GMO Wheat Found Growing Wild In Oregon, Japan Suspends Import From U.S. 679
An anonymous reader writes "NPR reports that an Oregon wheat farmer found a patch of wheat growing where he did not plant. After RoundUp failed to kill the plants, he sent them to a lab for testing. Turns out the wheat in question is a GMO strain created by Monsanto but never sent to market. Oregon field trials for the wheat ended in 2001. 'Nobody knows how this wheat got to this farm. ... After all such trials, the genetically engineered crops are supposed to be completely removed. Also, nobody knows how widely this genetically engineered wheat has spread, and whether it's been in fields of wheat that were harvested for food.' The USDA is currently investigating and says there is no health-risk. Meanwhile, Monsanto has released a statement and Japan has suspended some wheat imports from the U.S. 'The mystery could have implications on wheat trade. Many countries around the world will not accept imports of genetically modified foods, and the United States exports about half of its wheat crop.'"
Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Crops perform better than natural crops, crowding them out both in the marketplace, and in the wild.
3. Profit!
4. Engineered crops later found not suitable for human consumption
5. Famine.
Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, has the farmer been sued by Monsanto yet for copyright infringement?
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:1, Insightful)
good time to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, it's genuine contamination since it's a version they never released. So Monsanto did a field test, after which they were supposed to destroy all of the plants. Now a bunch of years they find that version out in the wild. I'm pretty sure in this case Monsanto couldn't sue.
If this doesn't point to the fact that this stuff is going to contaminate everything, I don't know what will. I'm of the opinion that unless you grow this stuff under a friggin' dome, it's going to cross-contaminate stuff, simply because wind and insects have been pollinating plants for millions of years and are quite good at it.
And then there's the whole using this shit as food aid and expecting starving farmers in Africa to not keep seeds for next year because of the license agreement they know nothing about.
Hubris and "what could possibly go wrong".
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
That it still to be seen. From what I understand Japan, one of the more technically advanced countries on Earth btw, you need many and longitudinal studies (a scientific viewpoint). They are waiting a few generations to see what happens to the rest of us.
In this instance it is Japan that is taking the reasonable and scientific route. We are taking the profit before before everything route.
Monsanto's statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Their statement is basically "this is the first time this has happened and we're just as surprised as you are."
Of course, all previous cases involved them blaming farmers for covertly planting the crops while the farmers insisted the seeds blew onto their land. (You know, how wheat evolved for thousands of years to spread.) In other words, this is the first time that they can't pin it on the farmer.
Re:Market forces at work... (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue of regulation is already one of the biggest problems for GMO. If Monsanto invents a new type of crop they need to get it approved for growing and for human consumption in every market. In the US it isn't so bad because there is just the FDA, but even in Europe it takes much longer and you have to convince many different agencies that it is safe. Then you have to start doing the rest of the world country by country.
That's why Japan immediately halted these imports. Even if the FDA or whoever in the US says this stuff is okay to eat the are, of course, going to want to determine that for themselves.
Japan's reaction is ridiculous, and blatant protectionism. A tiny amount of GMO contamination in 2 billion bushels isn't a crisis.
Re:good time to mention (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's still under investigation (Score:5, Insightful)
obviously whoever owns the land where the wild wheat is growing should be sued. It makes perfect corporate sense.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Honest answer? I'd say the lobbyists who represent this industry have successfully convinced people not to, and a prevailing tendency to favor corporate profits over risks unless there is absolute proof of them (as in "it hasn't been proven dangerous, so we'll assume it isn't"). Kinda like agent orange or thalidomide.
The companies who make GMOs don't want labeling for that, and have so far fought to prevent it being mandatory.
The companies have far more clout with lawmakers, and have fought this kind of thing tooth and nail.
Re: Market forces at work... (Score:5, Insightful)
and that's what is going on here... right now we have a new robber barron economy and these entities are for "free markets* ONLY when the outcome is in their favor. When the outcome is not in the favor their the first to go to Congress to get a new law.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to ban GMO foods. I want two things:
1) First sale kills patent-rights. No more suing people for growing it if they've unknowingly bought it from a third party who legally purchased it.
2) Label it, so those who are worried about it can avoid it.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, it's genuine contamination since it's a version they never released. So Monsanto did a field test, after which they were supposed to destroy all of the plants. Now a bunch of years they find that version out in the wild. I'm pretty sure in this case Monsanto couldn't sue.
