5 ms·

Wow the bias inherent in the authors support of GMO (and Monsanto) is dripping. I mean, at least he's honest about it, but it's hard to keep reading after the

Wow the bias inherent in the authors support of GMO (and Monsanto) is dripping. I mean, at least he's honest about it, but it's hard to keep reading after the first paragraph or so. Here is a different bias. GMO is like a magic word processor that outputs instantly DRM'd books which then can go out and make all the other books on the same shelf the property of the author too, which you now have to pay him for.

tokenadult 15y ago
I'm curious to hear what other biological scientists in India and government officials and NGO officials in India who deal with food policy have to say about the issue.
cturner 15y ago
> GMO is like a magic word processor that outputs > instantly DRM'd books [..] It doesn't need to be like that though. GMO exists without IP law. The two concepts are not inherently tied.
- lucisferre 15y ago
  Yeah I was being somewhat intentionally hyperbolic. There isn't (or shouldn't) be any difference between the challenges currently inherent in software IP and "bio IP". However right now all the players in bio IP are huge and fairly clumsy (though that's changing I hear, with bootstrapper generic engineering labs starting to appear) it is kind of remenisicent of the SCO lawsuit days in some ways. However on the subject of litigious entities Monsanto certainly dishes out far more than they get. Just do a google search for "Monsanto sues" to see what I mean. Edit: Err down voted for admitting hyperbole, really?
  - chc 15y ago
    You were probably downvoted for the last paragraph, in which you go right back to harping on Monsanto's litigious tendencies, which you just admitted were essentially a red herring.
    - lucisferre 15y ago
      I admitted I was being hyperbolic in the previous post where I didn't mention their litigious tendencies. They do have very litigious tendencies from what I can see, but I'm happy for anyone who disagrees to refute the statement. Takes a bit longer than down voting I suppose.
fleitz 15y ago
If you read the details of that particular case it's a lot more complex. GMO isn't like that because there are lots of genetically modified organisms that come with out licensing agreements. One farmer in particular decided to see if he could use normal plants to reproduce Monsanto seed which he succeded in and then got sued because its a violation of the agreement he agreed to. The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen. All the food we eat is GMO because the genome of a plant naturally changes, now we just do GMO efficiently. Yes, there are risks, but natural GMO could produce a terminator gene as well. As much as I don't mind GMO I'm fully in support of labeling, especially the idea that those that don't use GMO can label as such.
- ajays 15y ago
  The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen. Says who? Why don't you do some research before calling something BS? Read this account: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ Monsanto is trying to control nature. Bees don't care if they're picking up pollen from a "Monsanto Licensee" ! Why should the recipient of the pollen be held liable?
  - chc 15y ago
    Monsanto's claim in that case was that they had informed him the previous year that part of his field was contaminated, and he responded by intentionally planting seeds from the crops they had told him were Roundup Ready. They never tried to claim that somebody who accidentally gets their plants owes them money. (And before anybody accuses me of being a Monsanto fanboy or something: I really don't care about this issue. I just decided to actually do some research after reading like 10 different rants against Monsanto in one day, and I found that although Monsanto sound like dicks, people still seem to feel the need to exaggerate.)
    - ceejayoz 15y ago
      > Monsanto's claim in that case was that they had informed him the previous year that part of his field was contaminated, and he responded by intentionally planting seeds from the crops they had told him were Roundup Ready. Why shouldn't he?

tokenadult 15y ago

I'm curious to hear what other biological scientists in India and government officials and NGO officials in India who deal with food policy have to say about the issue.

cturner 15y ago

> GMO is like a magic word processor that outputs > instantly DRM'd books [..] It doesn't need to be like that though. GMO exists without IP law. The two concepts are not inherently tied.

lucisferre 15y ago
Yeah I was being somewhat intentionally hyperbolic. There isn't (or shouldn't) be any difference between the challenges currently inherent in software IP and "bio IP". However right now all the players in bio IP are huge and fairly clumsy (though that's changing I hear, with bootstrapper generic engineering labs starting to appear) it is kind of remenisicent of the SCO lawsuit days in some ways. However on the subject of litigious entities Monsanto certainly dishes out far more than they get. Just do a google search for "Monsanto sues" to see what I mean. Edit: Err down voted for admitting hyperbole, really?
- chc 15y ago
  You were probably downvoted for the last paragraph, in which you go right back to harping on Monsanto's litigious tendencies, which you just admitted were essentially a red herring.
  - lucisferre 15y ago
    I admitted I was being hyperbolic in the previous post where I didn't mention their litigious tendencies. They do have very litigious tendencies from what I can see, but I'm happy for anyone who disagrees to refute the statement. Takes a bit longer than down voting I suppose.

fleitz 15y ago

If you read the details of that particular case it's a lot more complex. GMO isn't like that because there are lots of genetically modified organisms that come with out licensing agreements. One farmer in particular decided to see if he could use normal plants to reproduce Monsanto seed which he succeded in and then got sued because its a violation of the agreement he agreed to. The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen. All the food we eat is GMO because the genome of a plant naturally changes, now we just do GMO efficiently. Yes, there are risks, but natural GMO could produce a terminator gene as well. As much as I don't mind GMO I'm fully in support of labeling, especially the idea that those that don't use GMO can label as such.

ajays 15y ago
The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen. Says who? Why don't you do some research before calling something BS? Read this account: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ Monsanto is trying to control nature. Bees don't care if they're picking up pollen from a "Monsanto Licensee" ! Why should the recipient of the pollen be held liable?
- chc 15y ago
  Monsanto's claim in that case was that they had informed him the previous year that part of his field was contaminated, and he responded by intentionally planting seeds from the crops they had told him were Roundup Ready. They never tried to claim that somebody who accidentally gets their plants owes them money. (And before anybody accuses me of being a Monsanto fanboy or something: I really don't care about this issue. I just decided to actually do some research after reading like 10 different rants against Monsanto in one day, and I found that although Monsanto sound like dicks, people still seem to feel the need to exaggerate.)
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    > Monsanto's claim in that case was that they had informed him the previous year that part of his field was contaminated, and he responded by intentionally planting seeds from the crops they had told him were Roundup Ready. Why shouldn't he?