6 ms·

Bt-Corn is resistive to insects and has nothing to do with herbicides. The goal is to not require as many pesticides. Also, Roundup is no longer under patent

Bt-Corn is resistive to insects and has nothing to do with herbicides. The goal is to not require as many pesticides. Also, Roundup is no longer under patent protections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)), so farmers can buy roundup from a variety of sources.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
acqq 13y ago
Not being under patent protection makes glyphosate (originally patented for Roundup) even more present everywhere.
- e12e 13y ago
  Not to mention why patent the pesticide if you can patent the seed that's resistant to the pesticide? Especially when your granted the ability to enforce that patent against "future generations".
e12e 13y ago
Also, accq stated (my emphasis): > their patented plants Levering patent law to deny farmers the right to manage their own seed corn is akin to privatizing water tables or charging for oxygen. Sure, it's a great business model, but it's also immoral, evil and hard to see as something that brings us as a global collective to a better place. From the letter: > Humans have genetically engineered seeds for 11,000 years, primarily through seed breeding, where we “got rid of” the traits we didn’t want and introduced the traits we did. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do so, without a lot of thought towards the common good. We're down a few hundred species of corns that can be used to make flour -- and among the problems resulting for that is that we don't have as many hardy species that can grow in subarctic regions. Another problem of this "natural" monoculture is vulnerability to insects, pests and diseases. GMO, in and of itself, isn't evil -- it may be dangerous (messing with biotopes is a risky business) -- and leaving it up to a for-profit multinational seems like an extraordinarily bad idea.
- climateanon 13y ago
  Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was about 3 from one of 3 common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) The amount of seed diversity that have been introduced by this breeding is actually substantial, Monsanto is more or less combing the earth for diverse varieties of corn.
  - e12e 13y ago
    > Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was about > 3 from one of 3 common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) I'm not sure what you're trying to say, I suspect a typo? (I gather the gist is that there used to be roughly three species of grain in the US, in the past 50 years -- down from what was introduced with the colonization some four hundred years ago (note, I'm not being snarky about the colonization, but AFAIK there didn't "use" to be any grain grown in most of what is the US today (not sure about California (old Mexico))). Note, I said corn in my original post (which I gather means the same in Scottish English, as it does in the Norwegian (almost) homonym) -- I meant grain. > The amount of seed diversity that have been introduced by this breeding is actually substantial, I thought Monsato generally sold Roundup. Are you saying they've increased the variety of corn (or grain) that is grown in the US substantially (and how much of that is patent encumbered)? > Monsanto is more or less combing the earth for diverse varieties of corn. Sure they are. And they patent it (which is a failing on so many governmental and international levels I find it painful to think about -- I'm all for cataloguing species and genes, but granting patent on something you literally found -- that's even worse than software patents). Now, if all they did was donate some to the world seed bank, and allow everyone to share in their (non gmo) discoveries -- I'd have no problem. But the idea that you might be committing a felony by planting a carrot you bought at the market is revolting.
    - climateanon 13y ago
      Yep, that was supposed to be Sorry, late night! That first line was supposed to say: > Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was from about of 3 the common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) Not 3 types of grain, 3 types of corn. People have been aggressively breeding seed for a long time. Monsanto has offices all over the world and tries to bring the best varieties of corn and breed them into a number of different high performing lines. I know Monsanto breeders feel like the genetic diversity argument is a little silly because they think they introduce a lot of genetic diversity. >Sure they are. And they patent it (which is a failing on so many governmental and international levels I find it painful to think about -- I'm all for cataloguing species and genes, but granting patent on something you literally found -- that's even worse than software patents). Typically what's patented is the GMOs, not the corn that is bred traditionally (which is where > 50% of Monsanto's R&D budget goes to.) >Now, if all they did was donate some to the world seed bank, and allow everyone to share in their (non gmo) discoveries -- I'd have no problem. But the idea that you might be committing a felony by planting a carrot you bought at the market is revolting. I agree. To my knowledge, it's only been farmers who had an agreement with Monsanto and violated that who have been sued. See the Schmeiser/Monsanto case for an example.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

acqq 13y ago

Not being under patent protection makes glyphosate (originally patented for Roundup) even more present everywhere.

