I got this from my BioCurious mailing list: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/kickstarter-anti-science?
Some back-to-nature idiots scared Kickstarter into stopping a promising project. "The new rule takes power away from the public and leaves it in the hands of giant corporations like Monsanto to develop, test, and own GMOs." Thankfully, there's a counter-petition.
Please sign this so that science can be practiced by, and benefit, the people. As with video games, it's the independents who innovate.
Oh, and don't forget to tell your friends! --AlgaeNymph
Actually, regardless of your opinion on GMO's there is a very strong case for not allowing any plants and organisms with unproven characteristics to be disseminated to lay folk via an international crowdsourcing system. I would argue that a kickstarter that uses traditional crossbreeding methods ought not to be allowed either.
There is a reason that you arent allowed to transport perfectly natural plants and animals without permits and oversight. GMOs represent significantly more risk in that regards due to first and foremost a lack of oversight, and very limited research into their broader effects. Its totally cool if a bunch of guys make a weed that glows in the dark, but what guarantee do we have that they didnt accidentally change something else?
Kickstarter is really not the place to get this kind of research done, its dangerous, and its irresponsible science to send a bunch of seeds to a thousands of people around the world without serious long term research (like decades long) on their potential effects and characteristics.
Heck its dangerous to let this sort of thing be crowdsourced at all (setting aside what restrictions there are on rewards). Its one thing if some guy makes a new board game in his garage and screws it up, people lose out on the money the put in it or they get a crappy game. If someone screws up a GMO you could literally devastate crops, or even cause serious illness.
I am all for research outside the realm of big corporations, but that is pretty much why grants from governments and educational institutions exist. You have to show your chops to convince those folks you can do your research safely and effectively. Getting a bunch of people on the internet to buy glowing plants isnt going to be all that hard, and the chances of those people really vetting the researchers proposing the project is more or less nil.
Like I said, its dangerous even with the best intentions. I agree with the policy change. I dont see it as anti science, I see it as basic responsibility to prevent a potentially hazardous situation. A weed that accidentally agressively kills grain is a heck of alot more dangerous then hate speech, or even a gun or other weapon.
Hm. Interesting situation. Not sure how I feel about it. Kolo has a point, but it could easily be (mis?)construed as ivory tower elitism. Also the grant game is far from flawless. Still loss of crops hurt us all...
|
It's really not too different from introducing a foreign species into the wild with no controls. The American Chestnut was decimated by the importation of Asiatic Chestnuts infected with blight, for which the American Chestnut had no immunity.
Additionally, while the gains in genetic engineering, genome mapping and the related disciplines has been impressive over the last decade, it is foolish to think these disciplines have been in any way mastered. While we may be able to identify what particular sequences do within a specific organism, the use of those sequences within a different organism's DNA may have unforeseen effects due to the interaction of all the parts of the new sequence. A good analogy would be to have a solid knowledge of cleaning supplies without a solid understanding of underlying chemistry. Bleach is an effect cleaner. So is ammonia. But mix the two and you can accidentally poison yourself from the fumes.
As long as Monsanto is held to the exact same standards. No spreading of GMOs without decades of data on how every part of the natural environment reacts to and interacts with the modified organisms, as you stated, Kolo. In effect, then, they are going to have to restrict their growing of plants to hothouses completely.
As long as Monsanto is held to the exact same standards. No spreading of GMOs without decades of data on how every part of the natural environment reacts to and interacts with the modified organisms, as you stated, Kolo. In effect, then, they are going to have to restrict their growing of plants to hothouses completely.
I completely agree, I dont think just lay people should be subject to significant oversight, I also thing corporations and universities too should be held to a high standard of research and saftey. Both need to be done, all I am saying is that it isnt wrong for kickstarter to disallow the sending thousands of seeds all over the world as part of a reward. That makes a huge amount of sense and shows responsibility on their part. I certainly thing GMO's can and will be an important part of our future, I just dont want them to be passed out to thousands of normal people all over the world as soon as they are developed.
The people running the initial kickstarter should have known better then that.
