The NEW World Dictators..... Hitlers Reborn

[skhadenuf]

I don't know as much as I should about the science behind the "terminator" gene, but I know one thing absolutely sure, is that governments and the multinationals behind the scientific progress made in other areas of growing crops fooled most of us into believing that we need to grow more crop to feed the growing demand from the growing population. Well over all we are producing more, there is a growing population, people are starving by what I see as much as ever, but yet we are told there is no price for our product because no one needs it. Tell me who has benefited the most from the advances made allowing us to produce more crop? It sure hasn't been the farmer, or the people that are starving and I think we need to stop allowing these companies to tell us what we need or don't need. Anything at all that gives these companies control or potentially more control should not be supported. They have screwed us over enough as it is and are making billions upon billions off of us I think that is enough.

[lakenheath]

Thanks for the backing guys! Nice to see some farmers looking at the big picture.

[Pulseman]

Lakenhead & Co., you have only read my comments where it fit your trail. Interesting the quick assesment of my nature, but this goes rigth back to you. I, luckely, only look into the agriville topic's very seldome and the more I see what you and your well informed friends write, the more I know why.

Not respecting proprietory rigths on seed is the same as stealing, particularly if the variety was created with privat funds. One important reason why breeders from Europe have reduced releases of varieties to Canada. Why to give rigths to varieties if the royalties can not be collected. This is also the reason why royalties are at high levels, becasue of all the socialistice free riders.

Nobody is forced to grow the new varieties, and all one needs to do for keeping old type of varieties without any royalties and/or determer gens, is, to keep some seed in good condition and you can re-multiply this. This demands knowledge of seed production and the hard work around it.

Good luck.

[wd9]

Well put Pulseman.

Lakenheath and Co., it is that kind of thinking that fits the title of this discussion "The new world dictators" - not that of a company whose success and longetivity or failure for that matter is determined by farmers purchases and economics. If farmers don't want it, they won't buy it, company is gone.

[wd9]

Pulseman, Wd9, I guess this is why we have different people in this world. I strongly disasgree with what you guys are saying. I can't honestly beleive that you guys imlpy that we are the people stealing. I wonder than do you guys consider it stealing when your getting fixed nitrogen out of seeding pulses?? Do you feel we should be writing out a cheque for $35/ac to the seed company for that nitrogen??
Wd9, to say that we the farmer are the Hitlers does not make sense.

The point Lakenheath and some others are trying to make is for eg. Compare a seed company that develops the Terminator gene, they have complete control of us. To get this point across look a Wal-Mart, pretty convenient store isn't it?? But what is that convenient store doing to the Zellers of the world, and the Bay etc. What do you think we will be paying at Wal- Mart in 10 years when these other retailers are gone?? Sorry to get off topic but that is what we mean when we say look at the big picture of the Terminator gene, instead of just the short gain.....

[jensend]

the logical extension to the seed companies arguments is that i should pay a royalty on grass production that my cattle eat. do you also agree with pharmaceutical co.'s taking dna from long isolated tribes and patenting human genetic material? all part of the same logic. keep on drinking the kool-aid!

[lakenheath]

Unbelievable. Do you ever stop and look at the big picture? What about the numerous countries that do not want to purchase GM wheat? We have a tough enough time trying to sell what we produce right now. Can you blame a country not wanting to eat bread that came from a kernel that cannot perform a vital function foundemantal to natures cycles.

You think Monsanto is hurting financially because they cannot protect the patent to the seed they create? I don't know of one farmer in our area that has or would consider stealing protected seed. I don't know where you get off saying socialists still seed from multi-nationals. What an ignorant un-informed comment.

We as farmers have poored money in check-off funds to pay researchers for the development of new and better varieties. In return we access to seed that we can bin-run once purchased from a certified seed grower.

If biotech companies want to research GM crops and try to sell them to farmers, go ahead. That is the risk they take. Who says they have to be protected. Patent the seed, make the farmer sign a contract and go from there. Don't put out a potentially devastating genetic trait in wheat that could cross-pollinate with other varieites.

Do some research on GM corn in the states. Some farmers are having huge wrecks with them right now and Monsanto is scrabbling to correct the monsters they have created. RR weeds and insected that are attracted to the genetic modifications of the corn plants.

