-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
jimtron
Illuminator
They may or may not behave badly, but it's not just the brand name, I think it's more about things they have done (which may or may not be misunderstood). See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Criticism
Stuff like this (from the Vanity Fair article linked in my previous post):
Last edited:
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
So are there any court transcripts besides the canadian one or is it all hearsay?
jimtron
Illuminator
The seed/farmer issue? I don't have access to court transcripts, but there seem to be many reliable sources that back this up (see links in my previous posts and elsewhere in this thread).
bikerdruid
Philosopher
the film 'Food Inc.' makes some good points against monsanto.
their persecution of seed cleaning operations is heinous.
monsanto ruthlessly harrasses seed cleaning operations because they could possibly be assisting farmers in using patented seed.
i would highly recommend the film.
jimtron
Illuminator
I recommend the film as well. Here's a thread about it, where Monsanto gets brought up. IMHO, like this thread, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction discounting criticisms against Monsanto and other issues raised in Food, Inc. I welcome debate on these issues, but some folks are quick to shoot them down without really looking at the evidence.
Right. And "because it's potentially relevant" is a compelling reason, when we're taking about civil discovery.
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
I'm still trying like hell thru the links and my weak google-fu to find any actual instances of monsanto doing the stuff people claim about them besides the canadian one
bikerdruid
Philosopher
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
That doesnt seem to have any in it, just the same claims
jimtron
Illuminator
Uhh, did you really try the links? There are many sourced sites linked in this thread showing actual instances of Monsanto doing these things.
Yes you did ! You clearly did. What you actually said in post #71 was ....
Now "GM resistant" is a nonsense term, but you CLAIMED that 6 USA/10 total weeds were "GM resistant", clearly indicating genetic modification. The numbers 6/10 come from the Purdue paper. You were clearrly stating that the Purdue paper was related to GM weeds, which is false. It's natural selection not genetic modification nor HGT.
To now claim that the Purdue article wasn't about your misunderstands of HGT & GM, is refuted by your own posts.
Point to any specific strawman case with a quote or admit you are just flinging feces again. As for your "not during feeding", - go back and re-read your own posts where you do make that claim about HGT from GMO soy in the gut. If YOU can find ANY papers showing that occurs I'd like to see them.
You are having a great deal of difficulty making any intelligible point as you have introduced so much fallacious argument.
What I "hear" you saying is,
/ HGT has occurred from GMO grops - now retracted.
/ Implied Cross pollination is as dangerous as HGT - clearly not true.
/ Said GMO soy transfers its genes in the gut - you source says the opposite.
/ You cited the Purdue article for some reason - although it's irrelevant to GMO, and would be occurring faster w/o GMO crops.
Excuse me if I can't make sense from nonsense.
Again - I'll respond to a coherent point, but you are all over the map with unsupportable views, erroneous thinking and irrelevant red-herring topics.
Last edited:
SpuriusMaximus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 25,688
Oh gee, if it's not the return of the guy who can't take "yes" for an answer.
You realize that you're the only one who reads it as "containing the GM genes", especially with it coming right after a sentence where I conceded that's not the case, right?
Yes, "GM resistant" is a nonsense term, because it was basically an awful typo. I meant to write "herbicide resistant", but it ended the wrong thing. Now I'm not asking you to magically know what was meant but,
1. that's just the point "GM resistant" is a nonsense term, and even taking it literally, it would mean at most "resistant to genetic modification". There is no honest reading of that as meaning "contains the genes from Monsanto's GM crops." So you're still going into your own flights of fantasy in interpreting it as HGT.
2. again, it's coming right after a sentence where I said it does _NOT_ contain the Monsanto genes. How dishonest _do_ you need to be to spin two words into... meaning exactly what the sentence before said is not the case? Shouldn't that have tipped you off a bit?
Basically shouldn't you ask what it means, instead of assigning it your own, totally fantasy meaning?
Your building imaginary hidden meanings based on 2 words taken out of context are your problem, not mine. Learn to read.
Yes, do go back and actually read my posts. I never claimed "during feeding". Your filling in that part is the very definition of a strawman.