As long as Monsanto is held to the exact same standards. No spreading of GMOs without decades of data on how every part of the natural environment reacts to and interacts with the modified organisms, as you stated, Kolo. In effect, then, they are going to have to restrict their growing of plants to hothouses completely.I completely agree, I dont think just lay people should be subject to significant oversight, I also thing corporations and universities too should be held to a high standard of research and saftey. Both need to be done, all I am saying is that it isnt wrong for kickstarter to disallow the sending thousands of seeds all over the world as part of a reward. That makes a huge amount of sense and shows responsibility on their part. I certainly thing GMO's can and will be an important part of our future, I just dont want them to be passed out to thousands of normal people all over the world as soon as they are developed.
The people running the initial kickstarter should have known better then that.
Why should an online petition filled with clueless people and unknowledgable kickstarter executives be able to decide what the "responsible" thing is? If no laws were being violated, why is this rule necessary? And why not talk to the people running the campaign about concerns before changing your policy?
Nothing about this shows responsibility to me. I see a group of scared people who don't know science trying to avoid creating a scene with even more ignorant people.
Why should an online petition filled with clueless people and unknowledgable kickstarter executives be able to decide what the "responsible" thing is? If no laws were being violated, why is this rule necessary? And why not talk to the people running the campaign about concerns before changing your policy?
Nothing about this shows responsibility to me. I see a group of scared people who don't know science trying to avoid creating a scene with even more ignorant people.
Law and ethics rarely intersect now adays. There are no where close to enough laws on the subject, and the law should not be the only presiding guidelines in our lives. Common sense should be. The law is lagging behind technology as it always does, and as usual it will require a disaster for anything to actually get done in legislature.
In the mean time, its up to individuals to make good descisions. And sending seeds around the world is OBJECTIVELY DANGEROUS. If this was a new breed of daisy made in someones greenhouse, it would still be dangerous and scientifically unethical.
Its not about creating a scene, its about something that is potentially destructive. Sure the risk is small, but the consequences of those risks are very very dire. As zylphryx stated, there are tons of cases where the introduction of foreign plants and animals have had devastating effects on the local environment. A GMO, should be treated as a foreign organism literally everywhere. Because by design it has at least some characteristics different from every single other organism on the planet. The same reason someone should not have brought asian chesnuts to north america is the reason one should not be mailing modified plant seeds around the world.
I doesnt matter what the motives behind the petition are, or what kickstarter execs know or dont know about the science of gmos, the dangers of introducing foreign organisms into new ecosystems should be evident to ANYONE, especially scientists. And as far as I can tell, that is what the rule is banning. Not GMO research being kickstarted but the actual distribution of these organisms to backers. The rational preventing that should be as obvious as why you have to declare plants and animals at customs.
And yet Monsanto grows huge crops of plants that are so resistant to insecticides that the bees are dying off worldwide, AND spread their genome to plants growing nearby. Then thry sue the people owning those plants for stealing... and win. Oddly, nobody seems to consider banning their GMOs. Seriously, look at the big problems before you discuss glow in the dark plants. A glow protein added to a well known plant merely takes energy from the plant, making it less robust than its baseline. And yes... you CAN know whether you changed anything else. It is no longer fiddling in the dark-that is what is new about it. Making a plant so resistant to pesticides that it's able to withstand dangerous levels of it and having it wind pollinate, however, THAT is dangerous.
And yet Monsanto grows huge crops of plants that are so resistant to insecticides that the bees are dying off worldwide, AND spread their genome to plants growing nearby. Then thry sue the people owning those plants for stealing... and win. Oddly, nobody seems to consider banning their GMOs. Seriously, look at the big problems before you discuss glow in the dark plants.
I completely agree with you. There needs to be action taken against these practices. But it has nothing to do with kickstarter's ban. The ban disallows the distribution of GMO's as kickstarter rewards. Thats it. It doesnt support Monsanto, it doesnt even prevent GMO projects. One wrong does not preclude another. The fact that North Korea grossly violates basic human rights of it's citizens, doesnt mean that its ok for me to put a camaera in my neighbor's bathroom. In the same way, Monsanto's gross violations of basic scientific ethics do not aleviate other scientists from doing their research responsibly.
