Hello all,
I've read through all this and no one has actually told me what is wrong with the Terminator Gene and why it shouldn't be in GE varieties. Would the scientific community who seem to be carrying this debate help us uneducated bushwackers (bushwackers are uneducated ferals)to be involved by being more explanitary. Why shouldn't Monsanto have been allowed to have put the Terminator Gene in their canola?

Can anyone tell me, if I'm growing my traditional nonhybrid open pollinated sweet corn and saving seeds and it gets cross pollinated with with someones GE corn with the Terminator Gene, will the seed from the crossed seed germinate?

You all make it scary but I want to know more.
Neil

Thats what they are saying allright Neil. If monsanto get their way all seeds will be sold by them and have the terminator gene in them. And yes they dont mind if pollen from their GE crops blow all round the bloody planet, then they can sue anyone growing anything. Might be getting a bit carried away here but who knows.

Mantis

Hi Neil

"Inserting terminator genes into crops would prevent them from producing fertile seeds, meaning farmers would have to buy new seeds, rather than saving part of their harvest to plant next year's crop."

Here is a link that might be useful: terminator gene

Neil if you were a canola or wheat farmer & your crop was contaminated by a neighbours GE crop you would have to pay royalties when you sold the crop & risk being sued if you saved seed & planted it the following year.
The Terminator gene is a different issue, it means the seed will not germinate the following year. The concern here is cross pollination of wild relatives of agricultural crops, they could potentially become sterile.
There is also a concern about the reduction in the number of varieties offered for sale, one reason for us growing & preserving open pollinated varieties, they are not "owned" by anyone & have a huge variety of characteristics.

Hi Neil,
sorry if our ranting wasn't very informative. Terminator technology has been around for a while. The precursor is hybrid varieties, where saving seed is generally a waste of time because the next generation (ie the saved seed) is not usually the same as the parents and may be unproductive, disease prone, tasteless or whatever. Hybrid seeds and the plant breeders rights for them, generally held by a few big seed companies, were the first nail in the coffin for heirlooms and plant genetic diversity. Terminator technology is more sinister. Firstly the patent means that not only can you not propagate plants with the gene (which is the deal with plant breeders rights), you can't have seed or plants with the genetic material unless you buy it from the parent company, which is the basis for Monsanto's law suits in the US and Canada. Further, such terminator technology means that any seed with that bit of the genetic code will be sterile, ie it won't germinate. Its a sort of plant castration. There are two possible uses for this technology: some plants are useful if sterile. The classic example is the seeding of sterile annual ryegrass to stabilise roadsides and embankments to prevent erosion while more permanent plantings become established. The ryegrass reduces weed competition, then dies after one season and can't self sow, leaving the natives or whatever to get on with it. The other purpose is to prevent collection of seed, so forcing farmers to purchase seed each year. This is where the profits are.

Can your seeds be contaminated? YES. Plants are promiscuous and spread their pollen around via wind, insects, birds etc. GE buffer zones have repeatedly been shown to be inadequate. The release of GE corn in American has contaminated ancient and wild crops. We will never have access to pure strains of these plants again. You won't know if you have terminator genes in your seeds unless you test the DNA - they just won't grow. GE doesn't end with terminator technology - the biggest efforts are in pest resistance and glyphosate resistent crops. The pest resistant crops produce their own pesticides and there are no long term studies to assess side effects. Glyphosate resistance allows farmers to spray the crop (cotton, canola, soy) with glyphosate throughout its growing cycle without the plant being harmed, so increasing the use of a chemical for which Monsanto holds the patent (Zero). So the farmer pays twice. Glyphosate has been banned in many European countries because of ground water contamination.

GE foods are sold on the basis of preventing world hunger. This is simply nonsense. World hunger is not a supply issue, its a distribution issue. There is already enough food. It needs to be shared, but there is no profit in that. How can the loss of traditional cultural practices around saving and sowing crops enrich the lives of subsistence farmers? Paying Monsanto when the seed is purchased and again when...

Eloquently and simply explained, Danielle. Very well done.

