Nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate. We vote for both, we can (theoretically) change both. If the system if flawed to the point that no matter who we elect, the same thing gets done -- then why do you think any other system of approving foods/drugs would be better in the US? You think we should leave food approvals to national election? Do you think average people are qualified to make such policy decisions? Do you think anyone would even turn out to vote? Don't you think that Monsanto & Co. will influence that election anyway?
I hear and understand your complaints w/ the current system... what I don't hear are workable suggestions for alternatives.
If you're just bitching about the status-quo, that's totally cool. That's certainly a legitimate thing to do (not a week goes by where I don't bitch about the current music scene or infatuation w/ reality shows). But if you're wanting to actually change things, throw out some ideas as to how we go about doing so.
Not to change subjects, but take Obama's campaign for example. He said, "Special/corporate interests have destroyed the credibility of Washington." He bitched. But then he did something about it - he refused funding from special and corporate interest groups, instead raising some 90% of his funds from small, grassroots donations. He bitched, but he actually took effective measures in the direction of correcting the problems he was bitching about.
So we've heard the complaints - GMOs could pose health risks, the gov't agencies charged w/ regulating the GMOs have been compromised by corporate interests. You can say the solution involves changing labeling requirements, but the agencies cited above are responsible for that... so how do you get from here to there?
Is there any feasible course of action available?
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
So we've heard the complaints - GMOs could pose health risks, the gov't agencies charged w/ regulating the GMOs have been compromised by corporate interests. You can say the solution involves changing labeling requirements, but the agencies cited above are responsible for that... so how do you get from here to there?
Is there any feasible course of action available?
well ... this speaks to a much larger issue ... which is related to truth and accountability ... for sure you're point of elected representatives is well-heeded but that system has been compromised as well ...
i suppose the solution is much the same elsewhere ... activism - engagement ... education ... this is why the doings of monsanto need to be exposed for as many people to see as possible ...
well ... this speaks to a much larger issue ... which is related to truth and accountability ... for sure you're point of elected representatives is well-heeded but that system has been compromised as well ...
i suppose the solution is much the same elsewhere ... activism - engagement ... education ... this is why the doings of monsanto need to be exposed for as many people to see as possible ...
That's certainly fair. I agree that things, even obviously necessary things, are hard to accomplish in this political ring. Precedents are hard to overrule, be it in court or through legislation, and the precedents regarding GMOs clearly weigh in GMOs' favor. In order to change the tide, GMO opponents need overwhelming scientific support and a motivated, passionate, and large base. Right now, I don't see either. Maybe that will change, but from my work (only ancillary to the Ag Biotech field, I admit, but it still brings me in direct contact with those parties involved) it seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Each year, GMOs gain substantially in the market share, and now it's starting to look like other countries, even those once vehemently opposed to GMOs, are starting to reconsider their resistance. Likewise, as the science progresses, it should become more specific, more safe, and more responsive to concerns. (For instance, it was pointed out earlier in this discussion that GMOs often require more water than traditional crops... but now scientists are taking that into account and engineering crops specifically to require *less* water than their organic counterparts).
All said, I do sympathize with you. I understand the safety and environmental concerns. I understand the general distrust for anything Federal Government. We disagree on the "merits v. risks" analysis of this particular technology, but I do see where you're coming from.
The one catch-all, in my opinion, is the Supreme Court. I for one say thank god for activist judges. They don't campaign, they aren't up for re-election, so they aren't bought by corporate interests. I disagree with several of them (here's to you, Scalia), especially considering the current conservative make-up of the Court, but at least I know they are relying on the actual evidence and their own educated analysis to reach their conclusions. They have slapped the Agencies for not taking action w/ respect to Global Warming and they have slapped the states for trying to water-down the teaching of Evolution. They don't answer to anyone, really... which is both good and bad... but taken w/ the other two branches, especially w/ Bush still in office, I strongly think the good way outweighs the bad.
So there is one respectable authority for non-GMO organizations to turn to: if the FDA or the EPA or the USDA abuses its discretion in regard to public safety concerning GMOs, the anti-GMO proponents should challenge it in court. If the Agency's decision was clearly erroneous ("against the clear weight of the evidence"), the Court will reverse.
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
usda: really, what qualifies this guy to head the USDA?
Ha! I wonder how many people even noticed that Bush got a new ag secretary the day before his state of the union??? He's just another presidential yes man who keeps threatening a veto on the new farm bill. Just like Johanns before him.
But at least he's better than Ann Veneman. The only reason the bitch wasn't flat out fired is because she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
without irony, I find it amusing that I'm reading today about food shortages worldwide. And here we have people complaining about something that can prevent that.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
I think we all agree gmo can (and probably will) be the saviour of humanity in a near future. But where we disagree is that the way they have been introduced is just plain wrong.
Patents are what you're thinking of (I believe) -- and it should be noted that although you can get a patent on any new, useful, non-obvious man-made thing (including living organisms), patents only last for 20 years. After the patent expires, it's designated to the public and anyone can copy it free of restraint. And you can't get a patent or a copyright on "living organisms ... found in nature." You have to actually have a hand in engineering it in a "new, useful, and non-obvious" way.