Even the article the OP quoted from popsci admits that GMO's are like introducing any foreign species into an ecosystem. There are very real risks when doing this.
Kickstarter has no ability to ban Monsanto, thats the Government's job (and its doing a crummy one I agree). It does have control over, and a responsibility towards the projects funded through it. The rule prevents the mass introduction of foreign species by distributing them as rewards to backers. This is a reasonable precaution against what is a fundamentally irresponsible behavior on the part of researchers.
|
|
Sissyl, I agree with you on this one. Monsanto should be held accountable for the spread of their product via cross pollination to the crops of those who do not want any part of them. They are, in essence, destroying another person's crop by having their GMO out in the environment and pollinating the baseline species.
I'm not a big fan of the rush of GMOs to widespread use ... and based off the stances of numerous countries around the globe, it is not an isolated concern.
I also think that genetic sequences of any type should not be subject to patent. That just leads down a slippery slope to some potentially very dark places.
And who initiated the complaints that lead to the policy change, do you think? Yeah.
I day a reasonable decision would be to consider Monsanto responsible for their GMOs and the consequences of them. Start up a research team of international scale to studyand correct the bee situation. Let Monsanto pay every cent for as long as it takes. If not, liquidate the company and try the decision makers for crimes against humanity
Perhaps owning genomes doesn't have quite the same allure after that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should an online petition filled with clueless people and unknowledgable kickstarter executives be able to decide what the "responsible" thing is? If no laws were being violated, why is this rule necessary? And why not talk to the people running the campaign about concerns before changing your policy?
Nothing about this shows responsibility to me. I see a group of scared people who don't know science trying to avoid creating a scene with even more ignorant people.
Law and ethics rarely intersect now adays. There are no where close to enough laws on the subject, and the law should not be the only presiding guidelines in our lives. Common sense should be. The law is lagging behind technology as it always does, and as usual it will require a disaster for anything to actually get done in legislature.
In the mean time, its up to individuals to make good descisions. And sending seeds around the world is OBJECTIVELY DANGEROUS. If this was a new breed of daisy made in someones greenhouse, it would still be dangerous and scientifically unethical.
Its not about creating a scene, its about something that is potentially destructive. Sure the risk is small, but the consequences of those risks are very very dire. As zylphryx stated, there are tons of cases where the introduction of foreign plants and animals have had devastating effects on the local environment. A GMO, should be treated as a foreign organism literally everywhere. Because by design it has at least some characteristics different from every single other organism on the planet. The same reason someone should not have brought asian chesnuts to north america is the reason one should not be mailing modified plant seeds around the world.
I doesnt matter what the motives behind the petition are, or what kickstarter execs know or dont know about the science of gmos, the dangers of introducing foreign organisms into new ecosystems should be evident to ANYONE, especially scientists. And as far as I can tell,...
People breed new varieties of plants and sell them online all the time. There are new breeds of daisies, custom lilies, and all sorts of things done with traditional splicing. We ship custom plants for home gardens accross the globe routinely, and have dones so for decades. In elementary school I sold some through mail order catalogs for a school fundraiser. No one complains when those are shipped. There are existing laws governing it. Just because someone wants to add actual science based off modern research does not mean this is a new field. Treating it differently is ignorant.
And who initiated the complaints that lead to the policy change, do you think? Yeah.
It doesnt matter who initiated them or why. The fact is the policy change is justified. If Nazi Germany had secretly started the civil rights movement in the united states to try to destabalize a potential ally of britain, does that mean that civil rights itself is something not worth persuing?
People breed new varieties of plants and sell them online all the time. There are new breeds of daisies, custom lilies, and all sorts of things done with traditional splicing. We ship custom plants for home gardens accross the globe routinely, and have dones so for decades. In elementary school I sold some through mail order catalogs for a school fundraiser. No one complains when those are shipped. There are existing laws governing it. Just because someone wants to add actual science based off modern research does not mean this is a new field. Treating it differently is ignorant.
