India Says No to Genetically Modified Eggplants

[Calypso 465]

My husband was born in India. He just mentioned to me this morning that once my GC arrives maybe we could both visit India.

I'll remember not to eat their eggplants if we really would go to India.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's good. I'm not opposed to hybridization, but people often confuse that with genetically modified. They aren't the same thing. As the OP article indicates, Monsanto makes these frankentstein plants by genetically altering them with DNA from other sources. Almost all corn we eat today, for example, is some type of hybridized plant.

Adoption of genetically engineered crops with traits for pest management has risen dramatically since their commercial introduction in the mid-1990's. The farm-level impacts of such crops on pesticide use, yields, and net returns vary with the crop and technology examined. Adoption of herbicide-tolerant cotton led to significant increases in yields and net returns, but was not associated with significant changes in herbicide use. On the other hand, increases in adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans led to small but significant increases in yields, no changes in net returns, and significant decreases in herbicide use. Adoption of Bt cotton in the Southeast significantly increased yields and net returns and significantly reduced insecticide use.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER786/

Edited February 13, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ten years after the first generation of genetically engineered (GE) varieties became commercially available, adoption of these varieties by U.S. farmers is widespread for major crops. Driven by farmers' expectations of higher yields, savings in management time, and lower pesticide costs, the adoption of corn, soybean, and cotton GE varieties has increased rapidly. Despite the benefits, however, environmental and consumer concerns may have limited acceptance of GE crops, particularly in Europe. This report focuses on GE crops and their adoption in the United States over the past 10 years. It examines the three major stakeholders of agricultural biotechnology and finds that (1) the pace of R&D activity by producers of GE seed (the seed firms and technology providers) has been rapid, (2) farmers have adopted some GE varieties widely and at a rapid rate and benefited from such adoption, and (3) the level of consumer concerns about foods that contain GE ingredients varies by country, with European consumers being most concerned.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB11/

Stupid Europeans!

[Susita 175]

That's good. I'm not opposed to hybridization, but people often confuse that with genetically modified. They aren't the same thing. As the OP article indicates, Monsanto makes these frankentstein plants by genetically altering them with DNA from other sources. Almost all corn we eat today, for example, is some type of hybridized plant.

Speaking of the genetically modified corn, one of my professors mentioned that most of the corn that's planted here in the US is modified in such a way that you cannot re-cultivate from the actual corn itself. How clever. So it's seeds would then be rendered useless. I think that's a terrible waste of corn.

Not only that, but it in essence, forces you to continue purchasing seed from the company which keeps the company in business. So it makes you think.... is the objective to solve the global food crisis or for these corporations to make a profit? I think the latter.

It's not a bad idea at all, it's just the way it's handled that bugs me.

[Calypso 465]

Stupid Europeans!

Not stupid. They are just trying to be smart. When I arrived in the U.S., I have noticed that there's the word "organic" everywhere like "organic bok choy, organic apples" and more. I don't know if there are stores like that in the Philippines. I didn't see any.

I made that comment to my husband one day and he asked in response, "Do you know what 'organic' means?"

I was trying to be smart so I said, "Well my chemistry teacher back in high school said that something is organic when it has the presence of carbon molecules."

He had this reaction that I couldn't explain.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Speaking of the genetically modified corn, one of my professors mentioned that most of the corn that's planted here in the US is modified in such a way that you cannot re-cultivate from the actual corn itself. How clever. So it's seeds would then be rendered useless. I think that's a terrible waste of corn.

Not only that, but it in essence, forces you to continue purchasing seed from the company which keeps the company in business. So it makes you think.... is the objective to solve the global food crisis or for these corporations to make a profit? I think the latter.

It's not a bad idea at all, it's just the way it's handled that bugs me.

Yep. And Monsanto is the leader of seed patents. They're dirty evil bastards...small farmers hate 'em.

Here's an example:

Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Saskatchewan Canada, whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's genetically engineered Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby farm. Monsanto says it doesn't matter how the contamination took place, and is therefore demanding Schmeiser pay their Technology Fee (the fee farmers must pay to grow Monsanto's genetically engineered products). According to Schmeiser, "I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract.

