A group of organic farmers and seed dealers have filed a preemptive lawsuit against agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto to protect themselves from any legal action that may result in case when Monsanto-owned seeds contaminte the farmers organic crops. This lawsuit is intended to protect the farmers from charges of patent infringement by Monsanto when said farmers crops are contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified and patented seeds. Under the current law, if Monsanto is legally entitled to sue farmers when their seeds are found in the farmers plants, even if the seeds drifted over by accident or by natural cross-pollination. The suit for the farmers was passed by the Pubkic Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of about 60 different farmers, seed businesses and organic agriculture organizations and in all respresent over 270,000 members. Monsanto called this lawsuit a publicity stunt and any allegations contained in the lawsuit "false, misleading, deceptive." They then go on to state that Monsanto "has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to excercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertant means." Yet despite that statement the article states that they're have been multiple cases of harassment and legal action by Monsanto against farmers over these alleged unatuthroized use of Monsanto genetically modified seeds products. Sourcewatch also claims that "Monsanto has an annual budger of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. Opinion/Reflection Okay I think that this is just downright brillant thinking by the organic industry in this case blocking a potential lawsuit from Monsanto a GMO giant that could have easily bankrupted hundred of farmers. I am not usually the type of person who believes that all bigger companies that compete with a smaller counterpart are all "evil, corrupt, corporations intent on bankrupting small companies." But this is a case where I think that Monsanto is being completely unreasonable and is basically saying "Hey! We were careless and did not care enough to make sure that our seeds don't get spread into your crops, so we are going to sue you for our carelessness." I also liken them to stating that they were never going to file any lawsuit against farmers after the farmers sued them, despite their record for suing and harrassing any farmers who were caught with Monsanto seeds, to a child saying that he wasn't taking any cookies despite having a cookie in his mouth, two cookies in his right hand, and his left hand in the cookie jar. This is just utterly despicable business practice but this also shows the incomprehensible levels of corruption going on in Washington that would allow these big companies to bully around their smaller counterparts. I also know that something can easily be done to prevent this as we have talked in class about all the things companies can do to prevent GMO seeds from cross pollinating crops. Questions: 1) Who do you think is right in this case? The farmers or Monsanto? Why? 2) What would you recommend that Monsanto can do to prevent this cross pollination from happening again? 3) Should Washington do something to prevent these big GMO companies from bulliying small, organic farmers. 4) What would you do to prevent it? 5) What do you think of PUBPAT's decision to sue Monsanto before Monsanto could sue the organic farmers? 6) Do you think that this lawsuit could be used as something that would allow both sides to come together and make an agreement that keeps this sort of thing from happening again? The above picture shows a field of crops blowing in the breeze.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Organic Farmers vs. Monsanto
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/04/organic-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gm-seed.php?campaign=th_rss A group of organic farmers and seed dealers have filed a preemptive lawsuit against agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto to protect themselves from any legal action that may result in case when Monsanto-owned seeds contaminte the farmers organic crops. This lawsuit is intended to protect the farmers from charges of patent infringement by Monsanto when said farmers crops are contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified and patented seeds. Under the current law, if Monsanto is legally entitled to sue farmers when their seeds are found in the farmers plants, even if the seeds drifted over by accident or by natural cross-pollination. The suit for the farmers was passed by the Pubkic Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of about 60 different farmers, seed businesses and organic agriculture organizations and in all respresent over 270,000 members. Monsanto called this lawsuit a publicity stunt and any allegations contained in the lawsuit "false, misleading, deceptive." They then go on to state that Monsanto "has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to excercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertant means." Yet despite that statement the article states that they're have been multiple cases of harassment and legal action by Monsanto against farmers over these alleged unatuthroized use of Monsanto genetically modified seeds products. Sourcewatch also claims that "Monsanto has an annual budger of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. Opinion/Reflection Okay I think that this is just downright brillant thinking by the organic industry in this case blocking a potential lawsuit from Monsanto a GMO giant that could have easily bankrupted hundred of farmers. I am