Except that all those laws are based on existing and known species of plants. There are explicate lists of plants you are permitted to transport. If you crossbreed 2 plants that area already known qunaities, your risk of unexpected consequences are near nill.
Every genetically modified plant is essentially a new species. It is not a combination of traits from known plants or other organisms. The laws regarding the sale and transport that exist fundamentally dont work on GMOs. Because all of those laws are essentially 'well this thing is already here, so go for it'. Or 'this thing isnt already here so you require special permits to be able to send it'. GMO's are all new organisms. And while the law currently isnt specific enough to prevent their transport, it still does not adequately cover them.
People breed new varieties of plants and sell them online all the time. There are new breeds of daisies, custom lilies, and all sorts of things done with traditional splicing. We ship custom plants for home gardens accross the globe routinely, and have dones so for decades. In elementary school I sold some through mail order catalogs for a school fundraiser. No one complains when those are shipped. There are existing laws governing it. Just because someone wants to add actual science based off modern research does not mean this is a new field. Treating it differently is ignorant.Except that all those laws are based on existing and known species of plants. There are explicate lists of plants you are permitted to transport. If you crossbreed 2 plants that area already known qunaities, your risk of unexpected consequences are near nill.
Every genetically modified plant is essentially a new species. It is not a combination of traits from known plants or other organisms. The laws regarding the sale and transport that exist fundamentally dont work on GMOs. Because all of those laws are essentially 'well this thing is already here, so go for it'. Or 'this thing isnt already here so you require special permits to be able to send it'. GMO's are all new organisms. And while the law currently isnt specific enough to prevent their transport, it still does not adequately cover them.
Well good luck trying to create any controls. Everything this project is doing is within the reaches of any compotent undergraduate bio major with a few thousand dollars or access to a decent bio lab. Mass production is the only inovation here.
Not to mention we probably know more about this new plant than we do about any of those hybrids.
We know more about the base species that is being modified, not the synthetic hybrid. This holds true for any GMO which has genetic sequences added to it from outside the base species or genus.
Yeah, except then they are doing massive testing on the GMOs, which isn't done on the hybrids, to determine how it is chemically different, make sure the gene splicing worked right, and make sure that there were not other issues..
|
|
Yeah, except then they are doing massive testing on the GMOs, which isn't done on the hybrids, to determine how it is chemically different, make sure the gene splicing worked right, and make sure that there were not other issues..
Except that's not the feeling one got when reading through the kickstarter proposal for the glow in the dark plants.
And the testing that is being done on the GMOs is not as extensive as you think. There are no lifetime animal studies of the effects of GMO feeding. There are NO human studies for GMO long term effects of GMO feeding.
Additionally, this one paragraph from the kickstarter (along with a distribution of the seeds to US backers ... no seeds can be distributed to foreign backers) has alarm bells going off for me (emphasis mine):
Once we have proven the designs work we will then insert the same gene sequence into the plant using a gene gun. This is more complicated, as there's a risk the gene sequence gets scrambled, but the result will be unregulated by the USDA and thus suitable for release.
While the plant is stated as being inedible, the fact it is a new and artifical species should, and I would clearly hope would, require an EPA study and regulation at the very least.
As far as traditional hybrids (resulting from crossbreeding different varietals within a species or within two similar species within the same genus) goes, you are not introducing elements from a completely divergent DNA sequence. The chance of having a viable result that has dramatic negative repercussions to the ecosystem or to other organisms who may ingest it (assuming they had no negative effects from consumption of either originating organism) are very low. With GMO (that is where actual gene splicing occurs with DNA sequences from a divergent source), the long term effects of the new sequence, be it from differing protein production or any other change in the biologic processes, are a great unknown.
Yeah, except then they are doing massive testing on the GMOs, which isn't done on the hybrids, to determine how it is chemically different, make sure the gene splicing worked right, and make sure that there were not other issues..Except that's not the feeling one got when reading through the kickstarter proposal for the glow in the dark plants.
Except for the massive ammounts of text they put into talking about the science behind the project, the R&D, how they talk about developing standards for assessing potential environmental impact, and working with regulators...
