Jophiel wrote:
(1) Seed supply being held by a limited number of organizations. As mentioned, farmers are not allowed to retain seed from their crops for replanting. This is primarily a "rights" issue; if the government collapsed tomorrow and we all turned into road warriors, you could still plant the seed and we wouldn't all starve to death
Sure. Not really seeing the problem here though. If the value of the improved seed is sufficiently high that the farmer can pay the extra cost for the seed and still sell his crop at a competitive price compared with the guy who doesn't, then this is really a business issue. I don't see how or why folks are up in arms about this aspect of it.
Quote:
(2) Cross pollination and contamination can negatively affect crops by changing resistances, chemicals of choice, etc. Farmers choose how to spray their fields (chemical & concentration) based on what seeds they assume are in the field. If they are planning on retaining part of their crop for replanting, they assume that what they are harvesting is composed of what they had previously planted and will base next year's decisions off the same. In a worse case scenario, the mixed hybrid could turn out sterile or something.
Right. But this is the case regardless of whether that other breed down the road was genetically modified in a lab, or via normal processes.
I was responding to the suggestion that this was some problem created by and/or unique to the production of lab modified crops. That there was some feature of those crops that made them more likely to infect other crops and cross pollinate or otherwise interact in negative ways. But so far, I've seen zero evidence of this being any more of a problem than "normal" crops. So why the fear?
Quote:
-and blending 1 & 2-
(3) Patent issues with accidental contamination haven't been fully resolved. If I accidentally grow crops containing patented genes, the patent holder has a legitimate complaint against me. You're not allowed to propagate patented genes, even accidentally. It's very conceivable that one could wind up having to pay fines, retroactive licensing or destroy crops as a result.
The case that was linked didn't directly address it, but the implication I got was that accidental is unlikely to result in an entire field having a high concentration of a given crop. As you said earlier, a farmer doesn't want to have mixed breeds in the same field. So a small percentage of the wrong type accidentally growing in a field isn't likely to benefit him or harm the patent holder. The issue in question in the case was that he intentionally collected the seeds from the round up resistant canola and then grew it in 1000 acres, resulting in 95% of the modified plant in that part of his farm.
That clearly was not an accident. Also, you used two slightly different phrases. Growing crops is one thing. Propagating them is another. The action which got the farmer in trouble was not a small percentage of one field growing the modified crop, but the intentional planing of the seeds from that specific set of plants in an entire field the next year. We don't know for sure what the outcome would be with a truly accidental situation, but it's doubtful that the cost to the farmer would be any greater than the cost of having the wrong kind of crop growing in his field in the first place.
Quote:
You seem to under some belief that farmers would be thrilled to have accidental cross pollination of their crops. They wouldn't be. Seeds and crops are closely kept track of because the farmer wants to know exactly what that field contains.
I know. That's actually part of my point though. Elinda's post made it appear as though risk of cross pollination is greater with genetically modified crops than "natural" ones. But I haven't seen any evidence that this is true.
Quote:
Quote:
There's no indication that they are any less controllable than any other crop though.
I don't think you even know what this means. The issue isn't fields of land being taken over by errant corn plants; it's the invisible changes to the composition of the intended crops.
Um... Right. But is there any greater risk of that happening in the case of crop strain modified by Monsanto than one that was developed using more traditional means? Secondly, is the harm from cross pollination of a Monsanto strain any greater than cross pollination for any other different strain than the one the farmer intended to grow in his field?
If the answer is no, then this isn't an issue with GMO. It's something that is always a risk in farming regardless of the means by which different strains of crops are generated.