Why is Monsanto so hated?

[DC]

Farmers that have their fields contaminated with Monsanto stuff should sue Monsanto.

 

[roger]

The "story" is well documented.

How do you document what somebody knew? (i.e. did he or did he not know that the seeds he saved and replanted had Monsanto genes)

 

[Galteeth]

Why is Monsanto so hated for selling to people with monopoly right what they already had for (nearly) free?

Hmm, a group of businessmen could buy all major forests in the world, and then start charging people for the right to breathe. Wouldn't they be hated?

Yeah, basically. They have a notorious history of pressuring third world governments to make deals that benefit Monsanto at the expense of the poor. For me, it has nothing to do with the technology of GM itself. This corporation is kind of the poster boy for what people talk about when they say Western companies are exploiting the third world.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/10/823719/-Millions-Against-Monsanto

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/03403910100.shtml

http://humanrights.change.org/blog/view/how_monsanto_hurts_farmers_around_the_world

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/agent-orange-background-monsanto-involvement.aspx

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/business-practices-in-indonesia.aspx

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/revolving-door.aspx

"You may have seen articles or stories claiming Monsanto engaged in improper activities in Indonesia. The truth is that Monsanto did act incorrectly in Indonesia between 1997 and 2002. This involved a series of illegal or questionable payments totaling at least $700,000 made to various Indonesian government officials during that time period. These payments were financed, in part, through unauthorized, improperly documented and inflated sales of Monsanto’s pesticide products in Indonesia. During this period, the Indonesian affiliates violated the accounting policies, controls and procedures of Monsanto."

I love how even the stuff from mansanto's own web page makes them sound evil.

 

[DC]

How do you document what somebody knew? (i.e. did he or did he not know that the seeds he saved and replanted had Monsanto genes)

so what, the crap contaminated his fields. its Monsanto farmers that has to keep their stuff on his fields, or not care about......

 

[roger]

so what, the crap contaminated his fields. its Monsanto farmers that has to keep their stuff on his fields, or not care about......

The "so what" is that you can end up being sued by Monsanto all the way to the Supreme court because your crop was cross pollinated with their genes.

 

[DC]

The "so what" is that you can end up being sued by Monsanto all the way to the Supreme court because your crop was cross pollinated with their genes.

Just sue back when your fields are contaminated or send them the bills. they actually pay for the cleanup to remove their crap from other people's field.

 

[stevea]

Whatever the mechanism may be, those weeds now exist and are spreading very fast in other people's fields.

Evidence ! No - there are no known examples of horizontal GMO genetic transfer to weeds in the field.

Hate to break it to you, but they will transcribe just about any plasmid that has the right markers, and the _only_ modification that was made in the lab was inserting a specific one. Since bacteria exchange plasmids all the time, technically it can only take one bacterium with such a payload to not only multiply and spread it, but pass the plasmid around to other agrobacteria.

There in a lot of evidence that there has been horizontal transfer among species over geological time periods, perhaps mediated by virii and bacteria. Much more common in single celled organisms than complex ones (for some obvious reasons). It IS NOT a normal or common agrobacteria feature as you claim. The fact is that you cannot show any evidece of GMO genes transferre to another higher plant (weed) as you claim.

And it's not even necessary for it to escape from a lab. Infecting plants in the field has also been used extensively.

But really, plasmids get around. GM plasmids used in soy have been even found in the bacteria in some humans' gut. While the consensus is that they didn't get that from eating GM soy, nevertheless it's an illustration of those plasmids showing up just about everywhere, and where you expect them the least.

I see this "soy/gut/bacterial transfer" claim on numerous "I hate GMO" woo websites, but I can't find any reference to this study from any reputable source. Do you have a reference that isn't from one of your GMO alarmist blogs ?

If you want to tell me that they show up everywhere _except_ in agrobacteria in the wild, I'm afraid that that kinda strains my suspension of disbelief.