Funds raised will also be used to support our work to develop an open policy framework for DIY Bio work involving recombinant DNA. This framework will provide guidelines to help others who are inspired by this project navigate the regulatory and social challenges inherent in community based synthetic biology. The framework will include recommendations for what kinds of projects are safe for DIY Bio enthusiasts and recommendations for the processes which should be put in place (such as getting experts to review the plans).
The exact details of this framework they don't get into until they are responding to Kickstarter's ban in update 27, which happened after they close. That was because they were responding to criticisms that hadn't appeared until then.
And the testing that is being done on the GMOs is not as extensive as you think. There are no lifetime animal studies of the effects of GMO feeding. There are NO human studies for GMO long term effects of GMO feeding.
Not sure why you think I assume these studies exist. I know they don't. Most of those types of studies don't apply here though.
[quoteAdditionally, this one paragraph from the kickstarter (along with a distribution of the seeds to US backers ... no seeds can be distributed to foreign backers) has alarm bells going off for me (emphasis mine):
Once we have proven the designs work we will then insert the same gene sequence into the plant using a gene gun. This is more complicated, as there's a risk the gene sequence gets scrambled, but the result will be unregulated by the USDA and thus suitable for release.Perhaps because they talk about this under the legal section:
•USDA regulates plant and agriculture impact through APHIS and are the most relevant for our project. We've been in touch with them to understand and address their main concerns which are mainly related to the introduction of potential plant pests. After more than 15 years working with genetically engineered crops they have established a set of guidelines for what needs additional testing, and what doesn't. So long as we meet all their requirements we can safely release the plant. One of their inputs was that we should use the gene-gun technique to transform our plants, instead of Agrobacterium.
So once they have complied with the guidelines, they can sell it as they see fit. It will not be considered a controlled substance, provided they comply with the USDA guidelines and it is found safe.
While the plant is stated as being inedible, the fact it is a new and artifical species should, and I would clearly hope would, require an EPA study and regulation at the very least.
The EPA does have guidelines. They don't apply to houseplants, or even food. They specifically apply to GMOs being used for pest control.
The FDA regulates GMOs being used in the food supply. This isn't being sold as food, so those regulations do not apply.They specifically talk about complying with the USDA regulations as well as working with the regulators on the guidelines.
As far as traditional hybrids (resulting from crossbreeding different varietals within a species or within two similar species within the same genus) goes, you are not introducing elements from a completely divergent DNA sequence. The chance of having a viable result that has dramatic negative repercussions to the ecosystem or to other organisms who may ingest it (assuming they had no negative effects from consumption of either originating organism) are very low. With GMO (that is where actual gene splicing occurs with DNA sequences from a divergent source), the long term effects of the new sequence, be it from differing protein production or any other change in the biologic processes, are a great unknown.
Yes they are mostly unknown. And unless research like this is funded we wont be able to ever assess the impact unless we trust large corporations to do it. And these modifications will happen, because scientists are currious and these changes are they entry level areas to explore and play in the field of biology. The only reason this group requires so much funding is because they are using more advanced and easily mass-reproduced mechanisms for performing the experiment, so they can both advance the technology and bring it to the public conciousness. Doing this to 1 plant could be an undergrad's senior thesis project.
Yes they are mostly unknown. And unless research like this is funded we wont be able to ever assess the impact unless we trust large corporations to do it. And these modifications will happen, because scientists are currious and these changes are they entry level areas to explore and play in the field of biology. The only reason this group requires so much funding is because they are using more advanced and easily mass-reproduced mechanisms for performing the experiment, so they can both advance the technology and bring it to the public conciousness. Doing this to 1 plant could be an undergrad's senior thesis project.