Ok so how does this work exactly? Basically each time monsanto will add a new resistance to their crops (to a new insecticide they will have ingeneered for instance) they'll be able to make another patent?
Considering world hunger is not over my guess is that not every country can have access to cheap and easily growed food. How are 3rd world country farmers supposed to pay thoes patents?
There's also another thing, farmers in india not really happy because after using gmo's + pesticides for a year wanted to change back but couldn't because their land was too polluted for natural crops.
All this stuff just seems plain wrong, and I just find that deserving for gmos.
without irony, I find it amusing that I'm reading today about food shortages worldwide. And here we have people complaining about something that can prevent that.
I find it amusing that we had gmo's for several years now and, while african farmers still can't buy them cause they're too expensive, they allowed western countries to make so much food they can sell it on 3rd world markets and throwing the local farmers further in bankruptcy. yay. Gmo's are not helping the world right now, it's all I'm saying.
I find it amusing that we had gmo's for several years now and, while african farmers still can't buy them cause they're too expensive, they allowed western countries to make so much food they can sell it on 3rd world markets and throwing the local farmers further in bankruptcy. yay. Gmo's are not helping the world right now, it's all I'm saying.
...and the people that actually do sow a few GM crops in the area screw with the other farmers crops by mutating them in not so great ways.. A lot of farmers in India are committing suicide over this because they realize they can't afford to farm and live.
speaking of irony
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
without irony, I find it amusing that I'm reading today about food shortages worldwide. And here we have people complaining about something that can prevent that.
Ok so how does this work exactly? Basically each time monsanto will add a new resistance to their crops (to a new insecticide they will have ingeneered for instance) they'll be able to make another patent?
... How are 3rd world country farmers supposed to pay thoes patents?
To get a patent, your invention must be new, useful, and non-obvious. If you can demonstrate that your invention meets this criteria, you'll get exclusive rights to make, use, and sell that invention for 20 years (from the date you file your application). For products, like those in Biotech, this system is essential. A biotechnology product often requires several hundred million dollars and up to a decade of time spent on R&D... if companies weren't promised exclusive rights for a limited number of years, no companies would invest in developing the technology -- once they did, it would just get copied and sold for cheap and they'd never break even, let alone turn a profit.
Now, if you get a patent in the US, it's only illegal for a competitor to make, use, or sell it IN THE US. (Caps to provide emphasis, not to convey emotion). Overseas, competitors are free to do whatever they want, provided the technology hasn't been patented separately there. (There are treaties, such as the TRIPS agreement, which aim to internationally unify patent laws, but those don't affect non-participating nations).
If you get a patent, it is only for that specific technology or product. If a competitor makes a product that uses "substantially the same method to do substantially the same thing in substantially the same way," then they infringe. But if they tweak the product so that it doesn't fall within the above-quoted test, then it isn't infringement.
Each time Monsanto creates a new food product, it can get a patent on it provided it isn't an "obvious" improvement on another one. Must be some level of inventiveness on behalf of the inventor. Each time they develop a new pesticide or whatever, same rules apply.
I don't know much about what Monsanto is doing as far as licensing goes in other countries. I imagine they have been granted patents in all these countries in which they're being sold (but subject, of course, to those countries' patent laws... not ours). But if their licensing fees are excessive, that's a whole other argument separate from their right to patent or the safety of GMOs.
20 years after the date they filed their patent application, the invention becomes public knowledge and anyone can make, use, and offer it for sale.
Hope this helps.
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
"Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields."
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
I hear and understand your complaints w/ the current system... what I don't hear are workable suggestions for alternatives.
If you're just bitching about the status-quo, that's totally cool. That's certainly a legitimate thing to do (not a week goes by where I don't bitch about the current music scene or infatuation w/ reality shows). But if you're wanting to actually change things, throw out some ideas as to how we go about doing so.
Not to change subjects, but take Obama's campaign for example. He said, "Special/corporate interests have destroyed the credibility of Washington." He bitched. But then he did something about it - he refused funding from special and corporate interest groups, instead raising some 90% of his funds from small, grassroots donations. He bitched, but he actually took effective measures in the direction of correcting the problems he was bitching about.
So we've heard the complaints - GMOs could pose health risks, the gov't agencies charged w/ regulating the GMOs have been compromised by corporate interests. You can say the solution involves changing labeling requirements, but the agencies cited above are responsible for that... so how do you get from here to there?
Is there any feasible course of action available?
well ... this speaks to a much larger issue ... which is related to truth and accountability ... for sure you're point of elected representatives is well-heeded but that system has been compromised as well ...
i suppose the solution is much the same elsewhere ... activism - engagement ... education ... this is why the doings of monsanto need to be exposed for as many people to see as possible ...
That's certainly fair. I agree that things, even obviously necessary things, are hard to accomplish in this political ring. Precedents are hard to overrule, be it in court or through legislation, and the precedents regarding GMOs clearly weigh in GMOs' favor. In order to change the tide, GMO opponents need overwhelming scientific support and a motivated, passionate, and large base. Right now, I don't see either. Maybe that will change, but from my work (only ancillary to the Ag Biotech field, I admit, but it still brings me in direct contact with those parties involved) it seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Each year, GMOs gain substantially in the market share, and now it's starting to look like other countries, even those once vehemently opposed to GMOs, are starting to reconsider their resistance. Likewise, as the science progresses, it should become more specific, more safe, and more responsive to concerns. (For instance, it was pointed out earlier in this discussion that GMOs often require more water than traditional crops... but now scientists are taking that into account and engineering crops specifically to require *less* water than their organic counterparts).
All said, I do sympathize with you. I understand the safety and environmental concerns. I understand the general distrust for anything Federal Government. We disagree on the "merits v. risks" analysis of this particular technology, but I do see where you're coming from.
The one catch-all, in my opinion, is the Supreme Court. I for one say thank god for activist judges. They don't campaign, they aren't up for re-election, so they aren't bought by corporate interests. I disagree with several of them (here's to you, Scalia), especially considering the current conservative make-up of the Court, but at least I know they are relying on the actual evidence and their own educated analysis to reach their conclusions. They have slapped the Agencies for not taking action w/ respect to Global Warming and they have slapped the states for trying to water-down the teaching of Evolution. They don't answer to anyone, really... which is both good and bad... but taken w/ the other two branches, especially w/ Bush still in office, I strongly think the good way outweighs the bad.
So there is one respectable authority for non-GMO organizations to turn to: if the FDA or the EPA or the USDA abuses its discretion in regard to public safety concerning GMOs, the anti-GMO proponents should challenge it in court. If the Agency's decision was clearly erroneous ("against the clear weight of the evidence"), the Court will reverse.
Ha! I wonder how many people even noticed that Bush got a new ag secretary the day before his state of the union??? He's just another presidential yes man who keeps threatening a veto on the new farm bill. Just like Johanns before him.
But at least he's better than Ann Veneman. The only reason the bitch wasn't flat out fired is because she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
But I'm more interested by this : Ok so how does this work exactly? Basically each time monsanto will add a new resistance to their crops (to a new insecticide they will have ingeneered for instance) they'll be able to make another patent?
Considering world hunger is not over my guess is that not every country can have access to cheap and easily growed food. How are 3rd world country farmers supposed to pay thoes patents?
There's also another thing, farmers in india not really happy because after using gmo's + pesticides for a year wanted to change back but couldn't because their land was too polluted for natural crops.
All this stuff just seems plain wrong, and I just find that deserving for gmos.
I find it amusing that we had gmo's for several years now and, while african farmers still can't buy them cause they're too expensive, they allowed western countries to make so much food they can sell it on 3rd world markets and throwing the local farmers further in bankruptcy. yay. Gmo's are not helping the world right now, it's all I'm saying.
...and the people that actually do sow a few GM crops in the area screw with the other farmers crops by mutating them in not so great ways.. A lot of farmers in India are committing suicide over this because they realize they can't afford to farm and live.
speaking of irony
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://straight.com/article-141020/monocrops-bring-food-crisis
To get a patent, your invention must be new, useful, and non-obvious. If you can demonstrate that your invention meets this criteria, you'll get exclusive rights to make, use, and sell that invention for 20 years (from the date you file your application). For products, like those in Biotech, this system is essential. A biotechnology product often requires several hundred million dollars and up to a decade of time spent on R&D... if companies weren't promised exclusive rights for a limited number of years, no companies would invest in developing the technology -- once they did, it would just get copied and sold for cheap and they'd never break even, let alone turn a profit.
Now, if you get a patent in the US, it's only illegal for a competitor to make, use, or sell it IN THE US. (Caps to provide emphasis, not to convey emotion). Overseas, competitors are free to do whatever they want, provided the technology hasn't been patented separately there. (There are treaties, such as the TRIPS agreement, which aim to internationally unify patent laws, but those don't affect non-participating nations).
If you get a patent, it is only for that specific technology or product. If a competitor makes a product that uses "substantially the same method to do substantially the same thing in substantially the same way," then they infringe. But if they tweak the product so that it doesn't fall within the above-quoted test, then it isn't infringement.
Each time Monsanto creates a new food product, it can get a patent on it provided it isn't an "obvious" improvement on another one. Must be some level of inventiveness on behalf of the inventor. Each time they develop a new pesticide or whatever, same rules apply.
I don't know much about what Monsanto is doing as far as licensing goes in other countries. I imagine they have been granted patents in all these countries in which they're being sold (but subject, of course, to those countries' patent laws... not ours). But if their licensing fees are excessive, that's a whole other argument separate from their right to patent or the safety of GMOs.
20 years after the date they filed their patent application, the invention becomes public knowledge and anyone can make, use, and offer it for sale.
Hope this helps.
"Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")