not usually the type of person who believes that all bigger companies that compete with a smaller counterpart are all "evil, corrupt, corporations intent on bankrupting small companies." But this is a case where I think that Monsanto is being completely unreasonable and is basically saying "Hey! We were careless and did not care enough to make sure that our seeds don't get spread into your crops, so we are going to sue you for our carelessness." I also liken them to stating that they were never going to file any lawsuit against farmers after the farmers sued them, despite their record for suing and harrassing any farmers who were caught with Monsanto seeds, to a child saying that he wasn't taking any cookies despite having a cookie in his mouth, two cookies in his right hand, and his left hand in the cookie jar. This is just utterly despicable business practice but this also shows the incomprehensible levels of corruption going on in Washington that would allow these big companies to bully around their smaller counterparts. I also know that something can easily be done to prevent this as we have talked in class about all the things companies can do to prevent GMO seeds from cross pollinating crops. Questions: 1) Who do you think is right in this case? The farmers or Monsanto? Why? 2) What would you recommend that Monsanto can do to prevent this cross pollination from happening again? 3) Should Washington do something to prevent these big GMO companies from bulliying small, organic farmers. 4) What would you do to prevent it? 5) What do you think of PUBPAT's decision to sue Monsanto before Monsanto could sue the organic farmers? 6) Do you think that this lawsuit could be used as something that would allow both sides to come together and make an agreement that keeps this sort of thing from happening again? The above picture shows a field of crops blowing in the breeze.
A group of organic farmers and seed dealers have filed a preemptive lawsuit against agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto to protect themselves from any legal action that may result in case when Monsanto-owned seeds contaminte the farmers organic crops. This lawsuit is intended to protect the farmers from charges of patent infringement by Monsanto when said farmers crops are contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified and patented seeds. Under the current law, if Monsanto is legally entitled to sue farmers when their seeds are found in the farmers plants, even if the seeds drifted over by accident or by natural cross-pollination. The suit for the farmers was passed by the Pubkic Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of about 60 different farmers, seed businesses and organic agriculture organizations and in all respresent over 270,000 members. Monsanto called this lawsuit a publicity stunt and any allegations contained in the lawsuit "false, misleading, deceptive." They then go on to state that Monsanto "has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to excercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertant means." Yet despite that statement the article states that they're have been multiple cases of harassment and legal action by Monsanto against farmers over these alleged unatuthroized use of Monsanto genetically modified seeds products. Sourcewatch also claims that "Monsanto has an annual budger of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. Opinion/Reflection Okay I think that this is just downright brillant thinking by the organic industry in this case blocking a potential lawsuit from Monsanto a GMO giant that could have easily bankrupted hundred of farmers. I am not usually the type of person who believes that all bigger companies that compete with a smaller counterpart are all "evil, corrupt, corporations intent on bankrupting small companies." But this is a case where I think that Monsanto is being completely unreasonable and is basically saying "Hey! We were careless and did not care enough to make sure that our seeds don't get spread into your crops, so we are going to sue you for our carelessness." I also liken them to stating that they were never going to file any lawsuit against farmers after the farmers sued them, despite their record for suing and harrassing any farmers who were caught with Monsanto seeds, to a child saying that he wasn't taking any cookies despite having a cookie in his mouth, two cookies in his right hand, and his left hand in the cookie jar. This is just utterly despicable business practice but this also shows the incomprehensible levels of corruption going on in Washington that would allow these big companies to bully around their smaller counterparts. I also know that something can easily be done to prevent this as we have talked in class about all the things companies can do to prevent GMO seeds from cross pollinating crops. Questions: 1) Who do you think is right in this case? The farmers or Monsanto? Why? 2) What would you recommend that Monsanto can do to prevent this cross pollination from happening again? 3) Should Washington do something to prevent these big GMO companies from bulliying small, organic farmers. 4) What would you do to prevent it? 5) What do you think of PUBPAT's decision to sue Monsanto before Monsanto could sue the organic farmers? 6) Do you think that this lawsuit could be used as something that would allow both sides to come together and make an agreement that keeps this sort of thing from happening again? The above picture shows a field of crops blowing in the breeze.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Is the E.U. Being Cautious or Overstepping Boundaries?
