Major Victory: GMOs Totally BANNED in Jackson & Josephine, Oregon

[DrPizza]

I'm pro GMO, but I am very anti-Monsanto--their attempt to essentially patent the entire food stock of the world and all that.

It's always a tough subject for me to wrap my head around.

It costs millions upon millions of dollars to develop these seeds. You think they should do all the research and just allow anyone to plant them, free of charge?? Also, there's all sorts of testing of these seeds. People implying that they're doing this haphazardly are misinformed.

No one HAS to plant GMO crops. If there was a variety of strawberry that produced nice fruit & was resistant to round-up, I'd be in heaven. I could easily increase my yield by a few 1000%. And, I'd be eating a shitload of strawberries.

 

[Stewox]

So they're banning any crop humans have cultivated since the beginning of agriculture? We've spent thousands of years selectively cross breeding and genetically modifying as a result pretty much every crop we've ever consumed.

I am extremely pro GMO foods. I would eat a GMO food before I ever ate anything organic.

Anti-GMO is the lefts version of the rights climate change deniers. It just doesn't make any sense the fear of GMO food. As you point out. We have been doing this for thousands of years. Nature does this naturally as well. It's just in the last 100 or so year technology has allowed us to accelerate the rate of finding the desired traits within our food supply.

You guys have no idea what you're talking about.

Nature has blockers, they bypass them and create something totally different that would never happen naturally.

I couldn't agree more. It's a little sad when people have such strong opinions on things that are a matter of fact.

Matter of F.A.C.T

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

A big fudge FACTor indeed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PshooWMzHMA

do you have any [SIZE=+2]credible[/SIZE] peer-reviewed scientific evidence for this tin-foil hat nuttery?

Yes: If you don't know if it's safe, you treat it as not safe.

All the "safe" studies in US have largely been funded by manufacturers and pushed by universities colluding with them.

But here are several studies that show GMOs to be basically mutagenic, causing bacteria in human gut to mutate to something that shouldn't.

Then it's the rat tumors. And then it's the hamsters who were sterile after 3 generations.

There will be a big study in Russia soon, promised to be independent, with other teams from several countries.

http://www.collective-evolution.com...-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

And just having a brain, that anything's pushed by bigpharma bigbusiness and biggovernment is probably automatically bad and I have pretty much zero trust in anything monsanto or anything GMO.

well, good luck!

GMO's are the best. if labeling laws ever gets passed, I'll go out of my way to eat them for a more sustainable world.

I'd agree that Montanso is a pretty shit corporation, but that's not a reflection on GMO science as a whole.

Ofcourse, if the same guys that sell the GMOs poisoned the environment ofcourse you'll need GMOs when everything else doesn't grow - welcome to hell on earth, all according to plan.

Yeap, the same people who decry conservatives for ignoring science when it comes to climate change and evolution then turn right around and ignore science on these.

If you are actually pro-science that means you accept what science says even when it tells you things you don't want to hear unless you've got some pretty hefty evidence of your own.

It's hard to admit science that doesn't exist.

Selective breeding and cultivating IS genetically modifying through evolution another organism.

Which is what mosanto and syngenta and dupont are not doing.

What are they doing? Don't you know, if you're so smart.

I'm pro GMO, but I am very anti-Monsanto

Which means you have no idea what you're talking about - nobody who knows the GMO subject would ever say something like that.

Syngenta and DuPont are then innocent as Jesus?

Across the board people just explain the term GMO on their own - nobody's talking about natural cross-breeding.


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

Anyways GMOs are part of silent weapons for silent wars, this is like old news.

I mean the whole idea of a GMO seed that doesn't produce new seeds and you can't replant them to buy new ones from the company who patents them which also spread and infect the natural plants - do you think this is just all by it self, it's DESIGNED to infect other plants, designed to spread and contaminate, designed to sterilize after 3 generations, designed with animal DNA, oh yeah where in nature would plant and animal DNA cross-breed.

 

[AdamantC]

The anti-GMO Luddites were really out in force over this. Had tons of the fuck-tards calling and coming to the door.

