GMO Studies

[Andy Carson]

@sickle hocks 33503 wrote:

That’s the problem with screwing around with the basic building blocks of life..once the genie’s out of that bottle you can’t stuff it back in.

I think this is an important point that we have discussed some before. I tend to believe that this is really no different than selective breeding. I certainly do see and understand how someone would think that genetic engineering is fundamentally different. Truly, I do. The thing is, Monsanto seems to want to have it both ways. If you believe this is a radical departure from how organisms were created/modified in the past, than it really ought to be studied ad nausium (and have really good reasons for it to be used at all) before “let loose.” On the other hand, if you believe that this is just fancy selective breeding, than you might be particularly distubed by it, but it certainly wouldn’t think it was patentable. Monsanto wants it “strange” enough to be patentable, but not “strange” enough to be scary. We can all thank the 1980 Supreme Court case “Diamond v. Chakrabarty” for this. My understanding of this discision is that the organism (in this case a microbe that was supposed to eat oil) was patentable because it was not “naturally occuring.” Dumb idea, if you ask me… I Can’t remember the last time I was hiking, rounded the bin, and saw a wild dairy cow. So, I suppose, we patent everything. I just hope I get the patent on myself. Better hurry up and file… 🙂

[gwpoky]

Andy, I agree that life should not be able to be patented and we as farmers who choose to plant and save our own seed should have the right to do that without a fear of being prosecuted for genes we never wanted in the first place. Also I do not see genetic modification using bacterium to implant genes from a completely different species as anything close to cross breeding. You can put a tomato and spider in a room for weeks and they are not going to get it on.

[Andy Carson]

I hear you, George, but the world is a stranger and more wonderful that I would have ever guessed. Horizontal gene transfer is a real, though rare, natural phenomenon. One of my favorite is the description of horizontal gene transfer from fungi to pea aphids. Made a Science paper in 2010 (Vol 338, No 5978, pages 624-627). If an aphid and a fungus can “get it on” the tomato and spider have a chance… The aphid and fungus are probably just the tip of the iceberg with respect to odd unlikely horizontal gene transfer. It was an easy gene to track because it produces an easy to see color. I guess love finds a way 😉

[Marshall]

My question is if organic farmers can sue conventional farmers for spray drift why is it the opposite with monsanto and their genes wandering to someone elses property?

[jac]

Bang on the money there Marshall !!!!! why is that the case i wonder…bottom line for me is ..yes we can say that monsanto are only speeding up the plant breeders job.. but the plant breeders NOT ONE TIME bred in a terminator gene… why develope this idea in the 1st place..??.. what possible benefit.. other than control if you ask me.. fine if they make it so they can never cross contaminate the neighbours crops… John

[gwpoky]

Joel can explain it better than me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MIBn6qTZlI

[near horse]

The greatest insult comes not from a farmer being unable to sue Monsanto for contamination of their non-GMO crop but with Monsanto’s right to sue the farmer for patent infringement if he chooses to save his own seed that is now contaminated with Monsanto’s patented gene.

This part is speculation on my part but patents have a “life span” and eventually become part of the public domain (I think). Some companies have figured out how to slightly manipulate or alter the patented material or its application (in many cases a pharmaceutical) to resubmit for an extension of their original patent to effectively maintain their control of the market share. If I’m not mistaken, a patent is good for 7 yrs.

All this while our USDA and FDA are chasing down and arresting Amish raw milk producers. I guess if the war on drugs has been ineffective after 40 yrs, let’s go after food. Maybe we need to use the Drug cartels as a business model – a Food Cartel!

NOTE – If you want to support the requirement for products w/ GMO’s in them to be labelled as such, you can go here to add your voice (just got this today)

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/time_to_label_gmos/?akid=491.364696.lUbsnB&rd=1&t=11

[Anthony]

Below is a post from a email list I am on by Mary-Howell Martens which lays out the situation very well, elaborating a bit on the ‘stray dog’ scenario. It is regarding the scrutiny Organic Dairy Standards are facing due to possible GM contamination.

NOTE: Also read the post following this as the forum software required the text to be 2 posts.

Link to second post: http://www.draftanimalpower.com/showthread.php?5030-GMO-Studies&p=33599&viewfull=1#post33599

I have read with interest the comments today on the USDA report implying that organic dairy farms may be contaminated with GM traces. No matter how warm-n-fuzzy this report seems, I interpret it as a major attack against organic farmers, pure and simple, that will have very serious and expensive consequences for organic dairy and grain farmers for many reasons. It describes a very steep price that organic farmers alone will pay. I will even go as far as saying that I suspect this report was supported primarily by biotech companies for that purpose.

