amazing idea-crossbreeding question

[abc123]

no offense, but that statement is obsurd!

Monsanto has made billions off genetically modified corn seeds for years. Are you saying that Monsanto is breaking the law by selling genetically modified corn seed?

I drive past cornfields every day, and Mother Nature doesn't make fields of corn that are uniform height, Monsanto does (and other companies whos' names escape me right now)

 

[Hick]

Genetically grown corn is illegal in the united states for the simple fact if it spread it could devistate corn crops around the globe

.."genetically grown"..? I'm not sure what that means..
BUT, I do know that Monsanto is probably the biggest threats to seeds and the farming industry.

The United States Government has been financing research on a genetic engineering technology which, when commercialized, will give its owners the power to control the food seed of entire nations or regions. The Government has been working quietly on this technology since 1983. Now, the little-known company that has been working in this genetic research with the Government’s US Department of Agriculture-- Delta & Pine Land-- is about to become part of the world’s largest supplier of patented genetically-modified seeds (GMO), Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri.
Relations between Monsanto, Delta & Pine Land and the USDA, on closer scrutiny, show the deep and dark side of the much-heralded genetic revolution in agriculture. It proves deep-held suspicions that the Gene Revolution is not about ‘solving the world hunger problem’ as its advocates claim. It’s about handing over control of the seeds for mankind’s basic food supply—rice, corn, soybeans, wheat, even fruit, vegetables and cotton—to privately owned corporations. Once the seeds and their use are patented and controlled by one or several private agribusiness multinationals, it will be they who can decide whether or not a particular customer—let’s say for argument, China or Brazil or India or Japan—whether they will or won’t get the patented seeds from Monsanto, or from one of its licensee GMO partners like Bayer Crop Sciences, Syngenta or DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred International.

The advent of commercial GMO seeds in the early 1990’s allowed companies like Monsanto, DuPont or Dow Chemicals to go from supplying agriculture chemical herbicides like Roundup, to patenting genetically altered seeds for basic farm crops like corn, rice, soybeans or wheat. For almost a quarter century, since 1983, the US Government has quietly been working to perfect a genetically engineered technique whereby farmers would be forced to turn to their seed supplier each harvest to get new seeds. The seeds would only produce one harvest. After that the seeds from that harvest would commit ‘suicide’ and be unusable.

.. from hXXp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20060827&articleId=3082

- FRANCE REQUIRES LABELING TO MARKET GENETICALLY ALTERED CORN
IMPORTS
- SWISS GROCERS TO LABEL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD SHELVES
- UK SUPERMARKETS BAN UNLABELLED GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
- UK APPROVES GENETICALLY ENGINEERED OILSEED SALE
- MONSANTO TO RESEARCH WEEDS RESISTANT TO ROUNDUP
- MONSANTO BUYS HOLDEN'S TO SUPPLY 35% OF CORN SEED IN U.S.
- GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS POSE POSSIBLE ALLERGIC REACTIONS
- TRANSGENIC WHEAT PATENT APPROVED
- INDIA STOPS GENETICALLY ALTERED CROP

.. from a source about 10 years old.. hXXp://144.16.65.194/hpg/envis/doc97html/biod7ipr512.html

French Court Says Ban on Gene-Altered Corn Seed Will Remain, Pending Study

March 20, 2008

The decision was a victory for environmentalists and for farmers opposed to gene-modification technology. They had warned that the corn, which confers resistance to pests, could pollute other crops and pose a threat to the environment and human health.
Other farmers, backed by the biotechnology industry, argue the products could help lower costs and reduce use of pesticides.

.. hXXp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/business/worldbusiness/20gmo.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Flyinghigh]

Hay King I just Google that word Ruderalis and this is what I came up with http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3033.html and I like the part at the bottom that says,


Buyer beware

There are still many commercially offered Ruderalis hybrid strains that are very low quality and should barely be classed as drug varieties. At the same time, the finest Canadian outdoor pot to have crossed my path so far was from Mighty Mite derived lines that were harvested in July and August.

"The future seems clear for Ruderalis/marijuana hybrids. As many governments ease up on antiquated cannabis laws, more and more people will take up growing. A couple of auto-flowers on the back deck will likely fit the lifestyle of many more folks than would an indoor grow room. "

Demand for stabilized, auto-flowering hybrids of high drug value, in combination with saner drug laws, will pressure marijuana breeders to move forward on bringing these to fruition.

Until then, the ability to have marijuana crops maturing at any time of the growing season should wreak havoc on CAMP style police tactics that have been accustomed to only searching for plants one or two months of the year. This, if for no other reason, seems ample enough to plant some auto-flowerers today!

 

[abc123]

Hick - I think this is going off topic, but I feel compelled to reply to your opinion about Monsanto. In the first URL you offered, this was a line from the article...

"Control of Plant Gene _Expression, is to prevent farmers who once get trapped into buying transgenic or GMO seeds from a company such as Monsanto or Syngenta, from ‘brown bagging’ or being able to break free of control of their future crops by Monsanto and friends."

"Trapped into buying" ? That's like saying I was "Trapped" into ordering seeds from Nirvana. It's a choice.

If "poor" farmers in China WANT to buy seeds from Monsanto that produce consistent, high yield, disease and bug resistant crops, they CAN. But they don't have to.

If I WANT to buy seeds from Nirvana, I CAN. But I can also CHOOSE to use bagseed, or clones from a friend, etc.

Damning Monsanto for protecting their research and development investment is like damning Microsoft for requiring a serial number to install Windows on your computer. They paid to develop it, and they don't HAVE to give it away for free.

I respect your expertise shown throughout this forum time after time, but this opinion i felt needed an oposing view.

Happy Growing!

 

[godtea]

The real threat is that a copyrighted gene sequence is owned by the holder of the patent.
If you buy seed from them ,planted it in your field and it pollenated my crop. The resultant seed, bearing the copyrighted gene sequence, is owned by the holder of the copyright.
If I keep a portion of my crop for seed and use it next season I could get sued for the "patent infringement"

 

[Runbyhemp]

That sounds terrible. What's the world coming to ? There's even a US company selling off lots on the moon. The Bushes own a good chunk of it. What next ? :holysheep:

 

[abc123]

godtea, Although I am not a lawyer, I do know a great deal about custody laws, and your post reminds me of grandparents' rights. When a couple has a kid and divorces, often the grandparents get involved and ask for time with the grandkids. It has been argued and settled (in most states) that grandparents do not have any rights to a grandchild. Why am I talking about this? Because Monsanto would be the grandparents in this example. I'm sure unsrupulous lawyers would love to sue on behalf of the Monsantos of the world in the chance that they win and would never have to work again (because of the windfall results of a win). But that doesn't mean they will win, and a lawsuit would have to occur before we all know how that would turn out.

Let's hope it never does, and famers and seed companies can continue to coexist amicably.

Runbyhemp - If you really believe that the Bushes own a big part of the moon, I've got a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.

 

[godtea]

We aren't talking people we're talking property .
You can't own a person , but you can own a copyright on something you developed (ie. implanted gene strains).
It's like downloading music. The intellectual property is owned by someone and you have no right to take it without permision.
Read the latest Crighton Book if you want a monster to ponder .
He takes the whole concept of patented genes into the human genome .
1984 came and went and nobody noticed .
That's exactly what Orwell predicted .

 

[abc123]

Actually, you can own a person, until they are emancipated or achieve the age of majority for your state. Children are treated as possessions of their parents under the law. But, that is a whole other discussion for a whole other forum.

Your music metaphor also fails the sniff test because when you buy music, or other intellectual property, you have the right to copy, use, and reverse engineer it to your heart's content, as long as you don't sell it for your own gain. So, take a communist or socialist nation like China, who would buy the first year's seeds from Monsanto, and then plant seeds from that crop, to distribute to it's people (but not sell). Would that be a violation of the doomsday genetic copyright scenario you theorize?

I think what this whole discussion boils down to, is each person's theories on who owns what is created. Every person has the right to attempt to create a perfect strain of corn, wheat, etc - this is undeniable. Now when that perfect strain is created, and a terminator is engineered into that strain to protect and profit from the creator's efforts, is that person a

1. capitalist who took a risk to create something that may not have been possible, thereby risking his/her and his/her family's financial wellbeing, but in the end profiting from his/her hard work.

or

2. a monster who's whole intentions were to achieve a stranglehold on the world's food supply.

?

Answer that question and I'll tell you how you'll vote in November. :hubba:

 

[trillions of atoms]

i got a few bridges for sale if anyone is interested......

 

[Hick]

abc.. "off topic" it is, but we can still venture there, if it interferes with the origonal post/posters thread, and he so wishes, I can gather up "our" conversation and move it.

For almost a quarter century, since 1983, the US Government has quietly been working to perfect a genetically engineered technique whereby farmers would be forced to turn to their seed supplier each harvest to get new seeds. The seeds would only produce one harvest. After that the seeds from that harvest would commit ‘suicide’ and be unusable.

There lies a good portion of my concerns. Not in the 'improvements' made by their genetic manipulations, but the probability that their interests lie deeper than that. Like in establishing a monopoly on the seed market.

It proves deep-held suspicions that the Gene Revolution is not about ‘solving the world hunger problem’ as its advocates claim. It’s about handing over control of the seeds for mankind’s basic food supply—rice, corn, soybeans, wheat, even fruit, vegetables and cotton—to privately owned corporations. Once the seeds and their use are patented and controlled by one or several private agribusiness multinationals, it will be they who can decide whether or not a particular customer—let’s say for argument, China or Brazil or India or Japan—whether they will or won’t get the patented seeds from Monsanto, or from one of its licensee GMO partners like Bayer Crop Sciences, Syngenta or DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred International.

Damning Monsanto for protecting their research and development investment is like damning Microsoft for requiring a serial number to install Windows on your computer. They paid to develop it, and they don't HAVE to give it away for free.