Thank you. May have some pressure sores on my feet from standing so long on the soapbox (and jumping up and down).
D

You also, earlier, pointed in the direction of The Corporation. It should be compulsory viewing for everyone. So-called Democracy is no longer any such thing. It's Capitalism. Capitalism is fine, until it - and it alone - is the agenda. It takes no prisoners.

Oh but it does - Guantanamo Bay is full of them. This is about oil and oil is about Capitalism.

Gee, you blew my metaphor right out of the water, D. :) If you'll pardon this not entirely inappropriate militaristic metaphor.

I'll put in my 2c worth, might as well. I agree wholeheartedly with the opposition to Monsanto's corporate dealings. I have worked in plant science for the last 9 years, I've made several transgenic plant lines for research purposes myself. I don't fear GM technology in terms of health or environmental impact if it was used carefully, ethically and responsibly. But does this happen? I don't think so... it IS a powerful technology, and with great power comes great responsibility. I don't trust any corporation to make sensible decisions regarding this technology at present. I am happy to say that the Australian situation at present is admirable. The office of gene manipulation regulation (OGTR) are very thorough, very cautious. There are heavy penalties for organisations AND individuals for unsafe handling and containment of experimental material. I have seen good, useful, environmentally sound applications of this technology shelved again and again due to tight regulation of the technology, which is a GOOD thing. It's not essential in first world countries at this time. I'm sure public concern about GM tech. will soften over time and opportunities to apply it will present, I only hope complacency doesn't follow. History will tell the story I suppose.

Doo doo, doo doo, doo doo
.....Where have all the plants gone??????????
Oh, here they are, over here, its over here by the monsanto grass, its a,a, yes its a monsanto daisy.

*memories from my future grandchildren*

I'm moving to Armidale, I've bought a big stick. If civil disobedience is what they want, it would be rude to disappoint.

I'm not sure at all about GM technology. As I've already said, I can't see the point. However, it's development and proliferation is not my main concern. My main concern is company ethics, or rather the lack of them, and spineless governments, though governments, and politicians, are, by definition, spineless. It bothers me, for example, that companies that develop a GM crop are exempt from any comeback should anything go wrong. Now, in my book, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Monsanto, or anyone else, wants to sell GM canola, and they are willing to accept full responsibility for possible negative outcomes, then why not?

I don't understand patent law and its implications but, it seems to me absolute nonsense that a company should be allowed to sue a farmer because the wind carried some pollen over the fence (I'm referring of course to Monsanto practices)! There is clearly something wrong with our legal system when such cases even get to court, and that they should be winnable is, is, I don't know, I'm rendered speechless!

And lastly, I have a question. Wouldn't the terminator gene, by its very nature, wipe itself out? Let's suppose there's some canola with this gene. It's pollen is carried into the bush and pollinates a wild relative. It stops there doesn't it? In the wild I mean, because those plants don't produce viable seed, and so can't pass on the terminator gene. Or have I completely misinterpreted this? Is it a question of gene alleles or something that I've missed? I don't mean of course that we can't continue to produce seed ourselves with this gene, but it's lifespan in the wild seems limited, to say the least! Though limited, if that's correct, I can see that even one generation is enough to wipe out a species, or sub-species!!

Ray, I'm neither a scientist nor the Barry Jones of logic, but I'd've thought the terminator gene was, by definition, a self-destructor, taking a seed's ability to germinate to the grave with it. Thus, it seems to me, if enough cross-pollination involving the terminator gene were to take place, it's feasible that species or sub-species could be stopped in their tracks.

Prehaps it should be renamed to the Suicide Gene.

Hello again,
Thanks folks, this is very informative. Am I correct in my understanding of the above, if for example I was growing my non hybrid Golden Bantam sweet corn and let's say 10% of it was cross pollinated with some of this GE corn with the gene from BT making it too toxic for grubs to eat-

a) if the GE corn had no Terminator Gene then all the seed I saved, including the 10% crossed with the GE with the BT gene would germinate and my strain would be irreversably poluted.

b) if the GE corn had the Terminator Gene inserted then only the 90% that wasn't crossed with the GE corn would germinate and my strain of Golden Bantam would remain uncontaminated?