If this doesn't point to the fact that this stuff is going to contaminate everything, I don't know what will. I'm of the opinion that unless you grow this stuff under a friggin' dome, it's going to cross-contaminate stuff, simply because wind and insects have been pollinating plants for millions of years and are quite good at it.
And then there's the whole using this shit as food aid and expecting starving farmers in Africa to not keep seeds for next year because of the license agreement they know nothing about.
Hubris and "what could possibly go wrong".
This is part of what bothers me about GM crops. Maybe they really are safe for consumption. The companies that make them tell me they are. But When they demonstrate that they can't keep their test crops contained, I start to worry about unintended consequences.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
People have kept crops safe for thousands of years by planting edible wheat and destroying the stuff that tasted bad or made people sick.
The people that plant this stuff do not seem to be the same people that eat it these days....
The REAL dangers of GMO (Score:4, Insightful)
This should show that the main risk of genetic manipulated plants is NOT that eating them may or may not be harmful , but that you might not be able to control their spread.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Except these unlicensed plants are from a lab strain which was never released, and which Monsanto was supposed to have destroyed the plants after their tests.
If anything, Monsanto has some 'splaining to do, and all of their claims that it couldn't possibly cross-contaminate other crops needs to be looked at much more closely.
Because if these plants got there on their own, this essentially means that all of those people worrying their fields could get pollenated without them doing anything have been right all along, and the people poo-pooing that have probably been lying.
Re:Five minutes after Monsanto Protection Act sign (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you really think Congress would move that quickly, even for Monsanto's money? Ha! They're not nearly that competent.
They are, however, that corrupt.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Think Monsanto should be sued for contaminating the environment with GM plants not approved for production.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not necessarily against the ides of GMOs, but neither am I unconditionally for them, either. Really, like most things in life the answer needs to be, "It depends."
I remember reading a news item about inserting a Vitamin A gene into rice, and that seems like a really nifty idea.
On the other hand, most of the GMO stories in the US seem to be about convenience, patents, shelf life, and such - with nothing to say about taste, nutrition, or safety. Basically in the US it's all about supply-side convenience. For instance, most of the Monsanto discussions center on Roundup-Ready - basically giving the crop the ability to tolerate higher dosages of chemicals.
I will acknowledge that supply-side convenience can result in lower prices for customers, but I would still feel better of at least SOME of the GMO stories in the US talked about making the food better in some way other than cost.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot speak for all Luddites. But I know that many are not worried about which god or goddess did or did not put an official OK on Monsanto's "exploit anything for profit" behavior.
Some Luddites, as well as many who are not Luddites, are concerned that maybe the junior grade biologists at Monsanto are not pumping new genes into a specific species as they claim to be doing. Maybe, just maybe, the Universe is not actually built according to the abstract classification scheme of species, genus, order, class, family, phylum, kingdom that was set up in the 1750s and has been in a state of near constant revision ever since. Biology researchers (the true scientists, not Monsanto engineers) have found so many different and equally valid ways to define the taxonomy that the structure can at best be described as an arbitrary set of imaginary boxes that we can imagine will hold every living thing in just one box, with never a thing existing across the imaginary box walls.
In truth, all that can be said is that Monsanto is introducing new genes into ecosystems. Not into an imaginary box in an imaginary classification scheme, but into something very real, very complex and as yet mostly not understood that can and does respond in ways that cannot be anticipated, considering the current state of our ignorance.
Back in the day when DDT was the miracle that was going to put an end to malaria and many other god-given pests and diseases, no one anticipated that the ecosystem would respond to attacks on mosquitoes by incorporating DDT into the defense systems of grasshoppers and locusts, and making egg shells so thin that American eagles almost went extinct. The same kind of limited reasoning that led to spraying DDT on every marsh and pond in the country is behind the Monsanto effort to make a profit off of genetically modified crops.
And that is what some Luddites, as well as many others who are not Luddites, are worried about.
Re:It's still under investigation (Score:5, Insightful)
0/10. Wheat and wait do not remotely rhyme. Go away, karma whore.