I have an even lesser "opinion" of Bill Gates/MS, sorry.
"I" will NEVER purchase another MS product, if I don't absolutely have to. $200+ for an OS, that doesn't even work.. (at least Monsantos seeds do grow.. )...
Who paid to develop Linux or MAC?.. MAC, I'm not familiarwith, but Linux, I am. TOTALLY free!.. every program, software, upgrade, tech support.. and "IT WORKS"..and works well.

 

[Hick]

uh-oh... while I was composing.. you were posting.
Now you're gonna tell me how I'm gonna vote..
think it will be democrat?..

(We're treading in dangerous water here, now )
EDIT:
I doubt Monsantos... uhmmm, "financial well being" was ever in jepordy

 

[abc123]

While I am a Microsfot user, I share some of your concerns with their products. Allthough you have to admit, the world would be a different place without Mr. Gates contributions. (Whether he has profited from them or not)

I agree that Linus created a great thing, and from my experience with programming, free has almost always been better (php, mysql, apache) but that is not because there is no one profiting from those products. It is (in my opinion) because they are usually open source. Most software users don't care how it works, only that it does what they want. It is the curious people that open it up (when it's open source) and see how it works, and see if there is a better way in the HOW, instead of ONLY focusing on the WHAT that it does. It is those curious people that make software, seeds, and the world a better place.

I look at Monsanto differently because their product could solve worl hunger, and they are choosing to profit rather than be open source, so on that issue I think we probably agree. But if someone feels that Monsanto is obligated to divulge their trade secrets or stop developing a terminator for the greater good, I strongly disagree, and remind people that I doubt Monsanto went into the business to solve wold hunger, and that is their right.

 

[Hick]

Whewwww! I'm gld you didn't "give a go" at my november candidate.. hee hee..
I agree, wihout the "developers" that look/think outside of the box, stretch variables bbeyond what is thought possible and willing to take 'risks'. Without them, we would probably live in a pretty dull world . We'd all be running on "Potato" (or is it Potatoe) pc's, developed and distibuted by Al Gore.. . We'd still be growing "maze" and wild oats.(though sewing wild oats can be interesting) it probably isn't going to feed the world. .
I don't have anything agaiinst a man makeing profit.
I feel compelled to include a recent email that I recieved..

At a recent computer expo , Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer
industry with the auto industry and stated,
'If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would
all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.'

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating:

If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars
with the following characteristics (and I just love this part):

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash........
Twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a
new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would
have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off
the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For
some reason you would simply accept this.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your
car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to
reinstall the engine.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable,
five time 's as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only
five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be
replaced by a single 'This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation' warning
light.
I love the next one!!!
7. The airbag system would ask 'Are you sure?' before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and
refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle,
turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how
to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the
same manner as the old car.
10. You'd have to press the 'Start' button to turn the engine off

 

[trillions of atoms]

Lol ^

 

[abc123]

Great points by GM! I'm glad we were able to have a civilized debate, and that is precisely why I didn't guess how you'd vote in November

I'm gonna go play kickball with my kids now. I appreciate the intellect displayed in this thread. Who'd of thunk that a bunch of Marijuana proponents could discuss things normally reserved for the 'Highly educated'

Later all...

 

[Hick]

enjoy the kickball..
and thanks for the 'input'..

 

[allgrownup]

you have a bull.....and it gets horny.....and breaks down your fence and trespasses onto my property.....and impregnates my cows.....

you are liable for damages under penalty of the law.


Now lets say you are a farmer who cant grow a decent crop or tortured your soil. so you resort to buying seed from a GIANT corporation, backed by a loyal handshake from a person who came from a revolving back door.

they sell you seed at a superior discount and tout higher yields. now trillions of particles of flower love have rained down and impregnated my specialty crop of a pure strain of corn. Its a pure crop that's been grown over and over for generations...perfected from a seed tradition born out of mexico.

it is the apiphamy of what nature has to offer in corn and is sold for a premium at restaurants and specialty stores.

and now...next year i may be out of business. my crop polluted with a toxin never known in the natural world before. like an epidemic it is infecting hundreds of th000usands of acres nationwide. I did not ask for my crop to become polluted with a genetic alteration containing a suicide gene. You have trespassed my property. i can not collect enuf seed to replant next years crop let alone think about profit. you have killed my ability to support my family, you have killed my passion, you have crushed my spirit.

why...because you.....the farmer next door trying to collect a governtment subsdity for growing a commodity in an oversaturated market at the taxpayer expense cant grow a half ways decent crop....these farmers have to make up for it with money...the easy way.....he'll trade the health of society for a couple thousand bucks. pittiful.

and now on top of my lively hood and financial security at risk...you have the ballz to sue me, for violating your patent writes????

i would invite you in neighbor.....for a cool cup of tea and a pistol whip.

what ever happened to growing to share? growing to provide? whats so wrong with that?

 

[toddypotseed]

try asking those goverment freaky scientists with their genetic altering on the molecular level( as in the glow in the dark bunnies) or the goats milk that contains spider web proteins.

 

[edward]

drop the pipe and step away from your computer thats to much but fun thanks ed