Bah, sure we can force people to only plant the seeds we give them if they want our seeds. Can't I "force" you to only drink the drink I give you if you come to my house? And if you come with some drink I don't want in, I can send you away, right?
If they want our seeds, they play by our rules. This is how the world works. Playing nice and digging up all our aces from their respective holes is going to get us killed, literally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Quoted for truth. How will we ever really know whats going on in Iraq unless Joe Blogs from www.bushissatan.com, tapping away from South Dakota, reveals whats really happening in Iraq. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine01 do not go spouting stuff you no nothing about. Even saying that about SD makes pretty much discredit anything you have ever said. This state may be vastly republican, yet ND voted more so then even we did. If you wish to pass arount stereotypes, please do it in a more informative matter.
Yes I know I was late responding, I was just surprised to see such an assumption on the discussion forums from someone who is normally quite informed on political issues.
I apologize for the rant, I was just irked in the wrong way. (edited spelling errors. oops )
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If they want our seeds, they play by our rules<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Order 81 prevents Iraqi farmers from saving their seeds, as they have done for generations, and effectively hands over the seed market to transnational corporations<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
k go out on the streets in Baghdad and ask them if they want to keep their seeds for next year or be forced to get new seeds from US corporations
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
It's not reported by a major American news channel, therefore it must be false. Major news channels, with shareholders and vast amounts of money at stake are bound to report things that are embarassing to extremely rich and influential people in their own country. Suggesting that people with large amounts of money might be self-interested is just typical filthy liberal propaganda.
If it was important, like a sensationalist trial of a pop star, then we'd hear about it. This hasn't been made an issue of in the mainstream press, ergo it can't be true.
Judging by the numerous articles on this very subject on many GM related and agricultural websites I doubt that this whole thing is fake.
From what I have read it all started from this new legislation Paul Bremer inacted order 81 that has caught some attention. I think it's only a matter of time before the subject gets it's "fifteen minutes" in the spot light.
<!--QuoteBegin-kittycat+Mar 12 2005, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kittycat @ Mar 12 2005, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If they want our seeds, they play by our rules<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Order 81 prevents Iraqi farmers from saving their seeds, as they have done for generations, and effectively hands over the seed market to transnational corporations<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
k go out on the streets in Baghdad and ask them if they want to keep their seeds for next year or be forced to get new seeds from US corporations <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The point with that statement is this:
It's no use arguing over it at this point: our soldiers are there, and democracy is coming to Iraq. We're going to bring Iraq into what we call the "civilized world" whether or not you believe that description or not. It is immaterial to the discussion.
We need to face the fact that it's happening, and that means Iraq needs to start to recognize the same things the rest of us recognize, like international patents. Again, whether or not you agree with being able to patent something as basic a damned seed is immaterial to the discussion. It's already done and you can't change it for the moment.
The article makes no mention of what seeds they're speaking of, or any of those kinds of details. What's essentially happening is that we're puttingthe same rules on Iraqi farmers that we've already got on farmers in the U.S., as it's been said. The corporate machine turning, you say? WAKE UP, our society is CAPITALIST. If you don't agree, that's cool, because we're also a free country, and it's okay for you to disagree. It's even okay for you to say you don't agree. Sorry, tangent.
Behind all this subterfuge is a baseline fact (at least I think it's a fact, and it's okay for me to because we are free). The fact is that freedom of speech and all these other glamorous things don't really exist to <i>prevent</i> such attrocities, or whatever you want to call them. They exist to <i>correct</i> and stem the damage of said attrocities when they've occured. Because when it comes down to it, you're never going to stop human nature, so it's pointless to try. No matter how many people disagree with Grendel, for example, Grendel will still be Grendel and will still make sarcastic comments in such a way to explain to others that there are other sources of trustable news other than American News CORPERATIONS. (captialist)
Of course we're not going to talk about things that make us look bad, who the hell does that anyway?
And don't worry about the Iraqi people. Once they've had enough, they'd do something about it. The laws of systems jumping lower energy levels (or stress if you will) at a certain breaking point have been proven time and time again throughout nature. Take the French Revolution for example. People have had enough, they revolt. Let's just hope whatever happens in Iraq isn't so violent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marine01 do not go spouting stuff you no nothing about. Even saying that about SD makes pretty much discredit anything you have ever said. This state may be vastly republican, yet ND voted more so then even we did. If you wish to pass arount stereotypes, please do it in a more informative matter.
Yes I know I was late responding, I was just surprised to see such an assumption on the discussion forums from someone who is normally quite informed on political issues.
I apologize for the rant, I was just irked in the wrong way. (edited spelling errors. oops )<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Where did that come from? Lets do some critical analysis of Marine01's sarcasm:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How will we ever really know whats going on in Iraq unless Joe Blogs from www.bushissatan.com, tapping away from South Dakota, reveals whats really happening in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Joe Blogs: A common name like John Doe, a general descriptor of an unspecified person, possibly also relating to internet weblogs or blogs.
www.bushissatan.com: ficticious site, obviously left wing, anit-Bush, anti-War, anti-conservative website, probably a blog
South Dakota: US state, political leanings of which are completely irrelevant, as it only takes 1 man to make a website. Something tells me its possible there would be a netliterate liberal somewhere in SD. There are conservative blogs from California, and there are liberal blogs from Texas. South Dakota was selected at random from my knowledge of US states, with the importance being placed on the fact that he's in America, and not in Iraq, yet has somehow stumbled onto unspeakable corporate evil in Iraq.
Bottom line - you misunderstood me. I was not attempting to stereotype looney leftwing bloggers as all coming from SD - I could have said Colorado, Toronto, the Ukraine, Australia, wouldnt make any difference.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Contrary to what the <b>industry</b> is asserting, GM seeds do not reduce the use of pesticides, but they pose a threat to the environment and to people's health while they increase farmers dependency on agribusiness. In some countries like India, the 'accidental' release of GM crops is deliberately manipulated [6], since physical segregation of GM and GM-free crops is not feasible. Once introduced into the agro-ecological cycle there is no possible recall or cleanup from genetic pollution [7]. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clever guys, try and put it as industry so people dont realise that what they really mean is "contrary to what scientists are asserting". GM seeds dont reduce the use of pesticides? Someone should have told my biotech lecturer....
Use of BT corn, potatoes and cotton is a documented success story. Various methods have to be employed (eg stands of non BT plants) to ensure that complete resistance doesnt build in the insects, but that site is making some lucidcrous claims in the face of current scientific opinion, which holds that to date, no one has ever been harmed by genetic modification of food, and that these GM seeds dramatically increase productivity. <a href='http://www.foodfuture.org.uk/is_gm_safe.aspx' target='_blank'>http://www.foodfuture.org.uk/is_gm_safe.aspx</a> pretty thoroughly debunks the "GM is bad for you, and doesnt work anyway" myth.
Just so no one is in the dark on this (ie didnt check the link posted below) here is the clarification from the original site:
The report jointly issued by Focus on the Global South and GRAIN in October 2004 on Iraq's new patent law has received a lot of attention worldwide. It has also generated a misunderstanding that we wish to clarify.
The law does not prohibit Iraqi farmers from using or saving "traditional" seeds. It prohibits them from reusing seeds of "new" plant varieties registered under the law - in practical terms, this means they cannot save those seeds for re-use. The report has been revised to express this more clearly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These patent laws based around destroying old seed exist because without them, there would be zero incentive to develope new seed technology. Once you've sold it for a couple of million to a few suppliers, then that its, you get zero returns, as everyone just keeps reusing the seed. To ensure that there is always money in biotechnological research, it was decided that companies which developed these seeds could insist you bought their seed again every year. The Iraqi's arent getting a corporate screwjob, unless you think the whole idea is a screwjob, for farmers worldwide and the Iraqi's.....
Who gives us the right to tell them what seeds to plant? We have no authority over that. The only reason they're gonna listen is because we have tanks and guns and they don't. Pretty sad that we need to make money off of impoverished Iraqi farmers.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Feb 14 2005, 08:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 14 2005, 08:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Feb 14 2005, 07:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 14 2005, 07:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now, you can imagine whatever conspiratorial stranglehold that you perceive the US to have, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoting myself now. ugh. It's gonna be a long day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If they don't have any authority, visible to us or not, why would they assert themselves? I don't see the point in making rules for people if you can't impose them.
If you ask me, just the fact that they are arrogant to step into these people's lives at all is sickening. They have about as much right to tell the farmers what to do as I have to walk into my neighbor's house and perform a vasectomy on him so his progeny count doesn't top 400. And yet they still do. Maybe I should go break out my scissors, if these guys can do whatever they want, I should be able to stop my neighborhood from gaining anymore wannabe gangsters, kiddie drug dealers and graffiti "aritsts" through the loins of Victor next door.
Oh well It's not like anything is sacred to people anymore. Not even seeds whose genetics have been cultivated for thousands of years. Not even the sanctity of innocent farmers who will get dumped on for just being there.
Then again this could be false news. I hope it is.
**EDIT** On the topic of buying GM seeds. Sure the yields will be tons better etc. But I'm not sure if Mohammed and Abeer over there can afford their rates, but sure, let's NOT give them the alternative of using the products of their own labor. It'll make things more interesting.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 13 2005, 01:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 13 2005, 01:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you ask me, just the fact that they are arrogant to step into these people's lives at all is sickening. They have about as much right to tell the farmers what to do as I have to walk into my neighbor's house and perform a vasectomy on him so his progeny count doesn't top 400. And yet they still do. Maybe I should go break out my scissors, if these guys can do whatever they want, I should be able to stop my neighborhood from gaining anymore wannabe gangsters, kiddie drug dealers and graffiti "aritsts" through the loins of Victor next door. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The US can't really invade or embargo some country just because they won't follow Monsanto's rules; there's nothing else we can do and whatever action we would take is certainly not in the same league as forced castration via scissors. But, when you buy Monsanto seeds, you sign a contract that says you can't plant seeds from crops grown from Monsanto GM seeds. If you violate the contract, no one will sell GM seeds to you, which will hurt after a few more breakthroughs. When you violate the contract, you also violate US law. If you try to do anymore business with the US, you won't be able to, unless you go to court to defend yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->**EDIT** On the topic of buying GM seeds. Sure the yields will be tons better etc. But I'm not sure if Mohammed and Abeer over there can afford their rates, but sure, let's NOT give them the alternative of using the products of their own labor. It'll make things more interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mohammed and Abeer don't have to buy the seeds if the cost/reward ratio isn't good enough. They can use regular seeds. People survived fine without GM crops, so they'll do fine without them, too. Now, they may not have enough quantity/quality to export crops, but they'll have to bite the bullet if they want to do that. If you're concerned about big businesses taking over, because they can afford the seeds, then the Iraqis can legislate subsidies, or something.
Now, forcing the Iraqis to buy Monsanto seeds is bad, but we won't be able to force them to buy Monsanto after we leave.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 13 2005, 01:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 13 2005, 01:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->**EDIT** On the topic of buying GM seeds. Sure the yields will be tons better etc. But I'm not sure if Mohammed and Abeer over there can afford their rates, but sure, let's NOT give them the alternative of using the products of their own labor. It'll make things more interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mohammed and Abeer don't have to buy the seeds if the cost/reward ratio isn't good enough. <b>They can use regular seeds. People survived fine without GM crops, so they'll do fine without them, too.</b>
...
Now, forcing the Iraqis to buy Monsanto seeds is bad, but we won't be able to force them to buy Monsanto after we leave. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So wait, <b>can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.</b> I thought it was made illegal. Hell if they can plant their own seeds, the ones they've been used up till now, then I see no problem. Because should they not want to use Monsanto seeds, they could just ignore it an plant their own.
I'm certainly not one to say that the idea of them having the OPTION of using vastly superior seeds is bad. It's great! Many benefits abound I'm sure.
What <i>worries</i> me is that, unless I interpreted that message incorrectly, we are giving them no option BUT to use these seeds.
(Big businesses are both good and bad for iraqis. For the consumers, it's positively great, but for the farmers themselves, of which many of the population consists, that kills their livelihood. But I'm not really discussing big business versus mom and pop here. And yes goverment subsidies are always an option.)
As for the vasectomy reference... I made that because of the ancient custom of associating fertility of the land to fertility in raising children. Don't bother to get weirded out by it. It really isn't worth that much thought.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 13 2005, 01:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 13 2005, 01:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 13 2005, 01:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 13 2005, 01:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->**EDIT** On the topic of buying GM seeds. Sure the yields will be tons better etc. But I'm not sure if Mohammed and Abeer over there can afford their rates, but sure, let's NOT give them the alternative of using the products of their own labor. It'll make things more interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mohammed and Abeer don't have to buy the seeds if the cost/reward ratio isn't good enough. <b>They can use regular seeds. People survived fine without GM crops, so they'll do fine without them, too.</b>
...
Now, forcing the Iraqis to buy Monsanto seeds is bad, but we won't be able to force them to buy Monsanto after we leave. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So wait, <b>can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.</b> I thought it was made illegal. Hell if they can plant their own seeds, the ones they've been used up till now, then I see no problem. Because should they not want to use Monsanto seeds, they could just ignore it an plant their own.
I'm certainly not one to say that the idea of them having the OPTION of using vastly superior seeds is bad. It's great! Many benefits abound I'm sure.
What <i>worries</i> me is that, unless I interpreted that message incorrectly, we are giving them no option BUT to use these seeds.
(Big businesses are both good and bad for iraqis. For the consumers, it's positively great, but for the farmers themselves, of which many of the population consists, that kills their livelihood. But I'm not really discussing big business versus mom and pop here. And yes goverment subsidies are always an option.)
As for the vasectomy reference... I made that because of the ancient custom of associating fertility of the land to fertility in raising children. Don't bother to get weirded out by it. It really isn't worth that much thought. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what I get for replying to a thread, when I haven't read the OP since it was posted a month ago.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 13 2005, 01:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 13 2005, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's what I get for replying to a thread, when I haven't read the OP since it was posted a month ago. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait hold that thought...
Let me go find my burger king crown I saved from 11th grade so I can feel <i>truly</i> satisfied.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These patent laws based around destroying old seed exist because without them, there would be zero incentive to develope new seed technology. Once you've sold it for a couple of million to a few suppliers, then that its, you get zero returns, as everyone just keeps reusing the seed. To ensure that there is always money in biotechnological research, it was decided that companies which developed these seeds could insist you bought their seed again every year. The Iraqi's arent getting a corporate screwjob, unless you think the whole idea is a screwjob, for farmers worldwide and the Iraqi's..... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amazing how you turn drugdealer business tactics into something nice
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again, this may seem harmless enough. The Order only says that if a farmer decides to use some newfangled seed produced by the genetic engineers at Monsanto Corporation, and if Monsanto so wishes, then he or she must agree to buy the seed each year from Monsanto instead of just using this year's crop to get seeds for next year's.
If farmers don't like this arrangement, well then there is nothing to prevent them from using their traditional seeds and obtaining each year's seeds from their previous year's crops as they have done for 10,000 years. It is true that companies like Monsanto are working very hard to induce farmers to buy their seeds. Once a farmer does so, he or she becomes dependent on the Corporation for seeds; the Corporation acquires the same kind of control over the farmer that a drug dealer has over a drug addict. But farmers are not stupid, and they can just say no to the corporate seed suppliers, especially inasmuch as Iraqi farmers have developed lots of excellent seed varieties of their own over the millennia.
But here is where one needs to look closer. As Jeremy Smith writes about Order 81 in The Ecologist (January 21, 2005):
"The other varieties referred to are those that show similar characteristics to the PVP ["Plant Variety Protection"] varieties. If a corporation develops a variety resistant to a particular Iraqi pest, and somewhere in Iraq a farmer is growing another variety that does the same, it’s now illegal for him/her to save that seed. It sounds mad, but it’s happened before. A few years back a corporation called SunGene patented a sunflower variety with a very high oleic acid content. It didn’t just patent the genetic structure though, it patented the characteristic. Subsequently SunGene notified other sunflower breeders that should they develop a variety high in oleic acid it would be considered an infringement of the patent."
It gets worse. If an Iraqi farmer shrewdly decides not to purchase seed from a corporation like Monsanto, but instead relies entirely upon traditional varieties, there is still no way for that farmer to prevent his crop from cross-pollinating with a corporate-owned variety planted up-wind from his farm. And once Monsanto finds "their" gene contaminating a farmer's crop, the corporation can take the farmer to court and charge him with intellectual property theft, even if the farmer had only used his own seed and had no knowledge of the cross-pollination. [Jeremy Smith in The Ecologist] Because of this, Iraqi farmers, 97 percent of whom currently save their own seed, will eventually be prohibited from that ancient practice. Corporate control will have been established over this sector of the Iraqi population. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Amazing how you turn drugdealer business tactics into something nice<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry to rain on your fantasy where corporations are all carrying tridents, wearing horns and torturing kittens. Its solid business practice, no one will invest in anything with a miserable financial return rate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "The other varieties referred to are those that show similar characteristics to the PVP ["Plant Variety Protection"] varieties. If a corporation develops a variety resistant to a particular Iraqi pest, and somewhere in Iraq a farmer is growing another variety that does the same, it’s now illegal for him/her to save that seed. It sounds mad, but it’s happened before. A few years back a corporation called SunGene patented a sunflower variety with a very high oleic acid content. It didn’t just patent the genetic structure though, it patented the characteristic. Subsequently SunGene notified other sunflower breeders that should they develop a variety high in oleic acid it would be considered an infringement of the patent." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strawman. He states here that if an Iraqi farmer tried to breed a strain with a similar characteristic, then it would be patent infringement. He neglects to mention that it is simply impossible for them to do so. Critical lack of understanding involving just how difficult it is, and the level of technology required to get a product even remotely close to what is possible with biotechnology. The farmers wouldn't be able to breed anything like what Monsanto makes. So in the event that the farmers performed the impossible, Monsanto would be able to sue. I can live with that. SunGene's notification was to other companies, a warning that they have bought the patent to hi oleic acid modification.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It gets worse. If an Iraqi farmer shrewdly decides not to purchase seed from a corporation like Monsanto, but instead relies entirely upon traditional varieties, there is still no way for that farmer to prevent his crop from cross-pollinating with a corporate-owned variety planted up-wind from his farm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is sad but true. You cannot stop that sort of thing, so if you want to retain a pure crop, this will make it impossible if everyone around you buys GM.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And once Monsanto finds "their" gene contaminating a farmer's crop, the corporation can take the farmer to court and charge him with intellectual property theft, even if the farmer had only used his own seed and had no knowledge of the cross-pollination. [Jeremy Smith in The Ecologist] Because of this, Iraqi farmers, 97 percent of whom currently save their own seed, will eventually be prohibited from that ancient practice. Corporate control will have been established over this sector of the Iraqi population. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pure, unalloyed bs. We've seen court cases involving cross-pollination, intellectual theft and Monsanto.
<a href='http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Ferrie.htm' target='_blank'>Percy VS Monsanto</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All nine judges agreed that Monsanto had to bear the costs because Schmeiser had not profited in any way from this contamination. Schmeiser correctly pointed out that this will make it very difficult for Monsanto to keep suing farmers whose fields are contaminated, because this ruling requires that Monsanto prove that “a farmer has profited from” unwanted seed. “This decision has removed the teeth from their patent,” he observed, and pointed out that “now parliament will have to act, because we have a conflict between plant breeders’ rights and patent law.”