The NOP and the National Organic Standards, in their infinite wisdom back in 2001, defined organic farming as an agricultural production system, not as a guarantee of a food purity standard. As long as we organic farmers followed the NOP standards and abided by our certifier-approved Organic System Plan, our crops were considered ‘certified organic’. Keep in mind that while conventional grain may indeed be “100% GM”, it is pretty much accepted that it is impossible to produce 0% GM grain in the United States, with most organic grain coming in between 0.1 – 2% GM. This is mostly the result of low-grade contamination of the seed supply and neighboring pollen drift. In cross pollinating crops like corn, this is probably as good as we can do in the United States even when we follow all reasonable best management practices of protection.

Organic grain farmers are expected to provide reasonable protection against neighboring conventional crops that have the capacity to cross-pollinate theirs – generally an 18 row buffer sold as non-organic and using certified organic seed – but if those precautions are followed, the harvest is not tested for GM presence as a certification test. Certainly the farmer’s buyer may require a certain threshhold of GM presence (=contamination), but up until recently, the NOP has not. As long as you followed the rules to the best of your ability, the grain you harvest is certified organic.

As this has played out, the food market has more-or-less established a threshhold of 0.9% presence (based largely on European expectations), and otherwise organic grain is generally sold into the organic feed market at a reduced price, but with still a reasonable organic premium.

In virtually all cases, any grain crops that an organic dairy farmer grows themselves (as grain, silage or other on-farm feed) are never tested for GM presence. I mean, honestly, how many of you dairy farmers have ever tested your silage for GM presence? And did everyone harvest that 18 row buffer and discard it dutifully before starting silage harvest?

Imposing a feed purity standard on organic feed/forage will invariably result in higher grain prices and shorter organic grain supply (they aren’t high enough already??!)), but more importantly, it essential to first define uniform imposed standard of what constitutes “non-GM”. If 0% isn’t possible under most circumstances, who will define what is? Who will enforce it? How can we be sure that it enforced uniformily on ALL organic dairy farmers, for both purchased feed and on-farm produced feed?

And if that is what NOP wants to do, why stop at GM level? What about trace pesticide level? What about nutritional content? What about milk components?

So – suddenly we move from the NOP defining a production system, and now defining a food/feed purity standard. This is a truly a profound change in philosophy.

At no point can we forget that the devil is in the details – sampling technique and testing technique could easily make or break many a farmer for strictly arbitrary reasons.

Along with Dr. Chuck Benbrook (also on this list), I am a member of the USDA Advisory Committee for 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), along with Laura Batcha (OTA), Missy Hughes (Organic Valley), Lynn Clarkson (Clarkson Grain), Michael Funk (United Natural Foods) and about 18 others representing illustrious groups such as National Corn Growers, American Soybean Growers, Farm Bureau, Dupont, Center for Food Safety, and several universities and biotech companies. We have had 3 meetings, the last at the beginning of March became rather rancorous in some of the discussions. Our charge by the Secretary of Agriculture is to suggest ways to improve co-existence between different groups in American agriculture, but rather than really tackling that daunting task, we have drifted more toward discussing ‘compensation mechanisms’ (i.e. crop insurance-like tools) that could reimburse farmers who suffer market loss due to GM presence.

I have argued vigorously that we are asking the wrong question. We should instead be working upstream to try to prevent unwanted presence from happening, rather than way downstream paying farmers for market loss. But, that argument is generally met with silence, and then the conversation turns to a different topic – it is not an acceptable topic for discussion.

After our last meeting, I wrote the following explanation of my position. The one comment back? That one large midwest corn/soybean farmer did not appreciate his 6 generation family farm being compared to dogs.

I think he missed the point.

Mary-Howell Martens
Lakeview Organic Grain
Penn Yan, NY

[Anthony]

NOTE: This post is also originally authored by Mary-Howell Martens, the forum software required me to seperate them due to length.

Link to the previous post to read prior to this for proper understanding: http://www.draftanimalpower.com/showthread.php?5030-GMO-Studies&p=33598&viewfull=1#post33598

Good morning folks!
Shortly after returning home last week, a non-agricultural friend asked me
the surprisingly difficult question “so, what did you do in Washington?”

Trying to explain the gist of AC21 discussions, trying to explain why a
roomful of otherwise decent and intelligent people would want to spend 2 days
bickering with each other, AND trying to get my own head around the logic of
compensation, fairness and reality, I have been playing with a typical farmer
situation, with long historical rural tradition, time-tested country justice
and legal precedent.