Round-up, the saviour chemical of the world in now being found in water sources. Round-up the saviour chemical of the world is being linked the spread of fusarium in our soils. So now us farmers are being the company that created fusarium to bring out a variety that will combat it and pay big bucks for the product.

Bottom line. Don't $#%(* with nature. We have to be more informed.

[wd9]

Lakenheath, not a single crop we grow is native to Canada, should we not grow those either since we are messing up mother nature?

Where do you draw the line in what is messing with nature and what isn't? That is the most difficult question because eveyone has a different answer.

Two discussions going on I guess which is why this topic seems difficult.

1. Free market choice of new technology - let the farmer's wallet decide success and failure.

2. New technology is unknown of it's effects on nature - probably never will, and should it or should it not be allowed. How can effective risk assessment be done on new plant technology and who decides is probably the simplest question.

Guess the focus should be on #2 because #1 comes into play only when #2 is answered.

So I'll pose a question. If RR canola were to appear today in Canada, should it be registered?

Thoughts?

[northfarmer]

Lakenheath, sounds like you want to short Monsanto stock .....lol....

I have heard the claims about fausarium...to my knowledge no one has determined that there is any science based evidence of this connection....you should preface your statement with there is a theory of this causal link, rather than procaiming it as you do.....

now on the water supply issue I have not read anything on this and would like to, what is your source of this information.....

I wish to be better informed, as you suggest, but I prefer evidence and facts to determine my own opinion, much like I will wait for all the facts and research on a new technolgy before I declare it a threat to mother nature!!

and on that point, WD9 is right, settlers of N America had brought or bred all all the major crops and domestic livestock species to our continent, and doing so have been the single greatest cause for change in our plant and animal biodiversity, so open your gates, and let your fields return to native grass...lol....

Jensend...on the grass and cows thing and paying royalties for what my cows eat.....that is a pretty far fetched to say it is a logical connection, sound like a little more conspiracy theory and fear mongering for those that are uninformed...but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and request the sources by which you determined this connection...

..facts and evidence, not theories and supposition, that would make us all better informed on things like GURT....biotech crops and any other technolgy for that matter...

[jensend]

northfarmer: Jensend...on the grass and cows thing and paying royalties for what my cows eat.....that is a pretty far fetched to say it is a logical connection, sound like a little more conspiracy theory and fear mongering for those that are uninformed...but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and request the sources by which you determined this connection...

not so farfetched if you consider that some of the grass consumed is from grass gone to seed in the pasture. is that any different from volunteer canola carrying the rr gene? my point is that we're handing control of food production to a relatively few people who don't control supply by production but by laws they lobby for to make their technology critical to food production. the plant breeders' rights bills that are being passed around the world are a departure from historical practices and are being lobbied for so that the seed co.'s can control plant production. what is the point of all this technology if half the world can't afford to pay you a profitable price for your grain? it certainly isn't working for the producer.

[lakenheath]

Northfarmer......

Danish water contaminated by round-up, ban imposed

September 15, 2003: Denmark has imposed a ban on the spraying of glyphosates today following the release of data which found that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (RR) has been contaminating the drinking water resources of the country.
The chemical has, against all expectations sieving down through the soil and polluting the ground water at a rate of five times more than the allowed level for drinking water, according to tests done by the Denmark and Greenland Geological Research Institution (DGGRI) as reported below.

"When we spray glyphosate on the fields by the rules it has been shown that it is washed down into the upper ground water with a concentration of 0.54 micrograms per litre. This is very surprising, because we had previously believed that bacteria in the soil broke down the glyphosate before it reached the ground water," says DGGRI.

Do a little digging Northfarmer....it is amazing what you find out!!!!!!!

[skhadenuf]

Obviously this topic represents the main problem our industry is facing which is that there are so many different views on what we need and don't need and rather than look at all the facts we get all worked up start calling each other down rather than channel our energy towards the solution. I am just as guilty of this as most are. Everyone has a right to their opinion and looking at those opinions with an open mind is the way to go.
I am definately not against progress in technology and I don't think people should so called live free off of corporations etc. but I think the idea of technology improvements is to make things better but shouldn't it be better for us the producers? Now who will benefit from the terminator gene? Obviously the reason company's want the gene is to control their seed so they make all the money they deserve from it and that part is fine because yes we don't have to buy it if we don't want to.