According to Elisabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times, the European Union, unlike the U.S, restricts the commercial growing and marketing of GM crops. They are trying to make concessions to environmental activists that claim that GM crops have very damaging effects. But the World Trade Organization claims that these bans are illegal trade barriers because they are not based on any concrete scientific evidence. (The World Health Organization has concluded that GM crops are not to be considered dangerous for human consumption.) Yet Europe still has many restrictions five years later. In Italy, for example, there is a GMO-approval process set up that has no specifications for how to pass. France, Austria, and Germany outright ban most GMOs. This issue has even escalated to violence. In Vivaro, Italy, Giorgio Fidenato planted MON810 corn, better known as BT corn, last April. An Italian antiglobalization group by the name of Ya Basta raided his cornfields and destroyed most of his crop, leaving behind placards labeling the corn as "contaminated." However, some countries in the E.U. are more open, like Spain, Germany, and Portugal, who have limited allowed use of GM crops.
I think that the European Union is for the most part trying to be fair and listening to the environmental groups, but they're taking most of these things to far. They need to listen to the WTO and WHO. The bans are illegal and unfounded. However, they have a right to be cautious. Even the WHO point out that they can't reach a definite conclusion because of how short of a time we've been eating GM crops.
Questions
1) What's your take? Do you side with the environmental groups or the WTO?
2) Would you like to see a more cautious approach like the Europeans' in our own country?
3) Do you think the E.U. has the right to take action despite the WTO ruling?
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Consumer freedom is under attack without truth-in-labeling for GMOs
http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvoices/118658779.html?source=error
Summary
The article asserts that, without clear, proper labelling on GE'd foods, consumers are being oppressed because they have no clue what they are actually buying. While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, I don't think the author is too off the mark. She goes on to list some staggering statistics about how prevalent GMOs are - 90% of foods grown in the US are created from GE'd seeds, and 80% of foods sold contain GE'd elements (If you aren't eating organic, you are nearly guaranteed to be eating something that was genetically modified sometime during production.). While those are scary statistics, things don't get truly scary until the author discusses all the harmful effects independent researchers have found in GMOs (the government, by the way, doesn't conduct any regulated safety testing on GMOs). By consuming GE'd milk, for example, researchers say that we are exposing ourselves to higher risks of colon, breast, and prostate cancers. That is, of course, not to mention the effect this has on the animals. For a 10% increase in milk production, the cows suffer few quite a bit, including a good deal of stress from thrice-a-day milkings. To combat the minor side effects of their genetic modification (trifles like increased incidence of mastitis, lameness and reproductive complications, and a two year lifespan, nbd), farmers (if they can in fact still be called farmers) pump cows full of antibiotics, whose effects are passed on to humans through milk in the form of dangerous growth hormone. These effects are also present in the beef in McDonald's hamburgers, which is what the cows go on to become. And why do the farmers put their cows through all this? To fight disease? Make their milk more nutritious? Find the answer to life, the universe, and everything? For a 10% increase in milk production.
Reflection:
I used to play The McDonalds Game (which is where my image comes from, http://www.kongregate.com/games/molleindustria/mcdonalds-videogame?acomplete=the+mcdonalds , surprisingly educational, I suggest giving it a try. You'll never eat fast food again, though.), and I thought the part where the cows turned green and lame and whatnot was a joke. It is very scary learning how close to the truth that game really is (seriously, play it). It scares me that this sort of thing is in our food, and what the animals have to go through to produce it, and the harmful effects it can have on us. What's worse is that the government isn't doing a thing about it, even though first-world countries around the world have had basic GMO protections for years. We don't get labels informing us about what we are eating. The US government doesn't even have any regulated safety testing on GMOs. It's scary what we are unknowingly consuming everyday, and how our government is so controlled by the agriculture industry that it is just standing by and letting it happen.
Questions:
1) Do you think that food containing GMOs should be labeled as such?
2) If you answered the previous question yes, what information do you think should be on those labels?
3) Should the government require and regulate testing on GMOs? If so, how much?
4) Do you think the government is doing enough to regulate GMOs? Should it regulate them at all?
5) Are American consumers truly under attack?
Summary
The article asserts that, without clear, proper labelling on GE'd foods, consumers are being oppressed because they have no clue what they are actually buying. While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, I don't think the author is too off the mark. She goes on to list some staggering statistics about how prevalent GMOs are - 90% of foods grown in the US are created from GE'd seeds, and 80% of foods sold contain GE'd elements (If you aren't eating organic, you are nearly guaranteed to be eating something that was genetically modified sometime during production.). While those are scary statistics, things don't get truly scary until the author discusses all the harmful effects independent researchers have found in GMOs (the government, by the way, doesn't conduct any regulated safety testing on GMOs). By consuming GE'd milk, for example, researchers say that we are exposing ourselves to higher risks of colon, breast, and prostate cancers. That is, of course, not to mention the effect this has on the animals. For a 10% increase in milk production, the cows suffer few quite a bit, including a good deal of stress from thrice-a-day milkings. To combat the minor side effects of their genetic modification (trifles like increased incidence of mastitis, lameness and reproductive complications, and a two year lifespan, nbd), farmers (if they can in fact still be called farmers) pump cows full of antibiotics, whose effects are passed on to humans through milk in the form of dangerous growth hormone. These effects are also present in the beef in McDonald's hamburgers, which is what the cows go on to become. And why do the farmers put their cows through all this? To fight disease? Make their milk more nutritious? Find the answer to life, the universe, and everything? For a 10% increase in milk production.
Reflection:
I used to play The McDonalds Game (which is where my image comes from, http://www.kongregate.com/games/molleindustria/mcdonalds-videogame?acomplete=the+mcdonalds , surprisingly educational, I suggest giving it a try. You'll never eat fast food again, though.), and I thought the part where the cows turned green and lame and whatnot was a joke. It is very scary learning how close to the truth that game really is (seriously, play it). It scares me that this sort of thing is in our food, and what the animals have to go through to produce it, and the harmful effects it can have on us. What's worse is that the government isn't doing a thing about it, even though first-world countries around the world have had basic GMO protections for years. We don't get labels informing us about what we are eating. The US government doesn't even have any regulated safety testing on GMOs. It's scary what we are unknowingly consuming everyday, and how our government is so controlled by the agriculture industry that it is just standing by and letting it happen.
Questions:
1) Do you think that food containing GMOs should be labeled as such?
2) If you answered the previous question yes, what information do you think should be on those labels?
3) Should the government require and regulate testing on GMOs? If so, how much?
4) Do you think the government is doing enough to regulate GMOs? Should it regulate them at all?
5) Are American consumers truly under attack?
Thursday, April 7, 2011
GMOh no
Scientist Claims Link Between GMO Crops and Livestock Infertility
Alice ElliotBrown April 2, 2011
http://technorati.com/lifestyle/green/article/scientist-claims-link-between-gmo-crops/Don M. Huber, claims to have found a link between genetically modified crops and infertility in livestock. Basically, it's saying that this disease in soy beans, mixed with genetic modification, has created a new organism, which causes infertility in the animals that eat the plants that have the organism. Also in the article it states the alfalfa problem. By planting genetically modified alfalfa, regular alfalfa will be contaminated. Nature will make the GM alfalfa take the place of all regular alfalfa, and by the time that comes we'll just be starting to find out if it harms us or not. So if we lose this video game, too bad there's no reset button.
In my opinion, I think that GMOs are ok. However, we do still need to keep an eye on them. I believe stronger restriction laws should be made that would prevent contamination. This way, if it turns out they are dangerous, we can switch back to the regular. Just getting rid of GMOs isn't going to be good for the economy at all. Food will be too expensive, and with our already bad economy, it will just make things even worse. Within twenty years, our economy could be better, and so people will be able to afford organic food. I believe that would be a safer time to get rid of GMOs, but who knows, we might actually be able to keep them.