I've seen NO evidence that these GMO genes jump species at all. It's a realistic concern with no evidence. They aren't "show[ing] up everywhere", unless "everywhere" means your fevered imagination. Your level of disbelief is apparently quite defective anyway - led around by woo claims and conflating all sorts of distinct issues.

Regardless of whether you believe it or not, nevertheless there are multiple studies showing those genes appearing in wild maize for example. E.g.,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1680848.stm

Now while that was probably by pollination -- and in this particular case I didn't claim it was by agrobacteria, but it's irrelevant anyway --

If by "irrelevant anyway" you mean "the key issues which demonstrates you are in error" - then we agree.

[...] killing insects and wiping out plant species that don't have the GM genes too.

Cross pollination is well recognized, GMO sugar beets crossing with wild beets, GMO maize crossing with wild maize, GMO rapeseed crossing with native brassica. That is not horizontal transfer which is the main danger.

Roundup-resistant wild crosses DO NOT "wipe out" or out-compete any plant species unless roundup/gylphosate is applied (again with your ignorant alarmism). Actually they should slightly under-perform as they have marginally less efficient photosynthesis.

Yes GMO Bt species crosses can impact insect populations - this is no surprise. But the primary example is Chinese cotton,
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100513/full/news.2010.242.html#B1
Where the Chinese Bt cotton was developed by Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), not Monsanto.

Yes, because the effects of strictly polen of one plant on strictly one species, which is actually what was tested in regards to the monarch butterfly, is all that matters

I've seen several field studies of several insect species - So it's hard to parse the errors in your claim. What is your approach - let humans starve untill we test Bt pollen against every species ? Would be nice - but it's not realistic.

Right, and you'll somehow also get rid of all those plasmids in the wild, many introduced by infecting plants in the field

I NEVER suggested that was possible (just the opposite), but you are just being obstinately ignorant or lack critical reading skills.

If plant genomes were as plastic as you erroneously believe there would be no stable genomes and our environment would be filled with mostly ineffective mutants. Yes horizontal transfer between higher plant species can happen, but it's not the daily experience you claim.

-

You are doing a creditable job of trying to switch the topic from your false claim that horizontal transfer to higher plants (weeds) is common.

 

[Varanid]

For those new to the Economics forum, it's worth noting that Tippit thinks US currency is counterfeit. So you may want to keep that in mind when reading his responses.

Neat. A bona-fide ad hominem. Not merely an insult, but the actual fallacy.

 

[Travis]

Depends if you mean destroyed as in "all their assets, technology, and products vanish from the face of the Earth" or destroyed as in "broken into smaller, less powerful pieces"

I mean all their assets are destroyed, their scientific work is censored all the people that work for them or with them are shot and thrown in ditches.

Near as I can tell that's usually the intended endgame of every anti GM wacko I've ever encountered ranting on street corners to anyone that doesn't mind the smell of their urine stained pants.


My own personal opinion is that they are probably a net benefit to the world even if I do think they should be watched because profits can make smart people do dumb things. I also think the anti-GM crowd needs to tone down the crazy by 300% if they want to be taken seriously.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Are you saying that you really didn't understand that what Roger meant was that if you use a bittorrent program "just to download" then you are also guilty of uploading as well because that's how the technology works.

I do understand that, however I object to the misleading (ok, LYING) claims that say people are being sued for downloading

Its like saying, "yeah I stole the car, but look, I didn't run any red lights"

But the lawsuits assume that if you've got downloaded music on your hard drive then you must have, therefore, uploaded it at some point.

No. You can upload your own legally obtained mp3s illegally (how do you think they got there in the first place?)

Otherwise, how can they tell what you upped?

They CANT tell what you uploaded (or more fairly, there are technically ways they could but they don't have a mandate to do this). What they care about is what you are in the process of uploading. During the upload is when you are marked and logged

Also, are you saying that the RIAA doesn't care about downloading music from blog sites?

