If you follow the second of khallings links, above, it goes into the Monsanto case, including the fact that the farmer sprayed the field with Roundup and kept the seeds of the plants that survived. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that he had violated Monsanto's patent but had received no benefit from it so he owed Monsanto no money.

Jan

Thank you for both of these links.

Jan

All plants and animals have been genetically modified, their DNA has been altered. That's what 'domestication' means. We have been doing this by trial and error, crossing two variants and, without knowing which genes actually got transferred, seeing what happens.

The idea that there are 'human' and 'non human' DNA is a bit simplistic. There is an amazing commonality to all DNA we share 28% of our DNA with yeast.

Bacteria and viruses move DNA back and forth between species all the time. Then, of course there are genetic mutations.

What's new is knowing exactly what we are doing. Now we could wind up with something going wrong, but that's always a possibility -- especially with trial and error.

we are listening. You have fears that there are no studies to support. If we are being scientific, should we not look at the scientific evidence?

There is an interesting reverse version of this situation. Over the years we have genetically altered cotton via traditional methods to make it white. Cotton naturally had other colors.

Sally Fox began growing Foxfiber, naturally colored older versions of cotton. She promotes that they can produce colored garments without the use of dyes and has a specialty market.

Originally she was trying to grow these crops near Bakersfield and the other cotton farmers were upset about the potential for these colored cottons to cross into their all white versions.

The opposition drove her from the area and she is now located in Northern California.

I'm not interest in my crops being removed for free - I'm interested in the additional costs to have to buy new seed and potential crop loss/profit loss from it.
I have said repeatedly that I'm not outright opposed to GMO - BUT I am very skeptical of it.
You guy's aren't listening. They are genetically modified. Their DNA has been altered. These alterations are done my non-natural processes. These DNA sequences that are being inserted or modified are from other species: from bugs, from fungi, and who knows what. Every one is unique at the target and sources are different. The means of how and potential DNA damage from the process will be different from batch to batch. There is no blanket - the process is safe, the end product is safe - no one knows that. People are putting this into their bodies. I can't comprehend how anyone would not be concerned.

"The Dust Bowl, also known as the Dirty Thirties, was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the US and Canadian prairies during the 1930s; severe drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent wind erosion (the Aeolian processes) caused the phenomenon. The drought came in three waves, 1934, 1936, and 1939–40, but some regions of the high plains experienced drought conditions for as many as eight years.[1] With insufficient understanding of the ecology of the plains, farmers had conducted extensive deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains during the previous decade; this had displaced the native, deep-rooted grasses that normally trapped soil and moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. The rapid mechanization of farm equipment, especially small gasoline tractors, and widespread use of the combine harvester contributed to farmers' decisions to convert arid grassland (much of which received no more than 10 inches (250 mm) of precipitation per year) to cultivated cropland.[2]

During the drought of the 1930s, the unanchored soil turned to dust, which the prevailing winds blew away in huge clouds that sometimes blackened the sky. [...]"

This was from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

So,I will clarify my statement - it wasn't THE cause, but as is stated in this wiki, it was this along with drought. So a major cause... Anyway, I had seen a documentary on this - I think on the History Channel as well. A few years back - don't recall for sure.

And yes, I agree with your more thorough statement about progress. Someone else (maybe you?) compared it to the "Jurassic Park" thesis/theory/something... Yep. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should and the consequences could be bad. Trying to control nature has had some nasty side effects. Like I said - I'm not outright against the idea of GMO - but I am very concerned about it's use and how thoroughly it's tested and it's effects on non-GMO availability.

I had never heard any other cause than weather suggested for the "Dust Bowl". I'd be interested in hearing more if you have a source you could point me to.

"Progress for the sake of progress is evil! "

What is really being talked about under "progress" are goals. "Progress" is merely a measurement of movement along some trajectory away from some starting point and toward some projected terminus which has been deemed to be desired. What you are really saying here is is that one must examine the goals/endpoints of the journey and not merely that one is moving in order to assess the morality of the movement. I wholeheartedly agree.

According to the npr article I cited Monsanto will pay to remove product pollinated by GMO. Quality control for GMO plants. The thing is you say GMOs don 't bother you but really the do. You are skeptical of long term risks even though there are no studies to support any theories of adverse health effects at least so far.

This from purdue research on minimizing cross pollinization : less than 1 % across 20 rows roughly a buffer of 500 feet.: http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news...

And this from npr : http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012...