This is a situation that many of us will recognize. Sometimes it adds
clarity to use a simple, familiar analogy as a new lens, a fresh perspective,
to better grasp something more complicated.

Of stray dogs, good neighbors and farmers
My neighbor, John, has a dog, Red, that wanders around the neighborhood.
When Red wanders onto our farm, first we check his tag to make sure whose
dog it is (Percy sprayed a little Roundup . . . ) and then we have a choice –

We can either let Red hang out in our yard if we don’t mind him being there,
or we can call John to come get his dog.

Legally, John is required to keep his dog on his own property and not bother
the neighbors. If the dog can’t be trained to stay home and if the neighbors
object, then John is expected to tie or fence him. (primary line of action =
containment)

If Red impregnates our dog, Bonnie, the puppies are ours, free and clear,
even though Red is an AKC registered Labrador. John has absolutely no legal
claim to the puppies (no lawsuits against farmers who are victim to unwanted
pollen drift)

However, our Bonnie is a registered beagle, so we have the obligation to
keep her in a secure pen during heat (planting a reasonable buffer and using
other Best Management Practices). If Red breaks into her pen, we have a right to legally sue
John on the grounds of (1) unwanted low-value mongrel puppies (loss of market
value), (2) property damage and (3) unwelcome stray dog on our property.

If we merely tie Bonnie, the resulting puppies are ours, but our legal
grounds against John are limited to the fact that Red is not welcome on our
property (not fully using accepted BMPs may weaken the recipient’s legal
options, but does not alter the fact that unwanted, unsolicited trespass
occurred). Of course, the last time this happened in the neighborhood, one
night the offending dog went home castrated (would we be legally justified to
de-tassel the outside 18 rows of our neighbor’s GM corn?)

If we are not certain which neighborhood dog impregnated Bonnie while in
her pen, if we can identify the father (genetic testing?),we can hold the
owner liable for the lost value of that ‘crop of puppies’ (identify the
errant genes and hold the owner legally responsible).

If Red gets into the chicken coop and kills our chickens (reduces their
market value), John is legally and morally obligated to compensate us for the
value of the chickens.

Often a neighborly arrangement can be worked out (John pays for the dead
chickens and promises that Red will be forever tied) but if this isn’t
possible, we can contact the dog catcher who can do two things – (1) destroy
Red and (2) force John to pay damages (third party mediator to
determine/enforce what is just and fair).

Long rural tradition has established that even though a registered Labrador dog has greater value than
a chicken, on farms, a dog that kills the neighbor’s chickens should be
destroyed (respect for the integrity of a neighbor’s property takes
precedence) unless the owner makes restitution and commits to permanently
restraining the dog.

When John’s previous dog, Max, killed the neighbor’s lambs after a
warning, the dog catcher destroyed Max, fined John $1000, and and ordered
John made restitution payment to the owner of the lambs. In our
neighborhood, if the dog catcher had not done this, no one would have been
surprised or shocked if Max just disappeared one day (there are traditionally
accepted consequences when respect for the neighbor’s property is violated,
and the most sustainable, just laws are firmly grounded in ‘treat others as
you would like to be treated’).

Much as we’d hate to lose Bonnie, we know that she would deserve this fate if she did the
same thing (the same consequences apply to all).

If an unrecognizable stray dog gets into our chickens and kills them, the dog
catcher will compensate us from a public fund paid from dog license fees
(public fees paid by those who may potentially cause the problem). In this
case, all the area dog owners are held responsible, since they all pay into
the license fees. Because of this, all dog owners have a stake in ensuring
that everyone’s dogs are properly restrained and behaved (stakeholder group
self-regulation to avoid legal issues and bad players).

Under no circumstances are the other chicken farmers in our county required
to pay for our lost chickens, nor are we expected to use our farm liability
insurance to cover the loss (those that don’t cause the harm are not held
responsible).

If Red attacks our young son on our property, then Red is destroyed and John
faces serious legal trouble (size/type of damage determines in size of
penalty)

Knowing these consequences, most farmers who care about their dogs train them
to stay home, out of the neighbor’s yard, and away from chickens and lambs.

I wonder if mutual respect among neighbors would be the same if there were
no negative consequences.

Mary-Howell Martens
Mending Wall
by Robert Frost
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.

The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.

I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.

And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
‘Stay where you are until our backs are turned!’

We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.

He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors’.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.

Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.

He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, “Good fences make good neighbors.”

[Author]

Posts