The GMO Thread

[Autumnlicious]

The issue lies not with technology, but with current intellectual property laws.

There have been cases where Monsanto's Round Up resistant, terminator gene equipped crops have cross pollinated with non-GMO crops. Monsanto sued and won custody of said crops over breach of copyright (one can copyright genomic information it seems, despite said information already existing in other organisms).

GMO's are a non issue when it comes to the science and usage.

The real clincher is IP law right now.

And that is why I would stand against GMO's -- I have no interest in letting predatory corporations pollute other people's crops then seize them because of stupidity in IP law. If it ever gets sorted out, then I'll be fully for GMO's.

[The Grand Nudger]

And that is why I would stand against GMO's -- I have no interest in letting predatory corporations pollute other people's crops then seize them because of stupidity in IP law. If it ever gets sorted out, then I'll be fully for GMO's.

Yeah, IP is a mess.

[thesummerqueen]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environ...d-bank.htm

The accompanying podcast put online as a quicktime file, called "The Indiana Jones of Botany."

http://podcasts.howstuffworks.com/hsw/po...1313463344

[Justtristo]

While I support GMO and see possibly a second green revolution resulting from it's widespread implementation. Such a green revolution would drastically increase crop yields, while reducing pressure on natural habitats and less use of fertilizers and pesticides. However I am concerned about major corporations like Monsanto have exclusive intellectual property rights over GMO's.

That is my $0.05 (we don't have 1 or 2 cent coins in Australia anymore) on the subject

[The Grand Nudger]

Generally speaking, the tales of Monsanto's evils are greatly exaggerated. Not they are a shining beacon of agricultural progress or anything. If they offered me a job I'd take it. (I have my resume in with Monsanto, Cargill, and Con-Agra)

The IP laws are a mess, and it's probably not a good idea to allow a patent on life, but as long as we depend on private entities to solve these problems for us we'll have to deal with it. On the one hand we don't want to spend the money ourselves, and on the other we would like to avoid paying for services rendered. Kind of a strange place to find ourselves.

Monsanto gets a bad rap, notably for crop seizures. Most of the time these stories are embellished beyond belief, but lets say that a genetic crossover does occur, what should Monsanto do? Should they allow that strain to then propogate itself in the wild? Absolutely not. They have to recall. They sold a product to a farmer, he did not follow proper procedure. As a result his neighbors fields were contaminated. The farmer with contaminated fields has a legitimate grievance against his neighbor, not Monsanto. If they allowed a GMO to essentially perform it's own uncontrolled breeding experiment we'd crucify them in the public square. When they attempt to maintain control we crucify them in the public square. Face it, we're waiting with pitchforks and torches to mob these fuckers no matter what they do.