1. Do you think that GMOs are dangerous?
2. Do you think that the soybean organism is really responsible for infertility?
3. How large of a role do you think the economy plays in all of this?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Organic crops vs. GMOs
A Growing Debate: How to Define ‘Organic Food’
By: Dan Charles
An article from NPR
March 1, 2011
Summary
This article discusses the issue of GMO crops and the conflict caused because of them. The Department of Agriculture declared it legal for farmers in America to plant genetically engineered alfalfa this past February. Alfalfa is commonly used as feed for horses and dairy cows. The USDA’s decision was widely opposed, especially by organic food producers. At a Horizon Organic farm in eastern Maryland, the cows graze on pasture fields during the summer months. However, during the winter the cows have to eat a mixture of soybeans, alfalfa, silage, corn, clover and triticale grass because field grass doesn’t grow. In the corn, there is a little bit of something genetically engineered, and a lot of disagreements have been caused by this. The cross-pollination between organic and modified corn fed to the livestock is unavoidable, though.
In America, the majority of corn is genetically modified, and because corn is a cross-pollinator, organic corn often winds up with genes from GE corn, thanks to windblown pollen. This means that almost always, .5 to 2 percent of organic corn grown in the U.S. contains GMOs.
Regulations from the T require organic farmers to use organic farming methods on their crops, which are never allowed to be GMOs. So, even if a little bit of genetically engineered genes blow onto a crop, it can still be considered organic.
However, the public response to this isn’t so positive. Like Ronnie Cummins, from the Organic Consumers Association says, organic farmers need to do the right thing. If they’re not willing to sue the people who pollute their organic crops, then the public isn’t going to stand up for them. Other anti-biotech activists feel the same way. Groups against GMOs are now focusing on alfalfa, the GE crop most recently approved by the government.
The Organic Trade Association’s executive director even said that if “pollen from GMO alfalfa fertilizes alfalfa in organic hay fields, you can’t … sell it as organic.” That statement is hard to believe, because if it were true, meaning that organic crops are no longer organic if they are cross-pollinated, there would be barely any organic food left in the U.S.
Because of all the anti-GMO campaigns going on, people are starting to question whether or not to trust organic food. A lot of consumers insist on having no contamination in organic crops. In fact, according to a survey stated in the article, 77 percent of organic consumers would refuse to buy organic food if it was found to contain GMOs. That’s one of the primary concerns in the organic industry today-how consumers view their products. Even though only one-tenth of 1 percent of animal feed may be contaminated, people are still unsure of whether or not it’s safe to call it organic.
In conclusion, there have been a lot of arguments and disputes lately between the organic and GMO industries.
Opinion/Reflection
I was personally shocked about all the fighting going on between the organic and GMO industries. In fact, before we studied this topic in science, I was completely unaware that it was going on.
This article relates to science class because we have been discussing for a while exactly what GMOs are, and the arguments going on between organic and GMO farmers. I felt this article went along with that topic perfectly.
I think that both sides have a ton of support, so this dispute could go on for many years. In fact, I honestly believe it might, considering how popular GE crops are becoming despite how much they affect organic crops.
I feel that genetically engineering crops is pretty neat, because it can help improve plants and animals in some way. However, I don’t think it’s right that the GE crops can contaminate organic crops. Organic farmers need to make a living too, and it’s just not fair if GMO farmers can simply come along, plant their crops, and not have to worry what nearby organic fields they’re polluting. Buffer zones need to be between the two fields, or some other solution needs to be reached.
This whole argument is getting to a point now where I feel it needs to be resolved. I think that GMO crops should be allowed, but they must have restrictions, like not being planted so close to organic crops (that they could contaminate).
Ask Questions
1) Which side are you on? Organic farmers or GMO farmers?
2) Do you think a middle ground can be reached between the opposing forces? If so, what?
3) Do you think it’s logical for people who eat organic food to stop buying organic crops if they contain even traces of GMOs?
4) Do you agree with Ronnie Cummins’ statement that organic farmers need to begin standing up for themselves? Why or why not?
5) How do you feel about the Organic Trade Association’s executive director’s statement? Do you think it’s reasonable?
6) Do you think that GMO farmers will eventually run organic farmers out of business? Why or why not?
Add a graphic
The picture at the top on the left clearly shows a group of people protesting GMOs.
The image at the top on the right shows what genetically engineered alfalfa looks like. GE alfalfa is one of the most recent genetically engineered crops to be approved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)