So fund the research, do the research. Just dont send the seeds out as kickstarter rewards. Thats all anyone is arguing against. Thats what the point of the thread was, the kickstarter rule. I certainly dont think we shouldnt do the research, I worry about this sort of stuff being done with little to no oversight, but I am not going to demand scientists stop, just that they not promise to send people these unknown quantities all around the country and put them into the hands of normal people who will just plant them in their backyard because they think they are cool.
|
|
To be clear, I have no opposition to this field of research. I am opposed to rapid deployment of new technology without thorough investigation as to the potential effects on people and the environment of that technology. This is what has been occurring with GMOs as a whole. And while I truly think the concept proposed by this kickstarter is very cool, I am not as thrilled about the 6-12 month window for release of a new GMO species to the general public.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And who initiated the complaints that lead to the policy change, do you think? Yeah.It doesnt matter who initiated them or why. The fact is the policy change is justified. If Nazi Germany had secretly started the civil rights movement in the united states to try to destabalize a potential ally of britain, does that mean that civil rights itself is something not worth persuing?
Only 18 posts for Godwin's law to take effect.
|
People breed new varieties of plants and sell them online all the time. There are new breeds of daisies, custom lilies, and all sorts of things done with traditional splicing. We ship custom plants for home gardens accross the globe routinely, and have dones so for decades. In elementary school I sold some through mail order catalogs for a school fundraiser. No one complains when those are shipped. There are existing laws governing it. Just because someone wants to add actual science based off modern research does not mean this is a new field. Treating it differently is ignorant.And I'm pretty sure that this has contributed to the various disasters we've had such as the extinction of the American elm and various other cases of invasive plant and animal species.
Direct genetic engineering simply takes the problem to a whole new level.
|
|
If you guys knew anything about Monsanto you'd want to burn it to the ground. The amount of farmers that they'd drove to suicide is insane in India. North America is pushing for GMO's and Monsanto to widen its grip. They make seeds that don't reproduce seeds after the first crop, which means you have to go back to them to buy more seeds.
Someday it'll eventually come down to where it's illegal to use regular seeds due to some ridiculous law (not safe for some reason I'd presume would be the reasoning) and the governments at that time will control the flow of resources such as food.
Not saying this'll happen today or tomorrow but Monsanto already puts millions of farmers out of jobs because they can't replant their own seeds since they're forced to use GMO seeds. Let alone we have no idea how safe these seeds are since they have pesticides already built into them to deter bugs and insects.
I'm sure most of you don't know much about Monsanto or this is probably the first time you've heard of them. Probably what I said seems pretty far fetched but if you do some research you'd see the damage they've caused in India already and that governments controlling the flow of food wouldn't be too far of a stretch.
Indeed. And, as I said, the bees dying off has been tracked to higher concentrations of pesticides, precisely the things Monsanto has been developing tolerance for in their plants.
I say Crimes against humanity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw, essentially the natural seeds of these crops are dwindling while there's a nifty "seed bank" that been created as a natural world disaster fallback in case something catastophic happens. Besides that little gold mine, there's not a whole lot from GMO's taking over and replacing many of these natural seeds before we realize if there's any issue with consuming GMO's.
Providing links because some goon will reply saying I'm off my rocker.
Seed Vault - http://www.ask.com/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault
Monsanto in India - http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/indian-farmers-c ommitting-suicide-monsanto-gm-crops/ and http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332813553729250.html
Those are just a few links from first page google searches.
Here's a few links of Monsanto concerning government ties and bailouts.
http://www.naturalnews.com/038199_monsanto_bailout_european_union.html
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/05/14/us-tax-dollars-promote-monsanto- gmo-crops-overseas-report/
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/monsanto.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_monsanto71.htm
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/4226
These are just grabbed off Google doing a simple search so some may be less reputable. I encourage you to do your own research and see how bad Monsanto is.
|
|
Monsanto isn't going anywhere unfortunately. They are so connected to the hip of the US and European governments that no one is going to take them down.
The question is why are these governments so involved with keeping Monsanto in control? My thoughts are they want to use GMO's to tax the public to make money. Citizens will be required to buy all their seeds from the government, it will essentially be the "tea tax" to a greater degree.
You'll have the Gov. controlling the flow of food and being the "savior" and "master" of all its citizens as they'll be forced to look to the Government to survive. Don't even get me started with these implantable chip they are pushing and planning to force people to receive. The new healthcare act paves the way for the government to require access to your bank account and medical info.