... most of which exist only in your strawmen...
Wow, you finally noticed that, huh? That's a good sign.
Well, see, that's your problem right there. Try to answer to what I actually wrote, instead of imagining "implied" things to answer to.
What I said is that both cause the same end result: killing insects far away from farms. There was no claim about it being exactly the same extent or whatever you imagined there.
It's like saying, if you will, that both a zeppelin and an airplane achieve the same end result: flight. It does not also say that both do it exactly the same way or as efficiently or anything.
Nope. That's your own strawman, and quite the silly strawman at that. I never said they're transferred from soy _nor_ during feeding, I just said that those plasmids appeared even in the gut bacteria. The idea that it transferred from soy and during feeding are both your own strawmen.
You know, since you asked me to point out a strawman, there we go.
And quite silly, because that part was coming after my talking about plasmid transfers from bacterium to bacterium. I'm not sure what kind of confusion of mind would cause takíng that to mean "from plant to bacterium."
It's double silly since the same message and in fact the very next sentence where I talked about those plasmids in gut bacteria, says... "the consensus is that they didn't get that from eating GM soy". So, really, how dishonest _do_ you need to be to accuse me of a claim that not only I didn't make, but I claimed to _not_ be the case?
Whew. Well, it's nice to see that for a change quoted without some convoluted divining hidden meanings based on words taken out of context. Yes, I quoted that "for some reason", the reason being that such plants are spreading fast and making it a pain for those who aren't Monsanto customers too anyway.
But would it? Would we use as much Roundup without GM crops modified to resist it? Or would such a mutation be selected for faster without the, you know, selection pressure that makes it an advantage?
Then stop making up nonsense and address what i actually wrote. Simple solution, really.
... most of which happen only in your imagination. If all that incoherent nonsense bothers you, stop making it up, really.
Last edited:
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
I'm about ready to do a 180 flip on my opinion of monsanto here. From what I've been reading, even considering the extremely dubious sources, it seems like monsanto may be doing some predatory "patent enforcement"
Still trying to find actual trial transcripts, but so far it looks not cool
If this is what the public at large thinks the RIAA is doign then I can understand the hatred for them, though I assure you, this is not in any way similar to what the RIAA is doing
Still trying to find actual trial transcripts, but so far it looks not cool
If this is what the public at large thinks the RIAA is doign then I can understand the hatred for them, though I assure you, this is not in any way similar to what the RIAA is doing
You never before conceded wrt the Purdue link. You never said anything like "yes". You seem to think we can read your muddled thoughts and non-sense terminology and make sense of it.
To the argument- what EXACTLY did you mean when you cited the Purdue paper ? That we should hate Monsanto since some weeds are developing resistance ? I can impute no relevant meaning to your Purdue citation. It's not part of a coherent argument.
Good - now extend that thinking to your "can't take yes" comment when you never conceded and when the posting point seems at best a red-herring argument.
"GM" means "genetically modified" in this context and the only "resistance" discussed int the citation is round-up resistance, where Monsanto is the sole originator of that GMO genetics. So yes a very honest interpretation is that you were referring to GM from Monsanto in weeds. There ar no flights of fancy involved - but you need a grounding is use of language.
That's not what you said in post#71. You agreed that HGT wasn't rampant and suggested "mutation" (a term that includes GM) as the cause. Perhaps you meant natural selection, since there is NO EVIDENCE OF MUTATION, either naturally occurring or human-devised by GMO related to these weeds. Even your Purdue paper misuses the term mutation (one occurrence), but states the cause is pressure selection of a rare phenotype, NOT MUTATION.
You again lack a basic understanding of the issue and misused language, then you expect others to understand you "actual thoughts" through a sea of errornous posts and incorrect language.
I have asked, and still you refuse to help make any sense of why that Purdue citation is relevant to hating Monsanto.
I asked for a reference and in #71 you supplied a Nature:Biotech article that ONLY tested the hypothesis in the gut, stating transfr did not occur. If you want to make a different argument, cite your evidence.
1/ You never said any such thing.
2/ Call for evidence for your "same end result" claim.
