Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's

[kalakoa]

"False" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm supposedly "anti-science".

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullwinkle

Monsanto has alleged seed patent infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 U.S. states as of January of 2013.

---

But my question was whether commercial seed companies have gone after farmers who have unintentionally had their seed stock contaminated by pollen from another GMO planting. If those farmers and farm businesses were trying to recover benefit from the GMO variety without compensating the developer of that intellectual property, then they were violating the law.

Our patent system allows recovery of payment for use of intellectual property: I cannot take a recent best seller and scan it and then sell copies of that book (or even give it away) without paying a royalty to the copyright holder. It is illegal to distribute copies of recordings or films - or even show them for compensation - without paying for that use.

Why crops should be exempted from intellectual property rights of the developer hasn't been explained to me. If you want to grow non-patented plants, you are free to do that: individuals have the ability and the right to grow non-patented varieties at will. But, if they are unwilling to accept the less desirable characteristics of the non-patented varieties, why should they be allowed to take advantage of, and profit from, the intellectual and financial resources that were invested into the development of the patented varieties without some compensation to the individuals and businesses that made the initial investment? If I were to show up at the (presumably organic) farms of the GMO opponents and went into their field and started harvesting their crops and carrying them off to the farmers markets to sell, how is that any different from stealing intellectual property? Those (organic) crops came about through the skill (intellectual property) of the farmer, his labor, and his costs of seed and other crop inputs.

So, again, are there documented cases of seed companies pursuing litigation against inadvertent use of GMO seed?

[Bullwinkle]

Sorry Geochem - I miss most of your details, nuances and exceptions - so looong winded

I just share the facts as I get them.... maybe if you did some research you could enlighten me as to the counter point ... 3 media sources will do - thanks

I'm sure both of do better with ASTM reports .... hows your slump? - grin

standing by

[kalakoa]

Intellectual property is just fine and dandy when applied to things that do not reproduce on their own. Any "illegal copying" is self-evident, as it requires a constructive effort.

Plants, however, are designed to self-reproduce, during which they will naturally reinforce any traits which provide a reproductive advantage: evolution.

Seems like containment of the "intellectual property" should be Monsanto's responsibility: if they don't want people "stealing" their patented genetics, maybe they shouldn't release them into the wild?

Addressing the point above: if (when) it's proven that GMO contamination caused the extinction of an heirloom varietal, the GMO companies will have a massive liability problem. This is precisely why they lobby for IP regulations: it's necessary to establish the precedent that you stole it rather than deal with the unpleasant reality that Monsanto can't change the laws of Nature.

Footnote on IP: check out the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which enshrines IP protection in a "Treaty" that supercedes the sovereignty of national governments.

[Frank]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geochem

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullwinkle

Monsanto has alleged seed patent infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 U.S. states as of January of 2013.

---

But my question was whether commercial seed companies have gone after farmers who have unintentionally had their seed stock contaminated by pollen from another GMO planting. If those farmers and farm businesses were trying to recover benefit from the GMO variety without compensating the developer of that intellectual property, then they were violating the law.

Our patent system allows recovery of payment for use of intellectual property: I cannot take a recent best seller and scan it and then sell copies of that book (or even give it away) without paying a royalty to the copyright holder. It is illegal to distribute copies of recordings or films - or even show them for compensation - without paying for that use.

Why crops should be exempted from intellectual property rights of the developer hasn't been explained to me. If you want to grow non-patented plants, you are free to do that: individuals have the ability and the right to grow non-patented varieties at will. But, if they are unwilling to accept the less desirable characteristics of the non-patented varieties, why should they be allowed to take advantage of, and profit from, the intellectual and financial resources that were invested into the development of the patented varieties without some compensation to the individuals and businesses that made the initial investment? If I were to show up at the (presumably organic) farms of the GMO opponents and went into their field and started harvesting their crops and carrying them off to the farmers markets to sell, how is that any different from stealing intellectual property? Those (organic) crops came about through the skill (intellectual property) of the farmer, his labor, and his costs of seed and other crop inputs.

So, again, are there documented cases of seed companies pursuing litigation against inadvertent use of GMO seed?

---

So, again, are there documented cases of seed companies pursuing litigation against inadvertent use of GMO seed?

try this link... not hawaii related but

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...santo.aspx

[Greg]

Here's a Hawaii related national article that touches both sides of the GMO issue.

[peteadams]

One quote from Greg's Buzzfeed article (not a terribly bad article overall) indicates both the problems with journalism in the GMO area and why those ideologically wedded to the idea that GM foods are inherently unsafe will never be satisfied:

quote:

---

The verdict is still out on whether GMOs are harmful for consumption: Those against legislation say there is no scientific evidence showing GMOs are bad, while supporters say there isn’t adequate research or independent scientific verification of industry assessments.

---

One, the "verdict" is not still out on the food safety issue if you have any respect for the independent science developed over the last 20 years on this topic. This is a journalism issue that doesn't seem to go away. If you have no respect for science there's not much to say.

Second, the quote illustrates the problem arguing with any ideologue: they demand science (or whatever) to prove* a negative. So they endlessly say this study isn't adequate, that study isn't adequate and so forth. One of the characteristics of anti-science diatribes is a list of references pointing to specific articles supposedly demonstrating some point. What they don't get is that science over the long term operates on a body of knowledge, not a few cherry-picked articles predisposed to a certain point of view. That's why the GMO meta review several of us have pointed to covers over 700 studies created over a number of years. These studies were evaluated on both their methodology and whether their conclusions were supported by their methodology and results. It is a large body of knowledge that overwhelmingly points to the food safety of GM crops. But it's never enough for the ideologue. This rampant anti-science ideology is perhaps even more obvious in climate change discussions where the huge body of evidence points to anthropogenic alterations in the Earth's climate, but that is simply dismissed as a "hoax."

*proofs exist in mathematics, not nature; science observes and tries to discover concepts that have good predictive probability consistent with their observations.

[dragon2k]

Hey peteadams - I'm no scientist and have no facts for you to try and debunk. I just do not like the idea, the concept and I never will. I feel it should be within my rights as a consumer to have gmo food labelled so that I may make the choice to buy them or not! Why not label? Whats to hide? Dont say cost cause thats a load of bs!

[Richard Ha]

I'm not against labeling if its done in a fair way. In 1992, we were the first in the world to be certified ECO OK. This was an attempt by the Rainforest Alliance to transform the world banana industry. We flew in inspectors from Costa Rica to look at our operation. Then we tried to get the cost of doing this
Covered by raising our price a bit. But, we could not do it. All our products are non GMO. So now you want us to label all our product non GMO?

[peteadams]

One would hope our laws were written on a better basis than "no facts" but that seems to be the situation we are in.