market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Market Farming
List archive
- From: "Marc Winterburn" <marcw AT oceanbroadband.net>
- To: "'Market Farming'" <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:36:06 +0800
The August 2009 Issue of Scientific American, a highly
respected American Scientific monthly magazine contains an editorial
titled ”Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research”. The article states that one of the great mysteries
surrounding the spread of GMO’s has been the absence of independent
scientific studies of possible long term effects on humans or even rats. The mystery has been solved. The GMO Agribusiness companies prohibit independent
research. I Quote” Unfortunately, it
is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised.
That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the
work of independent researchers. To purchase genetically
modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with
them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept
of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a
company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the
replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But
agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a
decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for
any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot
test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or
fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another
company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the
genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects. Research on genetically
modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed
companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a
number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed
company were later blocked from publication because the results were not
flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a
matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,”
wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to
an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with
regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but
selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how
‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be
toward [seed-enhancement] technology.” Shields is the spokesperson
for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because
the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their
research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for
studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The
group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result
of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on
many critical questions regarding the technology.” It would be chilling enough
if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from
testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies
trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports,
for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw
ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant
material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land,
the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous. Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual
property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development
that have led to agritech’s successes, we also believe food safety and
environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular
scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately
remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going
forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of
new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products
currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too important to keep
locked behind closed doors. References. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
Marc Winterburn Gingin West Australia From: market-farming-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:market-farming-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Road's
End Farm
No virus found in this outgoing message Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (5.0.1.1 - 10.100.182). http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ |
-
[Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott,
MAsteveINE, 09/06/2009
-
Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott,
growbd, 09/06/2009
-
Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott,
MAsteveINE, 09/06/2009
- Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott, growbd, 09/06/2009
-
Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott,
Road's End Farm, 09/06/2009
-
Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott,
Marc Winterburn, 09/07/2009
- Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott, Bill Shoemaker, 09/07/2009
- Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott, Bill Shoemaker, 09/07/2009
-
Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott,
Marc Winterburn, 09/07/2009
- Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott, Heirloom Grower, 09/07/2009
-
Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott,
MAsteveINE, 09/06/2009
-
Re: [Market-farming] Monsanto Boycott,
growbd, 09/06/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.