Monsanto's GM corn MON863 shows kidney, liver toxicity in animal studies

[Stretch]

Researchers fed rats either unmodified corn or diets containing 11 or 30 percent MON863 for 90 days. The rats who ate modified corn were found to exhibit signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as signs of hormonal changes.
Posted Apr 12, 2007 08:01 AM PST
Category: SCIENCE/HEALTH


Looks like the tests done by Monsanto on the corn were "abbreviated."
There is no way to keep genetically modified genes from escaping into the wild. Wild varieties of corn in Mexico have been found to contain artificial genes carried by the wind and by bees. Indeed it is probable that the gene that makes the plant cells manufacture a pesticide has already escaped, which means this problem will only spread. Meanwhile, there are two questions I have. First, is the pesticide created by this corn linked to the bee colony collapse, and how much corn is included in the dog food manufactured by Menu Foods?
http://www.newstarget.com/021784.html

 

[tamarin]

Hope Monsanto's got a big piggy bank!

 

[Tonington]

Most dog food brands will have some corn product in them. Corn is a common allergen to dogs though, and there are companies that don't use corn products. One of the more common uses is the corn starch. It's a good binder to keep the diet in a pelleted form. Corn is also fairly inexpensive as far as dietary energy goes.

 

[darkbeaver]

If Monsanto has phucked-up the bees then Monsanto should replace them and carry out the pollination by using little paint brushes and going from plant to plant or be imprisoned for life at hard labour.

 

[Stretch]

Hope Monsanto's got a big piggy bank!

Sadly, they dont need one, they have the courts behind them, ask Percy Schmiezer the Canadian farmer that tangled with them over his canola crop

 

[darkbeaver]

Percy Schiemser has got guts though, he's still fighting them, I understand he lost a lot of money.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Sadly, they dont need one, they have the courts behind them, ask Percy Schmiezer the Canadian farmer that tangled with them over his canola crop

Oh BS. You've misunderstood the case. The court did not consider the issue of whether Monsanto was responsible for crop contamination. It found in favour of Monsanto for patent infringement with the determination that Schmeiser recognized contamination and knowingly harvested the crossbred seeds and planted and harvested them the following year. Monsanto was awarded no punitive damages because the court unanimously ruled in Schmeiser's favour on the issue of his profits being exactly the same with or without the GM seeds. Courts deal with and decide on very specific issues on their merits as presented, you can't legitimately generalize to the conclusion that the courts are on Monsanto's side. The Supreme Court made two decisions on that case, one in favour of Monsanto and one in favour of Schmeiser.

 

[Niflmir]

Yeah, the European community doesn't seem to like the idea of messing with food. Although the corn in question was approved, their were suspicions of the kidney pathological findings. Apparently, the appeal court ruled that the Monsanto company's experimental data should be released into the public. The paper in question is a more sophisticated re-analysis of Monsanto's data.

That's what I got from the abstract. They concluded that the corn was not completely safe and that longer studies were necessary to determine actual toxicities more accurately.

Who wants to eat fruit or vegetables where you can't wash the pesticide off, anyways?

 

[Stretch]

Oh BS. You've misunderstood the case. The court did not consider the issue of whether Monsanto was responsible for crop contamination. It found in favour of Monsanto for patent infringement with the determination that Schmeiser recognized contamination and knowingly harvested the crossbred seeds and planted and harvested them the following year. Monsanto was awarded no punitive damages because the court unanimously ruled in Schmeiser's favour on the issue of his profits being exactly the same with or without the GM seeds. Courts deal with and decide on very specific issues on their merits as presented, you can't legitimately generalize to the conclusion that the courts are on Monsanto's side. The Supreme Court made two decisions on that case, one in favour of Monsanto and one in favour of Schmeiser.

Percy had developed his own seed strain over nearly 50 yrs, why would he harvest knowing that his crop was contaminated with a GM strain and risk destroying his own strain of seed?

 

[BitWhys]

Why should he have to abandon his own strain and buy fresh seed from somewhere else?

Why doesn't HE have the right to demand compensation?

 

[BitWhys]

Maybe I should patent my farts and start suing everybody downwind of me for exhaling.

 

[Niflmir]

Why should he have to abandon his own strain and buy fresh seed from somewhere else?

Why doesn't HE have the right to demand compensation?

From the case in question:

[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.


[126] Other farmers who found volunteer Roundup tolerant plants in their fields, two of whom testified at trial, called Monsanto and the undesired plants were thereafter removed by Monsanto at its expense.

Which is docket number T-1593-98 of the Federal Court of Canada, alternatively cited as 2001 FCT 256. Its a lengthy read, from which you get a lot of conflicting testimony, but the implication is clear:

If you find Roundup Ready canola growing on your land and you have not purchased it, you contact the Monsanto company and tell them to remove it. If they don't oblige you, they have given you an explicit waiver of their patent rights. Your obligation to contact the Monsanto company and make them aware of the situation is not an excessive burden. Mr. Schmeiser knew he had, or should have known that his field was contaminated due to his being contacted by a number of individuals, he did nothing to remedy the situation and deliberately used patented seed.

That is how the court found the patent violation.

 

[BitWhys]

no doubt you are fully aware none of that answers either of my questions. ottytrain2:

 

[Niflmir]

no doubt you are fully aware none of that answers either of my questions. ottytrain2:

I can baby you if I must, seeing as you don't seem to want to go to CanLII and look it up yourself and can't deduce it from the last paragraph of the docket I quoted. ;-)

Why should he have to abandon his own strain and buy fresh seed from somewhere else?

Why doesn't HE have the right to demand compensation?

Essentially the answer is the same:

On abandoning his own strain: he was forced to do this in 1999 when his patent infringements were so blatant and deliberate that he could no longer call the strain his own. Had he contacted Monsanto and asked them to remove their property (the patented gene and cells) from his land back in 1997 when he was made aware of the problem he would have been able to keep his own strain. Essentially, he waived his right keep his own strain by deliberately using seed he knew to be the intellectual property of Monsanto.

On his right to compensation: He didn't even try. He waived his right to a counterclaim (but he would still have the right to file a claim normally), the judge even pointed this out during the case. I cannot say for sure since I am not a legal expert, but even if he did file his own claim it would probably be thrown out based on how he "deliberately and uncooperatively" (uncooperative from Monsanto's perspective) infringed on their patent as outlined in the case I cited.


For any other farmer who gets in the situation the answers are a lot different:

Your right to compensation: full. Contact the Monsanto company and they are obliged to remove their patented genetic material or by refusal to do so they waive their right to their property and you can use it all you want.

Your right to keep your strain: full. Having contacted Monsanto and received either compensation or a waiver, you are free to do as you please.

 

[BitWhys]

a hole in the ground can hardly be called compensation

Had he contacted Monsanto and asked them to remove their property (the patented gene and cells) from his land back in 1997

so if I pinch a loaf on Monsanto's property they have to work around it, or what?

 

[Niflmir]

a hole in the ground can hardly be called compensation

so if I pinch a loaf on Monsanto's property they have to work around it, or what?

No, they would call the police and have you arrested. Their canola seed came to be planted in Schmeiser's field through no fault of theirs.

Now don't get the wrong impression, I don't really like Monsanto and these cases really strain the intent of the patent act, but there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with the problems. Schmeiser did it the wrong way, he just ignored the fact that he was in possession of a patented seed. If someone else's mail arrived in your mail box, you might be in legal possession of their mail, but you certainly don't have the legal right to open it. The right way to do things is for farmers who find Monsanto's canola growing on their ground to contact Monsanto and gouge money out of their pockets. Demand that they remove their canola at their own expense. Eventually if enough farmers do this Monsanto would be forced to waive their patent rights do to the fact that it would not be profitable to enforce the exclusive nature of their patented invention.

I am all for fighting for the little guy, but not when the little guy is a little crook who basically opens up someone else's mail.

 

[Libra Girl]

Hope Monsanto's got a big piggy bank!

lol, very droll...

 

[Stretch]

Monsanto 'Faked' Data For Approvals Claims its Ex-Chief​

'The debate on genetically modified (GM) brinjal variety continues to generate heat. Former managing director of Monsanto India, Tiruvadi Jagadisan, is the latest to join the critics of Bt brinjal, perhaps the first industry insider to do so.​

Jagadisan, who worked with Monsanto for nearly two decades, including eight years as the managing director of India operations, spoke against the new variety during the public consultation held in Bangalore on Saturday.​

On Monday, he elaborated by saying the company "used to fake scientific data" submitted to government regulatory agencies to get commercial approvals for its products in India.'

​

Read more...

 

[Stretch]

The Multiple Ways Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach


Monday, 22 March 2010 08:26

'People say if farmers don't want problems from Monsanto, just don't buy their GMO seeds.
Not so simple. Where are farmers supposed to get normal seed these days? How are they supposed to avoid contamination of their fields from GM-crops? How are they supposed to stop Monsanto detectives from trespassing or Monsanto from using helicopters to fly over spying on them?
Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto the land taking samples and if they find any GMO plants growing there (or say they have), they then sue, saying they own the crop. It's a way to make money since farmers can't fight back and court and they settle because they have no choice.'
Read more: The Multiple Ways Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach

 

[Stretch]

Monsanto Declares P.R. War Against Food Inc. Film


Tuesday, 20 April 2010 07:05

'The Monsanto Co. is leading Big Ag’s PR offensive against Food Inc., the searing documentary on industrial agriculture that opened Friday. That’s not surprising. The chemical giant comes off as the biggest bogeyman in the film, which focuses on the company’s genetic seed patents, alleged bullying of farmers and efforts to influence politicians.
What is surprising is that Monsanto is tying its response to the movie to a discredited front group called the Center for Consumer Freedom. It seems too obviously payback for at least $200,000 that Monsanto has contributed to the supposedly nonprofit organization.'
Read more: Monsanto Declares P.R. War Against Food Inc. Film