Talking about the precautions taken by farmers of GMOs and tradional seeds to avoid cross pollination
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/20...

"Against a behemoth like Monsanto."

You have no case against Monsanto. Your suit would come against the neighboring farmer for contaminating your crops through his negligence. Regardless, no lawsuit can proceed unless you can prove damages and allege causation. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a pain in the pocketbook, but you open a huge can of worms by proposing to allow a preemptive judgement where no actual damages had yet taken place and where there was no certainty of future damages. Yes, it might be inconvenient, but the other choice you are presenting is to prevent the other farmer from running their business entirely.

Can there be the case where both can operate side by side? I don't know. There are a lot of variables over which no one has any control. I am simply contending that it is premature to assert damages before they are evident and can be physically ascertained. Just courts do not rule based on speculation, but on evidence: past vs future.

Provide evidence for your fears. Not only is the burden of proof on you, but you are asking something extraordinary of your neighbors, which means the burden should be on you.

If this is indeed true, then it worries me if the coverage did in fact leave out this most pertinent factor.

I think one thing that should be pointed out is that most of the genetic modifications taking place are to immunize the _plant_ itself against everything from pests to herbicides (Roundup) to drought. But what should be recognized is that the changes to the plants themselves have not been shown to negatively affect the food value of the fruit. That is key in my opinion.

My parents have been using and developing recipes that use food starch from a GMO corn called waxy maize for 25 years now. They sell the product under their own label and many of their recipes are geared towards addressing nutritional needs in their clientele such as diabetes, Celiac's, hyperglycemia, etc. Their product is an alternative thickening agent in everything from pie filling to gravy to jams and jellies. It is superior to standard corn starch in every way we've come across in those 25 years of use.

Granted that this is just one example, but in having watched very closely the California case regarding use of GMO sugar beets a few years ago, what was brought up there was that there has never been a single demonstrated case of the fruit of a GMO plant being the least bit toxic to the consumer. Am I contending that they will never occur? No. I believe highly in the Jurassic Park philosophy of "but they were so busy with whether or not they _could_ that they didn't stop to think if they _should_". IMHO, the largest bugaboo still outstanding are the potential effects on bees, but to this date I am not aware of any study which links any effect of GMO plants to bees. Such would indeed be a major development.

Infect: "to taint or contaminate with something that affects quality, character, or condition unfavorably" - That fits my argument just fine.
I am not an environmentalist. Never said I was and quite frankly think environmentalism is a religion in and of itself - dedicated to the "belief" in nature/environmentalism without true consideration of actual scientific facts. I would maybe call myself a rational conservationist, but environmentalists generally don't like me. What I am speaking of is the science of GMO and on weather or not someone can do something to my property against my wishes.
Yes you are correct - my heirloom products could infect others around me growing the same kinds of things - however - luckily for me - I have no nearby neighbors and the likelihood of that is very small as compared to a large farm growing a large crop right next to mine.
I have wanted to buy some larger land to expand my operation, and proximity other farms is an issue I will have to consider when I eventually do so. Especially since I have considered the idea of growing heirloom seed for the purpose of the seed being the primary item I'm selling. This makes this even more of an issue than I'm interested in.
Much like Jan said above - if their pollen is "infecting" my crop and by their crop coming onto my property it is going to cause my operation harm - I would want them to stop BEFORE doing the harm. Extending Jan's analogy above, if the farmer next door told me he was going to get a herd of cows and let them loose on his adjoining portion of my property WITHOUT putting up a fence - should I really have to wait for his cows to destroy my crop before being able to do something about it? Anyone who's been around cows - knows - if there is no fence - they WILL invade my crop. No differently than their pollen that WILL invade my crop. They idea that you think I should wait for crop damage and then go to court seems odd. If you have a neighbor with an aggressive dog - and you have no local ordinance regulating dogs - do you wait to get bitten or have your kid get bitten or killed before you do something about it?

Interestingly, the coverage I saw made no mention of him "deliberately keeping then planting seeds he knew contained GMO DNA". What was the standard of 'proof' used to arrive at that finding?