Then, on June 11, the Supreme Court handed down a zinger of a decision making corporations fully accountable for the damage they cause to the environment through negligence or (greedy) intent. The Supreme Court ruled that our environment and everything in it “should be valued on more than just a (potential) market value basis,” said Sierra Legal lawyer Robert Wright.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Percy got sued by Monsanto because his plants got crosspollinated. Monsanto won the case, in that the ruling relating to GM plants and crosspollination was upheld, but Monsanto was allocated all the court fees, and Percy didnt have to pay one red cent, and thanks to the precedent set down, Monsanto will be unable to sue farmers for cross pollination. As with most cases of "Justice gone wrong", the initial ruling requiring Percy to fork out hundreds of thousands was overturned on appeal, but most people dont get to hear that part of it. Common sense wins out 99% of the time - its unfair to assume that the Iraqi's will get the shaft by their justice system, whose job it will be to determine whether Iraqi farmers should or should not be fined for innocent cross pollination.
EDIT: Some people may not understand how the GM crop here worked. The crop was developed with resistance to the herbicide Roundup. That way, you could spray the crop lightly, and everything that wasnt your crop would die. The only way to profit from this was to use roundup on your crops. This means that the modification was optional, you could take advantage of it by spraying roundup, thereby making a profit from Monsanto's seed, and consequently making yourself open to a lawsuit. Therefore, this ruling sets a precedent making it hard/impossible for Monsanto to sue simply because you crosspollinated - they have to prove that you actually working the GM part of their plant to try and turn a profit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So wait, can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They may plant the seeds they have from last years crop, if its their own seed. No one is forcing them to buy modified seed. If they decide to buy modified seed, then they cant save any of that modified seed. But you are completely, 100% free to simply not buy any modified seed and carry on with your own. The evil of America, her democracy and corporations knows no bounds.......
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Mar 13 2005, 08:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Mar 13 2005, 08:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So wait, can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <u>They may plant the seeds they have from last years crop, if its their own seed.</u> No one is forcing them to buy modified seed. But you are completely, 100% free to simply not buy any modified seed and carry on with your own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm...
<!--QuoteBegin-NEWS LINK+FIRST POST--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NEWS LINK @ FIRST POST)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, <u>Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds</u>, which include seeds the Iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...Are you sure?
Because that looks like a big NO you may not keep your own seeds, other than to do so illegally, at which point if they do, woe unto them.
Is this news post just totally wrong or something? Link me to one that tells the whole story then. Please? <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 14 2005, 01:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 14 2005, 01:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Mar 13 2005, 08:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Mar 13 2005, 08:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So wait, can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <u>They may plant the seeds they have from last years crop, if its their own seed.</u> No one is forcing them to buy modified seed. But you are completely, 100% free to simply not buy any modified seed and carry on with your own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm...
<!--QuoteBegin-NEWS LINK+FIRST POST--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NEWS LINK @ FIRST POST)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, <u>Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds</u>, which include seeds the Iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...Are you sure?
Because that looks like a big NO you may not keep your own seeds, other than to do so illegally, at which point if they do, woe unto them.
Is this news post just totally wrong or something? Link me to one that tells the whole story then. Please? <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am 100% completely and utterly sure. Why? Because the original report that sparked the debate here carries this clarification up the top:
The report jointly issued by Focus on the Global South and GRAIN in October 2004 on Iraq's new patent law has received a lot of attention worldwide. <b>It has also generated a misunderstanding that we wish to clarify.</b>
<b>The law does not prohibit Iraqi farmers from using or saving "traditional" seeds.</b> It prohibits them from reusing seeds of "new" plant varieties registered under the law - in practical terms, this means they cannot save those seeds for re-use. The report has been revised to express this more clearly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The original website fell prey to that misunderstanding.
We are talking about common monopolisation practises. That is basically the same as a restorant having a contract with a certain brewery. they have to sell their beer. If they can sustain themselves on the deal or not is not the companies problem. Nothing special about it. Iraq will most certainly not become a major competitor on the agricultutral sector anytime soon so its purely academical in my eyes. I also do not believe the company does actually expect much profit in the deal itself, but rather is granted with finacial compensation by the US government for being involved in the reconstruction efford. But thats just speculation on my behalf.
As for the superior grain they buy from us... I would be careful about that statement. The mesopotamian agriculture is millenia old and fertilisation is known for that extent of time. They also do cultivate crops since then and have developed very sophisitcated agricultural technologies. I would not rate their seeds as so much inferior. Especially as ecological (free of genetic engineering) cereals they could have some impact on the market. If the WTO finally would achieve its goal of unregulated world trade, that is.
But the biggest problem for Iraqs farmers are not the seeds buddies...its the Adatyrk dam in Turkey.... Why does no one complain about the Turks daming up the Euphrat for <i>their</i> agricultural industry?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq will most certainly not become a major competitor on the agricultutral sector anytime soon so its purely academical in my eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How? They don't have much population, arable land, or cash, compared to many other countries. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the superior grain they buy from us... I would be careful about that statement. The mesopotamian agriculture is millenia old and fertilisation is known for that extent of time. They also do cultivate crops since then and have developed very sophisitcated agricultural technologies. I would not rate their seeds as so much inferior. Especially as ecological (free of genetic engineering) cereals they could have some impact on the market. If the WTO finally would achieve its goal of unregulated world trade, that is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Their "mesopotamian agricultural technology" is inferior to modern technology. They'll use the same techniques that everyone else uses, without some variation depending on crops and land. They might do well on the organic market, if they didn't use GM seeds, but GM seeds are superior for the regular market, in terms of quality and quantity of grain per $ spent.
<a href='http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Ferrie.htm' target='_blank'>Percy VS Monsanto</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All nine judges agreed that Monsanto had to bear the costs because Schmeiser had not profited in any way from this contamination. Schmeiser correctly pointed out that this will make it very difficult for Monsanto to keep suing farmers whose fields are contaminated, because this ruling requires that Monsanto prove that “a farmer has profited from” unwanted seed. “This decision has removed the teeth from their patent,” he observed, and pointed out that “now parliament will have to act, because we have a conflict between plant breeders’ rights and patent law.”