Yes, in the same way that the Food and Drug Administration doesn't care what color car you drive. Its not currently part of their mandate.

Actually if you want to get really specific, the RIAA does have suggestions for creating downloadable files depending on bandwidth, sound quality, and purpose, but I don't think that's what you mean.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Evidence ! No - there are no known examples of horizontal GMO genetic transfer to weeds in the field.

Ok, I stand corrected. It does appear that a different mutation causes the resistance in weeds.

But, nevertheless, the fact is in the last dozen years or so, we have about 10 different weeds that are now GM resistant, 6 of them in the USA. And not only that, but selecting those resistant to Roundup seems to also have selected them to more easily adapt to other herbicides too.

Source, for example
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-1.pdf

I see this "soy/gut/bacterial transfer" claim on numerous "I hate GMO" woo websites, but I can't find any reference to this study from any reputable source. Do you have a reference that isn't from one of your GMO alarmist blogs

1. The study was published as: Netherwood et al., "Assessing the survival of transgenic planic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004):2. If you don't like the available online sources, well, I guess you can always track down the paper version.

2. If all you can find wrong with one study is what sites mention it, that's pretty silly even by the standards of guilt by association. And generally, it seems to me that if one decides simply to not believe except for what comes from sources one likes, one could just as well "prove" God or that we're still in 1999. Just don't trust all those alarmist sites with dates newer than that, and there you go.

3. _My_ blogs? Really? Oh, I get it, a bit of ad hominem goes a long way to sound smart, right? Heh. Anyway, I'm not particularly interested in what delusional stuff you need to imagine about me to make yourself feel smart. But knock yourself out, if that's what makes you feel better. Just as long as you also get around to actually answer the actual points.

I've seen NO evidence that these GMO genes jump species at all. It's a realistic concern with no evidence. They aren't "show[ing] up everywhere", unless "everywhere" means your fevered imagination. Your level of disbelief is apparently quite defective anyway - led around by woo claims and conflating all sorts of distinct issues.

Really. Do elaborate what problems you see conflated. Because the only one misled there seems to be your poor strawman built out of pretending that different issues are just one. So if it bothers you, then you can solve it yourself: just stop conflating different issues and pretending that that was my position.

If by "irrelevant anyway" you mean "the key issues which demonstrates you are in error" - then we agree.

1. It's irrelevant because the end result is the same. Those wild maize plants have that BT gene anyway. However that happened, it got there anyway and is killing insects some tens of miles away from the nearest farm.

2. As for key factor, heh, learn to read. That's a claim I genuinely hadn't made for _that_ point. The only claim in that paragraph is "the genes have spread in the wild". Note that the previous claim also wasn't that it's the _only_ way those genes spread in the wild, so any hard connection there is your own.

Yes, I get that you're the kind too hurried to unilaterally claim some silly victory to actually bother with the boring parts like reading or thinking, but your comprehension problems are just that: your problems, not mine.

Cross pollination is well recognized, GMO sugar beets crossing with wild beets, GMO maize crossing with wild maize, GMO rapeseed crossing with native brassica. That is not horizontal transfer which is the main danger.

Except you're still answering to a paragraph which didn't claim that that's horizontal transfer. While that claim _was_ made erroneously for the roundup-resistance weeds, there was nothing of the kind about the BT gene in wild maize.

But, nevertheless, those genes now are in the wild, and are causing ecological problems. _That_ is the main problem. Now are you going to address that, or keep on pounding on your own distortion?

Roundup-resistant wild crosses DO NOT "wipe out" or out-compete any plant species unless roundup/gylphosate is applied (again with your ignorant alarmism). Actually they should slightly under-perform as they have marginally less efficient photosynthesis.

Ah, right, more strawmen or comprehension problems. Exactly which part in going about "E.g., those who have a gene copied from Bacillus Thuringiensis" or having it specified on the same row that that's about crops "who produce their own pesticides"... makes you think it's about Roundup resistance?