It's called a pun, dipshit.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if this would work. Would it be possible to treat some plain non GMO wheat with a low dosage of Roundup such that only, say. 50% of the wheat died. Use the surviving wheat and repeat this process. If the yield of surviving wheat increases with every generation, you have started the selection for Roundup resistance. You can then up the dosage until, finally, you end up with fully Roundup resistant wheat without breaking any patents.
You would need to ensure that you have ZERO GMO crop in there in the beginning as that would just survive and proliferate. The Monsanto DNA is probably so widespread that is not being there is pretty unlikely.
Of course, Monsanto would then claim that your Roundup resistant crop MUST be their IP. The only way to test this would be to do a DNA analysis and hope that whatever mechanism the selection pressure came up with is not the same as the Monsanto mechanism.
Even then, if it is the same mechanism, you are still not infringing the patent. I wonder how that would go down in court.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in the same way that gun-shot victims are 'bullet pirates'.
As in, it's the total opposite.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Or those luddites are aware than monocultures are incredibly susceptible to catastrophic collapse when exposed to a pandemic against which it has no defense.
Or they are aware than pesticides have a nasty habit of affecting biological systems in ways that are not immediately noticable and build up over time, and genetically engineering our food supply to contain those pesticides until there are 40 or 50 years of rigorous scientific study for each one is a fucking terrible idea.
Or they are aware that engineering an intentionally sterile crop as the default for human consumption places a single corporate entity in a position to hold the entire world hostage.
I am not against genetic engineering, but it needs to be handled with all due caution, and Monsanto isn't. As evidenced by this release of GE lifeforms into the environment, and well, everything else they do.
Re:Hypocrites... (Score:3, Insightful)
those are not GMO, they grow those inside a box-shaped transparent container
Seedless watermelon are genetically engineered. Maybe not with enzymes, but they're engineered. Just like all varieties of corn, or most other commonly grown food. You hybridize a plant, you are crossing genes -- at random. And we think random crossing of genes is safe? Viruses swap genes around. We think that is safe. Bacteria do it, and we think that is safe.
Its ignorance, pure and simple, that people are concerned about "genetically modified" food. 15,000 years of agriculture has ensured that every plant and every animal that 99.999% of people eat were genetically modified. Period.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:4, Insightful)
Due to economics, and monsanto's efforts, everyone switches to one strain of a food staple, the cheapest one obviously. GMO is clearly cheaper and has a huge competitive edge over natural. If we don't regulate it, whatever strain of corn is the most robust and cheapest, only insane farmers would plant anything but that one. Everyone switches to that best strain of corn, otherwise they wouldn't be competitive and would lose the farm, to be replaced by someone who DOES use that corn. We've already switched to most of our diet coming from corn, again due to economics and business and government 69ing each other. Corn is basically all we eat, and it could be all the exact same strain of corn. It works out for everyone until a bug arises that really loves that strain of corn. Suddenly, nearly all of our food is under attack. The cost of burning all the fields out there and replacing it with a new crop would be ruinous to the economy, and depending on how fast such a problem advances, may not be sufficient to avoid food riots.
Monsanto has no financial incentive to diversify, farmers have no financial incentive to diversify, we're the ones who need to tell them to diversify, but we don't, therefore government has no incentive to make them diversify. No one is thinking long-term.
It's not unprecedented that we allow a monoculture to get established and have it bite us in the ass either [guardian.co.uk]. GMO isn't required for such a scenario to take place, but it does help it since we've allowed monsanto to basically have a monopoly on GMO, and because GMO has such a competitive edge over natural.
Really makes me hate the idiots whining about frankenfoods: it takes all the attention away from the important issues and focuses it on paranoia. "Mad scientists are trying to give you cancer through your veggies!" is a lot more sexy than ecology mixed with economics.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
USDA investigates by asking the FDA (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone care to guess how the FDA determined that GMO foods are safe? They "consulted with experts." Those experts? Oh yeah.... Monsanto.
And seriously, when the Dairy people keep telling the USDA people that we need more milk in our diet eat year, you have to be a little suspicious considering the source. And Monsanto claiming their stuff don't stink? Why should we expect any other answer?
How are drug trials run? I suspect they are more rigorous and performed by independent testing people. Why has GMO foods gotten a pass on this process?
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is ironic, because you'd think that consumers being able to choose the products they want based on their own set of criteria would be one of their core values.