Had the Terminator Gene been compulsory in all GE corn then the corn varieties of the indiginous Mexicans would never have been irreversably poluted?

Sorry to be so dumb and need to have everything explained to me.
Neil

I'd have to say Neil that I struggle a bit too. If I understand things correctly, then contamination of say 10% of your OP Golden Bantam crop by GM corn

a) without the terminator gene, would have resulted in an edible, though contaminated crop, from which it would be not only pointless, because of contamination, but illegal to save the seed and replant it. The modified genes are patented and you'd be infringing that patent. And I'm sorry, but it's your responsibilty to identify each and every seed containing the modified gene, regardless of how it came to be among your crop!!!

b) with the terminator gene inserted, would have produced corn, but those corn seeds would not have been able to produce viable plants. So you could save seed and grow it, because only the non-contaminated seed would grow!

I don't know enough about the genetics to be 100% certain, but it would seem the case that the presence of this gene would prevent contamination, as it shows it presence by not reproducing! That's not to say of course, that there wouldn't be some major disaster - massive crop failure leading to starvation for example as locals followed their centuries old practice of saving seed for the next crop (never mind of course that such practices suddenly become illegal, because someone, somewhere owns that modified gene).

Hello Ray,
Thanks for further enlightment. As best as I can understand it, and hopefully someone can help me out here, the reason for the opposition to the Terminator Gene is that it will stop people saving their own seed and force them to go back to the multi nationals such as Monsanto each year.

The GE crops are all patented anyway so it is illegal to save your own seed.

The Terminator Gene would stop people from illegally growing GE crops that many of us believe they shouldn't be able to grow legally in the first place.

The Terminator Gene would also prevent the flow of GE traits such as herbicide resistance to related weeds.

So, my Golden Bantam, as well as any remaining wild/indiginous strains of corn could be at risk of contamination because we are opposing the Terminator Gene rather than suporting it being compulsory?

It all becomes a bit hard for me to work out.
Neil

You may or may not have run across this but it makes me squirm. See the link...

(Then when you're through with that look at his little baby:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/The-mechanics-of-waging-war-by-remote-control/2005/02/02/1107228765897.html)

Enough to make you want to wage war yourself.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rags to Unriches

And what's going to happen to the best baked beans in the world now that Coke ownes SPC : (

I don't like Nestle either, they ruined every lollie they ever bought, Minties are quite safe for anyone with 50 fillings now it's just terrible AND have gelatine in them!@!!@!@! may as well call them mint chewing gums without gum :P. Kitt Kats taste nothing like they did, I could go on for hours if I thought about all the things they bought and ruined grrrrrrrrrrr

And Seedless watermelons have no flavour and I don't want them in my supermarket thank you : )

Re the link rags to unriches and the Iraqi farmers.

I believe much the same thing has happened in India where basmati rice has been grown for thousands of years. The rice has been patented by an US company and the farmers will not be allowed to grow their own crops without paying royalties. Its still before the courts, but the Indian government has been dragging its feet contesting it. Of course the huge, rich , multinationals count on this happening because they can afford to spend years fighting this in courts where the poor farmers can't.

Adamus said "I still believe that the world has enough people like me to keep things okay."

The Indian rice farmers, or the Iraqi farmers, or the Canadian corn farmers probably thought the same.

Makes me mad!

Seedless watermelons aren't transgenic! They are "traditionally" bred. As for flavour, it varies a lot in melons, due to growing conditions.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that GM could potentially be the saviour of the environment, eliminating the need for sprays, reducing the need for fertilizer application, improving nutritional content of crops to increase value from smaller acreages. It can be used to control weediness in crops and is the only feasible way at this point to actually eliminate weeds and feral animals from the environment completely. Some very exciting applications with potential to do huge good. just a thought.

