Byron’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  To further comment. Quote: “though there is not one single documented incident of food safety or environmental harm attributable to biotechnology in the world over the 13 years it has been used on over 2 billion acres. For this claim to have any traction its makers need to provide proof but there is none to provide.”

  About the former claim: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_GM_Foods:_Health_Risks.

  About the 2 billion acres, according to Monsanto itself the 2007 worldwide total of their GM crops are 234-242 million acres. http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/pubs/2007/Q32007Acreage.pdf . If you look at http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummary/default.html specifically "Table 1. Global Area of Biotech Crops in 2008: by Country (Million Hectares)" and http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/37/pptslides/Global-Status-Map-2007.pdf you get an actual figure of about 125 million hectares. Then convert from hectares to acres you get a number of a little over 300 million acres, nowhere near 2 billion. Yet just above it it says 2 billion. Now unless I'm missing something I can only conclude that the biotech indistry, for sheer publicity reasons, must be counting the same acres over and over again and implying that they are separate and distinct acres planted when in actuality they are mostly the same acres planted from year to year. Kind of deceptive if you asked me. But then what else is new?

   

  On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 1 week ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Looks like the post process has screwed up the format a bit. Sorry.

  On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 1 week ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

   

   

   A few comments on your PDF.Glyphosate Tolerance (RoundUp Ready)

  The supposed purpose of RR crops was to eliminate the need for other, more toxic herbicides. However if resistance is necessitating their use then the very reason for RR crops has gone away. You are asking people to climb aboard the tail end of a losing technology. Quote: “Rotating modes of action in herbicides is an important resistance management tool and there was broad support for preserving that approach.” Are you aware that resistances to multiple herbicides is possible? Additionally, what customer knowing that herbicides are being applied directly to their crops just to make things easier for farmers would find that desirable?

  2) 

   

  Concerns of Excessive Market Influence by Private Companies

  Quote: “

   

  However, the concept of choice will govern here too: if farmers want to continue saving seed as they have been doing, they will be free to do so with the current varieties they are legally using for that purpose. Only those farmers who perceive value from the trait enhancements will be willing to pay the royalties and tech fees for new traits.” Sure they can save seed from non-GM crops, but soon as they cross-pollinate with their GM crops their choice goes out the window.

   

  3)

   

  Preserve the Role of Public Breeding Programs

  To be honest this section sounded like nothing more than a plan for Monsanto to take over these institutions as well. Quote: “NAWG and the National Wheat Improvement Committee (NWIC) are working to ensure that the public breeding programs have a strong role in a world with biotech traits in wheat.... commercializing private traits through public breeding programs may be the only way to ensure a major ongoing role for the public programs.” Then you say, “In order for this to happen, we need to make sure the public system provides an efficient and coherent system for deploying traits. NAWG and NWIC are investigating ways to provide uniformity across the various university technology transfer platforms to make this task simpler for private developers.” Hmm, sounds like a done deal. But I wonder, did you enquire from your member farmers before making this decision?

   

   

   

   

  4)

  This section is a joke to be frank. First you dismissively claim, “We believe there will be no important differences between biotech and non-biotech wheat from the perspectives of food safety, environmental safety, or end use functionality” thereby ignoring tons of research to the contrary. Again. please see the links I provided above. Then as if to compound the arrogance you say, “Nonetheless, some customers may express preferences for non-biotech wheat products for other reasons.” So as the mouthpiece for these 21,000 farmers (though you are basing your decisions here on your interpretation on what a mere 1/4 of them checked off in your survey) you have decided that they cannot possible have concerns about biotechnology based on food safety, environmental safety, or end use functionality reasons? Next this: “Essential and implied with the commitment to choice is the need to provide for coexistence between varieties with biotech traits and those without, such as organic wheat.” So then who is going to pay for this assured separation of organic and GM wheat? I ask because in Monsanto’s world it’s the organic farmer that is liable if Monsanto’s GM biotech traits get in organic crops:

