GMO vs Organic

[Joods]

It is my understanding that when Montsano first showed up on the scene, their idea for GMO's was that it would be able to feed massive nations in third world countries.

I'm fine with that.

What many people were not told about, however, is the fact that Monsanto put a patent on the crops and then proceeded to sue small farmers who didn't want GMO seeds. They were sued because when samples of the small farmers crops and seeds were taken, GMO evidence turned up. Montsano claimed those farmers were stealing GMO seeds and using them in their fields. The problem is that winds would carry some of those seeds to other areas, thus causing cross contamination (for lack of a better word). Small farmers don't have the money for expensive lawyers like the big corporations do, so the small farmer was sued and lost.

This is my understanding of the outrage behind Montsano. And the real reason they sued was because some farmers didn't want to be a part of genetically modified food. GMO seeds can be found in nearly every type of crop grown in the US. Montsano holds a patent on those seeds so they can literally control the food production in this country.

As I said, I personally don't have an issue with GMOs in general. What I take issue with the Montsano Corporation and their lack of ethics on the matter.

[Alex K]

I haven't really researched their behavior and what was behind these scandals ( They haven't however invented patenting crops, and pressuring farmers to use certain brands of hybrids was a thing before genetic engineering iirc ). I just think that these issues of corporate ethics and science ethics must be clearly separated.

What I've seen of the Anti-GMO movement, many of them simply aren't fact based, they are first and foremost an ideological, propaganda based movement. Which is bad for everyone, because legitimate concerns are drowned out by their lies and breathless fear mongering.

[Joods]

I will be more than happy to admit that I'm wrong about them, until proven so, however, documentaries have been done on Montsano that show what they are doing. They don't hold patents in crops themselves, but they do hold patents on seeds that have been genetically modified and that's the rub. Crops like wheat have seeds that can get carried away in the wind, thus spreading to other farmland. Farms that don't have the exclusive rights to plant GMO seeds are being sued.

Personally, if the GMO seeds can be used and they yield better crops and in turn, those crops can go to feed starving people, I'm all for it. No one should go hungry. You have a seed that can produce plants which can resist bugs, drought and disease, by all means, get those suckers in the ground and start planting. Let corporate greed stand in the way and it becomes nothing more than a power trip to control food production.

[Alex K]

I will be more than happy to admit that I'm wrong about them,

I have no emotional investment in whether Monsanto is evil or not. They could be run by Hitler and Stalin jointly, that wouldn't drastically change my position on whether GMO technology should be pursued in principle.

until proven so, however, documentaries have been done on Montsano that show what they are doing. They don't hold patents in crops themselves, but they do hold patents on seeds that have been genetically modified and that's the rub.

Ok, that's what I meant actually.

Crops like wheat have seeds that can get carried away in the wind, thus spreading to other farmland. Farms that don't have the exclusive rights to plant GMO seeds are being sued.

I understand that they want to protect their intellectual property, but if that's how it plays out that sucks of course. Did anyone actually get convicted just because seeds accidentally blew onto their land?

[Joods]

I can do some research on that when I get home, if you can wait a bit? I want to make sure if I'm going to make that statement, that I can back it up.

[Joods]

I found quite a few articles in my phone, I will post them when I get home.

[Clueless Morgan]

I still think organic is better then GMO. Mainly the GMO that have built in pesticides that kill the insects.

Uuuh, dude, naturally evolved plants have "built in" pesticides that kill insects.  That's why they're still around.  If they didn't have such naturally occurring pesticides all the plants of that species would have been consumed by insects and it wouldn't be around to propagate any more.

What GMO does (in theory) is make plants that produce their own pesticides that don't also affect taste (naturally evolved pesticides tend to impart a bitter taste) or that produce more effective "built in" pesticides so that fewer artificial pesticides (such as spray-on pesticides, herbicides and fungicides) need to be used on the plants.

GMO is not the same as selective breeding to create different strains of a species, like cross pollination to create desirable traits.

It is true that GMO technology is not the same as selective breeding techniques; it is a faster way to achieve the same, or similar, results.