Jamus nature isn't ment to be perfect, if it was it wouldn't work. I know seedless watermelons aren't modified but they just represent all the worlds problems rolled into a melon to me, tastless food that cost more and has less nutrition and you have to pay extra for the seed. It's the lack of seeds that cause the lack of flavour, seeds do good things to a fruit, plenty of extra hormones and all that. I don't think GM is anything too bad and the day that I can whip up a customised, re made retro or all new plant/animal in software and have the whole DNA whipped up and actually grown will be quite a fun a chaotic day : ) that probably wont happen in my life time but it will happen

Hello again,
Still not clear why everybody is oposing the Terminator Gene. I think we should all think for selves rather than follow and if there is any fear involved then we should think twice before following. I don't go along with the scare campaign being waged with the Terminator Gene, I'd rather think and question than follow blindly.

Re: Plant patenting. Is there anyone not opposed to it under the present circumstances where the Patent Law seems to be totally inapropriate for plants which cross pollinate?

Do we have consensus on that?
Neil

I agree with those urging thoughtful consideration. I, like Jamus, think that GM technology does have great potential, though in a very limited scope. GM technology works one gene at a time, traditional plant breeding works with the plant's entire genome. This says to me that something like flavour, and I suspect even yield, are not amenable to genetic manipulation using GM technology, at least as it currently stands (please note that), because there are just too many genes involved. A good example of a failure is the FLAVRSAVR tomato. A gene was identified that cotrolled a substance involved in the softening of ripening fruit. It was modified so that the tomato remained firm even when ripe. Unfortunately, it had rather disastrous consequences on flavour - the new tommy had the unfortunate attribute of tasting for all the world like petrol. This is almost certainly due to genetic pleiotropy - that one gene can have a primary effect as well as lots of seconadry effects. Pleiotropy is acknowledged but little understood. The same, or similar, has been done using traditional techniques and while the end result doesn't taste great, at least it doesn't taste like petrol!

To be fair, traditional plant breeding has its failures too. The pest resistant potato being a classic case in point. Pests wouldn't eat it, but humans couldn't either. It was too toxic!

Areas where GM might really come into its own are disease resistances, specifically resistance to viral diseases. But there's very little money, on the whole, to be made in GM technology that is actually beneficial. Hence the likes of Monsanto pushing "Round-up Ready Soy" etc. It's so they can sell more of their Round-up. Period. Similarly the Terminator gene. If you can get farmers dependent, you have a captive market and can then set prices as you please. That particular technology serves no other purpose that I can see. I find the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And, unfortunately, it gives GM technology a very bad name.

GM technology has great potential, but so far I see nothing to cheer about. I think it's probably in the wrong hands!

Hello Ray,
Subject seems to have gone a bit quiet for some reason. I have a lot of concerns about GE but acknowledge that in the right hands it may have advantages. I've been told that we will need it to feed an expanding world population, however we don't have the unlimited resources to maintai the present population at present resource use, an expanded world population isn't sustainable, GE or no GE.

Patenting is one of the many issues, it was the sole legal issue in the case of the Canadian canola grower, Percy Schmeiser in his legal case with Monsanto. Patenting law is totally inapropriate for promiscuious plants.

Much of the fear based opposition to GE comes from the organic movement who seem to be trying to use fear to get higher prices for their organic produce. I attended a forum in Bairnsdale where the speaker on behalf of the organic sector made a tirade agaisnt Monsanto for suing Percy Schmeiser for growing their GE canola (which he wasn't. It was pointed out to him that the organic movement certified patented plant varieties and when questioned on this he didn't seem to have any idea where he was comming from.
There seem to be a lot of people blindly following the fear campaign against GE and blindly supporting the organic movement with its certification of patented varieties.

There are many rational reaqsons to oppose GE and also many rational reasons to speak out against the fear based, values deficient anti GE campaign.

Haver a think about it mates- Neil

Too true Neil. We need to understand all the facts before commiting to an opinion. To make things better for all there are always some that suffer and we use this to justify everything we do in a western world. What we need to examine carefully is which method leads to most pros and least cons.

I do have problems with the philosophy of the multinationals that own whole genomes of any species. And I would like to know the consequences of continuously growing a monoculture that has one particular fertiliser and herbicide (Roundup) sprayed on it. I also wonder if there are any financial benefits to the farmer when they buy seed that is reliant on one fertiliser and one herbicide.

Please don't let this appear as though I'm taking sides because I'm not.