Cross pollination is only same-species gene transfer. That's vastly different from HGT where there are no boundaries for your "plasmids, plasmids spreading everywhere" fear mongering.
So for example we introduce Bt corn and perhaps have already crossed with wild maize of central America. Your alarmist fear is that we are going to wipe out European corn borer moths which predate on about 200 plant species - nearly all of which have no agricultural value ? Making one entire plant species out of ~200 poisonous to EuroCornBorer is VASTLY DIFFERENT from your alarmist case that would imply the eventually every higher plant would carry Bt genes.
Not the "same end result" at all. We are not eradicating any pest species that predates on Bt crops, unless it predates only on those few crop species (no cases in evidence). Instead we are reducing the pest population just a bit farther than expected. Your claim is entirely different.
Yes pollinating Bt crops into wild co-species has an foreseen impact and is dangeous. But to be fair - Euro CornBorers never hit maize till the late 1700s. Pushing these species off of the human crop species (even species-wide including wild members) doesn't mean they won't survive and may cause an increase in some competing species that was previously more dominant.
To clarify,
/ I am not, and never have, suggested that field use of GMO is without grave concerns and potentially disastrous outcomes.
/ I am not suggesting the cross pollination of GMO crops to a wild member of a species is not dangerous. It is.
/ I have never suggested the HGT doesn't occur; just that current evidence is that it has only occurred rarely over geological time periods and primarily in single celled life. Not a topic for this thread but lager brewing yeast seems to be an example.
/ I am stating that the danger involved in GMO cross-pollination is categorically different from your claims that plasmids are being transferred willy-nilly from higher plants to every other thing in the ecosphere without regard to species.
I seriously suggest you find a source book on critical thinking and try to understand what a "strawman fallacy" is. I asked for evidence and so far YOUR ONLY SOURCE is solely about HGT in the gut. Your source concluded there was no evidence for HGT in the gut. If you want to make a different case, that HGT happens elsewhere, your more expansive claim that plasmids transfer every time a bell rings, then YOU must provide evidence for those other points. It's not my job in a debate to prove your evidenced claims are wrong. Burden of proof is on you.
If plasmids don't transfer from higher plants to bacteria - then why are you bringing it up in a discussion of Monsanto/GMO in higher plants ? Either you do blivet that point OR you are making an incoherent red-herring argument about a problem that you now seem to admit doesn't happen.
Wrong. Your source ONLY studied HGT in the gut (no evidence found). I was responding your source citation. If you provide evidence of other HGT I can respond to that --- -HOWEVER, I insist you make some claim relevant to the current thread.
I see no way that your points about pressure to select resistant weeds and plasmid transfer NOT occurring from higher plants to bacteria has any relevance unless your understanding of these things is very flawed. That's my working assumption based on the egregious errors your early posts, some of which you have later retracted.
Stop the feces flinging and ad hominem and state what you actually believe. This is my last response to your your points until you can provide your position with backing evidence.
Again a silly use of language - THERE IS NO MUTATION INVOLVED IN RESISTANT WEEDS ! It's selection pressure of a natural phenotype. Still there is a good question here.
On crops Glyphosate(GP=RoundUp) is absorbed through a foliar spray, and acts as a competitive enzyme inhibitor on the the shikimic pathway; stunts growth and causes rapid kill with lower dose in rapidly growing plants. GP is not effective on pre-emergent plants. GP is most effective on young growing annuals, far less effective on mature plants in reproductive phase. The GMO crop GP resistance is conferred by a single gene controlling the enzyme secondary conformation. I don't know if the weed natural phenotype is also controlled by a single gene - but it's reasonably likely. If so (**ASSUMPTION NOTED**) then each plant is either fully resistant or not - no partial cases as in multifactorial bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Before the GMO/GP-resistant seed, GP was used as a kill-all - often in two heavy doses - one 4+ weeks before planting and one, often after planting but pre-emergent stage. After the non-GMO crop emerged then GP was no longer useful, and other selective herbicides like 2,4-D for corn were used (kills dicots, doesn't touch monocots) for imperfect weed control.
