Did you know Roundup Ready sweet corn is now available?

[arrow]

Any studies done as to how ethanol has cleaned up the smog cities such as LA, NY, Denver, etc? With the advent of fuel atomization, why do we need any other crap in the gas?

 

[DFB]

Back in post #128 is a link to the latest published study (April 18 2013) concerning glysophate effects and human health. As related post in this newly released Youtube video Jeffrey Smith interviews one of the study's authors. Dr Stephanie Seneff PHD. explains the research results to him.

interesting statements at 16 min. and 37 min. mark and in the last 5 min.

 

[dave1949]

Wow you just had to ask that question didn't you

Dave I think you might find this link interesting

http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/MWT-AASSA-2007.PDF

I dont think there is a totally clear answer to that....yet

Alot of that is new ground to be covered

But it is clear that genectic engineering is assuredly intellectual property

It seems most patenting of intellecual property today is given on the assumption that its new developed technology and hasn't been shown to have been documented in the public sector before. It also seems that seeking patents has increased tremendously over the past several decades. What techniques used to be practiced for the good of mankind to improve the industry in general such as specific animal breeding programs or expanded scientific research such as with creative plant breeding has mainly become a propriety investment of the for profit plans of private business enterprises

I slogged through that document last night. You are right, there is a lot of stuff up in the air on that, lots of case law yet to be established. And of course, Monsanto is applying for patents on pigs mating--just in case they get lucky with a judge and jury somewhere down the road.

Thanks for posting the link.

 

[DFB]

I slogged through that document last night. You are right, there is a lot of stuff up in the air on that, lots of case law yet to be established. Thanks for posting the link.

Thanks for taking the time to read it
It is a lot of stuff to digest but it is a fascinating subject. :reading:

I don't think hollywood could do it better


Key points I clearly noticed were:

"Prior to the changes in patent law over the past 15-20 years, it was taken for granted that patents should not be granted in the food and pharmaceutical sector, because these sectors were regarded as too important for humans to be dominated by exclusive monopoly rights."

"Domestic animals supply 30% of total human requirements for food, and 70% of the world's rural poor depends on livestock as a component of their livelihoods."


"The watershed court case is the frequently-cited Diamond vs. Chakrabarty from the US Supreme Court in 1980. The question in this case was whether one particular genetically engineered bacterium could be patented; by the smallest majority possible (5 judges pro and 4 judges contra), the US Supreme Court responded with the all-encompassing statement that...Anything under the sun that is made by man is patentable."

"The general justification for patents--that they lead to increased innovation--is merely repeated for the livestock sector, without looking into the structure of the sector to see whether the existing incentives for research and development are sufficient, or how the introduction of patent law may alter them"

"The main rule in Europe is that all inventions are patentable if they are not explicitly exempt from being eligible for patent protection."

EU Patent Directive implements this exemption for rejecting a patent application on the grounds that commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality. Which is further specified as processes for modifying the genetic identity of animals which are likely to cause them suffering without any substantial medical benefit to man or animal, and also animals resulting from such processes. This targets modifying the genetic identity of animals, which basically refers to genetic modifications.

Currently, GM animals are not in use in active food production for terrestrial species. Yet practice regarding this exemption is scarce, and the practice of the ordre public exemption is still pending.

And of course, Monsanto is applying for patents on pigs mating--just in case they get lucky with a judge and jury somewhere down the road.

Boy it does sound like that could be the next step

Wow the complexity of genectic ownership. Thought provoking especially when you stop to think of what ownership controls GM plant breeding has already created....in essence any newly developed that concerns meat, dairy or plant production is simply wide open to be patented.

"There is legal uncertainty of how the courts will apply the general law this particular field. Patent law has potential to alter the existing legal conditions for competition and investments in the field of animal breeding, and needs therefore a higher level of awareness among policy-makers, animal breeders and farmers."

 

[dave1949]

Back in post #128 is a link to the latest published study (April 18 2013) concerning glysophate effects and human health. As related post in this newly released Youtube video Jeffrey Smith interviews one of the study's authors. Dr Stephanie Seneff PHD. explains the research results to him.

interesting statements at 16 min. and 37 min. mark and in the last 5 min.

More scary stuff. Dr. Seneff PhD, is a Senior Research Scientist at MIT. She obviously has a focus, and a strong position on statins/cholesterol/sulfates, but her points seem to be validated in other sources. I looked briefly for criticisms on line, nothing much was found.

It's way beyond my understanding or ability to evaluate. But, if half of what she says is true about the effects of Roundup/glysophate, we are in trouble.

 

[DFB]

Well lets lighten this load...lots of interesting news across the wire today.