There is financial benefit to the farmer. If he doesn't spray the crop he has two options; either he weeds it manually costing $$ or he lets the weeds grow and reduces the value of saleable crop meaning less $$.

In the end a particular farmer may not need to spray at all as over the years he would have killed the weeds and not allowing them to seed. I can see this would financially benefit a lucerne farmer for example, who gets paid more for the purity of the lucerne.

In the end a farm is a business and I think we put way too much emphasis on the nobility of a farmer. Not to say they are any lesser but most farmland, in Australia, is owned by money-making corporations and conglomerates. After all we have no Amish here, do we?

At a really general level, it's all about "connectedness". Everything seems to be connected to everything else. You do something here and it has consequences there, sometimes quite unexpected. I guess this is what the study of ecology is all about. Trying to get a handle on the connectedness in an environment. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, this even applies at the gene level. Another example: I'm currently taking certain medication, but this medication has had some undesirable consequences that mean I have to take more medication to counteract, or at least manage these undesirable effects. I guess what I'm trying to say is, we ought to be cautious about what we do in areas like gene manipulation. We simply don't know what the consequences might be. And I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not against it per se.
As people have pointed out, there are many issues tied, or connected, to this which are, or at least, should be quite separate: patenting of genes and whole genomes, corporate governance and ethical practices etc. And Neil's right about fear driving a lot of the opposition. That doesn't mean that that opposition isn't justified. It just means that, as in the example he gave, it can seriuosly backfire if you allow fear to dominate.
As for feeding the world, as far as I can tell, it's been primarily political reasons behind many of the world's food problems - revolution, corrupt governments, war etc. These make any country particularly fragile and unable to withstand a sudden crop loss due to bad weather for example. Agreed, the world's spiralling population doesn't help, but famine is much less likely in a country whose political set up is both stable and not too corrupt. Notice I said not too corrupt. I think that corruption will always be with us. Greed is a very human trait. But as long as there's enough to go round, reasonably fairly, the effects of corruption are rarely felt.

Perhaps we should all remember Gandhi's words- There's enough for everyones need but not enough for everyones greed.

Did you know caulies are selling for about $5each in the supermarket (or so I've been told). The farm I've been working on has had caulies rejected because they were 2cm over size. Makes it very expensive to grow and unaffordable for many. We don't need GE to feed the world we just need a rethink.
Neil

Have you read the post about 'we're southerners'. Up in QLD they are filling their bins with avacados, and down here we are paying 1.50 each for them. Go, figure. A rethink is needed Neil, for sure.

Mantis

That's the thing, isn't it. At conservative estimates, there is enough food grown each year to feed the world's population four times over. If you consider how many countries have problems getting enough food, this is , frankly, a sick scenario. The reason the food isn't distributed to the people who need it is primarily because the people who have it won't pay to get it to the people who need it. They would rather destroy it, or feed it to other animals in their own country, than stop poor people dying of starvation. The word we are looking for is Manslaughter. Yes it is. In the recent war in Kosovo, a few years back, 28,000 tonnes of bombs were dropped, mostly on civilians by chance, and estimates are that 20 plane loads of food and supplies were air dropped into the entire conflict. The reason given was that there were no resources to enable the food drops.
1 + 1 = 46,000 dead. 15,000 of which, were from starvation. Sorry, it just gets to me that it's so bloody obvious, and it can't be seen.
GE at its Zenith, hack out the vision and caring genes, and sit down to a nice dinner, reassured in the fact that the world is safe and fair. GE is not necessary, and not viable in the long term. It's quite simple. It costs more to develop GE, than it does to have all the spare food distributed to the people who need it.
Phew, God That Felt Good.

Jamus wrote: "You seem to be overlooking the fact that GM could potentially be the saviour of the environment, eliminating the need for sprays, reducing the need for fertilizer application, improving nutritional content of crops to increase value from smaller acreages. It can be used to control weediness in crops and is the only feasible way at this point to actually eliminate weeds and feral animals from the environment completely. Some very exciting applications with potential to do huge good. just a thought."

...or...we could just go organic and reduce wasteage. (It was recently reported that most households are throwing out a third of the fresh produce they buy.) It might also help if we didn't cover our most fertile land with kilometre after kilometre of suburbia.