I don't see this comparison - they would have to buy their seed every year regardless - and granted this is their business model, but they don't have to buy seed the next year because of my pollen cross pollinating their produce - whereas I would. They could still sell their crops regardless of this issue. Their plants will produce the volume and size of fruit regardless of my pollen getting into their crops.
That is not the case for more - they would be causing me the problems and financial hit. How do I make them pay for damages without proof? By taking a random sampling of my produce and having it DNA tested, then hiring an attorney, then going through the whole set of court motions to get what? Maybe fair market value? Maybe all of my time invested in dealing with the whole law suit? Maybe getting all of my DNA testing money back (assuming I could afford to have that done in the first place)? Against a behemoth like Monsanto. That's just not realistic. Court is slow. I could very well be into multiple years of the same suite from year to year before being awarded anything - if anything. Quite simply they would have the resources to run me out before it even got started.
And - I have posted multiple times on this thread that I think the farmer should be help up until the case is heard - not simply tossed out and not heard.

Jan (jlc)'s post's is a good analogy to part of my issue in this case - the business aspect of it.
Take a look at this wiki article on some explanations about how GMO is plant modification outside of normal natural means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically...
As an example I had read an article many years ago where a GMO corn had been modified to contain some of the DNA from lightning bugs to improve their color to give them a more vibrant yellow color. I just tried to Google for it and can't find it - this was probably 10 or 15 years ago and I don't recall the source - I think it was a magazine article.
Obviously a lightning bug and corn can't naturally breed. In the link I included, there use forceful DNA injection to add things like where GMO plants can produce their own insecticides to keep them from being eaten by bugs - but don't we then eat it?
Granted there is some GMO where they are using same types of plants and combining them the create a hybrid - but in the same was as it naturally happen? No, so are the outcomes the same - maybe - but I don't know. Nor do they. Again, my issue with the long term effects.
But where species that would not normally breed are being forced - I don't like the idea - especially when your adding who knows what from other kinds of organisms like bugs, fungi, etc...

Where law and regulation are concerned, you always have to assume that the neighbor is a jerk-neighbor, or the law is useless. I am in favor of 'a few big laws' and not 'a ton of crappy little regulations'.

"Your right to throw a blow ends at the tip of my nose." is a good big law. What we have to decide is if the 'pollen' is a 'fist'. And questions come up: What if I am doing kata and someone walks into my space and gets hit? Is that his fault or mine? This is directly related to "If I have been growing my crops here for decades and now you decide to plant an organic farm downwind, should this be 'my fault'?"

These are important questions that relate to what an individual is responsible for.

Jan

Yep, I agree.
And for the record, I'm not outright opposed to GMO's - it is as you stated - If that's what I say I sell, then that is what I sell. And although I am not outright opposed to GMO, I am skeptical of its long term effects on us. People are too willing to screw around with nature and think they can control it. GMO's are unnatural creations - combining thing that could not combine in nature. Thus we just don't know how they will effect us in the long term - or even the environment. Look at how well we have done with introduced species of plants, animals, bugs, through history. For all practical purposes - these GMO plants are new species. Like I said - I'm very cautiously skeptical for now - and probably will be for quite a while. I don't want to ban the choice of others to go that route - I just don't want to farms that do so, to kill out any other option either.
The cow analogy is a good one - and true. But get down to those little things like pollen, bees, etc.. that's kind of new territory.
Noise pollution - hehe how about light pollution ;)
Yeah, I like I said - I hope people would just value each other enough to adjust. If you had a floodlight shinning right in my bedroom window at night - I'd hope I could say something to you about it and you'd have the common courtesy to alter it in some way to not drive me crazy. Same with noise. I don't like the regulation approach - but what about when you have a jerk neighbor to tells you to piss off? Again, I think maybe peer reviewed court hearing. Not sure. Me personally - I would put something over my window to keep from having a feud. I have only experienced a couple of neighbors like that in my life - I eventually found something I could do that annoyed them back - eventually we agreed to eliminate both issues and were fine - just didn't deal with each other. Suited me. BUT, if really need be - I think court verses regulation.

There are two questions in your question, johnpe:

(1) what are the actual differences
(2) what will the market support

Fortunately, we are in a group of folks who understand and respect the importance of economics.

Let me answer as I see it, and we will let AMeador correct me where I am wrong.

It is really not a question of GMO. Let me suggest that if I had a natural tomato plant and my neighbor had a natural pork plant and they could cross breed, then my next generation of seeds would be tomatopork seeds. But my customers are Muslims and will not eat tomatopork produce, so I must keep my tomato plants pure and free of pork plant pollen.

In this case, things labeled GMO are considered religiously offensive to environmentalist - and it does not even matter if there are foreign genes in the genome of the plant in question or not. Once a plant is labeled GMO, then it compromises the ability of the neighboring farmer to collect seeds for his next crop IF he is ethical and wants to label his product accurately for the market.

Jan

repeating a lie does not make it true.