What's really insane is that they require police to seize/destroy any GMO plants when police funding is all ready running on fumes.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I think the bigger threat with gmo crops isn't the unknown of us "playing god" and them getting cancer from an ear of corn. The big risk is that our agricultural landscape is getting ever more homogeneous, with genetic diversity in crops losing out to better yields and drought tolerance. This puts our entire food supply at a much greater risk, all it would take is one disease to take hold and you are stuck with a crop that is genetically identical and thus the whole damned thing is susceptible. Diversity acts as sort of natural insurance policy, and because of economies of scale with GMO's we lose the diversity and thus the insurance.

I think the science and technology behind GMO's is a fantastic thing. It's just an extension of what we have been doing for thousands of years, and some of the critics have turned their lack of knowledge or misunderstanding of the subject into fear and paranoia rather than just healthy skepticism. That said I do think that there are issues such as business models and genetic diversity that warrant attention.

 

[Fenixgoon]

expect much higher food prices in those areas...

 

[Iron Woode]

He's still posting crap from Alex Jones, Infowars and Naturalnews.

None of those can be taken seriously.

Now you are referencing that discredited rat tumor GMO study?

You are the one that knows nothing about science, biology, genetics, etc...

 

[gotsmack]

I am against gene spliced crops. I'll accept it when we have many decades of research showing the effects on 5+ generations of large animals.

Any if you;re so worried about people starving then let them grow their own GMO crops. If your country can't grow enough food or economic utility to support the population then guess what? It's over populated! You have to let the population level out naturally before it can be properly rebuilt. I strongly believe the thing that keeps 3rd world countries in the 3rd world is all of this interference by the 1st world.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think the bigger threat with gmo crops isn't the unknown of us "playing god" and them getting cancer from an ear of corn. The big risk is that our agricultural landscape is getting ever more homogeneous, with genetic diversity in crops losing out to better yields and drought tolerance. This puts our entire food supply at a much greater risk, all it would take is one disease to take hold and you are stuck with a crop that is genetically identical and thus the whole damned thing is susceptible. Diversity acts as sort of natural insurance policy, and because of economies of scale with GMO's we lose the diversity and thus the insurance.

Bingo.

 

[artvscommerce]

I am against gene spliced crops. I'll accept it when we have many decades of research showing the effects on 5+ generations of large animals.

Any if you;re so worried about people starving then let them grow their own GMO crops. If your country can't grow enough food or economic utility to support the population then guess what? It's over populated! You have to let the population level out naturally before it can be properly rebuilt. I strongly believe the thing that keeps 3rd world countries in the 3rd world is all of this interference by the 1st world.

I'm very confused by these statements. Are you saying you think people should starve to death instead of using a safe technology that would provide the necessary amount of food to sustain the population?

 

[shira]

I'm very confused by these statements. Are you saying you think people should starve to death instead of using a safe technology that would provide the necessary amount of food to sustain the population?

There's a real need for GMO birth-control plants.

 

[Genx87]

I think the bigger threat with gmo crops isn't the unknown of us "playing god" and them getting cancer from an ear of corn. The big risk is that our agricultural landscape is getting ever more homogeneous, with genetic diversity in crops losing out to better yields and drought tolerance. This puts our entire food supply at a much greater risk, all it would take is one disease to take hold and you are stuck with a crop that is genetically identical and thus the whole damned thing is susceptible. Diversity acts as sort of natural insurance policy, and because of economies of scale with GMO's we lose the diversity and thus the insurance.

I think the science and technology behind GMO's is a fantastic thing. It's just an extension of what we have been doing for thousands of years, and some of the critics have turned their lack of knowledge or misunderstanding of the subject into fear and paranoia rather than just healthy skepticism. That said I do think that there are issues such as business models and genetic diversity that warrant attention.

I agree with this as a potentially disasterous side effect. That lack of diversification could be a real issue under certain conditions.

 

[realibrad]

I'm very confused by these statements. Are you saying you think people should starve to death instead of using a safe technology that would provide the necessary amount of food to sustain the population?

Sure, because he think it should happen over night, and that prices will never change.

If you believe that prices will have little to no effect on population, then people are going to die either way.

 

[Stewox]

I am against gene spliced crops. I'll accept it when we have many decades of research showing the effects on 5+ generations of large animals.