But apparently the free market only means companies are free to sell us what they want, not for consumers to decide what we want.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but this urban legend that Monsanto sues farmers for cross-pollination with their crops simply has to die already. I saw the film "Food Inc" and completely bought into the horror stories of Organic Farmers being sued out of business for cross-pollination, but then those same farmers took the case to court and the Judge threw the case out because the farmers could not produce one single example of this ever happening [npr.org]. Here's the Court Transcript [google.com], and the defense makes a pretty strong argument pages 33-36:
23 ...the notion that Monsanto's campaign, so to
speak, against farmers -- which, by the way, by their count,
over 15 years has amounted to 144 lawsuits brought, every single one of them against farmers who wanted, affirmatively
were making use of the trade, and spraying herbicide over the
tops of their crops without signing a license, without paying
Monsanto the royalty for the use of its intellectual
property -- the notion that that terrorizes people who have no
desire to use it whatsoever is perhaps belied most
significantly by Mr. Ravicher's inability to cite anything
other than a movie called Food, Inc. or a CBS report to
demonstrate what they can't demonstrate, which is if this were
a ubiquitous threat, you would expect that there would be some
plaintiff in this case who would say, "I am an inadvertent
user. I have it and it's inadvertent. I have it in my fields
and Monsanto has sent me a letter or Monsanto has called me and
said, 'You are in patent jeopardy.'"
When you go to court to sue a company for unfairly suing innocent farmers who's crops were inadvertently cross-pollinated with patented GMOs, you better be able to produce at least one single example of this happening. When I read this transcript, I realized the Organic Seed Growers Association and all this anti-GMO stuff is really just anti-Science Neo-Luddism [ideonexus.com]. As nerds we should be concerned with veracity and not fall into the trap all the muggles fall into of condemning technology and believing all the scientifically-unsupported horror stories about it simply because it's new and different.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
If I hadn't already commenting, I'd be modding this up. Oregon should sue Monsanto and require that they pay for wheat testing for the entire industry.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Depending on the crop, nearby could be defined in miles/kilometers.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
Because food labelling should be appropriate and helpful. To the end consumer, there is no benefit to knowing whether the food was GMO or not, and such a "warning" would be grossly misleading and would undermine other, more legitimate, labelling that might actually be helpful.
Ah, the "because I know what's good for you" argument.
"Need to know" is appropriate for keeping secrets, not for selling things to people.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, California recently had an election over whether to require GMO labeling on food. I voted against it because the law was designed to make the labeling in a way to deter customers from wanting it. Their goal was to keep people from buying GMO. If they had required instead that "uses GMO" be placed at the end of the ingredients list or something, where people who want to can find it, and those who don't care aren't harassed, then I would absolutely vote for that.
Overall people spend way to much time focusing on what they shouldn't eat (don't eat fat! don't eat carbs!, but both of those are critical macro-nutrients), but instead focus on making sure you get enough good things: enough vegetables, enough good fats, enough protein, so your body can rebuild itself. Get vitamins. If you're missing building blocks, that's when you have trouble. My diabetic friend's doctor recently told her to focus on making sure she got enough iron, and when she focused on that instead of limiting carb intake, she needed less insulin.
Re:Postapocoliptic Nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Technical nit-pick. They are not "introducing new genes into the ecosystem," they are taking genes that already exist in the wild and adding them to a species' genome [halleyhosting.com]. Believe it or not, this happens all the time all over the place naturally thanks to viruses, bacteria, and allows for artificial transduction [wikipedia.org] in laboratories. Most of the time, they aren't even doing this, instead they are knocking out existing genes, removing them from the genome to produce desired results.
But on a broader level, I appreciate what you are trying to say, but your argument that GMOs are dangerous because we don't fully understand the ecosystem also applies to hybridization (which has been going on for 10,000 years), artificial selection, pharmaceuticals, any moden farming technique, any chemical we add to our environment--even as a byproduct of our lifestyles, and pretty much any technology anywhere. There is no rational reason to single GMOs out as Frankenstein's monster, especially with scientists all over the world monitoring their effects--which 25 years of research have found to be pretty benign [europa.eu].
Re:It's still under investigation (Score:5, Insightful)
Beat me to it. The farmer is clearly violating Monsanto's patents, even though he didn't plant the stuff.
[seriously now]
This is why all the current court rulings on Monsanto's stuff are insane.