GMO is intentionally changing the DNA of a plant to create a desirable trait, such as built in pesticide.

Selective breeding techniques also intentionally change the DNA of a plant to create desirable traits.

Am I to conclude that the problem that you have with GMO over selective breeding is that its occurs in a matter of years rather than over centuries or millenia?  If that's the case, I do believe that is special pleading.

Monsanto for example creates plants that don't produce seeds so farmers can't use the seeds of the previous crop to grow the next harvest. In fact it has led to many suicides in India because they can't afford to farm the land due to having to buy seeds each season.

Get your facts right.

GMO and Indian Farmer Suicide
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index...r-suicide/

Even while anti-GMO articles were playing the “Indian suicide” card, the scientific evidence was already coming in showing that such claims were largely baseless. A comprehensive review in October of 2008 by the International Food Policy Research Institute found:

We first show that there is no evidence in available data of a “resurgence” of farmer suicides in India in the last five years. Second, we find that Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India. However, the context in which Bt cotton was introduced has generated disappointing results in some particular districts and seasons. Third, our analysis clearly shows that Bt cotton is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the occurrence of farmer suicides.

Essentially the evidence shows that there was no increase in farmer suicides, and farmer suicides are not linked to the use of Bt cotton (the primary GMO approved for use in India). Sure, some Bt crops failed, just like all crops can fail, and crop failure can lead to indebtedness and in some tragic cases to suicide. But the GMO crop was not the critical element in such tragedies – it was a complex interplay of economic and farming choices combined with bad luck.

A recent study looking at farmer suicides in India comes to a similar conclusion – there is no increase in farmer suicide linked to the use of GMO, in fact if anything there is a slight decrease.

There is also an excellent review published in The Conversation – an academic journal funded by universities the purpose of which is to inject objective facts into policy discussions. After a review of the evidence they found that the suicide rate among Indian farmers is actually less than the suicide rate among non-farmers in six out of the nine cotton-growing states. Further, the rate of suicides has decreased slightly...

...

Conclusion

The claim that the introduction of GM crops in India has caused an increase in farmer suicides was not based upon any rigorous evidence. Rather it seems to have been based on individual stories and facts taken out of context. When the data is reviewed in a more objective and thorough way it seems clear that there is no correlation between the use of Bt cotton by Indian farmers and farmer suicide, and if anything there is a small decrease (although too small to conclude causation).

Whether or not you support or condemn the use of GM technology, it is to everyone’s advantage that the conversation be as evidence-based as possible. Critics of GM should be especially offended by the propagation of the GM suicide myth (still a common claim on anti-GMO sites), because it harms their credibility. Obviously this one point does not settle the complex issue of using GM technology in agriculture. It does, however, reveal the propaganda aspect of some anti-GMO activism. In the end such myths may cause more harm to the reputation of the propagators than the targets.

[Joods]

Here's a tidbit from an article found at ecowatch.com : 

On June 10, a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., issued a bizarre ruling that plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents “because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes” as stated anonymously on the company’s website.

Also from that same article:

“As a seed grower, who has spent the past 37 years of my life protecting and maintaining the integrity of my seed stock to provide clean, wholesome food to my customers, I find it unconscionable that Monsanto can contaminate mine or my neighbors’ crops and not only get away with it, but potentially sue us for patent infringement,” said Jim Gerritsen, an organic seed farmer on Wood Prairie Farm in Maine and president of lead Plaintiff OSGATA. “The appeals court ruling fails to protect my family and our farm and has only complicated matters,”said Gerritsen.

[The Valkyrie]

Don't eat GMO!

It's designed to make men impotent and weak as part of the agenda of feminists to take over the planet at the behest of their Illuminated Overlords and the Reptilians.

[FatAndFaithless]

As always whenever someone brings up GMOs and Monsanto, I feel the need to make the statement: Don't conflate Monsanto's shady and otherwise sketchy business practices with the safety/efficacy/efficiency of GMOs. The actions of the corporation say nothing about the science behind their products.