Then, on June 11, the Supreme Court handed down a zinger of a decision making corporations fully accountable for the damage they cause to the environment through negligence or (greedy) intent. The Supreme Court ruled that our environment and everything in it “should be valued on more than just a (potential) market value basis,” said Sierra Legal lawyer Robert Wright.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Percy got sued by Monsanto because his plants got crosspollinated. Monsanto won the case, in that the ruling relating to GM plants and crosspollination was upheld, but Monsanto was allocated all the court fees, and Percy didnt have to pay one red cent, and thanks to the precedent set down, Monsanto will be unable to sue farmers for cross pollination. As with most cases of "Justice gone wrong", the initial ruling requiring Percy to fork out hundreds of thousands was overturned on appeal, but most people dont get to hear that part of it. Common sense wins out 99% of the time - its unfair to assume that the Iraqi's will get the shaft by their justice system, whose job it will be to determine whether Iraqi farmers should or should not be fined for innocent cross pollination. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just want to say thank you for posting the extended aftermath of that case; I was pretty ticked off with the ruling and until your post, I didn't know that Monsanto had to pay for all the costs.
Ever since watching <i>The Corporation</i>, and how they completely screwed American milk to the point where PETA's arguments against dairy products look justified, I have absolutely loathed Monsanto. They fit the exact stereotype of the 'evil corporation'. If this story concerning Monsanto and Iraq is true, I pray to God that the Iraqis send a clear 'No' to accepting GM seeds and sticking with their own seeds.
Hmm... looks like <a href='http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Harassment.htm' target='_blank'>Monsanto's still trying</a>. I'm not that great in legal knowledge, but if Monsanto doesn't give a dink that their seeds/crops are contaminating the crops of farmers WHO DON'T WANT THEIR PRODUCTS, can't farmers counter-sue on the basis that Monsanto products ruined their crops? I hope <a href='http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Wife.htm' target='_blank'>cases like these</a> will be successful.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Mar 13 2005, 04:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Mar 13 2005, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am 100% completely and utterly sure. Why? Because the original report that sparked the debate here carries this clarification up the top:
The report jointly issued by Focus on the Global South and GRAIN in October 2004 on Iraq's new patent law has received a lot of attention worldwide. <b>It has also generated a misunderstanding that we wish to clarify.</b>
<b>The law does not prohibit Iraqi farmers from using or saving "traditional" seeds.</b> It prohibits them from reusing seeds of "new" plant varieties registered under the law - in practical terms, this means they cannot save those seeds for re-use. The report has been revised to express this more clearly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The original website fell prey to that misunderstanding. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Excellent. If this is true then I see no problem with any of this. GG Misinformed sources.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Iraq will most certainly <span style='color:orange'>not </span>become a major competitor on the agricultutral sector anytime soon so its purely academical in my eyes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How? They don't have much population, arable land, or cash, compared to many other countries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> read more carefully. Besides, the Euphrat provided Iraq with large and very fertile areas in the past, like the Nile did and does for Egypt. Difference is that this extremely important river has been damed up by the Turks, who are actually building an agricultural industry to compete on the world market <i> right now</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for the superior grain they buy from us... I would be careful about that statement. The mesopotamian agriculture is millenia old and fertilisation is known for that extent of time. They also do cultivate crops since then and have developed very sophisitcated agricultural technologies. I would not rate their seeds as so much inferior. Especially as ecological (free of genetic engineering) cereals they could have some impact on the market. If the WTO finally would achieve its goal of unregulated world trade, that is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Their "mesopotamian agricultural technology" is inferior to modern technology. They'll use the same techniques that everyone else uses, without some variation depending on crops and land. They might do well on the organic market, if they didn't use GM seeds, but GM seeds are superior for the regular market, in terms of quality and quantity of grain per $ spent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do not underestimate traditional seeds. Many researches are beeing made lately about ancient crops that show that many traditionally cultivated seeds have superior resistances against bacterial or fungal infections. What we implement genetically with considerable sideeffects and costs is innate to those plants. Of course those genetic engeneered seeds are larger and in most cases superior, but we all know that engeneered plants do tend to have weaknesses to sudden unexpected environmental circumstances.
I am also not trying to imply that the old days wooden ply is what they should use to fertilize the hard rocks of Iraqs desert, I just wanted to express that they do in fact grow crops for quite a longer time than we do, and they know what they do. Many ancient civilizations did have very successful agricultural industries. From the Celtic Briton tribes we know that around 0 BC they produced an amount of crops equaling the total output of Britains argricultural sector after WW2 ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but GM seeds are superior for the regular market, in terms of quality and quantity of grain per $ spent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They will not gain a standing on the regular market. The agricultural sector is heavily regulated by trade subvetions. We do protect our own farmers by imposing high tolls on third world conrty exports. I doubt we will make an exception for Iraq. Well, maybe since Iraq has an important ressource to offer. Who knows.
Although older techniques and crops may be quite good, they aren't as good as modern techniques and crops. Why? Because when we find something better than what we have, we take the best parts of it and adapt it to what we're currently doing. If Iraqi crops and techniques are good enough to make them poweful agriculturalists, then they won't have that spot for long, because we'll take those techniques and crops and use them ourselves.
There's nothing special about Iraq that isn't true for dozens of other countries.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They will not gain a standing on the regular market. The agricultural sector is heavily regulated by trade subvetions. We do protect our own farmers by imposing high tolls on third world conrty exports. I doubt we will make an exception for Iraq. Well, maybe since Iraq has an important ressource to offer. Who knows.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GM crops are "superior for the regular market, in terms of quality and quantity of grain per $ spent." I wasn't counting tariffs, subsidieds, and regulations. If you don't have those (and those aren't really necessary), then GM crops are better. I see GM crops at my local supermarket. Why? People don't buy them because they are GM, they buy them because they are better in terms of quality and quantity per dollar spent. Crops like organic crops are not better for the regular market because they are more expensive to produce. They are good for speciality markets.
Comments
If they want our seeds, they play by our rules. This is how the world works. Playing nice and digging up all our aces from their respective holes is going to get us killed, literally.
Marine01 do not go spouting stuff you no nothing about. Even saying that about SD makes pretty much discredit anything you have ever said. This state may be vastly republican, yet ND voted more so then even we did. If you wish to pass arount stereotypes, please do it in a more informative matter.
Yes I know I was late responding, I was just surprised to see such an assumption on the discussion forums from someone who is normally quite informed on political issues.
I apologize for the rant, I was just irked in the wrong way. (edited spelling errors. oops )
<a href='http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m10076&l=i&size=1&hd=0' target='_blank'>http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m10076&l=i&size=1&hd=0</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Order 81 prevents Iraqi farmers from saving their seeds, as they have done for generations, and effectively hands over the seed market to transnational corporations<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
k go out on the streets in Baghdad and ask them if they want to keep their seeds for next year or be forced to get new seeds from US corporations
If it was important, like a sensationalist trial of a pop star, then we'd hear about it. This hasn't been made an issue of in the mainstream press, ergo it can't be true.
From what I have read it all started from this new legislation Paul Bremer inacted order 81 that has caught some attention. I think it's only a matter of time before the subject gets it's "fifteen minutes" in the spot light.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Order 81 prevents Iraqi farmers from saving their seeds, as they have done for generations, and effectively hands over the seed market to transnational corporations<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
k go out on the streets in Baghdad and ask them if they want to keep their seeds for next year or be forced to get new seeds from US corporations <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point with that statement is this:
It's no use arguing over it at this point: our soldiers are there, and democracy is coming to Iraq. We're going to bring Iraq into what we call the "civilized world" whether or not you believe that description or not. It is immaterial to the discussion.
We need to face the fact that it's happening, and that means Iraq needs to start to recognize the same things the rest of us recognize, like international patents. Again, whether or not you agree with being able to patent something as basic a damned seed is immaterial to the discussion. It's already done and you can't change it for the moment.
The article makes no mention of what seeds they're speaking of, or any of those kinds of details. What's essentially happening is that we're puttingthe same rules on Iraqi farmers that we've already got on farmers in the U.S., as it's been said. The corporate machine turning, you say? WAKE UP, our society is CAPITALIST. If you don't agree, that's cool, because we're also a free country, and it's okay for you to disagree. It's even okay for you to say you don't agree. Sorry, tangent.
Behind all this subterfuge is a baseline fact (at least I think it's a fact, and it's okay for me to because we are free). The fact is that freedom of speech and all these other glamorous things don't really exist to <i>prevent</i> such attrocities, or whatever you want to call them. They exist to <i>correct</i> and stem the damage of said attrocities when they've occured. Because when it comes down to it, you're never going to stop human nature, so it's pointless to try. No matter how many people disagree with Grendel, for example, Grendel will still be Grendel and will still make sarcastic comments in such a way to explain to others that there are other sources of trustable news other than American News CORPERATIONS. (captialist)
Of course we're not going to talk about things that make us look bad, who the hell does that anyway?
And don't worry about the Iraqi people. Once they've had enough, they'd do something about it. The laws of systems jumping lower energy levels (or stress if you will) at a certain breaking point have been proven time and time again throughout nature. Take the French Revolution for example. People have had enough, they revolt. Let's just hope whatever happens in Iraq isn't so violent.
Yes I know I was late responding, I was just surprised to see such an assumption on the discussion forums from someone who is normally quite informed on political issues.
I apologize for the rant, I was just irked in the wrong way. (edited spelling errors. oops )<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Where did that come from? Lets do some critical analysis of Marine01's sarcasm:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How will we ever really know whats going on in Iraq unless Joe Blogs from www.bushissatan.com, tapping away from South Dakota, reveals whats really happening in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Joe Blogs: A common name like John Doe, a general descriptor of an unspecified person, possibly also relating to internet weblogs or blogs.
www.bushissatan.com: ficticious site, obviously left wing, anit-Bush, anti-War, anti-conservative website, probably a blog
South Dakota: US state, political leanings of which are completely irrelevant, as it only takes 1 man to make a website. Something tells me its possible there would be a netliterate liberal somewhere in SD. There are conservative blogs from California, and there are liberal blogs from Texas. South Dakota was selected at random from my knowledge of US states, with the importance being placed on the fact that he's in America, and not in Iraq, yet has somehow stumbled onto unspeakable corporate evil in Iraq.
Bottom line - you misunderstood me. I was not attempting to stereotype looney leftwing bloggers as all coming from SD - I could have said Colorado, Toronto, the Ukraine, Australia, wouldnt make any difference.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Contrary to what the <b>industry</b> is asserting, GM seeds do not reduce the use of pesticides, but they pose a threat to the environment and to people's health while they increase farmers dependency on agribusiness. In some countries like India, the 'accidental' release of GM crops is deliberately manipulated [6], since physical segregation of GM and GM-free crops is not feasible. Once introduced into the agro-ecological cycle there is no possible recall or cleanup from genetic pollution [7]. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clever guys, try and put it as industry so people dont realise that what they really mean is "contrary to what scientists are asserting". GM seeds dont reduce the use of pesticides? Someone should have told my biotech lecturer....
<a href='http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/articles/safety-bt-cotton.html' target='_blank'>http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/art...-bt-cotton.html</a>
Use of BT corn, potatoes and cotton is a documented success story. Various methods have to be employed (eg stands of non BT plants) to ensure that complete resistance doesnt build in the insects, but that site is making some lucidcrous claims in the face of current scientific opinion, which holds that to date, no one has ever been harmed by genetic modification of food, and that these GM seeds dramatically increase productivity.
<a href='http://www.foodfuture.org.uk/is_gm_safe.aspx' target='_blank'>http://www.foodfuture.org.uk/is_gm_safe.aspx</a> pretty thoroughly debunks the "GM is bad for you, and doesnt work anyway" myth.
Just so no one is in the dark on this (ie didnt check the link posted below) here is the clarification from the original site:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CLARIFICATION - February 2005
The report jointly issued by Focus on the Global South and GRAIN in October 2004 on Iraq's new patent law has received a lot of attention worldwide. It has also generated a misunderstanding that we wish to clarify.
The law does not prohibit Iraqi farmers from using or saving "traditional" seeds. It prohibits them from reusing seeds of "new" plant varieties registered under the law - in practical terms, this means they cannot save those seeds for re-use. The report has been revised to express this more clearly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These patent laws based around destroying old seed exist because without them, there would be zero incentive to develope new seed technology. Once you've sold it for a couple of million to a few suppliers, then that its, you get zero returns, as everyone just keeps reusing the seed. To ensure that there is always money in biotechnological research, it was decided that companies which developed these seeds could insist you bought their seed again every year. The Iraqi's arent getting a corporate screwjob, unless you think the whole idea is a screwjob, for farmers worldwide and the Iraqi's.....
Quoting myself now. ugh. It's gonna be a long day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they don't have any authority, visible to us or not, why would they assert themselves? I don't see the point in making rules for people if you can't impose them.
If you ask me, just the fact that they are arrogant to step into these people's lives at all is sickening. They have about as much right to tell the farmers what to do as I have to walk into my neighbor's house and perform a vasectomy on him so his progeny count doesn't top 400. And yet they still do. Maybe I should go break out my scissors, if these guys can do whatever they want, I should be able to stop my neighborhood from gaining anymore wannabe gangsters, kiddie drug dealers and graffiti "aritsts" through the loins of Victor next door.
Oh well It's not like anything is sacred to people anymore. Not even seeds whose genetics have been cultivated for thousands of years. Not even the sanctity of innocent farmers who will get dumped on for just being there.
Then again this could be false news. I hope it is.
**EDIT** On the topic of buying GM seeds. Sure the yields will be tons better etc. But I'm not sure if Mohammed and Abeer over there can afford their rates, but sure, let's NOT give them the alternative of using the products of their own labor. It'll make things more interesting.
The US can't really invade or embargo some country just because they won't follow Monsanto's rules; there's nothing else we can do and whatever action we would take is certainly not in the same league as forced castration via scissors. But, when you buy Monsanto seeds, you sign a contract that says you can't plant seeds from crops grown from Monsanto GM seeds. If you violate the contract, no one will sell GM seeds to you, which will hurt after a few more breakthroughs. When you violate the contract, you also violate US law. If you try to do anymore business with the US, you won't be able to, unless you go to court to defend yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->**EDIT** On the topic of buying GM seeds. Sure the yields will be tons better etc. But I'm not sure if Mohammed and Abeer over there can afford their rates, but sure, let's NOT give them the alternative of using the products of their own labor. It'll make things more interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mohammed and Abeer don't have to buy the seeds if the cost/reward ratio isn't good enough. They can use regular seeds. People survived fine without GM crops, so they'll do fine without them, too. Now, they may not have enough quantity/quality to export crops, but they'll have to bite the bullet if they want to do that. If you're concerned about big businesses taking over, because they can afford the seeds, then the Iraqis can legislate subsidies, or something.
Now, forcing the Iraqis to buy Monsanto seeds is bad, but we won't be able to force them to buy Monsanto after we leave.
Mohammed and Abeer don't have to buy the seeds if the cost/reward ratio isn't good enough. <b>They can use regular seeds. People survived fine without GM crops, so they'll do fine without them, too.</b>
...
Now, forcing the Iraqis to buy Monsanto seeds is bad, but we won't be able to force them to buy Monsanto after we leave. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So wait, <b>can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.</b> I thought it was made illegal. Hell if they can plant their own seeds, the ones they've been used up till now, then I see no problem. Because should they not want to use Monsanto seeds, they could just ignore it an plant their own.
I'm certainly not one to say that the idea of them having the OPTION of using vastly superior seeds is bad. It's great! Many benefits abound I'm sure.
What <i>worries</i> me is that, unless I interpreted that message incorrectly, we are giving them no option BUT to use these seeds.
(Big businesses are both good and bad for iraqis. For the consumers, it's positively great, but for the farmers themselves, of which many of the population consists, that kills their livelihood. But I'm not really discussing big business versus mom and pop here. And yes goverment subsidies are always an option.)
As for the vasectomy reference... I made that because of the ancient custom of associating fertility of the land to fertility in raising children. Don't bother to get weirded out by it. It really isn't worth that much thought.
Mohammed and Abeer don't have to buy the seeds if the cost/reward ratio isn't good enough. <b>They can use regular seeds. People survived fine without GM crops, so they'll do fine without them, too.</b>
...
Now, forcing the Iraqis to buy Monsanto seeds is bad, but we won't be able to force them to buy Monsanto after we leave. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So wait, <b>can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.</b> I thought it was made illegal. Hell if they can plant their own seeds, the ones they've been used up till now, then I see no problem. Because should they not want to use Monsanto seeds, they could just ignore it an plant their own.
I'm certainly not one to say that the idea of them having the OPTION of using vastly superior seeds is bad. It's great! Many benefits abound I'm sure.
What <i>worries</i> me is that, unless I interpreted that message incorrectly, we are giving them no option BUT to use these seeds.
(Big businesses are both good and bad for iraqis. For the consumers, it's positively great, but for the farmers themselves, of which many of the population consists, that kills their livelihood. But I'm not really discussing big business versus mom and pop here. And yes goverment subsidies are always an option.)
As for the vasectomy reference... I made that because of the ancient custom of associating fertility of the land to fertility in raising children. Don't bother to get weirded out by it. It really isn't worth that much thought. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I get for replying to a thread, when I haven't read the OP since it was posted a month ago.
Wait hold that thought...
Let me go find my burger king crown I saved from 11th grade so I can feel <i>truly</i> satisfied.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amazing how you turn drugdealer business tactics into something nice
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again, this may seem harmless enough. The Order only says that if a farmer decides to use some newfangled seed produced by the genetic engineers at Monsanto Corporation, and if Monsanto so wishes, then he or she must agree to buy the seed each year from Monsanto instead of just using this year's crop to get seeds for next year's.
If farmers don't like this arrangement, well then there is nothing to prevent them from using their traditional seeds and obtaining each year's seeds from their previous year's crops as they have done for 10,000 years. It is true that companies like Monsanto are working very hard to induce farmers to buy their seeds. Once a farmer does so, he or she becomes dependent on the Corporation for seeds; the Corporation acquires the same kind of control over the farmer that a drug dealer has over a drug addict. But farmers are not stupid, and they can just say no to the corporate seed suppliers, especially inasmuch as Iraqi farmers have developed lots of excellent seed varieties of their own over the millennia.
But here is where one needs to look closer. As Jeremy Smith writes about Order 81 in The Ecologist (January 21, 2005):
"A new line has been added to the law which reads: ‘Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph © of Article 14 of this Chapter.’
"The other varieties referred to are those that show similar characteristics to the PVP ["Plant Variety Protection"] varieties. If a corporation develops a variety resistant to a particular Iraqi pest, and somewhere in Iraq a farmer is growing another variety that does the same, it’s now illegal for him/her to save that seed. It sounds mad, but it’s happened before. A few years back a corporation called SunGene patented a sunflower variety with a very high oleic acid content. It didn’t just patent the genetic structure though, it patented the characteristic. Subsequently SunGene notified other sunflower breeders that should they develop a variety high in oleic acid it would be considered an infringement of the patent."