Anyway, a species that produces its own pesticides _can_ out-compete a species who doesn't, and if you had read the provided link, you'd have noticed that that's exactly what the concern in Mexico is: they're afraid they'll lose a chunk of biodiversity in their wild flora.

Yes, if it were the strawman of it still being about Roundup resistance, then it wouldn't, but it isn't about that.

Yes GMO Bt species crosses can impact insect populations - this is no surprise. But the primary example is Chinese cotton,
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100513/full/news.2010.242.html#B1
Where the Chinese Bt cotton was developed by Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), not Monsanto.

Yes, well, an ecological problem is an ecological problem no matter who causes it. The BT gene is doing a number of some species that were never pests to begin with. Whether it's from Monsanto or the Chinese... should I really care?

I've seen several field studies of several insect species - So it's hard to parse the errors in your claim. What is your approach - let humans starve untill we test Bt pollen against every species ? Would be nice - but it's not realistic.

No, but at least don't deny a known problem just because you find one species that wasn't affected.

I NEVER suggested that was possible (just the opposite), but you are just being obstinately ignorant or lack critical reading skills.

It's funny to see you going on about lack of critical reading skills, when you just go on about your own strawmen.

If plant genomes were as plastic as you erroneously believe there would be no stable genomes and our environment would be filled with mostly ineffective mutants. Yes horizontal transfer between higher plant species can happen, but it's not the daily experience you claim.

Actually, the genome _is_ that plastic in that if you copy a gene into it, it will be transcribed into proteins. That's why viruses work. And that's why you can take a gene from a bacillum, and have a maize plant transcribe it.

Now whether an actual plasmid of one of those GM genes gets to get out, that's a very good and relevant question, but otherwise, yes, genomes actually seems to be quite flexible in the parts that matter.

As for mostly ineffective mutants, hey, congrats, you just discovered natural selection, didn't you? That's actually the main reason why there aren't all that many ineffective mutants around.

You are doing a creditable job of trying to switch the topic from your false claim that horizontal transfer to higher plants (weeds) is common.

No, you're just hammering on a previous topic.

 

[stevea]

Galteeth - -several of your sources hold the rather romantic notion that farmers save annual seed from year to year, whereas it's virtually universal in advanced nations that hybridized annual seeds are purchased every year.

I don't grow any patented annuals (recently, planted some patented barley once) but the two varieties of apple, 3 peach and 2 of 3 grape varieties I grow are patented. Even some perennial flowers I grow are patented. I cannot lawfully propagate these.

Your argument against Monsanto has two components - you (and a lot of lefties) believe that the poor and ignorant shouldn't have to fulfill their contractual obligations. That's a formula for chaos and failure. No rational company will develop products for a market where they cannot make a profit, and Monsanto can' make a profit unless they sell seed. The other part is hinged in the insinuation that Monsanto used bribes to corrupt the government (of Indonesia for example). The fact is that Indonesia's government is rife with corruption and it's sometimes impossible to do business w/o providing payoffs. Here is a pretty even-handed evaluation,
http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...ut-corruption-still-rules-20110121-1a035.html

So yes, yielding to government pay-to-play corruption is sad, negative, but hardly worthy of hate.

If you want something to hate - consider that the rampant poverty and poor development prospects of Indonesia encourages corruption and is the result of a religion that prevents ready capital formation.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually, I don't think anyone proposed to give people a blank check out of contracts generally. What some of us believe is that the government can regulate what kind of crap can go into a contract in the first place. Whether that applies to Monsanto or not, that's a whole different topic, but mis-representing the "lefties" as a complete strawman is not helping much.

 

[jimtron]

FWIW, here are criticisms of the company from the Wikipedia Monsanto article (lots more sourced info there):

In the United States

The non-profit Center for Food Safety[112] listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.[24] The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.[24]
Monsanto is responsible for more than 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ Superfund sites, attempts to clean up Monsanto Chemical's formerly uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.[24]
As of May 2008, Monsanto is currently engaged in a campaign to prohibit dairies which do not inject their cows with artificial bovine growth hormone from advertising this fact on their milk cartons.[24]
When the Federal Trade Commission did not side with Monsanto on this issue, the company started lobbying state lawmakers to implement a similar ban. Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolfe attempted to prohibit dairies from using labels stating that their milk does not contain artificial bovine growth hormone, but public outcry led Governor Edward Rendell to step in and reverse his secretary's position, stating: "The public has a right to complete information about how the milk they buy is produced."[24]
[edit] Missouri

Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri was sued by Monsanto in 2002, who claimed that he had violated their Roundup Ready Soybean patent. Rinehart is not a farmer or seed dealer, but he still had to spend money for his legal defense. Monsanto eventually dropped the lawsuit, but never issued an apology, admitted to making a mistake, or offered to pay for Rinehart's legal expenses.[113] This is not the only case of aggressive, misconstrued action on the part of Monsanto. Monsanto has been accused of showing up at farmers' houses, making accusations, and demanding records.[113]
Monsanto sued the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator in Pilot Grove, Missouri, claiming that offering seed cleaning services to farmers was tantamount to inducing them to pirate Monsanto seeds. The Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator had been cleaning seeds for decades before companies such as Monsanto could patent organisms.[24]
In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers, put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report.[114]
[edit] Illinois

In 1926, when environmental policy was generally governed by local governments, Monsanto Chemical Company founded and incorporated the town of Monsanto, later renamed Sauget, Illinois, to provide a more business friendly environment for one of its chemical plants. For years, the Monsanto plant in Sauget was the nation's largest producer of polychlorinated biphenyls. And although polychlorinated biphenyls were banned in the 1970s, they remain in the water along Dead Creek in Sauget.[115]
[edit] Alabama

Monsanto is accused of encouraging residents of Anniston, Alabama to use soil known by the company to be contaminated with PCBs as topsoil.[24]

 

[DC]

i have no problem when people agree to not collect the seed and replant them, that is a contract between a farmer and a company, as long it is all fair, its ok. my problems come when Monsanto sues farmers that have no contract with Monsanto but their fields got contaminated with Monsanto seeds, i think a farmer has a right to use them then. or at least Monsanto must pay for the cleanup of the mess their seeds created on other people fields. and they do pay for it.

 

[Cavemonster]

Neat. A bona-fide ad hominem. Not merely an insult, but the actual fallacy.

I was gonna say the same thing!

Not to derail, but most times people call out ad homs, it's really just an insult laid on top of an argument. So few people here actually use this fallacy in such an obvious way, it's almost adorable.

 

[Ferguson]

If you want an argument about how people should use language colloquially, the windmill is over that-a-way.

Can we stick to the topic of the OP?

If your source of vocabulary is mass media, then uploading is downloading, kazaa is a website, cryptozoology is a science, and pistols are machine guns.

 

[stevea]

Ok, I stand corrected. It does appear that a different mutation causes the resistance in weeds.

Or to more more clear - you have made repeated erroneous claims on our major point of contention about horizontal gene transfer(HGT) from GMO crops to higher plants.

But, nevertheless, the fact is in the last dozen years or so, we have about 10 different weeds that are now GM resistant, 6 of them in the USA. And not only that, but selecting those resistant to Roundup seems to also have selected them to more easily adapt to other herbicides too.
Source, for example
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-1.pdf

Your Purdue source clearly states that weed plants have evolved Roundup/Gylphosate resistance as a result of exposure and selection from among the natural weed biodiversity, NOT "GM resistant". Conflate much ?

1. The study was published as: Netherwood et al., "Assessing the survival of transgenic planic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004):2. If you don't like the available online sources, well, I guess you can always track down the paper version.