The saviours of our environment being maufactured by the companies that are largely responsible for the chemical overload they now claim to be rescuing us from; the chemicals being necessary to save us from the invasive plants that a previous corporation suggested we couldn't live without.....oh my....time for my medication...and then I'll take the medication I have to take because of my medication..............once upon a time people ate, worked, shat and slept without all of this...sigh...I'm too young to be nostalgic.

mudlark

You're right mudlark. Once upon a time people did get by "without all of this". But speaking personally, I'm rather glad of at least "some of this" as, without the medication I take, I'm a dead man. And I don't have any real defense against "survival of the fittest" proponents save that I'm a nice person and I think my grandchildren would miss me. But yes, things seem to be getting more and more complex and it makes one hanker for a simpler way.

BTW, here's a possible good use of genetic engineering. The CSIRO is very close now to developing a carp that spawns only male offspring. Carp, another great introduction, are the scourge of our river systems. If released, within a very short space of time, carp would cease to be a problem. Males carrying this modified gene would soon overwhelm others, effectively wiping themselves out in a few generations!

Now, I say possible because I don't now if carp can interbreed with any native species. If they can, then it may be very unwise, indeed, unbelievably stupid to unleash this modified fish. If they can't, then I say go for it!!!

This to me is an example of the technology put to possible good use. And notice that it is government (read taxpayer) funding that is supporting it. I don't see Monsanto or indeed any other company with the technological knowhow stepping up to the plate, as it were!

My two cents worth on this debate is....

Like most new developements and technologies, there are many good uses to which this technology COULD be put! Technology and new developments aren't wrong or bad, it's just how it is implemented and used.

However many of the things that seem to me to be the good things (ie would have social, moral or environmental gains) won't make the big corporations any money and so most won't be interested in developing these avenues. As has been previously stated and becomes evident if you look into our society, corporations are only interested in profits. Our society as a whole puts no real value on environment, or global social justice. It's all Money, Money, Money (go ABBA).

The only hope for GE (or really any developments) as I see it is for non-profits, governmental organisations and the very few socially aware companies (who care about more than excessive profit and continuous growth) to become involved and this means slow and few projects seeing light of day. Unless we have a fundamental change in the way society views the world then this won't change.

I try very hard to only invest in companies who can prove a good triple bottom line, and are serious about enviroment, social justice and corporate governance issues. And same with buying products and services. If this costs a little more, or make me a little less profit, well so be it.

If each person started to care a little more about this type of stuff then that would cause a shift, as corporations would suddenly find that they needed to do more than report good profits to keep their company afloat!

Anyway - that's my rant for today - and I'll now climb off my soapbox too :-)

Please don't get off the soapboxes, the view from there is brilliant.

Monsanto recently became a majority shareholder in UNICEF.
Welcome to the real world.
I am going to live in a box.

I've already said lots on this up over...but...Monsanto's relatively a two bit player and an easy target as they bumble around at our expense. We need to be watching out for the larger players like DuPont and Syngenta quietly taking over food security and drug systems and more.

Adam, I believe you must mean that Monsanto has become a major donor to UNICEF. As a non-profit NGO, UNICEF can have no stakeholders. Neverthless...

Jennifer, the quiet Canuck :>) who watched in horror as the SH govs bellied up to the Terminator Tech table with our gov earlier this month

Here is a link that might be useful: a most important good guy NGO

Jennifer, the quiet Canuck :>) who watched in horror as the SH govs bellied up to the Terminator Tech table with our gov earlier this month

I decided to make an appointment with my local MP to voice my concerns about Australia and NZ's support, which is counter International consensus on the issue. As I understand it, Australia's protection agency for all new foods seeking endorsement for release here is a combined Aus/NZ agency that rubber stamps most items as long as the supporting documentation is there. Supporting documentation includes any trials or tests on animals and the results.

I heard a local doctor speak on this issue, voicing her medical concerns that even when actual results are held back (they are mentioned as being available upon request!) that this agency neither requests them, nor carries out any independent testing. Therefore, mice showing enlarged livers after 2 weeks of exposure to a GE food have their livers frozen (just as an example) in case of future litigation, so that a company can state that it offered the relevant items for testing, but that no requests were received.