e12e 13y ago
Not to mention why patent the pesticide if you can patent the seed that's resistant to the pesticide? Especially when your granted the ability to enforce that patent against "future generations".

e12e 13y ago

Also, accq stated (my emphasis): > their patented plants Levering patent law to deny farmers the right to manage their own seed corn is akin to privatizing water tables or charging for oxygen. Sure, it's a great business model, but it's also immoral, evil and hard to see as something that brings us as a global collective to a better place. From the letter: > Humans have genetically engineered seeds for 11,000 years, primarily through seed breeding, where we “got rid of” the traits we didn’t want and introduced the traits we did. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do so, without a lot of thought towards the common good. We're down a few hundred species of corns that can be used to make flour -- and among the problems resulting for that is that we don't have as many hardy species that can grow in subarctic regions. Another problem of this "natural" monoculture is vulnerability to insects, pests and diseases. GMO, in and of itself, isn't evil -- it may be dangerous (messing with biotopes is a risky business) -- and leaving it up to a for-profit multinational seems like an extraordinarily bad idea.

climateanon 13y ago
Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was about 3 from one of 3 common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) The amount of seed diversity that have been introduced by this breeding is actually substantial, Monsanto is more or less combing the earth for diverse varieties of corn.
- e12e 13y ago
  > Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was about > 3 from one of 3 common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) I'm not sure what you're trying to say, I suspect a typo? (I gather the gist is that there used to be roughly three species of grain in the US, in the past 50 years -- down from what was introduced with the colonization some four hundred years ago (note, I'm not being snarky about the colonization, but AFAIK there didn't "use" to be any grain grown in most of what is the US today (not sure about California (old Mexico))). Note, I said corn in my original post (which I gather means the same in Scottish English, as it does in the Norwegian (almost) homonym) -- I meant grain. > The amount of seed diversity that have been introduced by this breeding is actually substantial, I thought Monsato generally sold Roundup. Are you saying they've increased the variety of corn (or grain) that is grown in the US substantially (and how much of that is patent encumbered)? > Monsanto is more or less combing the earth for diverse varieties of corn. Sure they are. And they patent it (which is a failing on so many governmental and international levels I find it painful to think about -- I'm all for cataloguing species and genes, but granting patent on something you literally found -- that's even worse than software patents). Now, if all they did was donate some to the world seed bank, and allow everyone to share in their (non gmo) discoveries -- I'd have no problem. But the idea that you might be committing a felony by planting a carrot you bought at the market is revolting.
  - climateanon 13y ago
    Yep, that was supposed to be Sorry, late night! That first line was supposed to say: > Relatively recently, almost all of the corn grown in the US was from about of 3 the common "immortal" varieties (~40/50 years ago.) Not 3 types of grain, 3 types of corn. People have been aggressively breeding seed for a long time. Monsanto has offices all over the world and tries to bring the best varieties of corn and breed them into a number of different high performing lines. I know Monsanto breeders feel like the genetic diversity argument is a little silly because they think they introduce a lot of genetic diversity. >Sure they are. And they patent it (which is a failing on so many governmental and international levels I find it painful to think about -- I'm all for cataloguing species and genes, but granting patent on something you literally found -- that's even worse than software patents). Typically what's patented is the GMOs, not the corn that is bred traditionally (which is where > 50% of Monsanto's R&D budget goes to.) >Now, if all they did was donate some to the world seed bank, and allow everyone to share in their (non gmo) discoveries -- I'd have no problem. But the idea that you might be committing a felony by planting a carrot you bought at the market is revolting. I agree. To my knowledge, it's only been farmers who had an agreement with Monsanto and violated that who have been sued. See the Schmeiser/Monsanto case for an example.