Iraq; new law requires Farmers to use Gentically modified seed ONLY

[elehhhhna]

Iraq; nwe law requires Farmers to use Gentically modified seed ONLY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is OUTRAGEOUS--

The term of the monopoly is 20 years for crop varieties and 25 for trees and vines. During this time the protected variety de facto becomes the property of the breeder, and nobody can plant or otherwise use this variety without compensating the breeder. This new law means that Iraqi farmers can neither freely legally plant nor save for re-planting seeds of any plant variety registered under the plant variety provisions of the new patent law. <4> This deprives farmers what they and many others worldwide claim as their inherent right to save and replant seeds.

CORPORATE CONTROL

The new law is presented as being necessary to ensure the supply of good quality seeds in Iraq and to facilitate Iraq's accession to the WTO <5>. What it will actually do is facilitate the penetration of Iraqi agriculture by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow Chemical - the corporate giants that control seed trade across the globe. Eliminating competition from farmers is a prerequisite for these companies to open up operations in Iraq, which the new law has achieved. Taking over the first step in the food chain is their next move.

http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2004/Iraq-Patent-Law-CPA15oct04.htm

edited for proper link (sorry)

[DrWeird]

1. Is there a working link to a reliable source on this?

Because the last link I saw also talked about weather making machines.

[cosmicaug]

2. I smell bullshit!

[porphyrian]

3. While the law is crap...

...the fear of genetically modified food is blown way out of proportion. It really isn't that different from hybridization, and no one freaks out about eating purple eggplant. It's good to keep an eye on the self-serving corporations who produce genetically modified food, but the process itself isn't going to end the world.

[elehhhhna]

6. they must buy seed every year and can't use their own from prior crops...

and you don't seee anything creepy about that? Think about it.

[porphyrian]

8. No, I do have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with genetically modified food. One is an unfair control issue, the other is an understanding of science.

[Eloriel]

10. I disagree

as do most people on the Left who have bothered to look at this even a little.

It's also VERY different from hybridization. With GMO crops they're introducing DNA from other species, sometimes even other kingdoms. That doesn't happen in hybridization. Hybridization involves merely cross-polinating, which can and does occur in nature. GMO goes way farther than that and mucks with the DNA of plants in a way that can never be accomplished by Nature, and for good reason. Humankind does NOT know better than Nature, and probably never will.

The other factor is that these crops have not been adequately tested either on humans or in the field for their negative effects on the environment. Some of the reports coming in are frightening -- such as cross-pollinaization of the native maize plants in the cradle of civilization where maize (corn) was first discovered and utilized for human food.

I'm all for science and technology, I'm NOT in favor of playing God just because we have the technical ability to do so.

[porphyrian]

14. Uh...

"...as do most people on the Left who have bothered to look at this even a little."

Thanks for calling me ignorant and non-Left so politely.

Obviously, you have strong feeling about this issue. However, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm ignorant or not a liberal. One of my best friends is a genetic biologist, and he's more liberal than I am. I've discussed this subject with him on a number of occasions, and while my understanding of the subject may be less than his, the jist of what I'm saying is true. So, cram your propaganda.

[DrWeird]

15. transfer of genes across kingdoms happens all the time naturally.

And much more randomly. It's a major process in evolution. Where do you think scientists figured out how to do it?

[IrateCitizen]

18. Examples, please?

Admittedly, my biology training is not all that much, but I am wholly unaware of genes leaping across kingdoms. Could you please provide some confirmed examples of this happening?

[DrWeird]

21. Sorry, haven't got a good link on hand.

There's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Which talks about horizontal gene transfer across species. It happens across kingdoms as well, admittedly less frequently. I'll keep looking.

[MadHound]

13. Excuse me, but I think you're being too casual about this

First off, this is corporatization of our food source. You cannot save your seeds over from one year to another, you must buy new ones each year from the corporation.

Second, if your non GM crops become cross pollinated with GM crops, the corporate owner of the GM crop(Monsanto, Dow, etc)can and does come in to seize your crop, with no reimbursement, in order to protect their GM patent. This has happened more than once in the US.

Third, GM crops have unexpected side effects. Crops that are modified to kill harmful pests also wind up killing beneficial animals. The best example of this has been the various GM varieties of corn, that not only kill of pests, but are also destroying the monarch butterfly population. In addition, people around the world are starting to develop unexpected and severe allegies to GM foods. Anaphalactic shock and other problems have been the result. Also, while some GM foods are able to repel pests, grow in drought areas, and other technological wonders, these crops nutrient values are much lower than their natural cousins.

Fourth, GM crops cross pollinate with other plants, both crops and wild plants, thus reducing natural diversity and imperiling our enviroment. When you have, say, a GM strain of wheat that is designed to keep rabbits from eating it cross pollinating with wild wheat, you are depriving the rabbits of a natural food source. Or say you have a GM strain of apple trees that pollinates with wild apples, thus wiping out the heirloom strain.

Fifth, an important one for me, GM crops imperil the whole organic food industry. What with the potential of widespread pollination by GM crops, and the ability of corporation to seize such crops under the guise of "patent protection", the growing, vital organic food industry is under attack by the corporate food behemoth.

GM foods are much different from hybrids. Hybrids involve cross breeding, you have to actually breed a plant, not just change one DNA sequence. Hybridization is something that does occur naturally, thus the cycle of nature and the enviroment can handle it. However when you start genetically manipulating a plant in ways that nature never intended, then you are throwing the balance of nature completely out the door. Such reckless manipulation not only imperils the enviroment, but mankind as well.

We should put a halt to GM foods before it is too late, otherwise we will all pay the price in the years to come.

[porphyrian]

16. I'm against the corporatization of our food supply.

I'm not afraid of genetically modified food.

[MadHound]

27. Repeat that to me after you go into anaphalactic shock

Due to some genetic tinkering in your tomatoes. Tell me that when you no longer see any monarch butterflies due to the toxic effects of GM corn. Tell me that when our enviroment has been laid waste due to the lack of natural diversity.

These are paranoid, tin foil possibilities. These are ongoing and growing effects of GM food. They're real, and they're happening now.

[DrWeird]

29. Actually, they're not.

At least not the Monarch Butterfly thing. That was suspected, but when they looked into it scientists found out it wasn't true.

"Tell me that when our enviroment has been laid waste due to the lack of natural diversity."

Well know you're confusing two different issues.

Don't know about the tomato thing, but I'm betting it's bunk as well.

[MadHound]

38. Here are some cites on these matters

Monarch butterflies:
Nature, Vol 399, No 6733, p 214, May 20, 1999
Assessing the impact of Cry1Ab-expressing corn pollen on monarch butterfly larvae in field studies (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol 98, No 21, p11931-11936, Oct 2001)

On anaphylactic shock due to GM foods:
<http://www.seedsofdeception.com>
<http://www.thewholesoystory.com/Soy_Allergens.html>
<http://www.thecampaign.org/education/hansen.htm>

And how am I confusing matters? It is the stated goals of the agribusiness companies in this country to make ALL foods in this country genetically modified in some form or fashion as soon as possible. Not only will they then control the patents on these crops, thus the crops themselves, but will also be engineering into said foods the absolute need for various chemical fertilizers, herbicides etc, the products that said companies also sell. One just has to look at the current crop of GM soybeans to see the future of this practice. Thus, these GM crops are planted, pollenate with their wild cousins, thus causing their progeny to also require said chemicals in order to survive. Without these chemicals they will die. Thus, our natural biodiversity will decline, laying waste to our enviroment.

You really should educate yourself on these matters, all of our futures are at stake.

[DrWeird]

42. Yes, and if you read later Nature issues...

the idea is debunked.

"It is the stated goals of the agribusiness companies in this country to make ALL foods in this country genetically modified in some form or fashion as soon as possible."

Where is this stated?