BTW, this doctor became interested in the pollutions affecting the food supply because of noticing an increase this past decade in food and other allergies, and a rise in more serious things like cancers and leukemia. Her concern with GE modified crops that are bred to be resistant to insecticides, herbicides, fungicides etc is that while it may result in bumper crops, it won't remove the effects of the chemical residues in the food chain! She believes that in 20 - 30 years time, the effects will be obvious and that the eventual human toll will be huge.

PP, who think that a farmer should be able to sue a company whose patented genetically engineered pollen pollutes his crop.

Yeah, sorry. They are now able to send their seeds with the gene to terminate, to all UNICEF areas under relief.
Is this obvious to everyone, or do I need to tell you they won't be allowing locals to grow their own varieties.
I know they are just a big slow moving target, and they aren't in Australia yet, but they do seem hellbent on control for control's sake. This is the thing which gets me most, from the moment they stopped one person growing one crop, they were corrupt and wrong , IMHO.

I beg to differ, Monsanto products litter plant nursery shelves! They are here and have been for a long time. But their GM crops aren't in general use yet. Though they are here. That's the point, if they crop test, with Canola say, it's already too late. If anyone remembers that humungous dust storm some years ago, SA dust was being swept up in northern NSW for some time afterwards. So much for pollen not travelling far!!!

I was looking over this thread again and clicked on the link to the article about the new laws enacted in Iraq, by the occupying power, that covers Plant Variety Rights (PVR) - similar, but not identical to patenting. This article claimed that the new legislation outlawed the right of Iraqi farmers to save there own seed for the following year's crop, something they've been doing for rather a long time. Well, I was outraged and got very angry. The whole notion is simply preposterous.

At the bottom of the page, I saw a link to the original source of this information, an organisation called GRAIN (article here), an NGO which promotes sustainable development in agriculture. So I decided to take a look.

It seems that while the situation is still dire, it's not quite what the first article would have us believe. The legislation sets up the recognition of PVRs, (to which I'm totally opposed, but that's a different issue), and under this legislation, it is only illegal to save the PVR seed without due compensation to the PVR holder. So Iraqi's can still save their traditional seeds, but they'd better not let pollen from any PVR plant contaminate their crop! Look at what happened to poor old Percy Schmeiser in Canada. Moreover, they will never be able to afford to register their own varieties.

But that's the whole point, isn't it!

I'm reminded of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot, who would always ask his sidekick, 'astings, whether his information was from the source. If not, Hercule would "Zen you do not know zis to be true. It is, 'ow you say, ze 'eresay" or words to that effect.

Raymondo *repeating his new mantra "Always check sources!"*

Not quite as easy as that, Ray. What you missed is the accompanying legislation that prohibits the sale of any grain that is not registered. This, the occupiers claim, is to ensure 'high quality' in grain on offer---in a region that has been identified as the centre of origin for wheat!! The clincher is that in order to register a particular variety the breeder must be identified. This is the critical factor which makes saving seed that is not corporate owned impossible: How do you, even can you register seed that is public domain, traditional, heritage, especially when such a concept of personal ownership of something for the collective good is literally foreign? So farmers can grow unregistered grain, but they can't sell it or trade it or...so what's the point of growing it? They have been prohibited from saving or selling seed to all extents and purposes, yes? Plus the USA and allies have bombed the genebanks or given contents to the multinationals.

And this is exactly what is being proposed in Canada. "Iraq lite" minus the bombing.

Jennifer

I forgot that, even if they could register a variety with an identified breeder, the cost of registering it initially and then annually has been set well beyond the economic means of these Iraqi farmers.

Jennifer

Well now I'm really depressed!

the same thing has happened in the Philipines with their old varieties of rice. Did anybody watch Landline on Sunday. A repeat of a show talking to Canadians about their corn and GE corn. The GE corn hasn't ostensibly invaded the corn genebank, but the farmers have to plant their normal corn a month later than they used to, in order not to cross pollinate with the Monsanto Stuff.