Re: Re: force behind market forces & GM crops

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxx>]

"The left" [saii] cannot afford to screw  up the GE debate in terms of
property rights and democratizing science as a public good. The bomb
started the de-communizing of science as a global public good, lord
help us if GE and the evolution of computers, medicine etc. finish the
job.

Has David Dickson weighed in on the issue anywhere?

Ian



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:41 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:16451] Re: force behind market forces & GM crops


> I do not have the details on anything but the Schmeiser part is
grossly
> misleading. Notice too how Monbiot goes from Schmeiser maintains
that the
> rape (canola) plants were the result of pollution to asserting that
they
> were the result of pollution.
>    Oh. Just by the by, many fields had percentages of GM canola well
over 90
> per cent. On these fields the GM canola was hardly thinly spread.
How can
> leftists  continue to support and believe people such as Monbiot who
> obviously make no attempt to even
> check their facts. I have a whole folder on the Schmeiser affair
that I
> assembled and posted to a few groups who make the sorts of claims
that
> Monbiot does. Of course there was nary a thank you or even
acknowledgement
> of the receipt of my material, even though it contains sterling
quotes from
> Percy Schmeiser himself about how he uses Roundup to do preharvest
> burnoffs....lol. He mentions this to counter Monsanto's evidence
that
> Schmeiser had bought quite large amounts of Roundup and so probably
was
> using it on his Roundup Ready canola!
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> Here is a former post that is part of the folder:]
>
>
> pen-l
> <-- Chronological -->       Find   <-- Thread -->
>
> Relevance of Schmeiser decision on saving seed..
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> ----
>
> From: Ken Hanly
> Subject: Relevance of Schmeiser decision on saving seed..
> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:50:17 -0700
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> ----
>
> Note that there is no question of saving seed in general raised by
the
> decision as some anti-gm groups claim so loudly. There is not even a
problem
> for those who happen to have a few GM volunteers in their crops. The
judge
> notes that several farmers testified that they had found GM canola
> volunteers in their own crops and Monsanto had removed them at
Monsanto's
> expense. The samples taken from Schmeiser were taken one year from
road
> allowances, also from samples at a seed cleaning plant, and later
under
> court order. The percentage of Roundup Ready tolerant canola plants
varied
> but many fields
> were in the high ninety percent range. Experts claimed there is no
possible
> way this could be contamination. The judge accepted that evidence.
And
> Schmeiser KNEW he was planting such canola. He is not some innocent
not
> knowing that some of the canola he is planting is GM canola.
>    Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> Part of decision:
>
> 124] For the defendants it is urged that a finding of infringement
will
> adversely affect the
> longstanding right of a farmer to save his own seed for use for
another
> crop. In particular it
> is urged that those who do not purchase Roundup Ready canola seed
but find
> the plant
> invading their land would be precluded from saving their own seed
for use
> another year since
> their crop may be contaminated without action by the farmer on whose
land
> plants containing
> the patented gene are found.
> [125] That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his
1998 crop.
> I have found
> that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or
ought to
> have known was
> Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to
contain
> the plaintiffs'
> patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not
simply from
> occasional or
> limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants
that are
> Roundup
> resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or
ought to
> have known was
> Roundup tolerant.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> ----
>
>
> <-- Chronological -->   <-- Thread -->
>
>     Reply via email to
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:35 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:16131] force behind market forces & GM crops
>
>
> > But the solution proposed by the Roushes' lawyers was a prudent
one. In
> > April, a Canadian farmer called Percy Schmeiser was forced to pay
Monsanto
> > $85,000, after a court ruled that he had stolen Monsanto's genetic
> > material. Schmeiser maintained that the thinly- spread GM rape
plants on
> > his farm were the result of pollen contamination from his
neighbour's
> > fields, and he had done all he could to get rid of them. But
Monsanto's
> > proprietary genes had been found on his land whether he wanted
them or
> not.
> > Following the time- honoured convention that the polluted pays, Mr
> > Schmeiser was forced to compensate the company for what he insists
was
> > invasion by its vegetable vermin.
> >
>
>