If I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto Headquarters) and contaminate their plots - destroy what they have worked on for 40 years - I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away."

Rodney Nelson's family farm is being forced into a similar lawsuit by Monsanto.

link

[Susita 175]

See? This is why I like Peruvian corn Not genetically altered but freakin' huge.

Look at the size of the kernels!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Adoption of Bt cotton in the Southeast significantly increased yields and net returns and significantly reduced insecticide use.

There's always at least two sides to every story, Bill. You outta know that. It's great you feel the call to champion the farmer, but you should first decide whose side you are really on.

Monsanto versus Farmers

Feudalism has returned to farming in the US and Canada, according to the US Center for Food Safety's report detailing the domination over American staple crops by the corporations and their ruthless prosecution of farmers.

Once the ink is dried on the "technology agreements" signed by the farmers buying genetically modified (GM) seed, they enter into contracts that effectively relinquish to Monsanto their right to plant, harvest and sell the GM seed. From that moment on, they are also vulnerable to harassment such as having their property investigated, litigations and out of court settlements that are part and parcel of licensing a Monsanto patented product.

No grower is safe from this onslaught as third generation Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser discovered when he lost to Monsanto in court for failing to pay royalties on GM canola seed that had contaminated his non-GM canola crop. "The corporations are becoming the barons and lords, which are what my grandparents thought they had escaped." Schmeiser said.

To-date, Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against American farmers; and 147 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies have had to fight for their lives to avoid paying additional court costs, attorneys' fees, and in some cases, costs incurred by Monsanto while investigating them

The Center for Food Safety estimates that Monsanto has been awarded over $15 million for judgments granted in their favour. The largest recorded single payment received from one farmer was US$3 052 800 (Farmer Anderson, Case no. 4:01: CV-01 749).

Monsanto controls US staple crops by licence

For the first time in history, one company has unprecedented control of the sale and use of crop seed. They have accomplished this in three main ways: control of germplasm through ownership of seed companies; domination of genetic technology and seeds through patent acquisitions; and breaking age-old farming tradition by forcing farmers to buy new seed each year rather than saving and re-planting seed.

Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsanto's the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesn't actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.

American farmers are hard pushed to find high quality, conventional varieties of corn, soy and cottonseed. Anecdotal evidence supports this. Troy Roush, an Indiana soybean farmer says, "You can't even purchase them in this market. They are not available." Similar reports come from the corn and cotton farmers who say, "There are not too many seeds available that are not genetically altered in some way."

Over the last 10 000 years, diverse genetic pools have been created and preserved by plant breeders. Monsanto has put these diverse gene pools at risk by contaminating certified and traditional seed stocks, and by not permitting farmers to save seeds. A feudal system of seed ownership destroys perhaps the key privilege of a farmer as the guardian of societies' crop heritage. And it has turned agriculture into an industry where the corporations consolidate their hold over costly seeds and chemicals that increase farmers spending on inputs. Meanwhile monopolies are created in corporate manipulated markets that include fewer buyers who demand the lowest possible prices for the outputs produced by farmers, forcing them into a debt spiral. In 2003 Monsanto made $3.1 billion in pesticide sales and $1.6 billion in seed sales.

Farmers are under pressure to confirm their identity as modern agriculturalists, particularly in developing countries. But replacing the traditional strategy of saving and replanting seeds from diverse varieties by a patented seed with all its restrictions threatens food security at household and global levels.

Patents place the burden on farmers

Over the past twenty years, Monsanto has voraciously accumulated collected patents on engineered plants, seeds and genetic engineering techniques, perhaps most importantly, the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter, the commonest component in the genetic engineer's toolbox. Along with CaMV35S, which other biotech companies pay exorbitant fees to license, Monsanto owns 647 plant biotech patents and a 29% share of all biotech research and development.

Patents have changed the face of farming because the farmer has lost control of seeds. Once farmers paid royalties on seed to the US Plant Variety Protection Act or Canada Plant Breeders Rights Act licensees who allowed seed saving. Since the 1980s, the US Patent and Trademark Office began issuing patents for GM organisms and seeds and have granted more than 2 000 since 1985. Professor Lawrence Busch of Michigan State University estimates the saving of soybean seed dropped from 31% in 1991 to just 10% in 2001 after the introduction of the GM soybean; this translates into an additional $374 million in seed industry profits in 2001.

