permaculture

[<fdnokes@hotmail.com>]

Lawrence,

Thanks for expressing an interest in the issue of genetically modified or 
genetically engineered seeds.
It is a practice that destroys our seed specimens, as well as bringing on 
huge applications of poisonous materials, and breaking farmers' on every 
level.
Even other companies in the business of ge are having a hard time, due to 
Monsanto.

This forwarded message does not bear good news.
But there is much here on the boards for the U.S. and the Justice Dept. is 
currently investigating.

This is possibly one of the reasons why so many more have grown interested in 
self sustaining practices.

Frances


From: Lucy Sharratt - CBAN Coordinator 
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 2:34 PM
To: cban-e-news@cban.ca 
Subject: [cban e-News] Monsanto's control over seeds and the seed 
market:Investigation


Also see that there is a new report: "The Seed Price Premium: The Magnitude 
and Impact of the Biotech and Organic Seed Price Premium" 
www.organic-center.org


http://www.seattlepi.com/business/1310ap_us_seed_giant.html
Monsanto seed business role revealed
By Christopher Leonard, Associated Press
December 14 2009
EDITED


Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how 
the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling 
smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the 
multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press 
investigation has found.


With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all 
soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is 
using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide 
distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto 
licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry 
participants, agriculture and legal experts.


Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial 
licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, 
include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to 
Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements 
that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments.


The company has used the agreements to spread its technology - giving some 
200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate 
strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's 
genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached. For example, one 
contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that 
contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless 
Monsanto gives prior written permission - giving Monsanto the ability to 
effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into 
the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes.


Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being 
investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state 
attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. 
antitrust laws. 


"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed 
genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, 
agricultural economist at Iowa State University. "The upshot of that is that 
it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to 
increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five 
years, and the end is not in sight."


At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of 
the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its 
seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from 
animal feed to wheat bread and cookies.


One of the numerous provisions in the licensing agreements is a ban on mixing 
genes - or "stacking" in industry lingo - that enhance Monsanto's power.


Independent seed company owners could drop their contracts with Monsanto and 
return to selling conventional seed, but they say it could be financially 
ruinous. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene has become the industry standard over 
the last decade, and small companies fear losing customers if they drop it. 
It also can take years of breeding and investment to mix Monsanto's genes 
into a seed company's product line, so dropping the genes can be costly.


A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the office is examining 
possible antitrust violations. Additionally, two sources familiar with an 
investigation in Texas said state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office is 
considering the same issues. States have the authority to enforce federal 
antitrust law, and attorneys general are often involved in such cases.


Any Justice Department case against Monsanto could break new ground in 
balancing a company's right to control its patented products while protecting 
competitors' right to free and open competition, said Kevin Arquit, former 
director of the Federal Trade Commission competition bureau and now a 
antitrust attorney with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in New York. "These 
are very interesting issues, and not just for the companies, but for the 
Justice Department," Arquit said. "They're in an area where there is 
uncertainty in the law and there are consumer welfare implications and 
government policy implications for whatever the result is."


Monsanto was only a niche player in the seed business just 12 years ago. It 
rose to the top thanks to innovation by its scientists and aggressive use of 
patent law by its attorneys.


Roger Boerma, a research professor at the University of Georgia, is 
developing specialized strains of soybeans that grow well in southeastern 
states, but his current research is tangled up in such restrictions from 
Monsanto and its competitors. "It's made one level of our life incredibly 
challenging and difficult," Boerma said. The rules also can restrict 
research. Boerma halted research on a line of new soybean plants that contain 
a trait from a Monsanto competitor when he learned that the trait was 
ineffective unless it could be mixed with Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene.


Some independent seed company owners say they feel increasingly pinched as 
Monsanto cements its leadership in the industry. "They have the capital, they 
have the resources, they own lots of companies, and buying more. We're small 
town, they're Wall Street," said Bill Cook, co-owner of M-Pride Genetics seed 
company in Garden City, Mo., who also declined to discuss or provide the 
agreements. "It's very difficult to compete in this environment against 
companies like Monsanto."


Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator  
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) 
Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice 
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor 
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 0R5 
Phone: 613 241 2267 ext.6
Fax: 613 241 2506 
coordinator@cban.ca 
www.cban.ca


Join the Global Rejection of GE Wheat! www.cban.ca/GEwheat


Donate today to support the campaign  www.cban.ca/donate 
































--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
CBAN e-News mailing list

To unsubscribe, email cban-e-news-unsubscribe@cban.ca

http://www.cban.ca ~ Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and 
Environmental Justice
>From toby@patternliteracy.com  Sun Dec 13 17:35:35 2009
Return-Path: <toby@patternliteracy.com>
X-Original-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 464174C00D; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:35:35 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
        version=3.2.3
Received: from fmailhost05.isp.att.net (fmailhost05.isp.att.net
        [207.115.11.55])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C6F4C00B
        for <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:35:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from host-243-199.pubnet.pdx.edu ([131.252.243.199])
        by worldnet.att.net (frfwmhc05) with ESMTP
        id <20091213223523H0500nubave>; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:35:25 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [131.252.243.199]
Message-ID: <4B256C2B.6080100@patternliteracy.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:35:23 -0800
From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <502644.92662.qm@web59503.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>       
<4B254A57.3090000@comcast.net>  <BAY136-DS7748E8CA5414ECF5A3B9EB18A0@phx.gbl>
        <4B255884.1030300@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B255884.1030300@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [permaculture] the gardener's shadow falls both ways
X-BeenThere: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Id: permaculture <permaculture.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
        <mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture>
List-Post: <mailto:permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
        <mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:35:35 -0000

I've terrifically enjoyed these threads, and keep finding that about
anything I could think of saying (and then some!) is being said, and
well. Thanks for such sensitive and intelligent words.

A couple of notes: Mitch's horror story about his PDC shows one of the
big drawbacks to decentralized processes. Those "teachers" were not
following the curriculum set down by Mollison in the PDC handbook. There
is no "Zone 0" (personal psychology) in the curriculum. Nor flag
painting. You don't teach seed saving on day 1. You don't synopsize
people's books in class. I don't think these folks had the chops to
teach a PDC, and were filling the days with crap to make up for their
own incompetence. Fortunately, these teachers are the exception. There
is an established procedure of training (2 years full-time work in
design and teaching with experienced mentors, taking a teacher training,
and more) and I doubt if those clowns followed it.

To those considering taking a PDC: do your homework, just like you would
before spending money on a college, car, or doctor. You wouldn't go in
blind to any of those, right? Get recommendations from their students,
get a copy of their curriculum, and find out who they learned from and
how, and how many courses they've taught and where. Most teachers are
good, but there are some flakes out there, and there are also teachers
with whom your learning style may not be compatible.

Since there is no credential process, the next best indicator, I think,
is lineage: Who taught them, and who taught their teachers? To some
extent, the fewer links between them and Mollison, the better. And some
lineages have far more New Age practices, or circle dancing, or
whatever, than others, and some are very urban, and some very
scientific, and some consensus oriented, and others more autocratic in
style. Ask around. Hell, ask me off list; I know a lot of teachers.

 And in reply to an earlier question, dance and song are excellent ways
of learning, having been used to teach for millennia. But I'd be
circumspect about what is being sung or danced. As we've seen here,
spirituality in PDCs is a hot button. To me, a song about the mother
goddess is no more appropriate for a PDC than is a song about our all
being lambs of Jesus or children of Legba. Earth-centered spirituality
is so much the water permies swim in that we can be blind to its
presence. I've had evangelical Christians, Muslims, and hasidic Jews in
my classes point out how excluding some of our language is. Some folks
would be offended at being made to sing Christian hymns in a PDC; others
at being asked to sing about Gaia. If we stick to stuff that works for
everyone, we reach a lot more people. Lee made this point very nicely:
You can pray to whoever you want or to no one, and a solar panel still
collects.

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com


Lee Flier wrote:
> fdnokes@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Interesting discussion...
>> Truly, community will move ahead or fall apart on lines of culture...
>> Yes, having courses that are free of it will offer something to
>> everybody.
>> But, they will not create community.
>>
> I disagree... at my PDC there was a wonderful sense of community, and
> there was no mention (by the instructors) of any specific spiritual
> directive.
>> Wouldn't it be a part of a course to have people introduce
>> themselves, where
>> they're coming from, why they're in the course, etc.?
>>
>
> Absolutely, and in my class, each person did just that. We even had a
> talent show at the end of the course, where each student or a group of
> students could put on a skit or play, or sing a song, do a comedy act,
> make a flint tool, any kind of talent of their choosing.
>
> We also had class hikes through the mountains, nightly campfires where
> we sat around talking and telling stories.
>
> None of this served to alienate anybody of any particular spiritual or
> religious belief, including atheists. And none of it contradicted any
> accepted science or observable reality. :)
>
>
>