But can this gene cross into other crops and effect them, I am not being sarcastic I am looking for the answer
if someone out there really knows it please reply. If it can cross over then obviously even if I don't buy this technology my farm is affected and our whole farm system is effected. If so then why would we consider this at all?

The reason we support improvements to technology should be to supply food and reduce world hunger while dilivering a fair price for our products. I have to admit I may have pre bias against this technology because most of the so called improvements have only helped the bottom line of these companies and not our prices or the people that are starving.
I don't see the terminator gene as being the answer to the mess our system is in right now so why are we spending so much time debating it or developing it.

[lakenheath]

Northfarmer you and WD9 sure know how to twist things.

You said, "and on that point, WD9 is right, settlers of N America had brought or bred all all the major crops and domestic livestock species to our continent, and doing so have been the single greatest cause for change in our plant and animal biodiversity, so open your gates, and let your fields return to native grass...lol...."

Brilliant statement, seeing as it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Grain varities are native to planet earth and and plant breeding is also natural. Genetically modified terminator genes are not native to this earth. It has no role in nature other than to guarantee more money in the pockets of irresponsible companies like Monsanto.

Your rediculous reasons for seeing it as a fit on your farm are unbelievable when weighed against the consequences of the technology. Fall spray with a little bit of 2-4D or in early spring. Or set your combine right for that matter.

More food for thought. If you had a young family and had to option of feeding them cereal, bread, pasta, etc. that came from current varieties or feed them the same food derived from a plant that has been modified as to not perform a vital function of the continuation of life on earth (ie. the terminator gene), which choice would you make. I know I sure as hell would not feed that crap to my young children.

[wd9]

Lakenheath, Take for example HT Canola. It is a novel trait plant and has been consumed and grown for 10 years without a single incident of anything, let alone the fuel savings, errosion from cultivation, and less residual and higher LD50 chemicals formerly used. It was approved for feed, food, and the environment by CFIA and Health Canada by a science based approval process like everything other crop and variety in this country.

I'm still trying to understand your position, and am trying real hard. Are you saying nothing should be approved in this country as long as companies make money at it? Or, because the science based registration process doesn't work? Or you simply don't want to see any new crop technology be approved regardless? What are you saying???

[lakenheath]

Pesticide Use (The Promises and The Realities)

When GE crops were first introduced, they came with promises of reducing the use of pesticides on farmland. This has been the main claim of the biotechnology industry as to why GE crops could be environmentally beneficial. The two herbicides that are associated with herbicide tolerant (HT) crops are glyphosate, coined Roundup by Monsanto, and glufosinate, marketed as Liberty Link by Aventis. The former being grown on a much larger scale. Dr. Benbrook, an independent analyst, affirms that US government data confirms the belief that HT crops have increased the amount of herbicide applied.

The claim the HT crops would lead to a decrease in pesticide use was based on the fact that a HT leads to flexibility in the time that the chemical can be applied, thus leading to only a single application. In the field, however, the ideal time for a single application would be later in the season after the majority of weeds were established, leading to a decrease in yield. So in reality, the majority of farmers are performing multiple applications, and increasing their per acre application when compared to their conventional neighbours.

Note also there WD9 that.... "Glyphosate - Although marketed as a benign chemical, has been shown to be the third most frequent cause of illness amongst agricultural workers. It also has toxic effects on beneficial organisms, such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria.


Trade and Economic Effects

The European Union has listened to the citizens of its 15 member countries and their disapproval and wariness over the issue of GE products, and has not allowed GE laden foods to enter the marketplace. As Canada is a major exported of goods to the EU, the approval of GE crops has had a drastic effect on the makeup of our export markets.

This is most apparent in the case of canola in Canada. With the introduction of glyphosate resistant canola, the markets to Europe closed and subsequently, the market is losing 300 million dollars in trade yearly, totalling over a billion dollars in canola sales to Europe since 1997. Markets in Japan and China have also severely declined.

You can't see past your own little farm operation can you?