I'm happy to use online resource to reputable journals. Unlike you I actually read the source (abstract) instead of relying on your yellow-journalism blog sheets. Here is the abstract of YOUR source:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html
Which concludes ...

As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment.

Your own sources give evidence that you are wrong !

2. If all you can find wrong with one study is what sites mention it, that's pretty silly even by the standards of guilt by association. And generally, it seems to me that if one decides simply to not believe except for what comes from sources one likes, one could just as well "prove" God or that we're still in 1999. Just don't trust all those alarmist sites with dates newer than that, and there you go.

Friend - I asked you for YOUR source since I couldn't find any reliable source for your position in a cursory search. YOUR source supports my position. Game over !

3. _My_ blogs? Really? Oh, I get it, a bit of ad hominem goes a long way to sound smart, right? Heh. Anyway, I'm not particularly interested in what delusional stuff you need to imagine about me to make yourself feel smart. But knock yourself out, if that's what makes you feel better. Just as long as you also get around to actually answer the actual points.

I'm still listening - show me a reliable non-blog source that gives evidence for YOUR view . Your Nature reference supports my position. Don't become a bigger fool - look at the source of the evidence and read it honestly.

Really. Do elaborate what problems you see conflated. Because the only one misled there sees to be your poor strawman built out of pretending that different issues are just one. So if it bothers you, then you can solve it yourself: just stop conflating different issues and pretending that that was my position.

Hans - look at the history above. Our main point of disagreement is clear. In post #14, I responded to your post #12 and every single item I refute is related to your (now admitted) erroneous understanding of HGT in higher plants. There is no evidence of plant-to-plant transfer as you repeatedly had claimed.

Your reply in post#21 is to re-iterate your erroneous misunderstanding more forcefully, and to CONFLATE this with a new issue of plant-to-bacterial horizontal transfer which I never suggested. You CONFLATE this again with cross-pollination - something that I never addressed. Then in a parting shot of post #21 you conflate my comment about future GMO crops being designed to prevent re-propagation as somehow related to your wildly exaggerated thinking about HGT and a gross mischaracteization/strawman that I am claiming this recinds genes in existence.

No - you are dead-wrong on our major point of contention, so now you are creating a shotgun spray of other CONFLATED issues. Further you are purposely mischaracterizing my position. I am not, in the abstract, in favor of using GMO crops. I made this very clear in post #14. You continue to act as tho' I a supposed to defend the "unintended consequences" of say Bt wild corn cultivars, or insect population changes. My misgivings about GMO are exactly those - unforeseen systemic consequences and our inability to rescind the damage. As I also said - that ship has sailed, and there is little hope it could have been prevented.

1. It's irrelevant because the end result is the same. Those wild maize plants have that BT gene anyway. However that happened, it got there anyway and is killing insects some tens of miles away from the nearest farm.

It's completely relevant - your view of HGT is erroneous, dead-wrong alarmist and foolish. We can't have a rational discussion while you are spewing and defending major errors in thinking. There is a major difference in impact between pollination witin a species and HGT across species - the end result is not "the same" but instead vastly different. I am not and never have argued that either is harmless - so drop the strawman.

heh, learn to read.

Purdue said nothing about "GM resistant" - crazy concept based on crazy erroneous thinking. The Nature article clearly says there was no evidence of gene transfer - and yet you try to pass it off as evidence of the opposite. Yes you seem to have a reading or comprehension problem on the topic.

No, you're just hammering on a previous topic.

No - you are trying to switch topics, move the goal post.

I NEVER said, thought or suggested GMOxWild crosses were harmless. You are straw-manning my position, and conflating the issue of HGT among higher plants with bacterial HGT, pollination within a species, resulting systemic impact.

If you'd like to agree that;
/ there is no evidence of recent higher plant-plant HGT
/ there is at most marginal evidence of plant-bacterial HGT
(not your source btw)
/ That weed resistance to roundup mechanism is not directly related to human genetic manipulation of plants

Then perhaps we can rationally discuss the systemic damage that GMOs can realistically cause. That discussion can't happen while you are venting irrational fears and erroneous exaggerated claims.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Your Purdue source clearly states that weed plants have evolved Roundup/Gylphosate resistance as a result of exposure and selection from among the natural weed biodiversity, NOT "GM resistant". Conflate much ?

And I had already conceded that it's not horizontal transfer and never said that the Purdue source says that.

_Can_ you read? No, seriously. It's getting tiresome to argue with the kind of BS-er that insists on assigning his own delusional strawmen to me.

I'm happy to use online resource to reputable journals. Unlike you I actually read the source (abstract) instead of relying on your yellow-journalism blog sheets. Here is the abstract of YOUR source:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html
Which concludes ...


Your own sources give evidence that you are wrong !

No, it just gives evidece that your retarded strawman is retarded. Whop-de-do. Don't make that strawman if it bothers you. My claim never was that the transfer happened during feeding, but that those plasmids showed up in gut bacteria. And it does say they do.

Really, _can_ you read?

Friend - I asked you for YOUR source since I couldn't find any reliable source for your position in a cursory search. YOUR source supports my position. Game over !

Doing the troll trope of claiming game over based on your own being unable to even read what I wrote, is kinda cute, but no banana. Learn to read, then come back.

I'm still listening - show me a reliable non-blog source that gives evidence for YOUR view . Your Nature reference supports my position. Don't become a bigger fool - look at the source of the evidence and read it honestly.

No you're not listening at all. You keep hammering on something that isn't even discussed any more, and for some cases never was, and bears no resemblance to what I actually wrote. That's not listening, that's doing an abject ego masturbation routine.

Hans - look at the history above. Our main point of disagreement is clear. In post #14, I responded to your post #12 and every single item I refute is related to your (now admitted) erroneous understanding of HGT in higher plants. There is no evidence of plant-to-plant transfer as you repeatedly had claimed.

Yes, dearie, but even post #12 contained more than one idea, and the posts after it even more. Your trying to pretend that there's one single idea everywhere is getting tiresome. Even in post #12, the horizontal gene transfer was _one_ claim among many, and there was no mention of it for wild maize for example. That was your own strawman too.

So, again, _can_ you read?

Your reply in post#21 is to re-iterate your erroneous misunderstanding more forcefully, and to CONFLATE this with a new issue of plant-to-bacterial horizontal transfer which I never suggested. You CONFLATE this again with cross-pollination - something that I never addressed.

Dude, I realize you're trying hard to sound all smart, but making stuff up about something that's black on white in the same thread is kinda stupid. Just because two things are in the same post doesn't mean they're conflated.

Cross polination was never conflated in #21 with anything, it was mentioned as a _distinct_ mode of gene transfer. The plant to bacterium transfer was also never mentioned as being _your_ claim, so I dunno whatever confusion of mind would cause such a massive distortion.

So, again, _can_ you read? Take a frikken break from polishing your own statue and look at what I actually wrote there, not at what delusional strawman could you invent to let you give a smashing response.

Then in a parting shot of post #21 you conflate my comment about future GMO crops being designed to prevent re-propagation as somehow related to your wildly exaggerated thinking about HGT and a gross mischaracteization/strawman that I am claiming this recinds genes in existence.

It wasn't a strawman, as it was never ascribed to you. It was asking how you suppose to solve a different problem.

Again: _can_ you read?

No - you are dead-wrong on our major point of contention, so now you are creating a shotgun spray of other CONFLATED issues. Further you are purposely mischaracterizing my position.

Dude, they're just different issues. I'm sorry if you're unable to get more than one idea per post in your head, but some of us do that anyway.