Robert Schubert, the author of Farming's New Feudalism believes than an important strategy in saving independent farmers is to remove agriculture, food and water from the control of the WTO. His message is no "free" trade where farming is concerned and no patents.

When Monsanto suspects that saved seed containing a "Monsanto genetic trait," have been grown, documentation is requested from the farmers to confirm that the crop was planted from newly purchased seed. If proof is not forthcoming, then all of the growers' fields may be tested and inspected to determine if saved seed was used. Even after the farmer has extricated himself from Monsanto technology agreements, if volunteer plants sprout up in his fields from transgenic seeds purchased and sown from previous years, he is still vulnerable to allegations of patent infringement.

Farmers intimidated by Monsanto

Here's what typically happens to US farmers who fall under suspicion of planting saved seed. Private investigators from the Pinkerton agency hired by Monsanto arrive on the farm without warning, sometimes accompanied by local police. They then proceed to take samples and photographs over the course of a few hours to a few weeks, without the farmer being present.

One Mississippi farmer who runs a farm shop from his farmhouse was subjected to constant surveillance by Monsanto investigators who watched the family coming and going, warned off customers, and even rented an empty lot across the street from where to position their cameras.

Monsanto used entrapment to file a lawsuit against another farmer, when one of their investigators begged seeds from him to help solve an erosion problem too late in the season to plant crops. If personal intimidation fails, Monsanto resorts to another violation of privacy by sending a registered letter threatening to "tie the farmer up in court for years" if he refuses to settle out of court for patent infringement. One farmer who challenged this intimidation had his name blacklisted on thousands of seed dealers' lists. He concedes, "It is easier to give into them than it is to fight them."

A further example is seed dealers who sell seeds in plain brown bags so farmers sow them unknowingly. This happened to Farmer Thomason who was harassed into court by Monsanto and sued for over a million dollars. He had no choice but to file for bankruptcy despite never intending to plant Bt cotton.

In 1999, The Washington Post reported that the number of farmers under investigation in US and Canada was 525. A later report confirmed that Monsanto was investigating 500 farmers in 2004 "as they do every year." Once a farmer agrees to settle out of court he may be forced to present all documents relating to farm activity within 24 hours of request, purchase a specific quantity of company product and disclose the names of other people that have saved company seed.

Contamination of conventional seed stock

Researchers at the University of Manitoba, Canada tested 33 samples of certified canola (oilseed rape) seed stock and 32 were contaminated with GM. The Union of Concerned Scientists tested traditional US seed stocks of corn, soy and canola and found 50% corn, 50% soy and 83% canola contaminated by GM.

One hundred percent purity is no longer achievable, and even if non-contaminated seed could be purchased, some contamination can take place in the field either by transfer of seed by wind, animals or via farm equipment.

Monsanto dominates the sale of seed stocks yet puts the onus of finding markets for crops on the farmer. Within their contract is the "Technology Use Guide" which gives directions on how to find grain handlers willing to accept crops not approved for use in the EU. While Monsanto acknowledges that pollen flow and seed movement are sufficient to contaminate neighbouring non-GM fields their implicit rule is that "the growers of the non-GM crops must assume responsibility and receive the benefit for ensuring that their crops meet specifications for purity."

Monsanto profits from lawsuits against farmers

Outcomes of lawsuits brought by Monsanto against farmers are mostly kept under wraps. If farmers are tempted to breach confidentiality they can face fines greater than the settlements. But where judgments have been publicly recorded, sizeable payments benefit not only Monsanto, but also partner companies.

Combined financial penalties have forced many farmers into bankruptcy and off their land. Agriculture is suffering losses all around because of the disappearance of foreign markets. The US Farm Bureau estimates that farmers lose over $300 million a year because European markets refuse GM corn. The US State Department says that as much as $4 billion could be lost in agricultural exports due to EU labelling and traceability requirements. Organic and conventional farmers alike have lost their premium markets through having no choice but to sell their contaminated crops into GM crop streams.

Monsanto denies making profits from the misery of farmers and claims that proceeds go to agricultural school programmes, which some does, but by no means all. An annual budget of $10 million is set aside each year to run a department of 75 staff dedicated to prosecuting farmers.

What Monsanto did next

Monsanto has another way of controlling patented genes. So called "terminator technology" are seeds that become infertile after one life cycle. The international moratorium on terminator ended when New Zealand and Australia announced it would support the technology's introduction on a case-by-case basis at a 2005 meeting in Canada. The US Administration in Iraq has already enforced the non-replanting of seeds by farmers, under Order 81. Both GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) and "technology agreements," used as weapons against farmers when they purchase GM seed, have not been legally challenged. It's high time that patent laws on living organisms that are encouraged by legislators, regulators and the courts alike, come under public scrutiny.

Amending the Patent Act so that sexually reproducing plants are not patentable and amending the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) to exclude such plants from protection under the PVPA are two policy options suggested by the Center for Food Safety to defend farmers from Monsanto. This would minimise the damage done to farmers and agriculture in the long term. Drastic policy changes are needed at state and federal levels to address the hounding of farmers, their families and small agricultural companies by the aggressive tactics of a big corporation determined to destroy traditional farming practices and rights that go back thousands of years.

Farmers facing lawsuits or threats from Monsanto can call this toll-free hotline for guidance and referrals: 1-888-FARMHLP

Sources

Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, 2005. A report by the Center for Food Safety © 2004, Center for Food Safety www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

Robert Schubert. Farming's New Feudalism, World Watch 2005. © Worldwatch Institute.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

See? This is why I like Peruvian corn Not genetically altered but freakin' huge.

Look at the size of the kernels!!!

Awesome! I'd love to try it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not stupid. They are just trying to be smart. When I arrived in the U.S., I have noticed that there's the word "organic" everywhere like "organic bok choy, organic apples" and more. I don't know if there are stores like that in the Philippines. I didn't see any.

I made that comment to my husband one day and he asked in response, "Do you know what 'organic' means?"

I was trying to be smart so I said, "Well my chemistry teacher back in high school said that something is organic when it has the presence of carbon molecules."

He had this reaction that I couldn't explain.

Your chemistry teacher was right.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

See? This is why I like Peruvian corn Not genetically altered but freakin' huge.

Look at the size of the kernels!!!

The result of 7000 years of "genetically modifying" corn:

[Darnell 8,480]

Mutants say NO to Genetically Modified Indians !!!

oh wait...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There's always at least two sides to every story, Bill. You outta know that. It's great you feel the call to champion the farmer, but you should first decide whose side you are really on.

Monsanto versus Farmers

Feudalism has returned to farming in the US and Canada, according to the US Center for Food Safety's report detailing the domination over American staple crops by the corporations and their ruthless prosecution of farmers.

Once the ink is dried on the "technology agreements" signed by the farmers buying genetically modified (GM) seed, they enter into contracts that effectively relinquish to Monsanto their right to plant, harvest and sell the GM seed. From that moment on, they are also vulnerable to harassment such as having their property investigated, litigations and out of court settlements that are part and parcel of licensing a Monsanto patented product.

No grower is safe from this onslaught as third generation Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser discovered when he lost to Monsanto in court for failing to pay royalties on GM canola seed that had contaminated his non-GM canola crop. "The corporations are becoming the barons and lords, which are what my grandparents thought they had escaped." Schmeiser said.

To-date, Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits against American farmers; and 147 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies have had to fight for their lives to avoid paying additional court costs, attorneys' fees, and in some cases, costs incurred by Monsanto while investigating them

The Center for Food Safety estimates that Monsanto has been awarded over $15 million for judgments granted in their favour. The largest recorded single payment received from one farmer was US$3 052 800 (Farmer Anderson, Case no. 4:01: CV-01 749).

Monsanto controls US staple crops by licence

For the first time in history, one company has unprecedented control of the sale and use of crop seed. They have accomplished this in three main ways: control of germplasm through ownership of seed companies; domination of genetic technology and seeds through patent acquisitions; and breaking age-old farming tradition by forcing farmers to buy new seed each year rather than saving and re-planting seed.

Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsanto's the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesn't actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.

American farmers are hard pushed to find high quality, conventional varieties of corn, soy and cottonseed. Anecdotal evidence supports this. Troy Roush, an Indiana soybean farmer says, "You can't even purchase them in this market. They are not available." Similar reports come from the corn and cotton farmers who say, "There are not too many seeds available that are not genetically altered in some way."

Over the last 10 000 years, diverse genetic pools have been created and preserved by plant breeders. Monsanto has put these diverse gene pools at risk by contaminating certified and traditional seed stocks, and by not permitting farmers to save seeds. A feudal system of seed ownership destroys perhaps the key privilege of a farmer as the guardian of societies' crop heritage. And it has turned agriculture into an industry where the corporations consolidate their hold over costly seeds and chemicals that increase farmers spending on inputs. Meanwhile monopolies are created in corporate manipulated markets that include fewer buyers who demand the lowest possible prices for the outputs produced by farmers, forcing them into a debt spiral. In 2003 Monsanto made $3.1 billion in pesticide sales and $1.6 billion in seed sales.

Farmers are under pressure to confirm their identity as modern agriculturalists, particularly in developing countries. But replacing the traditional strategy of saving and replanting seeds from diverse varieties by a patented seed with all its restrictions threatens food security at household and global levels.

Patents place the burden on farmers

Over the past twenty years, Monsanto has voraciously accumulated collected patents on engineered plants, seeds and genetic engineering techniques, perhaps most importantly, the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter, the commonest component in the genetic engineer's toolbox. Along with CaMV35S, which other biotech companies pay exorbitant fees to license, Monsanto owns 647 plant biotech patents and a 29% share of all biotech research and development.

Patents have changed the face of farming because the farmer has lost control of seeds. Once farmers paid royalties on seed to the US Plant Variety Protection Act or Canada Plant Breeders Rights Act licensees who allowed seed saving. Since the 1980s, the US Patent and Trademark Office began issuing patents for GM organisms and seeds and have granted more than 2 000 since 1985. Professor Lawrence Busch of Michigan State University estimates the saving of soybean seed dropped from 31% in 1991 to just 10% in 2001 after the introduction of the GM soybean; this translates into an additional $374 million in seed industry profits in 2001.

Robert Schubert, the author of Farming's New Feudalism believes than an important strategy in saving independent farmers is to remove agriculture, food and water from the control of the WTO. His message is no "free" trade where farming is concerned and no patents.

When Monsanto suspects that saved seed containing a "Monsanto genetic trait," have been grown, documentation is requested from the farmers to confirm that the crop was planted from newly purchased seed. If proof is not forthcoming, then all of the growers' fields may be tested and inspected to determine if saved seed was used. Even after the farmer has extricated himself from Monsanto technology agreements, if volunteer plants sprout up in his fields from transgenic seeds purchased and sown from previous years, he is still vulnerable to allegations of patent infringement.

Farmers intimidated by Monsanto

Here's what typically happens to US farmers who fall under suspicion of planting saved seed. Private investigators from the Pinkerton agency hired by Monsanto arrive on the farm without warning, sometimes accompanied by local police. They then proceed to take samples and photographs over the course of a few hours to a few weeks, without the farmer being present.

One Mississippi farmer who runs a farm shop from his farmhouse was subjected to constant surveillance by Monsanto investigators who watched the family coming and going, warned off customers, and even rented an empty lot across the street from where to position their cameras.

Monsanto used entrapment to file a lawsuit against another farmer, when one of their investigators begged seeds from him to help solve an erosion problem too late in the season to plant crops. If personal intimidation fails, Monsanto resorts to another violation of privacy by sending a registered letter threatening to "tie the farmer up in court for years" if he refuses to settle out of court for patent infringement. One farmer who challenged this intimidation had his name blacklisted on thousands of seed dealers' lists. He concedes, "It is easier to give into them than it is to fight them."

A further example is seed dealers who sell seeds in plain brown bags so farmers sow them unknowingly. This happened to Farmer Thomason who was harassed into court by Monsanto and sued for over a million dollars. He had no choice but to file for bankruptcy despite never intending to plant Bt cotton.