You protest against the Gov or anything of the sort they'll be able to track you (Lucent Technology for the past decade has been creating tracking devices for humans that can monitor heartbeat and etc that's for sale. This isn't anything new. The chips are just not mandatory yet which is the only thing holding them back.) and the Gov. will be able to disable your bank account until you comply.
Get chipped, few years shortly after gov puts in mandatory laws, citizens riot or protest, gov shuts off bank account and/or arrests anyone that opposes them in the middle of the night and then riots/protesters dwindle. Gov wins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, just some things to consider here. My family has owned farmland in Iowa for over a century now, and you can guess who's selling the seed for _all_ of the crops that are grown there. I've talked to people in both camps. Farmers have to make money to support themselves and their families - a big combine machine can cost upwards of 7 figures(!), and you can't harvest a crop without one. Most of them are owned communally, and they follow the harvest in the fall according to whose fields are ready - usually south to north. Add in the costs for treating the land - tiling, drainage to comply with EPA standards, marling, etc., and it gets prohibitive very fast. The answer? Monsanto and Cargill. The money they save on pest and disease damage sends the kids to college and pays for retirement. Plus, sales of those crops are pretty much guaranteed: corn to Archer Daniels Midland for ethanol and feed, and soybeans to China. How do I know all this? Because my mom is 80, and at some point, that land will come to me. I've walked on it with my parents and grandparents, and I know it like I know my own hands. So where's the line? Yes, GMOs are dangerous and short-sighted profit-makers. On the other hand, look at photos from the Depression era, and you'll know what people are scared of, and will do anything to prevent. This isn't just an abstract argument to me, folks, this is very real. Whatever I decide, someone is going to be unhappy with me, and I'll have to live with it.
Like I said, just something to consider.
So... Less unnecessary regulations, tax breaks for farm equipment, and a robust set of laws declaring copyright on genomes utterly void, wind cross pollination to be "actively damaging someone else's property", that would make farmers free not to use monopolistic and short-sighted solutions? As well as a harsh tax on crops that do not give seeds? Sounds about right. Because, you know once the alternatives dry up completely, Monsanto et al WILL raise their prices, take your land, and cut out the middle man. Some other stuff to consider.
Is Monsanto starting a lot of kickstarter campaigns?
|
|
The issue is Monsanto and the governments that do back this company will fund and give tax breaks for farmers for now... But when people have no choice but to buy their seeds because natural seeds are rare then they have a monopoly on not only farmers but citizens. It may be affordable but if you hand over your only way of making a living to Monsanto they will see it in their best interest to make as much profit as possible.
Here's just an idea going off the top of my head so hear it out. Lets say you, a farmer, buys seeds from Monsanto. Natural seeds become hard to get, Monsanto hikes prices up to absurd numbers because of some reason (maybe natural disaster, greed, etc). You then are forced to buy seeds to farm and either end up losing money or breaking even.
You take a loan from a bank to make it through the year or years to stay afloat hoping that the years to come improve and you end up making a decent amount to sustain your family. Prices do not get better, you can't pay your loan and you go further in debt. The bank takes your farmland as collateral, the government buys your farmland and starts planting Monsanto seeds. This occurs all throughout the country and the government now grows, sells, and distributes food as farmers either can't make a living due to prices (but government gets special breaks, wouldn't that be convenient.) or farmers went so far in debt they lost their land.
This is practically what has happened in India, except that the government doesn't control food there. I'm sure India is just a test run though as they can get away with it in a 3rd world country. Farmers in India either can't make a living or they've lost their land due to going further in debt after taking loans. This is the major reason there's been so many suicides in India with farmers.
So while you say, "It's easier to just buy seeds from Monsanto because they make it convenient." Doesn't mean that they have your best interest at hand.
Monsanto's noose will slowly tighten around your neck and before you realize it you'll be choking to death.
|
I feel that some people do not really understand how the market works.
If Monsanto or any other big corp ever corners the market in such a way that it becomes a de facto monopoly and starts increasing prices to improve its margins, it will send a signal to people all over the world that there is good money to be made in that market and they WILL find a way to create competitors that will eventually kill the monopoly.