Since GMO GP-resistant seed, then ag ppl still use a kill-all (often GP) before planting, but they can use lower-dose GP after the crop emerges and throughout the growing season AS-NEEDED (to certain limits) for (nearly) complete weed control.
(+)Less RoundUp per hectare is required b/c we can spray after crops emerge and "hit" the weeds in growth phase when it requires a low dose. (-)More Roundup is actually used b/c everyone (practically) recognizes the advantage so more hectares are planted with such GMO seed. (-?)In practice more RoundUp ?may? be used since it is off/patent and a relatively cheap and effective "kill-all" for field prep.
Any use of GP creates selection pressure, but if the assumption is correct (single gene), then an effective light dose may provide less pressure in the marginal areas around the field with lighter dosing and more mature weeds, and greater selection pressure w/in the field where presumably the ag-person sprays before the weeds mature leaving (almost) only the GP-resistant plants. The net result is difficult to assess without field data.
Rotating to a non-GP kill-all(burndown) and then using lighter dose GpP after emergence would obviously allow less GP- selection pressure. In practice this isn't how GP-resistant crop fields have been managed.
So the main problem seems the ubiquity of GP/Roundup as the main herbicide for vast regions of the planet. If we rotated between several herbicides with GMO/GP-resistant crop then the selection pressure would be greatly alleviated.
Even simpler - You can make a coherent statement of your position using common accurate language. So far you have failed repeatedly then you chide me for not understanding your confused thoughts, red-herring argumens and grossly inaccurate language. Quit flinging feces to cover your errors.
I'm perfectly willing to address a coherent statement of your position, but so far I have nothing to reply to except your incompetent arguments. Why was the Purdue paper relevant ? Why was the non-transfer of plasmids from higher plants to bacteria important to the topic ? Can you cite any evidence for your GMO-soy=>bacteria claim ? (Your paper does not support that point).
Why not scale back the ad hominem fallacies too ? You've made this unnecessarily personal and argumentative.
You seem to support Monsanto-hatred proposition but the reasons are extremely confused and confusing in no small part to your poor use of language and off-topic/tangential propositions.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
kissinger is as much an enemy of mankind as monsanto is.
Pipe',
What method are you using to distinguish whether Monsanto or their customers are lying ? You claim the sources are dubious and I agree. So what we have is a "He_said/She_said" type argument. That doesn't constitute evidence either way.
If the case in "The Atlantic' had been reported to police or better yet, taken to court then we would have some fact-finding and a courts view of the situation. For example if the Atlantic writer said he had seen the police report and that it supported the outline of the facts, (a Monsanto goon threatened an Ag person) I'd have to accept that barring a reply from Monsanto, and despite the Atlantic's clear bias. OTOH we have a second hand uncorroborated report - that's not evidence, tho' it's a reasonable basis for suspicion.
Either side can make unsupported claims and it's very difficult to disprove a lie without a serious examination.
I am not trying to argue for either side. Merely stating that critical thinking is evidence based, and here there is nearly no evidence.
===
FWIW - I just took a cursory look through the Federal court docket for Monsanto and RoundUp. I saw only 6 or 8 related cases and most were small farmers making fairly egregious advantage of Monsanto. Trivette (200 acre soy farmer) wanted the court to dismiss since he started replanting GMO soy in 2001, and the 5yr statute of limitations had run (the court disareed on good grounds of repeat offense. Some North Carolina group of small farmers were claiming their replanted seed was not the original hybridized GMO seed, so therefore it wasn't covered by the patent of the original genetics ... more similar.
The Trivette case - even tho' the guy admitted breaking the contract in 2001 in the court filing, had websites up trying to get support/donations for the poor little downtrodden farmer being unfairly attacked by the big-ol-mean Monsanto. In this case at least the farmer was clearly a scumbag.
My hunch is that larger growers don't often violate the agreement as they understand the liability. A small-time farmer may think he can get away with it and try. Whether Monsanto's attempt to enforce is excessive or not has very little real evidence.
Note that the patent violations will appear in federal court but any suites based on Monsanto using unfair practices of enforcement might appear in state or local courts - harder to find.