Furthermore even that "main issue" was _one_ point out of several. And not only it wasn't supposed to be "main", it was a subordinate claim, as support. The _main_ claim was that those crops cause harm. The exact ways in which that happens, were actually subordinate to that.

The only one who promoted it to "main" is you, presumably because it seems to be the only one you can address.

I am not, in the abstract, in favor of using GMO crops. I made this very clear in post #14. You continue to act as tho' I a supposed to defend the "unintended consequences" of say Bt wild corn cultivars, or insect population changes. My misgivings about GMO are exactly those - unforeseen systemic consequences and our inability to rescind the damage. As I also said - that ship has sailed, and there is little hope it could have been prevented.

Who the <bleep> cares what you're for? You're trying to ascribe an ad-hominem to me now too, or what? What matters is whether those crops create problems or not, and what problems.

It's completely relevant - your view of HGT is erroneous, dead-wrong alarmist and foolish. We can't have a rational discussion while you are spewing and defending major errors in thinking. There is a major difference in impact between pollination witin a species and HGT across species - the end result is not "the same" but instead vastly different. I am not and never have argued that either is harmless - so drop the strawman.

But apparently you can have a "rational" discussion by answering to just your own delusional strawmen...

I never actually claimed that HGT is the same as cross-polination. And the "end result" there that's the same is the killing of insect species, not the resulting plant.

Again: learn to read.

Purdue said nothing about "GM resistant" - crazy concept based on crazy erroneous thinking. The Nature article clearly says there was no evidence of gene transfer - and yet you try to pass it off as evidence of the opposite. Yes you seem to have a reading or comprehension problem on the topic.

The only comprehension problems here are yours. You're the one repeatedly answering to other stuff than you quote, and trying to distort what was explained repeatedly into your own strawmen.

No - you are trying to switch topics, move the goal post.

Your being unable to juggle more than one idea in your head doesn't make it moving the goalpost. Especially if the "new" goalpost was actually there all along since that post #12.

I NEVER said, thought or suggested GMOxWild crosses were harmless. You are straw-manning my position, and conflating the issue of HGT among higher plants with bacterial HGT, pollination within a species, resulting systemic impact.

Again, it's not conflating, it's a bunch of different issues with GM crops. And since I never ascribed that position to you, the strawman there is yours again, not mine.

Your comprehension problems are just that: your problems not mine.

If you'd like to agree that;
/ there is no evidence of recent higher plant-plant HGT
/ there is at most marginal evidence of plant-bacterial HGT
(not your source btw)
/ That weed resistance to roundup mechanism is not directly related to human genetic manipulation of plants

Then perhaps we can rationally discuss the systemic damage that GMOs can realistically cause. That discussion can't happen while you are venting irrational fears and erroneous exaggerated claims.

Except here's the funny stuff: The message you quoted, but apparently didn't read, starts by conceding exactly that. But it doesn't stop you from hammering on your own delusional strawmen anyway. Even explicitly dropping that claim, doesn't stop your ego-masturbation number and a whole retarded show in which you pretend it didn't happen, and answer to different things than you quote.

_Can_ you read? Because nothing says the opposite like seeing you unable to read and comprehend even the first sentence in the message you pretend to answer to.

 

[Cuddles]

Yes, well, an ecological problem is an ecological problem no matter who causes it. The BT gene is doing a number of some species that were never pests to begin with. Whether it's from Monsanto or the Chinese... should I really care?

Given that the topic is why people hate Monsanto, yes you should. I don't see any argument that there can potentially environmental problems from GM crops, the question is why people seem to hate Monsanto so much more than all the other companies and institutions that work with them. It might not matter who is involved for a general discussion of GM, but if the only significant problems seen so far have been caused by the Chinese government, it would seem odd to criticise Monsanto for that.

As someone already suggested, it may well simply be that Monsanto is the more prominent name, so any problem with GMOs is translated to hate for Monsanto by many people, regardless of who was actually involved.