  “Examples of Identity Preservation (I.P.) corn crops include seed corn, white, waxy, high oil, high amylose, high lysine and any other corn crop that is grown to meet specialty requirements, including organic and non-genetically enhanced specifications. Growers certifying the I.P. of their crop assume the responsibility and receive the benefit for ensuring that their crop meets mutually agreed contract specifications for purity. The accepted practice with I.P. production is that the I.P. grower implements any necessary processes, e.g. crop isolation, that might be required to meet the I.P. specifications.” http://web.archive.org/web/20050309020517/http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/layout/stewardship/marketchoices/growerinfo.asp

  Then you make an entirely, and I suspect, knowingly false (and breathtakingly arrogant) claim, as far as wheat is concerned, and that‘s what this PDF of yours is talking about. “Achieving a zero tolerance for biotech traits is not possible. In order to make coexistence work, widely accepted and commercially achievable tolerances will need to be established for the low-level presence of biotech traits in non-biotech lots of wheat.” This is completely true as far as the other, already ubiquitous biotech crops are concerned. However since there is no GM wheat at present (unless of course it’s already secretly being tested by Monsanto) it is completely untrue in this context. The way to assure no contamination of GM into non-GM wheat is simply not to grow GM wheat in the first place.

  5) Other Issues

  Quote: “

   

  No one will be forced to consume or produce products that they do not wish to consume or produce. Choice will be available in the marketplace, both for consumers and for producers...” How are you going to provide that choice since labeling of GM products has been successfully fought tooth and nail by Monsanto, the company with 90% or so of the GM market? In fact they say, “Some people believe it’s a right-to-know issue, and all products containing ingredients from GM crops should be labeled as such.... Mandatory labeling of food containing GM ingredients might seem like a no-brainer. However, once you consider the facts, it becomes clear there is no sense in mandatory GM labeling” http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=59&item=163 where’s the free market choice in that?

   

   

  Another complete falsehood. Quote: “though there is not one single documented incident of food safety or environmental harm attributable to biotechnology in the world over the 13 years it has been used on over 2 billion acres . For this claim to have any traction its makers need to provide proof but there is none to provide.” Then, “Conversely, there is significant evidence that biotechnology has enabled producers – including small holder farmers in developing countries – to become more profitable, reduce resource consumption, and better their lives.” Um yeah, that’s why farmers in India are taking their lives in droves.  

  Then there is the “Fundraising” section. I’m not sure but I think that wheat farmers have just been insulted. Maybe it’s time for them to form a new NAWG? One that is not in the pocket of the biotech industry.

  About your Terminator section. Oh brother. 

  Other. Quote: “Crops [sic] who have been content to allow their acres to shrink in hopes that prices will rise have been disappointed in the results.” No proofreader? 

  This document reads like it came straight from a Monsanto PR team. This is anecdotal but I noticed not one use of the word “farmer” in it, yet there were seven mentions of the word “grower”. Note this comment from a Countercurrents.org article: “Once you opt to buy Monsanto seeds, you are no longer a farmer, you're a "grower" -- a serf -- and you must sign a Technology/Stewardship agreement ... In short, you sign your life -- and your livelihood -- over when you become a "grower." And, if you're ever taken to court (and it's likely you could be), and you lose (and it's likely you will) -- you will find you agreed to pay Monsanto and its attorney fees and all related court costs.” http://www.countercurrents.org/samples110509.htm

  After reading your PDF, it’s apparent that NAWG already made its decision. I think that wheat farmers, the actual grassroots of NAWG need to make a decision as well.

   

  On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 1 week ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I believe that NAWG should take a step back and seriously reconsider their decision to go with biotech wheat. Biotech crops have proved an ugly can of worms that NAWG will likely regret if they go through with it just as many of those involved with biotech corn, canola, cotton, soy and rice do. The problem is that once you go down that path your decision cannot be undone due to the fact that it is near impossible to get transgenes to stop proliferating. You will then find yourselves caught in the web. 

  Here is a report that was prepared for the Canadian Wheat Board that takes a different view.    http://web.archive.org/web/20061018103535/http://www.worc.org/pdfs/WheatCWBEnviroReportJune2003.pdf

  Here is a series of articles you might look at to let you know what you'll be in for should you proceed: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

  Having closely followed this issue for years I suspect biotech agriculture will turn out to have been just an elaborate and costly gimmick, a gamble designed mainly to enrich the biotech giants. Do you really want to gamble on your wheat?

  On A farmer speaks: no to GMO wheat posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses