may he be safe.

Why doesn't Monsatan make a non-self reproducing seed?

Hybrids are usually non-self reproducing and if they do reproduce, it's a poorer quality than the original hybrid. So with their super gene manipulation power, why don't they just manipulate a corn, soy bean or canola that can't reproduce itself or the reproduction is of poor quality like a hybrid? Seems to me they are too lazy to design a seed like that so instead of creating a non-self reproducing seed like thousands of hybrids, they just use our court system to cover up their piss poor research and development.

Or, am I missing something here?

right is upheld, contamination of seed supplies by its products will give it total domination of the seed market at all phases of production and distribution over anyone who has ever used its products and eventually everyone. Farmers have already been sued by Monsanto because pioneer seeds have sprouted in otherwise clean fields of the same crop through no fault or intent on the part of the farmer.

s website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds

so, if big M doesn't want to do it, it has to be the worst thing ever invented!

it could literally wipe out the planet, and not slowly.

The scientific illiteracy, it burns.

so stop typing it.

Because that statement is laughable on multiple levels.

i'm not gonna waste time explaining things to someone who says derp derp.

look it up yourself

http://www.banterminator.org/content/view/full/342

letter from big M a-hole ^^^

type some words into google.

ever hear of small pox, black plague, or spanish influenza? like those combined, but worse. sound fun?

if you have anything besides lame insults, let's hear it.

I'm currently converting my 1.5 acre property into an edible landscaping/permaculture system, building a new coop for my flock of chickens, and researching how to start either an organic CSA or selling goods at the local farmer's markets.

Derp derp indeed

Given that Terminator seed tech was a big topic when I entered college in the late 1990's, I'm familiar with how it functions. Basically, terminator technology relies on GM plants producing pollen that creates sterile seeds in the same or closely related species it pollinates.

So, if I planted a field of Terminator-gene corn, what other species of plants in North America will it pollinate and render sterile? Do you think corn can cross-pollinate with oak trees, or dandelions, or cattails? Other than sterilizing neighboring fields of non-GM corn (of which 99% is already hybrid seed that isn't saved from year to year anyway), what impact would Terminator corn have on the local ecosystem?

How exactly do you believe it would end life on this planet? The link you provided says nothing to back up your previous claim.

i planted 250 acres of cover crops last fall by myself, have built many coops, and go to three farmer's markets.

permaculture and terminator- sure they go hand in hand- kill your neighbors crops, that's a sound plan!

the point is nobody knows what would happen, because it is so evil MONSANTO didn't use it- this makes it worse than DDT or PCBs or agent orange, which they merrily dispensed for years, causing billions of dollars of damage.

if they had been stupid or evil enough to force terminator instead of bt or roundup corn on 90%+ of US farmers, it could have wiped out the entire corn crop in north and south america in the last 8 years. is that a good enough start towards world famine?

another part of not knowing means corn pollen COULD contaminate other species, not just plants, but worms, bees, whatever. could reduce sperm counts by 90% worldwide, who the hell knows?

who the hell would want to find out? why even go there?

Will the Terminator spread to other plants?
http://www.psrast.org/terminexpl.htm
It is likely that Terminator will kill the seeds of neighboring plants of the same species, under certain conditions. However, the effects will be confined to the first generation, and will not be able to spread to other generations. The scenario might go like this: when farmers plant the Terminator seeds, the seeds already will have been treated with tetracycline, and thus the recombinase will have acted, and the toxin coding sequence will be next to the seed-specific promoter, and will be ready to act when the end of seed development comes around. The seeds will grow into plants, and make pollen. Every pollen grain will carry a ready-to-act toxin gene. If the Terminator crop is next to a field planted in a normal variety, and pollen is taken by insects or the wind to that field, any eggs fertilized by the Terminator pollen will now have one toxin gene. It will be activated late in that seed's development, and the seed will die. However, it is unlikely that the person growing the normal variety will be able to tell, because the seed will probably look normal. Only when that seed is planted, and doesn't germinate, will the change become apparent.

In most cases, the toxin gene will not be passed on any further, because dead plants don't reproduce. However, under certain conditions I will discuss later, it is possible for the toxin gene to be inherited.

In any case, dead seeds, where they occur, would be a serious problem for the farmer whose fields are close to the Terminator crop. How many seeds die will depend on the degree of cross-pollination, and that is influenced by the species of plant, the variety of crop, weather conditions, how close the fields are to each other, and so on. If many seeds die, it will make saving seed untenable for the adjacent farmer. Even if only a few seeds die, they will contain the toxin and any other proteins engineered into the Terminator-protected variety. These new "components" may make the seed unusable for certain purposes.

Will seeds containing the toxin made by Terminator be safe to eat?

In fact, the effects of the toxin on the uses of the seed are a serious question. This issue is discussed in the patent at the end of page 8. There the authors say that "in cotton that would be grown commercially only selected lethal genes could be used since these proteins could impact the final quality of seeds....If the seed is not a factor in the commercial value of a crop (e.g., in forage crops, ornamentals or plants grown for the floral industry) any lethal gene should be acceptable."

This is dangerously reductionist thinking, because people are not the only organisms that interact with seeds. In forage crops, for example, not all of the forage is always harvested before seeds are mature, depending on conditions. How will a particular toxin affect birds, insects, fungi and bacteria that eat or infect the seeds? If a forage crop with toxin-laden seeds is left in the field, and the seeds come in contact with the soil, how will that affect the ecology of soil organisms? These are important questions because a variety of specific organisms are necessary for the healthy growth of plants. Further, a floral or ornamental crop with Terminator may happen to grow near a related crop where the seeds are used, and if pollination occurs, the seeds will contain toxin without that farmer knowing. The toxin could end up in products without anyone's knowledge. For example, an ornamental sunflower could spread Terminator to an oilseed variety, and then the toxin could end up in edible oil or in sunflower seed meal.

Other potential problems with making novel toxins in edible seeds have to do with allergenicity. The RIP toxin described earlier may not be directly poisonous to animals, but may cause allergic reactions. If the seeds are being mixed with the general food supply, it will be difficult to trace this sort of effect.

you and I usually agree on this topic, but this time we differ.

Why don't the gene manipulators use their technology to create a poor quality 2nd generation? That's basically how hybrids are done. I've planted many a seed from store bought produce only to get a very poor germination rate or to get a very poor quality produce.

Monsatan could make it so their 2nd generation produce are tiny little seeds of corn, soy bean or whatever. They could make it that their 2nd generation of alfalfa breaks off and is too brittle for hay. There is a lot of wiggle room between terminator seeds and perfectly functioning seeds.

Why GMOs and Monsanto are so Evil and needing to be stopped before that make us all sick/dead/broke. The effects of eating GMOs are not at all good, in fact the opposite, y'know like CANCER. Even stock animals only eat this GMO poison if there's no other choice, if there's a choice, they don't even touch GMOs. Poor Vernon had these GMOs "leak" into his crops by wind, birds, cross-pollination, etc. If our Supremes are Honest and Square, Vernon will NOT be found Guilty of anything improper.

Sending good vibes your way!

That would be awesome if he wins.

There are horrible corporations and then there is Monsanto. I swear they remind me more of Resident Evil's Umbrella Corporation than an actual company.

May he WIN, and win BIG!

But if there are no patent rights on anything beyond the first generation, you can bet this will call a halt to any sort of funding for research for technology that would not be protected. If you are absolutely fine with the world staying pretty much the way it is, then I guess you don't see a problem with that.

Me, I'm looking forward to a future where genetic diseases and other human afflictions are cured (not just treated) by gene therapies. The SCOTUS is about to decide which future we have on this, at least as it concerns the United States. Oh, this stuff will be developed, but only by the next leading nation in the world.

all it means is that big M doesn't get to monopolize the tech and keep all the money.

there are plenty of other capable scientists, and the info should be open so they can collaborate.

big M even admits it- they say they won't have the motivation to spend millions if they lose this case.

well, go blow yourself monsanto, you only care about the $$, not helping people.

public universities would do a better job, anyway.

why would you even suggest that big M are the only ones capable of 'saving us'? PCBs? DDT?

is Monsanto deal with for it's errors, not merely for developing seeds that ancient farmers didn't have.

This case is a potential "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of thing, and it may invite the SCOTUS to rule in Monsanto's favor, just to avoid being a roadblock to technological development. Patent and copyright law have a history in protecting progress, and I can see the Court arguing that there are other ways to deal with the excesses that progress sometimes produces.

And I know it's not popular for me to say it, but I've read all the "sky is falling" websites (like the one you directed me to), and I still haven't become convinced to be a Luddite when it comes to genetic manipulation. Yes, I can clearly see where there is potential for abuse, but growing enough food for a world that's developing from an agricultural society (where large families are traditionally needed) to a manufacturing/service society where children are an expensive liability is the way to making the planet sustainable with resorting to frequent war.

You have every right to maintain your belief system about something that fundies call "playing God", I just don't share it. I also think that there are enough instances of heavy-handedness on the part of Monsanto that are a much better target to go after than the science they used to develop their products. It's very possible that a majority of the Court will feel the same way.

Thanks for clearing that up. Well, I too, hope the Supreme Court nails them for their "heavy-handedness." But don't we all know that the majority of the court always sides with the heavy-handlers? I wish you a good weekend and am signing out with my respectful conversation with you. Please don't reply.

And while my beliefs do not always stand in lockstep with the majority here, the mods have usually seen fit to leave my posts alone, unless I've had too much beer. So far today, I've been stone-cold sober.

You certainly have the right and privilege to put me on ignore.

In fact it came live the day of the 2001 Bush inauguration.

While John Kerry was on his way to the nomination. Hell, I wasn't even on the Internet until 1997. My mistake.

I should've went back to edit since that's a pretty easy mistake.

I will read as much of it as I can stomach. Most Luddite sites get pretty boring after a few pages...

Public Universities could research this stuff just as well if the had the funding and I'd much rather let them do it than Monsanto.

(and remember, your term contains the word 'rational') is that the Supreme Court will not want to throw out centuries of a tradition of patent protection for any person or firm that develops something new. Even research universities avail themselves of patent law to produce funds to further their educational missions.

Are there any amicus briefs in the case from public (or private) universities opposing Monsanto's position in this case? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that they're either supportive or silent.

Again, I know the party line here is that all corporations are bad, but I don't buy that, regardless of how I feel about how Monsanto's gone about marketing and protecting this technology. I think we can deal with their excesses in doing so, without destroying the motive for developing future advancements through genetic research.

that generally speaking, patent and copyright law have been given more deference than other types of property law. Anthony Kennedy clearly comes down on that side. All we have to have is the four Neanderthals and him, and we've got Monsanto winning a victory in court.

You call it greed, I call it financial motivation. Yes, it can go to wretched excess, but I don't see us living in a society that progresses unless individuals are allowed to make a buck off of their inventions, discoveries, and other intellectual property rights. It's a principle that the SCOTUS has stood with for centuries. Agree or disagree with the principle, but other than a ruling that favored parody a decade or two ago, I simply cannot think of any major SCOTUS decisions that went against it.

Patent exhaustion has been the law in this Country for more than 150 years. Since at least this Court's decision in United States v.
Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942), patent exhaustion has applied notwithstanding a patent holder's attempt to create explicit
post-sale restrictions such as the ones Monsanto has tried here.

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/uploadedFiles/Reuters_Content/2013/01_-_January/bowmanvmonsanto--certpetition.pdf

check pg. 2

But I expect a lawyer (or team of them) hoping to be granted certiorari would put together something coherent. In each case, both sides do produce their best arguments, but only one side wins.

The exhaustions that have been upheld were for things that would have had to have been reproduced by a manufacturing process, they were not biological, which involves a whole different method of reproduction. I would imagine that easily reproduced electronic works might be similar in many ways. It doesn't take a lot of materials and labor to produce a digital copy of a protected digital piece of intellectual property.

We'll see how it goes. I sure hope that the eventual decision doesn't totally wipe out the incentive to come up with positive new things through the manipulation of genetics.

so they can keep selling medicine instead. too bad, i'd be for that if a public entity was behind it, and not big pharma.

Daniell has developed capsules of insulin produced in genetically modified lettuce that could hold the key to restoring the body’s ability to produce insulin.

In 2006, Daniell’s research team successfully genetically engineered lettuce plants with the insulin gene and then administered freeze-dried plant cells to five-week-old diabetic mice as a powder for eight weeks. By the end of the study in 2007, the diabetic mice had normal blood and urine sugar levels, and their cells were producing normal levels of insulin. The research has continued since 2007.

“Although more research is needed, I am hopeful that we will see a cure in my lifetime,” Daniell said.
http://today.ucf.edu/500000-grant-funds-type-1-diabetes-research/

which is great, but Dr. Daniell is a fellow of Bayer. search 'monsanto bayer', it ain't pretty.

Mr. Bowman has the EXACT same grain drill as i do!

It should also have an impact on Monsanto's DNA hunters going after non-Monsanto customers who had crops cross-pollinated because of factors beyond their control. As the stupid commercial says, "It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature."

Are we ready for the consequences of that?

Has anyone thought this through?

of course we are, big M sucks.

plenty of people know GMO is BS, in fact everyone who has thought about it that isn't paid by big M.

Originally published by Farmers Weekly
by Robyn Vinter
February 6, 2013
Source article

Some US farmers are considering returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures meant GM crops saw smaller yields globally than their non-GM counterparts.

Farmers in the USA pay about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are questioning whether they will continue to see benefits from using GMs.

“It’s all about cost benefit analysis,” said economist Dan Basse, president of American agricultural research company AgResource.

“Farmers are paying extra for the technology but have seen yields which are no better than 10 years ago. They’re starting to wonder why they’re spending extra money on the technology.”
http://gmoinside.org/news/us-farmers-may-stop-planting-gms-after-poor-global-yields/

is definitely "big enough" to be called a farmer!

Thanks UrbScotty

i know this to be a fact!

and maybe he'll give Sotomayor a well-timed wink...

On This, farminator!

Monsanto and its spawn are evil.

It is a threat to us all.

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml

If they decided that you cannot patent genetically modified or other crops?

Monsanto developed Bt corn and Roundup Ready crops in response to a desire by farmers for these traits. Monsanto and other crops companies develop the seed stocks not just to allow more pesticide use (in the case of Roundup Ready) or far less insecticide (Bt corn) but also to protect against incoming plant diseases and drought.

Where will these plant materials come from if the ability to attain patents and enforce them is lost? Who will do this for free?

What you're wishing for is nothing short are a food calamity.

you can patent normal hybrids.

Monsanto developed Bt corn and Roundup Ready crops in response to a desire by farmers for these traits



develop the seed stocks not just to allow more pesticide use (in the case of Roundup Ready)

ONLY TO SELL MORE ROUNDUP THAT IS THE ONLY REASON. WHATSOEVER.

far less insecticide (Bt corn) but also to protect against incoming plant diseases and drought.

it doesn't use less, it is built into the friggin plant.

***

Some US farmers are considering returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures meant GM crops saw smaller yields globally than their non-GM counterparts. Farmers in the USA pay about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are questioning whether they will continue to see benefits from using GMs.

“It’s all about cost benefit analysis,” said economist Dan Basse, president of American agricultural research company AgResource. “Farmers are paying extra for the technology but have seen yields which are no better than 10 years ago. They’re starting to wonder why they’re spending extra money on the technology.”
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/us-farmers-may-stop-planting-gmos-after-poor-yields/

there isn't a farmer on the planet who wants seeds that suck.

once we get rid of big M, the scientists at universities that have the public's interest in mind can fiddle with GMOs, but they aren't really any good, so maybe they won't.

I believe you are a fraud.

Your ignorance of farming and farmers betrays you.

I don't disagree that maybe we should increase the role of universities and the USDA. At the moment, that's where it is.

Even prior to 1990 when public funding was so high, the releases generally were distributed by private seed producers.

But you were making a blanket statement about research when for at least the half time of agricultural research it was publicly funded (if you roughly extrapolate the trend to today it may be more private R&D but not by much).

We're a capitalist country. The Federal Seed Act isn't really "federal seeds" but rather the government managing or just observing and regulating private seed banks. That's not questionable at all. The question is whether or not R&D itself is private or public and whether or not it can continue without seed patents. I think it can. If it's public!

Of course, as I said in other posts in this thread I do not think that seed patents are in any way threatened, so those who believe private R&D is the mover of hybrids can sleep safely. I lived on a farm as a kid, we never had any big crops (only about 5 acres) though so as Bowman says, "I'm not a farmer." But I can appreciate the effort that goes in to running a farm (we just grew food to feed our family of six and raised chickens and sheep for wool which we sold). And I can even appreciate the idea that if seed patents go away farmers will be threatened. But as I said, and I know I'm repeating myself, there's nothing precluding the public from doing seed research again if the patents go way. And, to repeat myself further, I don't think they will go away. The SCOTUS will rule in favor of patents.

you don't even know the diff between a hybrid and a GMO, so who's the fraud?

tell me, in your own words, the best sequence of tillage and cover crops to restore a compacted, low-pH soil to a healthy enough state to grow a crop of sweet corn? how long would that take? how many steps? starting now, with a little snow still on the ground? how long before you'll be able to get some seeds planted? how would you go about it? for a 10 acre field?

take your time.

step by step, now, mr. greenjeans...

The human motivation to progress technologically is not predicated solely upon profit, but also our own desire to do better.

Thankfully there are a couple of people willing to fight this Goliath!

In other words, they'll probably fall back to the same old stupid ass logic that Bowmans active participation in saving seeds that were roundup-proof is intentionally and knowingly propagating the patent.

He will lose this one. His argument is rather elegant and logical, though. I buy a TV, it's patented, can I resell that TV? Well his argument is that he bought seeds. They're patented. Then he grows second generation seeds. Can he resell those seeds (or crops from those seeds)? Logically, he should be able to do whatever he wishes with his property. But the courts have almost always favored the patent holders in this case. Basically, because we have control over something that can self-propagate, which the original founders could not have foreseen, the "intent" is that the patent still works regardless of generation.

and then get medieval on their ass.

And there would be no way in fucking hell property that propagates itself is the property of the patent holder after the first generation. Full fucking stop. It's basic property rights.

They need to have their corporate personhood tossed in the klink.

Thanks for putting up a good fight.