004, in an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court--exhausting all his legal options. See the court judgment document at http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-cs...m/2147/index.do?r=AAAAAQAJc2NobWVpc2VyAAAAAAE "
 Need any more proof that he's a liar?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

hoddedloki said:


> Cute, but that is not how corn breeders work in the field. The only time Ag companies or researchers do plant 2 varieties side by side with open pollination is to make hybrids. Check the publications (books and papers) by McWhirtter, Jerry Kermicle, and Saghai Maroof for how these field are actually run. Guys that run research fields and are credentialed in this field, unlike you or I. The research field (academic and corporate) tend to control pollination with paper bags and glassine shoot bags
> 
> Loki


I think you are about 20 years behind the times. At one time all the hybrid seed corn came from covering or hand loping off the tassels of one variety and covering the silk of another with paper bags.
However, with modern genetics, the variety that they do not want the pollen from grows nearly two feet taller than the other variety and a cutter goes through the field, cutting off the unwanted tassels and leaving the much shorter variety that contains the genetics they want. 
What I'm saying is that what once was a labor intensive task is now accomplished with plant breeding and mechanical overhead mowing. None of this has much to do with GMO, however.
These are not crosses of two open pollenated varieties, but a hybrid to hybrid cross, or four way, to be correct.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

double post.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://monsantoblog.com/2012/08/30/the-myth-about-accidental-pollination/

"In February 2012, a federal court dismissed such accusations as unfounded and a transparent attempt to create a controversy where none actually exists, pointing to Monsantoâs policy of not suing farmers in cases of inadvertent presence of gene flow. (See Beyond the Rows: OSGATA v. Monsanto: A Ruling for All Agriculture.) 
It has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of patented seed or traits are present in farmerâs fields as a result of inadvertent means. "

http://www.agri-pulse.com/federa-court-dismisses-suit-02272012.asp
âThere is no evidence that plaintiffs are infringing defendants' patents, nor have plaintiffs suggested when, if ever, such infringement will occur,â Buchwald wrote in her opinion. She also noted that this was a "transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists.
OSGATA and plaintiffs in the case alleged that they did not want to grow crops containing Monsanto's biotechnology traits but feared a patent-infringement lawsuit in the event the company's traits happened to enter their fields inadvertently through, for example, cross-pollination. 
The court cited Monsanto's long-standing public commitment that "it has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means," according to the company.
"This decision is a win for all farmers as it underscores that agricultural practices such as ag biotechnology, organic and conventional systems do and will continue to effectively coexist in the agricultural marketplace," said David F. Snively, Monsanto's Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel. "Importantly, this ruling tore down a historic myth which is commonly perpetuated against our business by these plaintiffs and other parties through the internet, noting that not only were such claims unsubstantiated but, more importantly, they were unjustified."


----------

