5 ms·

They're primarily a seed company. Most of the products they have in the pipeline are based on generating resistances to various crop diseases/insects. They try

They're primarily a seed company. Most of the products they have in the pipeline are based on generating resistances to various crop diseases/insects. They try to do this in a variety of ways. GMOs are relatively more expensive then breeding, so that generally tends to be the method of last resort when they can't find a natural resistance to breed in. The scientists I also talked to mentioned a 30% overall reduction in herbicide used with round up ready plants. That could definitely be propaganda, and if anyone has any hard facts I can ask anonymously at our weekly meeting and hopefully get answers from our executive team.

jrkelly 13y ago
There's been some great reporting recently on this at Grist: GMOs and Insecticides: http://grist.org/food/in-the-insecticide-wars-gmos-have-so-far-been-a-force-for-good/ http://grist.org/food/in-the-insecticide-wars-gmos-have-so-f... GMOs and Herbicides: http://grist.org/food/roundup-ready-aim-spray-how-gm-crops-lead-to-herbicide-addiction/ http://grist.org/food/roundup-ready-aim-spray-how-gm-crops-l...
acqq 13y ago
> Most of the products they have in the pipeline are based on generating resistances to various crop diseases/insects. They try to do this in a variety of ways. "In the pipeline" as in "the stuff that they still don't sell." They'll get better, eventually. Until then, they lobby for the laws like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision Commonly referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act” where "even if a court were to determine that a particular product might be harmful to human beings or harmful to the environment, the Department of Agriculture could not stop the production of that product once it is in the ground."
- climateanon 13y ago
  That's very much not what that law says at all actually. The wikipedia link you pointed to explains it by saying: "If a biotech crop had already been approved (or deregulated) by the USDA and a court reversed that approval, the provision directed the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status at the request of a grower or seed producer, to allow growers to continue the cultivation of the crop while legal challenges to the safety of those crops would still be underway.[7]" If a farmer has made an investment in a crop, it has had regulatory approval by the USDA, and the Secretary of Agriculture believes that the crop which has been overturned by the lower courts is not actually a threat, then they may continue production during interim court proceedings. That seems reasonable to me.
BUGHUNTER 13y ago
The first problem in this field is to find information sources that are not involved in GMO biz - this is especially true for scientists. It is a repeating marketing pattern to claim "scientists" are "pro gmo" - but many scientists are not pro gmo, nor "anti" gmo, they just do some research in this field and some of them come to results that are not validating monsanto or gmo industry claims. see e.g. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15156-over-200-scientists-agree-no-consensus-on-gmo-safety-food-industry-mag http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15156-ove... It is not easy nowadays to do independent research, as the gmo companies are controlling the knowledge market heavily and there is a very high chance that you will be attacked and even lose your fundings or your job if your research might be interpreted as beeing "anti-gmo", no matter what your personal intentions about gmo are - this happened several times. The "gmos are bad / good" discussion, however, becomes irrelevant looking at the business model of gmo companies - it is much easier to judge from that point of view.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  >you will be attacked and even lose your fundings or your job if your research might be interpreted as beeing "anti-gmo", no matter what your personal intentions about gmo are - this happened several times. Source? I'm not saying you're lying, but this statement seems made up.
  - BUGHUNTER 13y ago
    There are many sources, but you might get a good overview on this issue watching the documentary "Science under attack": http://www.denkmal-film.com/cms/index.php?page=presse-9 http://www.denkmal-film.com/cms/index.php?page=presse-9

jrkelly 13y ago

There's been some great reporting recently on this at Grist: GMOs and Insecticides: http://grist.org/food/in-the-insecticide-wars-gmos-have-so-far-been-a-force-for-good/ http://grist.org/food/in-the-insecticide-wars-gmos-have-so-f... GMOs and Herbicides: http://grist.org/food/roundup-ready-aim-spray-how-gm-crops-lead-to-herbicide-addiction/ http://grist.org/food/roundup-ready-aim-spray-how-gm-crops-l...

acqq 13y ago

> Most of the products they have in the pipeline are based on generating resistances to various crop diseases/insects. They try to do this in a variety of ways. "In the pipeline" as in "the stuff that they still don't sell." They'll get better, eventually. Until then, they lobby for the laws like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision Commonly referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act” where "even if a court were to determine that a particular product might be harmful to human beings or harmful to the environment, the Department of Agriculture could not stop the production of that product once it is in the ground."

climateanon 13y ago
That's very much not what that law says at all actually. The wikipedia link you pointed to explains it by saying: "If a biotech crop had already been approved (or deregulated) by the USDA and a court reversed that approval, the provision directed the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status at the request of a grower or seed producer, to allow growers to continue the cultivation of the crop while legal challenges to the safety of those crops would still be underway.[7]" If a farmer has made an investment in a crop, it has had regulatory approval by the USDA, and the Secretary of Agriculture believes that the crop which has been overturned by the lower courts is not actually a threat, then they may continue production during interim court proceedings. That seems reasonable to me.

BUGHUNTER 13y ago

The first problem in this field is to find information sources that are not involved in GMO biz - this is especially true for scientists. It is a repeating marketing pattern to claim "scientists" are "pro gmo" - but many scientists are not pro gmo, nor "anti" gmo, they just do some research in this field and some of them come to results that are not validating monsanto or gmo industry claims. see e.g. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15156-over-200-scientists-agree-no-consensus-on-gmo-safety-food-industry-mag http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15156-ove... It is not easy nowadays to do independent research, as the gmo companies are controlling the knowledge market heavily and there is a very high chance that you will be attacked and even lose your fundings or your job if your research might be interpreted as beeing "anti-gmo", no matter what your personal intentions about gmo are - this happened several times. The "gmos are bad / good" discussion, however, becomes irrelevant looking at the business model of gmo companies - it is much easier to judge from that point of view.

ars_technician 13y ago
>you will be attacked and even lose your fundings or your job if your research might be interpreted as beeing "anti-gmo", no matter what your personal intentions about gmo are - this happened several times. Source? I'm not saying you're lying, but this statement seems made up.
- BUGHUNTER 13y ago
  There are many sources, but you might get a good overview on this issue watching the documentary "Science under attack": http://www.denkmal-film.com/cms/index.php?page=presse-9 http://www.denkmal-film.com/cms/index.php?page=presse-9