Mostly our goverment at work

House Ag commitee debate...seems centered on several interesting issues. First surrounds the fact that organic industry is gaining clout on Capitol Hill, prompted by rising consumer demand and its entry into traditional farm states.

And according to press releases that isnt going over well with everyone in Congress. Tensions between conventional and organic agriculture boiled during a late-night House Agriculture Committee debate on a sweeping farm bill that has for decades propped up traditional crops and largely ignored organics.

When Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., a former organic farmer, offered an amendment to make it easier for organic companies to organize industry wide promotional campaigns, there was swift backlash from some farm-state Republicans, with one member Mike Conaway, R-Texas saying he didn't want to see the organic industry get a free ride.

And another Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga complained about organics' "continued assault on agriculture." referring to efforts to reduce the number of genetically modified crops in the marketplace.

At the same time, Scott acknowledged that he and his wife buy organic foods.

Read more here: WASHINGTON: Organic industry clout grows with consumer demand - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com

On another note Legislators also discussed an interstate commerce amendment from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, for more than an hour. The amendment, which would ultimately nullify laws set by other states regarding how products are manufactured. Already this is being viewed by some as way to counter individual state labeling laws

House Ag Committee Passes 2013 Farm Bill - Farm Futures

Ag Secretary Vilsack said the USDA officially recognizes distinct needs of U.S. organic agriculture that the agency will be providing new guidance and direction on organic production

"Organic production models may provide alternative solutions to current agricultural challenges, and it is the agency's responsibility to develop diversity in research and alternatives for all producers,"

Ag Secretary Vilsack officially recognizes distinct needs of U.S. organic agriculture

And the best is a press release by Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant who calls those who advocate non gmo "Elitist" and blames social media sites for increased public awareness.

Grant also said his dicamba-tolerant crops should still be approved around mid-decade, roughly on schedule with the companys own timeline, because scientists at the USDA will review the applications objectively. The technology will be added to Monsanto's Roundup-tolerant crops to help farmers control weeds that are no longer killed by Roundup herbicide .

" Because in the U.S., we have a system that works"


Monsanto Sees Elitism in Social Media-Fanned Opposition/Bloomberg

 

[dave1949]

The Maine legislature is working on a GMO labeling bill. It has a provision that it would only take effect if five other states enacted similar GMO labeling laws.

Monsanto has already threatened to sue the state if the bill is enacted.

Maine Panel Endorses Labeling for Genetically Modified Food

"Sixty-four nations currently label genetically modified food, but the U.S. is not among them. A recent poll shows that more than 90 percent of people in Maine support GMO labeling."

Janet Mills; Maine Attorney General:
"But I can assure you that when this matter goes to court, as it surely will if you pass the bill in any form, a judge will not stop to take a public opinion poll to determine if the First Amendment is violated," Mill said. "A judge will not take a poll to determine whether a law violates the Commerce Clause. And a judge will not take a poll before figuring out whether Congress has prempted the area covered by this law."

"Opponents say forcing retailers to label products containing genetically modified ingredients would violate food producers First Amendment rights. They also say that forcing lables onto certain products, like, say, potatoes, would put some Maine growers at a disadvantege compared to competitors in other states. Passing the bill, Mills argued, would leave Maine open to legal challenges on these fronts."

"The committee listened, then went ahead and voted out the GMO labeling bill anyway, endorsing it by an 8 to 4 margin."

The opposition lobbyist, political hack, former CEO of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, campaign manager for a right-winger running for governor, and all-around dip wad Lance Dutson:
"I mean, it's troubling," says Lance Dutson, spokesperson for the biotech and other business interests opposing LD 718.

"The Attorney General and the committee are working on trying to make sure that the bills that come to the floor are not frivolous, and that they're not going to just waste everybody's time. And when the attorney general of the state of Maine says clearly that there are serious constitutional questions that the bill raises - it really kind of defies logic that the committee would go down this road."

It seems that Monsanto's legal strategy against GMO labeling will be based upon First Amendment issues, ie; being "forced" to say something ... such as the truth.

 

[DFB]

Well yesterday was the day "March Against Monsanto" took place. According to the news reports close to 2 million people participated in the worldwide event. Catch some of the reports here.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/25/march-against-monsanto-protests-attract-millions-worldwide/

The Monsanto Company once again made their official PR release in which they reiterate their standard blanket statement of creating improvements to agriculture while addressing none of the movements major issues as outlined in the news interview from NYC surrounding health concerns, increased pesticide usage, and GMO food labeling.

The article also reports on the Senate Ag commitee recent refusal to approve a proposed federal labeling law

 

[ohio farmer04]

plant some today

 

[Jstpssng]

plant some today

All sorts of comments come to mind here.... but they belong in the "friendly politics"forum. (Not sure if that oxymoron still exists?)