New free chat issue - Opinions?

BWhite · 2005-02-04 13:13:13

http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=6]Patent rights for seeds:

For generations, small farmers in Iraq operated in an essentially unregulated, informal seed supply system. Farm-saved seed and the free innovation with and exchange of planting materials among farming communities has long been the basis of agricultural practice. This has been made illegal under the new law. The seeds farmers are now allowed to plant - "protected" crop varieties brought into Iraq by transnational corporations in the name of agricultural reconstruction - will be the property of the corporations.

To oppose GM (genetic modified) crops for safety concerns - - Frankenfood! - - is NOT a major concern of mine.

To oppose GM crops for legal reasons - - to oppose having a small handful of corporations hold patent rights to a large percentage of the human food supply (corner the market on food!) - - seems far more reasonable.

= = =

It appears the intention is to compel Iraqi farmers to only use patented seeds so as to facilitate higher yields and entry into the WTO. Opponents see a more ulterior motive.

I wonder what Sistani will think of these Western patent laws?

:;):

= = =

A comment from elsewhere on this subject:

The sad thing is that the corporations that produce the seed, fertilizer and pesticides that are required to grow crops succesfully from these seeds claim that they yield more food than traditional seeds. While this is true under laboratory conditions, in the real world, poor farmers aren't able to afford all the required, chem-based fertilizers to make it work, and wind up borrowing money to pay for what they can afford, which in turn produces lower crop yields = less profit in the market = increased borrowing to pay for next years crop = increased debt burden on the lower classes of society.
I've seen this happen in Peru, where rural farmers were pulling thier hair out because half of thier crop yielded beatiful looking potatos (or is it potatoes?) and the other half of the crop was completely ruined-infested and unable to sell in local markets. However, they were unable to revert to their old ways of growing crops since local seedbanks were stripped of traditional, locally conditioned seeds, and had been replaced by the hybrid. Rural farmers had no choice but to continue on their vicious cycle of debt and impoverishment.
All so our corps could earn more money. Another case of markets not benefiting the whole.

Edited By BWhite on 1107544804

John Creighton · 2005-02-04 13:34:55

To oppose GM crops for legal reasons - - to oppose having a small handful of corporations hold patent rights to a large percentage of the human food supply (corner the market on food!) - - seems far more reasonable.

I agree.

Ian Flint · 2005-02-05 00:38:14

You have my support too, Bill.

Earthfirst · 2005-02-07 08:17:14

Any one that lives in the USA has ate large amounts of GM food stuffs with no ill effect. Their is no such thing as Frankenfood, it only exist in simple minded folk that ride the short bus.
I due agree that it is wrong to paten seeds, because those seeds grow up and spreed pollen with those genes to plants of the same kind. Their may owen the genes but sue the bees or wind for spreeding the genes to people who dint pay you, you cant sue nature so let the poor farmers be. Besides if the Argo companys sends lawyers to iragic to sue people. The lawyers might be just shoot, which would be a good thing. Because one thing the world needs less of is lawyers.

Ian Flint · 2005-02-07 13:26:59

Any one that lives in the USA has ate large amounts of GM food stuffs with no ill effect. Their is no such thing as Frankenfood, it only exist in simple minded folk that ride the short bus.

First of all, if your going to talk about the "short bus" maybe you should learn how to type. I can hardly understand your posts. If English is not your first language, I'd say you're doing great. Otherwise, it looks like you're just too lazy to type coherently.

Now, about the essence of your post:

My daughter just got diabetes. They don't know what causes it, so you can't rule out "Frankenfoods". They also don't know what causes autism and many other deseases.

Both autism and diabetes are thought to be caused by genetic defects and/or chemicals in the environment among other things. Just because GMOs and their associated chemical fertilizers don't kill you right away doesn't mean that they won't affect you or later generations down the road.

I'm not really anti-GMO, but these things may have serious long term effects. You can't just blow off objections to their use and call those objectors retarded.

