Harvey & Mike -- I'm sorry but I just don't buy the article at all.
Having been written about by the "press" and having had such writings
contain nothing but half-truths and statements that could *easily*
have been corrected with 5 minutes research, I challenge the entire
article. There are no concrete references in it so you cannot check
anything it says.
As Harvey points out, the companies have a policy (with at least
some crops) that some fraction be planted with non GMO crops to
diminish the probability that resistance will develop. We don't
know what the policy was in this specific instance (it tends
to vary on a crop by crop basis). I'd be more likely to suspect
that any suits that took place took place because the farmer
didn't follow a contract they might have had with the supplier.
We already know of *lots* of examples where such contracts
(planting/processing "instructions"???) haven't been followed
(either by the farmer or by downstream grain processors).
I *really* doubt a corporation would sue a farmer if he had
a field contaminated with cross-pollinated seed. That is the
last thing that they would want to draw attention to. Farmers
also do not generally (yes I realize I'm making a generalization
here) harvest their own seed and reuse it. Generally they purchase
it from a seed supplier. I'd suspect more likely the seed supplier
may have mixed up some bags. This gets back to the whole corn
contamination problem we had a year or two ago. The only way
one might avoid this in the long run is to make the corn seeds
a different color so you know when you are seeding, harvesting
or buying a GMO plant. It also makes the occurrence of
cross-pollination a bit more obvious.
>From the start of the article it seems as if its written by someone
with an "agenda". Newspaper reporters can have "green" perspectives
and slant their articles that way by selective reporting of the facts.
You would need to find and study the actual lawsuits involved to
understand the facts of the cases.
I do know that the seed manufacturers have been buying up the
seed distributors for a number of years. I'd view this as
nothing more than vertical economic integration that is not
uncommon in any other industry. Whether it is a good idea
from an anti-trust perspective is a different question --
but I doubt its a useful strategy from a corporate perspective
of trying to "force" farmers to buy GMO seed. Even thinking
about it for 30 seconds, any corporation would know that farmers,
*can* grow their own seed if they want to, so the idea of
forcing them to buy GMO seed would seem to be invalid from
the start. The web sites that I have visited show GMO seed
and non-GMO seed being sold on the same page so I don't think
one can make the case for companies trying to force GMO seed
on the farmers (the fact that the companies have policies of
growing both GMO-seed and non-GMO seed to delay the development
of resistance genes means that non-GMO seed isn't going to
"disappear" from the market).
I don't think any discussion of the article can be useful without
knowing the real facts of the cases involved. I don't get the
sense that that was what the author of the article was trying
to present.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT