Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (306109)	5/21/2009 2:43:31 AM
From: average joe	Respond to of 793696

In 1997, Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants were found in Percy Schmeiser's field. In spring 1998, before Schmeiser planted his 1998 crop, he was informed that Monsanto believed that he had grown Roundup Ready canola in 1997. In the summer of 1998 the canola in Schmeiser's fields was found to be Roundup Ready canola. After this, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement. For the next several years, the case travelled through the Canadian court system. Meanwhile, Schmeiser became an international symbol and spokesperson for the movement against the genetic engineering of food. He accepted speaking engagements, and received donations for his defense fund, from around the world. Ultimately, a Supreme Court 5-4 ruling found in favor of Monsanto of their patent being valid and if there was infringement. Often misinterpreted, the decision was relatively limited. The publicity around the case focused on whether Monsanto would be held responsible for “genetic engineering crop contamination”. This issue was, in explicit fact, not considered by the courts. The patent infringement finding was based solely on the determination that Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination, and knowingly went on to collect the crossbred seed, then replant and harvest it the next year. No punitive damages or the costs of the technology use fee were awarded to Monsanto, as the Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 in Schmeiser's favor that his profits were exactly the same with or without the presence of the Roundup Ready Canola. en.wikipedia.org

To: Neeka who wrote (306109)	5/21/2009 3:36:42 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793696

Monsanto and the Roundup Ready Controversy From SourceWatch (Note: In addition to the issues raised on this page, there are a host of other concerns with genetic modification. Furthermore, the issues and statistics in the fast-paced biotech world are ever in flux. The reader is encouraged to visit the other websites here for more and up-to-date info.) Monsanto is considered the Mother of agricultural biotechnology (1). Their "Roundup Ready" crops have been genetically engineered to permit direct, "over the top" application of the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate allowing farmers to drench both their crops and crop land with the herbicide so as to be able to kill nearby weeds (and any other green thing the herbicide touches) without killing the crops (2). "RR soybeans are heavily herbicide dependent" [1] [2] says Charles M. Benbrook, an expert in the field [3]. This is because the "Roundup Ready System" is primarily a "no-till" system. Rather than the traditional tilling of the ground to control weeds the RR system relies on its herbicide to control them, "No-till cropping systems are the most demanding with regards to weed control. The crop is seeded directly into untilled soil with no follow-up cultivation. Weed control depends entirely on herbicides" [4]. In fact, the Roundup Ready System was specifically designed to require the exclusive use of Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup, primarily, some say, to increase profits for Monsanto - and at almost 250 million GM acres worldwide which all require Roundup that's a lot of profit [5]. Says David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology at Rutgers University, "Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers" [6]. "In the United States, the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005" [7]. The draw for farmers is the promised reduced cost, and increased yield and thus extra profit over traditional systems. Says this Monsanto blurb "no-till soybeans grown in narrow rows add $16 per acre more to a grower's bottom line than conventional soybeans.... On a 1,000 acre farm, no-till can save as much as 450 hours of time and 3,500 gallons of diesel fuel each year. That's 11, 40-hour weeks in time savings and $4,000 less for diesel at $1.15 per gallon" [8]. However the weed control advantage of the no-till vs. conventional system has been disputed [9]. Monsanto and the Roundup Ready Controversy - SourceWatch (20 May 2009) sourcewatch.org