Any if you;re so worried about people starving then let them grow their own GMO crops. If your country can't grow enough food or economic utility to support the population then guess what? It's over populated! You have to let the population level out naturally before it can be properly rebuilt. I strongly believe the thing that keeps 3rd world countries in the 3rd world is all of this interference by the 1st world.

You don't understand it's all PR. The GMO stuff works worse in practise as seen in India, crops not working, hundreds of farmer suicides, it's not to increase the food to feed the brave new world, it's to get rid of you, eventually. The future doesn't need you http://www.infowars.com/the-end-of-humanity-rise-of-the-robots/ http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=


Even if all the safety concerns wouldn't be true, the PR story of "sustainability" is a joke on it's own, didn't we heard that word before http://youtu.be/XcewpiMs1HU?t=41m38s

 

[Thebobo]

.... The future doesn't need you http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=

.....

Wow that is one long article. He quotes Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto

 

[zinfamous]

Which means you have no idea what you're talking about - nobody who knows the GMO subject would ever say something like that.

Syngenta and DuPont are then innocent as Jesus?

Across the board people just explain the term GMO on their own - nobody's talking about natural cross-breeding.

Yeah, I mean, I only make transgenic organisms for a living, so I guess I don't know wtf I'm talking about, huh?

go eat some of your medicine.

 

[brycejones]

Yeah, I mean, I only make transgenic organisms for a living, so I guess I don't know wtf I'm talking about, huh?

go eat some of your medicine.

Now the truth comes out!

You're one of THEM....dedicated to the extinction of homo sapiens sapiens by poisoning us with your transgenic food that will pollute our natural essences and render us incapable of defending ourselves from the alien attack.

 

[shira]

That is an interesting point. Farmers whose crops get accidentally cross-pollinated because their farms were next door to farms with genetically patented crops have been SUED by the huge corporations who sell the seed. Kind of sad in a way.

It's more than sad. It's outrageous and indefensible. How can a farmer possibly prevent his own crops from being contaminated by the pollen from a neighbor? A farmer may have no knowledge at all that his neighbor is even using GMO seeds. And as the judge in this ruling made clear:

The rate of GM contamination does not matter; whether it’s 1 percent, 2 percent, 10 percent, or more, the seeds and plants still belong to Monsanto.

It's difficult to believe that this ruling can stand. It means that your neighbor can drive you into bankruptcy by growing GMO crops of the same kind you have, because you will be barred from using your own seeds and plants.

 

[Pulsar]

Where the hell is the nuclear bomb exploding post? It's a Stewox thread!

 

[Pulsar]

It's more than sad. It's outrageous and indefensible. How can a farmer possibly prevent his own crops from being contaminated by the pollen from a neighbor? A farmer may have no knowledge at all that his neighbor is even using GMO seeds. And as the judge in this ruling made clear:


It's difficult to believe that this ruling can stand. It means that your neighbor can drive you into bankruptcy by growing GMO crops of the same kind you have, because you will be barred from using your own seeds and plants.

Please show a case of Mansanto suing a farmer because of cross-pollination of his field.

The most oft-cited case is actually one where the farmer intentionally reused purchased seed (a big no-no) the next year. I look forward to seeing proof of this claim.

 

[shira]

Please show a case of Mansanto suing a farmer because of cross-pollination of his field.

The most oft-cited case is actually one where the farmer intentionally reused purchased seed (a big no-no) the next year. I look forward to seeing proof of this claim.

I was completely mislead by post #8. That post totally misrepresented the Canadian case of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004). Post #8 claimed that the contamination of the Scheiser's canola crop was caused by accidental cross-pollenation from a neighbor who had planted Monsanto's Roundup-immune canola seed, and that Schmeiser was a totally innocent victim who grew his canola crop in complete ignorance of the contamination, but lost his crop as a result. Totally untrue. As the Wikipedia article states about this case states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff

The Supreme Court of Canada had issued a similar decision in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004). That case concerned Percy Schmeiser, who discovered that canola growing on his farm in 1997 was Roundup resistant. He had initially discovered that some canola growing by a roadside along one of his fields was Roundup resistant when he was killing weeds along the road; this led him to spray a three- to four‑acre section of his adjacent field and 60% of the canola survived. Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and planted the seed in 1998. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was blown into his field from neighboring fields, that he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998. The initial Canadian Federal Court rejected Schmeiser's defense and held for Monsanto, finding that in 1998 Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds he had harvested from the wind-seeded crops in 1997, and so patent infringement had indeed occurred.Schmeiser appealed and lost again. Schmeiser appealed to the Supreme Court which took the case and held for Monsanto by a 5‑4 vote in late May 2004. Schmeiser won a partial victory, as the Supreme Court reversed on damages, finding that because Schmeiser did not gain any profit from the infringement, he did not owe Monsanto any damages nor did he have to pay Monsanto's substantial legal bills. The case caused Monsanto's enforcement tactics to be highlighted in the media over the years it took to play out. The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed. "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘...none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" – in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.

 

[Pulsar]

I was completely mislead by post #8. That post totally misrepresented the Canadian case of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004). Post #8 claimed that the contamination of the Scheiser's canola crop was caused by accidental cross-pollenation from a neighbor who had planted Monsanto's Roundup-immune canola seed, and that Schmeiser was a totally innocent victim who grew his canola crop in complete ignorance of the contamination, but lost his crop as a result. Totally untrue. As the Wikipedia article states about this case states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff

Exactly. Anyone (like yourself) intelligent enough to do the research that Mansanto has never sued a single farmer for inadvertently farming seeds that moved into his area.

Monsanto has done a number of things that I don't consider savory, but the big evil stamp that gets put on them is undeserved in a number of ways.

For instance, if you actually read some of the posts our resident fruitcake Stewox posts, you'd quickly realize most of them are total crap. For instance, he's blaming Monsanto for 100's of thousands of farmer suicides. The most poignant 'example' in the article is of a farmer that took everything he had and bought Monsanto seeds twice, went broke, and killed himself because of the debt. A stupid farmer is hardly Monsanto's fault. They didn't put him in that situation.

 

[MongGrel]

You guys have no idea what you're talking about.

You need a GMO Enema.

 

[zinfamous]

Now the truth comes out!

You're one of THEM....dedicated to the extinction of homo sapiens sapiens by poisoning us with your transgenic food that will pollute our natural essences and render us incapable of defending ourselves from the alien attack.

Mice, flies, etc. for research and shit. Nothing that ever returns to the wild/ever exposed to humans or other wild type species.

I already mentioned that Monsanto can eat a dick. I don't have a problem with transgenics in theory, it's just that when we start introducing these things to the wild, while pretty much safe, you run into major problems as described earlier--lack of diversity, and the fact that directly targeted gene gene construction really isn't the same as years of selective cross-breading.

The constructs you create in the lab often have unexpected responses, or lack thereof (almost entirely benign, btw). Point being, Epigeneitcs grew out of this kind of experimentation, and we now know that one gene /= one protein. We now know there is no such thing as "junk DNA."

Aside from that, this technology is being funneled towards Industry control, which should concern everyone.

GMO: good
Monsanto: eat a dick.

 

[Iron Woode]

I was completely mislead by post #8. That post totally misrepresented the Canadian case of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004). Post #8 claimed that the contamination of the Scheiser's canola crop was caused by accidental cross-pollenation from a neighbor who had planted Monsanto's Roundup-immune canola seed, and that Schmeiser was a totally innocent victim who grew his canola crop in complete ignorance of the contamination, but lost his crop as a result. Totally untrue. As the Wikipedia article states about this case states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff

you also failed to read post 12 where I corrected bshole's #8 post.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

It costs millions upon millions of dollars to develop these seeds. You think they should do all the research and just allow anyone to plant them, free of charge?? Also, there's all sorts of testing of these seeds. People implying that they're doing this haphazardly are misinformed.

No one HAS to plant GMO crops. If there was a variety of strawberry that produced nice fruit & was resistant to round-up, I'd be in heaven. I could easily increase my yield by a few 1000%. And, I'd be eating a shitload of strawberries.

I think everyone gets that, i also think everyone gets that to be able to compete you will have to use their crops which will eventually create a monopoly.

What then? This isn't a company that wants you to have cheap food or for farmers to have cheep seeds, they are in the business to make as much money as they can and when they have most or nearly all farmers then none of them can go back to their original investment and just replant.

At that point Monsanto can charge what they please and you WILL pay it or you won't eat.