As for short term effects of GMOs, Bill clearly stated the unethical marketing of them to poor farmers that can't use them correctly. That is a much more pressing concern than the "Frankenfood" issue, as I'm sure you can agree.

http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocacy/a … .html]More unethical marketing to poor countries.

BWhite · 2005-02-07 13:35:50

Ian is correct about the explosive growth of autism, asthma and childhood diabetes. No one knows why. And just as Vioxx was supposedly verified as safe, we should not jump to conclusions.

But that Monsanto "terminator gene" has potentially horrific consequences, for example and suggestions that its expression in the wild is self limiting offers only partial comfort.

Mono-culture (all grains being the exact same gen-mod species) is pretty damn risky, IMHO.

Ian Flint · 2005-02-07 13:54:57

Mono-culture (all grains being the exact same gen-mod species) is pretty damn risky, IMHO.

Here's how the ancient Incas did it - http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/j/m … .html]Peru.

These people are also the more likely to employ traditional methods of crop organization, such as growing many different species together in the same field. There are a few reasons for this “heterogeneity of species,” as Daniel Gade puts it. One reason for this practice is for insurance, so that if a disease or blight comes along and wipes out a species, the farmers will still have crops to harvest.

Imagine a future world with 100% GMO wheat -- all the same species. A blight comes along and wipes out the entire world production of wheat. Sounds like a good idea for a Sci-fi novel.

Euler · 2005-02-07 14:11:52

I have read a hypothesis that autoimmune diseases like asthma and some types of diabetes might be caused by excessive hygiene. There seems to be some pretty good evidence supporting this idea, such as how the probability of these diseases occurring appears to be proportional to the people's standard of living.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-07 14:14:05

But that Monsanto "terminator gene" has potentially horrific consequences, for example and suggestions that its expression in the wild is self limiting offers only partial comfort.

This is one of my biggest concerns regarding GM crops. On some level I find the idea of a society "sabotaging" its own food supply strangely amusing, but then I live here and therefore have cause for direct and immediate concern. Silly short-sighted humans...

First we limit our crops to a tiny selection of species thereby maximizing our risk to disease-induced famine. Then we engineer them to require specific nutrients and conditions to grow, then "program" them so you can't replant the next season. Asinine.

Ian is correct about the explosive growth of autism, asthma and childhood diabetes.

While I can't offer a theory on autism, diabetes is likely the result of overly rich diet coupled with medical treatments that mitigate the effects of the disease but don't eliminate it in those genetically predisposed to it, thereby greatly increasing the chance of it being passed on.

Asthma is likely the result (in part) of the current state of our dwellings. On the one hand we tend to try and keep our surroundings unnaturally clean, which tends to weaken the immune system and perhaps contribute to an auto-immune response which could be the cause of some asthma cases. On the other hand, have you ever seen that big cloud of dust and filth in a ray of sunlight after vacuuming? All that bacteria and dust kicked up into the air, inhaled by people used to much lower amounts of filth in the air.

That, and like diabetes we currently treat the disease without actually correcting hereditary predispositions toward it, passing it on to the next generation at a far higher frequency than would otherwise be the case.

Our medical prowess cuts both ways.

EDIT:
Euler beat me to it. D'oh!

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1107807302

Rxke · 2005-02-07 15:07:59

Another quite disturbing tidbit: increased asthma and allergies being caused by much too much pollen in cities...
Sounds counter intuitive, no? cities = less trees, what's up with that?

Well... 99% of the trees planted in urban environments are male, because the females tend to have the irritating tendency to grow fruits, which eventually fall onto precious cars, causing errrr... irritation with the carowners.

I kid you not, this is true! Urbanists plant trees that do not grow fruits, but the downside i they release massive amounts of pollen... So much, in fact, that a lot of people get sick.

Weird weird world we live in...

Grypd · 2005-02-07 18:23:58

Imagine a future world with 100% GMO wheat -- all the same species. A blight comes along and wipes out the entire world production of wheat. Sounds like a good idea for a Sci-fi novel.