"Not only will they then control the patents on these crops, thus the crops themselves, but will also be engineering into said foods the absolute need for various chemical fertilizers, herbicides etc, the products that said companies also sell. One just has to look at the current crop of GM soybeans to see the future of this practice. Thus, these GM crops are planted, pollenate with their wild cousins, thus causing their progeny to also require said chemicals in order to survive. Without these chemicals they will die."

Explain. What "said" chemical?

"You really should educate yourself on these matters, all of our futures are at stake."

I could say the same to you. Because judging from what you've posted so far you really don't have a good idea about what's going on.

[MadHound]

45. And you're backing yourself up on this issue exactly how?

I see no cites, no sources, nothing to back up your POV. So right now, all you are doing is blowing smoke.

And Nature is the journal that published the study. The study was done by scientists from Cornell, and nothing that I've seen contradicts their findings. If you've got any sources that say otherwise, fork 'em over.

The statements that I make are from the sources I cite, perhaps you should try reading them fully, maybe do a little extracurricular research on your own, eh.

And the chemicals I'm talking about(even though you are mangling my quotes) are herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, fertizlizers, etc. A quick example, Roundup Ready Soybeans, from Monsanto. These beans are genetically engineered to use, and respond, only to Monsanto's Roundup line of products, herbicides, fertilizer, etc. Thus not only are you forcing farmers to pay exhorbitant rates for Roundup products, but these Roundup products in and of themselves are deadly. For your further review:<http://www.kehoe.org/owen/soybean/>

And being a farmer, the grandson of a farmer, being educated in agriculture and agribusiness, growing crops myself, having family and friends who are bio-chemists, bioligists, doctors(some of whom were educated at, and work for Cornell University), I think I know whereof I speak friend. Like I said, I'm still waiting for your sources.

[DrWeird]

46. LOL.

The studies are right there in Nature. The published the original studies where scientists in a laboratory fed pesticide laced pollen to Monarch butterflies in a cage, and low and behold, the Monarch butterflies died. Later studies went to see if that's what was happening in situ, that is, is the pollen blowing off the corn and onto the silkweed in high enough concentrations to harm the Monarchs. And it turns out the Monarchs were just fine. So Nature published the original studies and published the debunking studies later, that's how science works. I mean this was fairly big news. Do you read Nature or do you just reference it? I suppose I could go seach Nature and look for it, but I'm awfully busy, and besides, it seems to me you've already made up your mind based on this Roundup business.

"A quick example, Roundup Ready Soybeans, from Monsanto. These beans are genetically engineered to use, and respond, only to Monsanto's Roundup line of products, herbicides, fertilizer, etc. Thus not only are you forcing farmers to pay exhorbitant rates for Roundup products, but these Roundup products in and of themselves are deadly"

See, now this is what happens when you get your information from the scientific equivalent of a UFO site. Roundup is a herbicide that was invented years ago and is used to kill weeds. It's completely safe for the environment and for people. The problem is, it's not safe for plants, because it's a herbicide. So you spray it on the field before you plant the crops, that kills the weeds, then you plant the crops. If you spray it on the crops, it will kill the crops, so farmers had no way of using this very effective herbicide after planting. So Monsanto engineered Roundup resistant crops, so you can go and spray Roundup and kill the weeds without killing the plants, which is a great improvement. It's got absolutely nothing to do with "plants needing the chemical to grow" or "farmers have to buy the chemical." It's got nothing to do with "fertilizer" and if I'm not mistaken Monsanto's patent on glyphosate is up, so you can buy the generic stuff if you don't want to buy from Monsanto. And the "Roundup products in and of themselves are deadly" is just made up nonsense.

[MadHound]

47. Once again, what is your source. You make CLAIMS

Yet you haven't posted any sources. I posted sources, cites, and I find it rather humorous that you refer to them as the "scientific equivalent of a UFO site". I'll make sure to tell my sister at Cornell that one, she needs a good laugh.

Look friend, I've posted sources and cites from reputable journals and scientists. All you've done is blow smoke. Show me something else, otherwise all you're doing is showing your ignorance.

PS, it helps for you to read the sources I cite before you respond. It is obvious that you haven't done this, otherwise you wouldn't be making the outrageous statements that you have.

[DrWeird]

48. "outrageous statements"

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/22/12328

If you're curious about Roundup, or glyphosate as it's called by scientists, I'm sure you can find information at your local library. So please stop just making stuff up.

[porphyrian]

30. Over-react much?

I'm sorry, you aren't going to make me afraid of genetically modified food, any more than I'm afraid of lead in the drinking water or pollution in the air. Do they bother me? Yes. Do I think something should be done? Yes. Do I think genetically modified food should be eliminated? No, not any more than air or water should be eliminated.

What we should do is regulate the people doing the genetic modifying. That's all. Just like we should regulate air and water pollution.

Stop fear-mongering. That's the tactic of the Right.

[MadHound]

40. How typical

When presented with evidence and facts you don't like, you start throwing the ad hominems around. I would suggest you peruse the cites I've listed in post thirty eight, and then get back to me.

In addition, are you willing to pay for my apple crop, and the trees themselves, when the are seized by ADM due to cross pollination with the ADM brand GM apple trees? You see, I'm growing heirloom, organic fruit trees, and if they are pollenated by a GM tree, I'm screwed. Even if my trees and crop isn't seized by ADM for patent violation, the crop is ruined for me, since it can no longer be certified organic. Ten years or more worth of work down the drain, all due to genetic engineering. Will you pay me for that loss? Then don't be so dismissive of those of us who are not only trying to save the biodiversity of our planet, but our livelihoods also.

You see, organic food is one of the fastest growing sectors in agribusiness, but tens of thousands of people's lives and work is being put at risk due to GM crops. Once again, corporate America is at work to drive the last family farmers out of business. Do you eat organic food? Do you wish to continue to do so? If so, then you have a stake in the fight over GM foods. For quite frankly friend, if we lose this one, then we are all constrained to eating whatever garbage the corporations want to put on our plate.

Want a little flounder with those strawberries? That GM food is at your local market now.

[porphyrian]

49. Who's being typical?

Your cites certainly say what you want to believe about genetically modified food. However, friend, I'm just not buying into your propaganda. I am against agribusiness controlling our entire food supply. I am not against genetically modified food. The former is dangerous. The latter is not.

[democratreformed]

25. The point is that it's another coup for U.S. corporations.

Forcing Iraqi farmers, if this is true, to buy genetically modified seeds from U.S. companies and plant ONLY these seeds (and KEEP buying new ones year after year) is just another example of this war putting profits into the pockets of U.S. corporations. It is INFURIATING. Especially because it is just another political ploy to gain support from certain groups.

[porphyrian]

31. Yes, and that's what I'm against.

I just don't buy into the fear-mongering about genetically modified food.

[Eloriel]

4. Well, we're having trouble forcing Europe to accept this

and our GMO crops, why not force it on the people we have total control over?

My heart is breaking. This is SO ugly, so imperialist, and GMO crops are so frankly dangerous for the world's food supplies. I wish more DUers understood how dreadfully important this subject is, and not just relative to Iraq.

[freeminder]

12. "so imperialist"

is exactly how I read this. Totally disgusting. Combine it with reconstruction going to overpayed contractors instead of jobless Iraqis, paints a grim picture of the liberators, no?
this 20 and 25-year term is also quite opposed to what Kerry said "we have NO long-term objective in Iraq".

"And they would be seen as occupiers in a bitterly hostile land"
GHW Bush, on why he didn't go to baghdad in Gulf War 1.

[jimshoes]

5. Good luck with that

I understand they are falling all over themselves to make us feel welcome over there. This sounds like something that will be an immediate hit with the Iraqi farmers .... (NOT)

[papau]

7. A Bremer "order" has power of law and indeed pushes "seed patent rights"

http://www.nwrage.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=88

IRAQ'S NEW PATENT LAW: A DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST FARMERS

In its latest declaration of war, the US government is forcing Iraq to enact a US style patent regime system effectively controlling and handing over the Iraqi agricultural sector to the likes of Monsanto, Bayer, Dupont and Dow.


When former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administrator L. Paul Bremer III left Baghdad after the so-called "transfer of sovereignty" in June 2004, he left behind the 100 orders he enacted as chief of the occupation authority in Iraq. Among them is Order 81 on "Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety."<1> This order amends Iraq's original patent law of 1970 and unless and until it is revised or repealed by a new Iraqi government, it now has the status and force of a binding law.<2>

With important implications for farmers and the future of agriculture in Iraq, this order is yet another important component in the United States' attempts to radically transform Iraq's economy.

WHO GAINS?

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. While historically the Iraqi constitution prohibited private ownership of
biological resources, the new US-imposed patent law introduces a system of monopoly rights over seeds. Inserted into Iraq's previous patent law is a whole new chapter on Plant Variety Protection (PVP) that provides for the "protection of new varieties of plants." PVP is an intellectual property right (IPR) or a kind of patent for plant varieties which gives an exclusive monopoly right on planting material to a plant breeder who claims to have discovered or developed a new variety. So the "protection" in PVP has
nothing to do with conservation, but refers to safeguarding of the commercial interests of private breeders (usually large corporations) claiming to have created the new plants.

To qualify for PVP, plant varieties must comply with the standards of the UPOV<3> Convention, which requires them be new, distinct, uniform and stable. Farmers' seeds cannot meet these criteria, making PVP-protected seeds the exclusive domain of corporations. The rights granted to plant breeders in this scheme include the exclusive right to produce, reproduce, sell, export, import and store the protected varieties. These rights extend to harvested material, including whole plants and parts of plants obtained from the use of a protected variety. This kind of PVP system is often the
first step towards allowing the full-fledged patenting of life forms. Indeed, in this case the rest of the law does not rule out the patenting of plants or animals.

The term of the monopoly is 20 years for crop varieties and 25 for trees and vines. During this time the protected variety de facto becomes the property of the breeder, and nobody can plant or otherwise use this variety without compensating the breeder. This new law means that Iraqi farmers can neither freely legally plant nor save for re-planting seeds of any plant variety registered under the plant variety provisions of the new patent law.<4> This deprives farmers what they and many others worldwide claim as their inherent right to save and replant seeds.

CORPORATE CONTROL

The new law is presented as being necessary to ensure the supply of good quality seeds in Iraq and to facilitate Iraq's accession to the WTO<5>. What it will actually do is facilitate the penetration of Iraqi agriculture by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow Chemical -- the corporate giants that control seed trade across the globe. Eliminating competition from farmers is a prerequisite for these companies to open up operations in Iraq, which the new law has achieved. Taking over the first step in the food chain is their next move.

The new patent law also explicitly prmotes the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) seeds in Iraq. Despite serious resistance from farmers and consumers around the world, these same companies are pushing GM crops on farmers around the world for their own profit. Contrary to what the industry is asserting, GM seeds do not reduce the use of pesticides, but they pose a threat to the environment and to people's health while they increase farmers dependency on agribusiness. In some countries like India, the 'accidental' release of GM crops is deliberately manipulated<6>, since physical segregation of GM and GM-free crops is not feasible. Once introduced into the agro-ecological cycle there is no possible recall or cleanup from genetic pollution<7>.

As to the WTO argument, Iraq legally has a number of options for complying with the organisation's rules on intellectual property but the US simply decided that Iraq should not enjoy or explore them.

Pushing for these "reforms" in Iraq has been the US Agency for International Development, which has been implementing an Agricultural Reconstruction and
Development Program for Iraq (ARDI) since October 2003. To carry it out, a one-year US$5 million contract was ganted to the US consulting firm Development Alternatives, Inc.<13> with the Texas A&M University<14> as an implementing partner. Part of the work has been sub-contracted to Sagric International<15> of Australia. The goal of ARDI in the name of rebuilding the farming sector is to develop the agribusiness opportunities and thus provide markets for agricultural products and services from overseas.

[gula]

33. Not so sure about that. The way I read the following

article, laws imposed by the occupier could be overturned if and when the Iraqis ever get their country, or what's left of it, back.

Baghdad Year Zero
Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia
Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004. Originally from Harper's Magazine, September 2004. By Naomi Klein.


http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

[papau]

41. True - they can be overturned - by the next elected group - after the Jan

elected group writes a rules for election law and elects the next elected group.

Till then it is the law.

[prayin4rain]

9. Why the hell would they make that a LAW?

:wtf:

[IrateCitizen]

17. Simple. Billions of $$$ for US agribusiness.

Imagine the fortunes that Monsanto and their ilk could make selling seed to Iraqi farmers each and every year. And they HAVE to pay, otherwise they starve!

It's really quite brilliant. Utterly diabolical, as well -- but brilliant nonetheless.

[MrMonk]

22. Iraqis will still be able to farm

The "law" (actually, a directive) prohibits saving and re-planting of patented varieties. Farmers can continue to save and re-plant other varieties. They are not obliged to use patented seeds.

[IrateCitizen]

24. Oh, there's ways around that, my friend...

There was a Canadian farmer who discovered that some of his crops were being pollinated by Monsanto crops on another farmer's property. Monsanto sued him for illegally using their product without compensation, and they WON.

Last I heard, the case was still in limbo. But given the way in which the US has controlled the Iraqi legal process, do you think that some poor Iraqi farmer will have a chance in a similar case?

[MrMonk]

28. Provide a link to the actual court decision

These stories tend to become distorted as they are retold.

[IrateCitizen]

34. I can do better than that, I can give you several links!

The farmer's name is Percy Schmeiser, and he's from Saskatchewan. He's also an ORGANIC farmer, which means that this contamination from Monsanto significantly hurt him BEFORE the court decision, since he had to check the genetic traits on ALL of his crops to make certain that they weren't all contaminated.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/87-01192004-230300.html

http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/latest/percy.htm

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2003/05/05/daily72.html

[MrMonk]

35. You didn't give me what I asked for

I specifically asked for a link to the court decision. What you provided were links to articles stating opinions and interpretations of the courts' rulings.

However, I do notice several things from the articles:
1) The Canadian Supreme Court handed down their decision in May 2004 (the appeal process is over, the case is no longer "in limbo");
2) The Court ruled that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto because he did not profit from his use of Monsanto's patented canola;
3) The Court did not change law, especially the law that "innocent infringement" is not a defence in patent infringement cases;
4) The Court confirmed that patents on genes also apply to cells and organisms; and
5) Schmeiser considers the decision to be a personal victory.

How does this justify your feeling that Iraqis are now forced to plant patented crops to the exclusion of all else?

[IrateCitizen]

36. Because Canadian courts are not beholden to US agribusiness

But considering that Paul Bremer's edicts basically formed the basis for the Iraqi legal system, I would bet that it will be EXTREMELY tilted in favor of large commercial interests like Monsanto.

As seen from the Schmeiser case, a farmer doesn't have to willfully plant Monsanto seeds in order for Monsanto to seek compensation. If an Iraqi farmer were to suffer a similar fate, I doubt the US-designed legal system would give him much leeway against Monsanto.

[theophilus]

19. Monsanto is a HUGE, HUGE, monster that is trying to take over

the world's ability to grow it's own food. This problem has been growing for several years and is going to result in starvation for millions when "things go wrong" with the world economy. Words cannot express my anger and disgust! When is the world going to wake up to the destruction that is going on due to Corporate/Government greed and corruption! With our media----not anytime soon. Millions will die before we ask "What were we thinking?"

[jhain]

44. exactly

this is NO over reaction.

Pay attention here...

1. farmers have ALWAYS saved seed- now they will have to find the money to buy it.
2. the result is a "mono-culture" crop- everything is exactly the same so that any fungus, any disease, any insect will wipe out the ENTIRE crop.
3. the resulting financial ruin and starvation will make the oil grab and water rights robberies look like misdemeanoers.

[charlie]

20. They also have a flat tax

They're making Iraq a Republican Utopia by fiat.