Just look at all the monopoly scares we had in the past. Microsoft for example was the Big Bad in the 90s. Where is their vaunted power and influence today ? They have been overrun by companies such as Facebook, Apple and Google which are the current success stories / monopoly scarecrows.
Same for Monsanto, I feel. So many people out there know the name and the damage they do that I strongly believe that their days as a corporate superpower are counted.
And the corporate terrors of tomorrow are already out there somewhere. We just haven't heard from them yet.
|
|
I'm approaching this issue with the idea of a government that has sufficient enough power over their citizens to have the choice to be a tyrannical dictatorship. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton
I assume you're talking about others though as it was evident I wasn't suggesting that modern day USA wouldn't be capable of such things unless they had the power to lord it over its citizens. Which could possibly come in due time with their pushing of Healthcare bio-chip implants and Mansanto ridding the world of natural seeds.
Like some of the links I posted some replies back, banks and governments are handing Monsanto bailouts and tax dollars. I doubt Monsanto will be stopped before permanent damage is done, and if it is stopped then like you said we'll probably just see another company name that's picking up where Monsanto stopped to carry the torch to the goal.
We've seen that government power come up a lot recently. Same with the evil of big corporations.
Microsoft was split by the government into several parts. Ever since, they have not been the threat they once were. I fail to see why the Microsoft story is not a support of what for example Kysune is saying.
The driving force in the issue is intellectual property. That is what allows them to destroy competitors through lawsuits. As long as IP is used as a sledgehammer in the service of monopoly, we are going to see this exact situation. This is one reason a reform of IP rights is utterly necessary.
Either way, they lost something serious in the process. Some part of their cohesion, their vision, whatever, those who worked there before and after say it wasn't the same company after. As you say, some wannabe megacorps are in dire need of some serious anti-monopoly smackdown.
Besides, Microsoft hasn't primarily been a computer company for ages. Like all big enough corporate entities, its major field of interest is finance.
Microsoft was split by the government into several parts. Ever since, they have not been the threat they once were. I fail to see why the Microsoft story is not a support of what for example Kysune is saying.
Microsoft was not split. A court did issue that ruling. They appealed, but before the appeals court ruled, the case was settled with much less stringent measures.
Some claim this change was due to the new US administration in 2001. The Bush DoJ was not interested in anti-monopoly cases.
It's not at all clear that Microsoft isn't the threat they once were. If not, it's probably more because the field has moved into smartphones & tablets where they don't have the dominance they do in the PC world.
But that's all a different topic.
The settlement still included a very important piece. It required Microsoft to share its application development platform with other companies so they could effectively develop software on windows platforms. There were also limits placed on some of their most abusive contracting practices. That and the massive fines the EU has laid out has made a big difference in the way Microsoft has done business going forward.
Certainly the march of technology into tablets and smart phones has also made room for new competetors, but in terms of the PC market, those lawsuits made a world of difference.
I think history definately shows that for key markets that you cant do without or get around, like say food, government intervention is critical when preventing abuse by industry dominating companies.
I'm still not seeing the connection between hating Monsanto and wanting to prevent crowdfunding of science research.
I'm not a fan of Monsanto either. Wouldn't it make sense to create opportunities for farmers to fund their own research, thus reducing their reliance on Monsanto?
|
|
It's not the banning of crowdfunding that I am concerned about, it is the rapid distribution of a new species to the general public.
Personally, I would love to see significant advances made in bio-engineering beyond what we have already seen. But I also want to see heavy controls put in place to be sure we don't unleash something that could have significantly detrimental effects on the ecosystems in which they are introduced.
|
|
It's not the banning of crowdfunding that I am concerned about, it is the rapid distribution of a new species to the general public.
Personally, I would love to see significant advances made in bio-engineering beyond what we have already seen. But I also want to see heavy controls put in place to be sure we don't unleash something that could have significantly detrimental effects on the ecosystems in which they are introduced.
Monsanto is doing worse than the creation of genetic freaks, they are pushing for the extinction of the natural plants so they can own our entire food supply. far worse than making and giving out novelty plants.