In this we already have such a book by John Christopher. I believe it was called no blade of grass and since a lot of our food crops are from the grass genie ie wheat, oats, rice it was about a blight that attacked these. Needless to say a lot of the worlds food production fails and with the famine and collapse of society is a very bleak book. John Christopher is famous for his children science fiction The tripods.

Earthfirst · 2005-02-08 13:49:16

To Ian Flint English is a second language to me, I speak American first. As for the short bus that is a bus that is short silly. That is used for retarts, MRs, and other not so bright people. If you did not know you that you must be a home school kid, or you were on that short bus with all the other MRs. Another thing is that you are so out in your own world to get that "short bus" means that you are less than smart your just dumb and dumber and great movie.
You are in the GM revolution or just so much livestock for the GM company to experiment on with their gene experiments in your rice crispy treats. Soon a new line of su-wheat shall inslave man and force us to eat meat to save plants lives.

Ian Flint · 2005-02-08 14:56:35

I speak American first

I am so sorry for you.

If you did not know you that you must be a home school kid,

And you must you be a publik scool kid. I'm trying to speak "American" here. Did I get it right?

clark · 2005-02-08 15:13:19

Bill, correct me if I am wrong, you being the resident lawyer (albeit in a different field), but isn't there an old saying, "ownership is nine-tenths of the law"?

While I'm with you on the whole legal mumbo jumbo scare of big conglomerates controlling our food supply (is it that much different from big Agro-Corps that grow the food now?) at a basic level, I'm inclined to believe that it would sort itself out if push came to shove.

Right now, the whole seedless thing is the result of GM worries- econuts rightly demand that the GM crops not run away. The corporations agree because if the GM crops run away, they are liable (oh yeah, and then they can really control things! [put tin foil hat on as conspiracy kicks in!]). So in a nut shell, legitimate steps are taken to be responsible with this new technology, yet it can be portrayed as sinster. Whatever.

But this is all beside the point, because the cases where the seeds do get out, do propagate, it takes a court order to enforce compliance (as in paying the GM company) for use of the seeds. Well, the court dosen't always work. People flout the law. Life goes on.

If you want a real world example though, look at the third world nations that are giving the middle finger to patent laws and developing generic versions of AIDS drugs that are cheaper than the patented versions sold by the pharmaceuticual industry. It is effectively the same situation (almost apples to apples).

These nations are breaking the law, and the result? Pharm industry screams and hollers, sues and litigates. Third world nations ignore, and the pharm industry suddenly starts giving away their drugs.

And if that dosen't convince you, then remember that cold war nuclear armageddon thing? Well, part of the strategic planning for the day after (you know -BOOM-) was to stockpile a huge seed bank. I'm pretty sure we still have those.

Ian Flint · 2005-02-08 15:33:21

Bill, correct me if I am wrong, you being the resident lawyer (albeit in a different field), but isn't there an old saying, "ownership is nine-tenths of the law"?

Um...ownership is the law. I think you mean "possesion is nine-tenths of the law".

This also makes the Moon treaty so stupid. Whoever goes out and claims extraterrestrial territory will own it, and people will get used to it. Logic dictates that since they made the effort to get there they should own and control a reasonable expanse of land.

clark · 2005-02-08 15:40:29

I said, Bill, correct me if I am wrong! :laugh:

Thanks Ian. I'll leave it for posterity.

BWhite · 2005-02-08 16:06:42

Under older English common law, patents did not exist. US intellectual property - - patents, trademarks and copyright - - exist solely at the pleasure of the United States Congress on on such terms as they establish.

This is a huge issue for our foreign policy. China making gadzillions of bootleg Brittney Spears CDs may be rather funny (and a waste of good CD plastic) but ti does extend to Microsoft, Mickey Mouse and GM foods.

On one level you are correct, local farmers can just ignore the laws, except when Washington tells local governments to crack down or their military aid gets cut. And in Peru, some say the local seed banks only sell US seeds.

Poor farmers become trapped by debt and the threat that their crops can be seized by their government under the color of law - - after all the seeds are patented and "by the book" they are stealing.