[Utakan]

11. Disgusting...

Further evidence that * only cares about Big Business... "liberation" yeah right.

[elehhhhna]

23. is it true GM seed-crops cannot reseed themselves?

meaning they produce sterile seeds? Is that how they enforce the "buy it every year" deal?

[DrWeird]

26. No.

Monsanto was working on a plant that did not reseed (not much different then seedless watermelons, or seedless grapes) so that they would not cross-pollinate into other fields, but they abandoned that technology years ago.

[gula]

32. Apparently, they have created a seed that self-destructs,

i.e. cannot be used for a second round planting (source: The Corporation)

[G_j]

39. called 'terminator' seeds

I am pretty sure they are used already.

[DrWeird]

43. I'm pretty sure they're not.

Because, like I said, Monsanto stopped the program years ago.

[tom_paine]

37. Sounds like the Busheviks are enslaving Iraqis in their own way

Not the brutal, messy, murderos Saddam Way. Well, actually, sure it's that, too, but on a much smaller scale like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

Bushevik enslavement for their Imperial Subjects both here and in Iraq is both informational and "corporate".

[Q]

50. Worse yet...

...it seems the Bushies have convinced many 'democrats' that corporate rule is an eventuality...not a choice by a free people.

- With so many on the left yawning about the corporate takeover of their country and the worlds resources...the Bushies will have an easy time in achieving their goals.

Of interest:

Terminator seed

In a major victory for activists and protestors around the world, Monsanto, a major investor in this technology has decided not to market it. However, it will still look into sterility research, which, as the Guardian newspaper points out, could mean that Monsanto's announcement just a public relations exercise and that they are waiting until the current attention on the negativity surrounding terminator technology has reduced. (Check out the Public Reaction part of this web site for more about the protests all over the world at the rapid, untested introduction of GE Food.)

However, even without such terminator technology, under patent laws in Canada, U.S. and a number of other industrialized nations, it is illegal for farmers to re-use patented seed, or to grow Monsanto's GM seed without signing a licensing agreement. Hence the underlying motives behind terminator technologies have still been achieved while being stacked against the farmer. In a prominent case, a Canadian farmer was found guilty of growing patented seeds, even though he did not know of it. The pollen from the patented canola seeds from a nearby farm had pollinated with his and thus he had to pay Monsanto for licensing and profit from the seeds. As the previous link's title suggests, corporate liability is reduced, while that of the individual farmer is increased.

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GEFood/Terminator.asp

[tom_paine]

51. At least in the movie "Rollerball", everyone got takencare of, remember?

Not he dumbass Imperial Bootlicking Stupid and Sensless Version released recently.

And how could it be any other? To actually remake the 1975 version would not have been possible. It would have raised ugly questions about the Empire (even then, in the 90s, when little did we know but the Old Republic seemed healthy and safe, but it was only the interim between the reigns of Poppy Augustus 1982-1992 and Bunnypants* Tiberius 2001-(let us pray) 2004.

But my point: that in that movie people did what the Imperial Subjects of Amerika are doing now...shoving their heads up their asses and amusing themselves within while the Busheviks steal everything, including our heriitage and birthright as Americans.

But at least they all got healthcare and jobs.

Not here in REAL 'Rollerball'.

[charlie]

52. Speaking of patents...

Monsanto inherited a portfolio of patents when it bought Unilever. One of them regards a certain strain of wheat used to make Indian flatbread. Unilever had managed to identify the gene sequence for the wheat, a product of generations of crossbreeding, and secure a European patent for it as a "new invention." So now, Indian farmers (and consumers and restauranteurs) are nervous, having to depend on the beneficence of Monsanto for not attempting to enforce their patent "rights."

[DrWeird]

53. doubt it.

Patents for genes are like patents for other inventions. It has to be novel. It can't be something that's been used for generations.

[charlie]

54. Doubt what?

The patent or its legal viability? The patent is real. As to whether Monsanto can put the squeeze on farmers through drawn-out litigation, or if it would be summarily tossed, I don't know. I don't know what the standards for European patents are.