In 1999, The Washington Post reported that the number of farmers under investigation in US and Canada was 525. A later report confirmed that Monsanto was investigating 500 farmers in 2004 "as they do every year." Once a farmer agrees to settle out of court he may be forced to present all documents relating to farm activity within 24 hours of request, purchase a specific quantity of company product and disclose the names of other people that have saved company seed.

Contamination of conventional seed stock

Researchers at the University of Manitoba, Canada tested 33 samples of certified canola (oilseed rape) seed stock and 32 were contaminated with GM. The Union of Concerned Scientists tested traditional US seed stocks of corn, soy and canola and found 50% corn, 50% soy and 83% canola contaminated by GM.

One hundred percent purity is no longer achievable, and even if non-contaminated seed could be purchased, some contamination can take place in the field either by transfer of seed by wind, animals or via farm equipment.

Monsanto dominates the sale of seed stocks yet puts the onus of finding markets for crops on the farmer. Within their contract is the "Technology Use Guide" which gives directions on how to find grain handlers willing to accept crops not approved for use in the EU. While Monsanto acknowledges that pollen flow and seed movement are sufficient to contaminate neighbouring non-GM fields their implicit rule is that "the growers of the non-GM crops must assume responsibility and receive the benefit for ensuring that their crops meet specifications for purity."

Monsanto profits from lawsuits against farmers

Outcomes of lawsuits brought by Monsanto against farmers are mostly kept under wraps. If farmers are tempted to breach confidentiality they can face fines greater than the settlements. But where judgments have been publicly recorded, sizeable payments benefit not only Monsanto, but also partner companies.

Combined financial penalties have forced many farmers into bankruptcy and off their land. Agriculture is suffering losses all around because of the disappearance of foreign markets. The US Farm Bureau estimates that farmers lose over $300 million a year because European markets refuse GM corn. The US State Department says that as much as $4 billion could be lost in agricultural exports due to EU labelling and traceability requirements. Organic and conventional farmers alike have lost their premium markets through having no choice but to sell their contaminated crops into GM crop streams.

Monsanto denies making profits from the misery of farmers and claims that proceeds go to agricultural school programmes, which some does, but by no means all. An annual budget of $10 million is set aside each year to run a department of 75 staff dedicated to prosecuting farmers.

What Monsanto did next

Monsanto has another way of controlling patented genes. So called "terminator technology" are seeds that become infertile after one life cycle. The international moratorium on terminator ended when New Zealand and Australia announced it would support the technology's introduction on a case-by-case basis at a 2005 meeting in Canada. The US Administration in Iraq has already enforced the non-replanting of seeds by farmers, under Order 81. Both GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) and "technology agreements," used as weapons against farmers when they purchase GM seed, have not been legally challenged. It's high time that patent laws on living organisms that are encouraged by legislators, regulators and the courts alike, come under public scrutiny.

Amending the Patent Act so that sexually reproducing plants are not patentable and amending the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) to exclude such plants from protection under the PVPA are two policy options suggested by the Center for Food Safety to defend farmers from Monsanto. This would minimise the damage done to farmers and agriculture in the long term. Drastic policy changes are needed at state and federal levels to address the hounding of farmers, their families and small agricultural companies by the aggressive tactics of a big corporation determined to destroy traditional farming practices and rights that go back thousands of years.

Farmers facing lawsuits or threats from Monsanto can call this toll-free hotline for guidance and referrals: 1-888-FARMHLP

Sources

Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, 2005. A report by the Center for Food Safety © 2004, Center for Food Safety www.centerforfoodsafety.org.

Robert Schubert. Farming's New Feudalism, World Watch 2005. © Worldwatch Institute.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Yeah, GM foods do save population from starvation. The guy who feed billions people through his GM Food, Norman Ernest Borlaug. He died in September 2009. RIP!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your chemistry teacher was right.

Contextual meaning of words, Bill ....something one of those liberal professors you had tried to teach you.

Here is what it means regarding organic foods:

"Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony."

http://www.ota.com/organic/faq.html