This allows an underclass to remain permanently oppressed. When a group of people find themselves in situations where they cannot obey the law (obey means starve) then teh law enforcement agencies haev unfettered discretion to do whatever they want.

A similar mechanism occurs when western food companies dump tons of "free food" on famine stricken nations. Then, whatever local farm economy might otherwise exist is obliterated - - why buy food from yor neighbor when Uncle Sam has sent tons of it free - - and then in future years there are no more local farmers and that nation becomes dependent on foreign aid.

= = =

Heirloom seed banks are now few and far between.

Edited By BWhite on 1107900458

clark · 2005-02-09 09:56:44

And theoreticaly the United States Congress serves at the pleasure of the US population...

I think there is a fine line because if enough "little farmer" gets the shaft from big GM companies, then the news media will have a field day, and then the Congressman must respond. I was also under the impression that those rural areas, where most of the farming takes place, have pretty good representation of their particular interests as well terms of accountability from their congress person. Just look at agri-subsidies.

While none of this helps the third world farmer, there might be other constraints that help find a middle ground- the war on terror. What's an ignorant dirt poor farmer to do with few opportunites? That in essesence is what we are fighting now, no?

SpaceNut · 2015-11-26 13:47:11

Fixed shifting issues and artifacts...

The jury is out on genetic modified crops still insufficient data to say one way or the other....

Dexter2999 · 2016-03-18 17:26:49

I dislike the legal maneuvering behind modified seeds/crops. Pushing these on the farmers of Iraq is as ugly as predatory lending practices of the World Bank who seize water rights in underdeveloped countries.

And the logic eludes me in the proposition that if modified crops pollinate a neighboring crop of non-modified crops, the owner of said non-modified crops is subject to legal action. WTF? If you do something on your property that goes airborne and contaminates my crops/property YOU should be the one libel for damages. (By my way of thinking anyway.)

Terraformer · 2016-03-19 17:05:48

Critical thinking has never been the strong point of those who believe in Intellectual Property.

SpaceNut · 2016-03-20 08:33:49

The trouble with the GMO is that the natural process for these are not happening in the areas that need the new characteristics that sudden alterations which is brought to the crop as the crop does not grow there to begin with or it takes alot more resource to make it grow naturally.
GMO is just nature sped up to create from what farmers were already doing that took decades and centuries to do for a specific gene, color or hardiness.....There is nothing intellectural in it to make claim to....If we copy a Terraformer and make a new one does that mean that the creator owns the new Terraformer, no they do not as its life nor do they own the rights to make more as we would call that from natural methods twins, tripplets ect......all we have done is sped up the process to make more Terraformers from not natural processes....

IanM · 2016-03-20 19:20:00

I agree with BWhite about how the main dubiousness of GM food is with the ethical implications of its production and distribution rather than any ill effects thereof. Similarly, while I can see the value of Intellectual Property in stuff like books and images, it becomes pointless when someone tries to trademark something that is at most only partially in Man's control and which, as Dexter pointed out, is very subject to outside, non-human forces.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-04 13:13:13

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#2 2005-02-04 13:34:55

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#3 2005-02-05 00:38:14

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#4 2005-02-07 08:17:14

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#5 2005-02-07 13:26:59

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#6 2005-02-07 13:35:50

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#7 2005-02-07 13:54:57

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#8 2005-02-07 14:11:52

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#9 2005-02-07 14:14:05

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#10 2005-02-07 15:07:59

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#11 2005-02-07 18:23:58

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#12 2005-02-08 13:49:16

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#13 2005-02-08 14:56:35

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#14 2005-02-08 15:13:19

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#15 2005-02-08 15:33:21

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#16 2005-02-08 15:40:29

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#17 2005-02-08 16:06:42

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#18 2005-02-09 09:56:44

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#19 2015-11-26 13:47:11

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#20 2016-03-18 17:26:49

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#21 2016-03-19 17:05:48

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#22 2016-03-20 08:33:49

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

#23 2016-03-20 19:20:00

Re: New free chat issue - Opinions?

Board footer