It gets worse. If an Iraqi farmer shrewdly decides not to purchase seed from a corporation like Monsanto, but instead relies entirely upon traditional varieties, there is still no way for that farmer to prevent his crop from cross-pollinating with a corporate-owned variety planted up-wind from his farm. And once Monsanto finds "their" gene contaminating a farmer's crop, the corporation can take the farmer to court and charge him with intellectual property theft, even if the farmer had only used his own seed and had no knowledge of the cross-pollination. [Jeremy Smith in The Ecologist] Because of this, Iraqi farmers, 97 percent of whom currently save their own seed, will eventually be prohibited from that ancient practice. Corporate control will have been established over this sector of the Iraqi population.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.iraq4u.com/forum/m_2751/mpage_1/tm.htm#2751' target='_blank'>link</a>
Sorry to rain on your fantasy where corporations are all carrying tridents, wearing horns and torturing kittens. Its solid business practice, no one will invest in anything with a miserable financial return rate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"The other varieties referred to are those that show similar characteristics to the PVP ["Plant Variety Protection"] varieties. If a corporation develops a variety resistant to a particular Iraqi pest, and somewhere in Iraq a farmer is growing another variety that does the same, it’s now illegal for him/her to save that seed. It sounds mad, but it’s happened before. A few years back a corporation called SunGene patented a sunflower variety with a very high oleic acid content. It didn’t just patent the genetic structure though, it patented the characteristic. Subsequently SunGene notified other sunflower breeders that should they develop a variety high in oleic acid it would be considered an infringement of the patent." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strawman. He states here that if an Iraqi farmer tried to breed a strain with a similar characteristic, then it would be patent infringement. He neglects to mention that it is simply impossible for them to do so. Critical lack of understanding involving just how difficult it is, and the level of technology required to get a product even remotely close to what is possible with biotechnology. The farmers wouldn't be able to breed anything like what Monsanto makes. So in the event that the farmers performed the impossible, Monsanto would be able to sue. I can live with that. SunGene's notification was to other companies, a warning that they have bought the patent to hi oleic acid modification.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It gets worse. If an Iraqi farmer shrewdly decides not to purchase seed from a corporation like Monsanto, but instead relies entirely upon traditional varieties, there is still no way for that farmer to prevent his crop from cross-pollinating with a corporate-owned variety planted up-wind from his farm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is sad but true. You cannot stop that sort of thing, so if you want to retain a pure crop, this will make it impossible if everyone around you buys GM.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And once Monsanto finds "their" gene contaminating a farmer's crop, the corporation can take the farmer to court and charge him with intellectual property theft, even if the farmer had only used his own seed and had no knowledge of the cross-pollination. [Jeremy Smith in The Ecologist] Because of this, Iraqi farmers, 97 percent of whom currently save their own seed, will eventually be prohibited from that ancient practice. Corporate control will have been established over this sector of the Iraqi population.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pure, unalloyed bs. We've seen court cases involving cross-pollination, intellectual theft and Monsanto.
<a href='http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Ferrie.htm' target='_blank'>Percy VS Monsanto</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All nine judges agreed that Monsanto had to bear the costs because Schmeiser had not profited in any way from this contamination. Schmeiser correctly pointed out that this will make it very difficult for Monsanto to keep suing farmers whose fields are contaminated, because this ruling requires that Monsanto prove that “a farmer has profited from” unwanted seed. “This decision has removed the teeth from their patent,” he observed, and pointed out that “now parliament will have to act, because we have a conflict between plant breeders’ rights and patent law.”
Then, on June 11, the Supreme Court handed down a zinger of a decision making corporations fully accountable for the damage they cause to the environment through negligence or (greedy) intent. The Supreme Court ruled that our environment and everything in it “should be valued on more than just a (potential) market value basis,” said Sierra Legal lawyer Robert Wright.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Percy got sued by Monsanto because his plants got crosspollinated. Monsanto won the case, in that the ruling relating to GM plants and crosspollination was upheld, but Monsanto was allocated all the court fees, and Percy didnt have to pay one red cent, and thanks to the precedent set down, Monsanto will be unable to sue farmers for cross pollination. As with most cases of "Justice gone wrong", the initial ruling requiring Percy to fork out hundreds of thousands was overturned on appeal, but most people dont get to hear that part of it. Common sense wins out 99% of the time - its unfair to assume that the Iraqi's will get the shaft by their justice system, whose job it will be to determine whether Iraqi farmers should or should not be fined for innocent cross pollination.
EDIT: Some people may not understand how the GM crop here worked. The crop was developed with resistance to the herbicide Roundup. That way, you could spray the crop lightly, and everything that wasnt your crop would die. The only way to profit from this was to use roundup on your crops. This means that the modification was optional, you could take advantage of it by spraying roundup, thereby making a profit from Monsanto's seed, and consequently making yourself open to a lawsuit. Therefore, this ruling sets a precedent making it hard/impossible for Monsanto to sue simply because you crosspollinated - they have to prove that you actually working the GM part of their plant to try and turn a profit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So wait, can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They may plant the seeds they have from last years crop, if its their own seed. No one is forcing them to buy modified seed. If they decide to buy modified seed, then they cant save any of that modified seed. But you are completely, 100% free to simply not buy any modified seed and carry on with your own. The evil of America, her democracy and corporations knows no bounds.......
So wait, can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<u>They may plant the seeds they have from last years crop, if its their own seed.</u> No one is forcing them to buy modified seed. But you are completely, 100% free to simply not buy any modified seed and carry on with your own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm...
<!--QuoteBegin-NEWS LINK+FIRST POST--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NEWS LINK @ FIRST POST)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, <u>Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds</u>, which include seeds the Iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...Are you sure?
Because that looks like a big NO you may not keep your own seeds, other than to do so illegally, at which point if they do, woe unto them.
Is this news post just totally wrong or something? Link me to one that tells the whole story then. Please? <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So wait, can they or can they not plant their own seeds that they have from last years crop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<u>They may plant the seeds they have from last years crop, if its their own seed.</u> No one is forcing them to buy modified seed. But you are completely, 100% free to simply not buy any modified seed and carry on with your own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm...
<!--QuoteBegin-NEWS LINK+FIRST POST--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NEWS LINK @ FIRST POST)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, <u>Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds</u>, which include seeds the Iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...Are you sure?
Because that looks like a big NO you may not keep your own seeds, other than to do so illegally, at which point if they do, woe unto them.
Is this news post just totally wrong or something? Link me to one that tells the whole story then. Please? <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am 100% completely and utterly sure. Why? Because the original report that sparked the debate here carries this clarification up the top:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CLARIFICATION - February 2005
The report jointly issued by Focus on the Global South and GRAIN in October 2004 on Iraq's new patent law has received a lot of attention worldwide. <b>It has also generated a misunderstanding that we wish to clarify.</b>
<b>The law does not prohibit Iraqi farmers from using or saving "traditional" seeds.</b> It prohibits them from reusing seeds of "new" plant varieties registered under the law - in practical terms, this means they cannot save those seeds for re-use. The report has been revised to express this more clearly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The original website fell prey to that misunderstanding.
As for the superior grain they buy from us... I would be careful about that statement. The mesopotamian agriculture is millenia old and fertilisation is known for that extent of time. They also do cultivate crops since then and have developed very sophisitcated agricultural technologies. I would not rate their seeds as so much inferior. Especially as ecological (free of genetic engineering) cereals they could have some impact on the market. If the WTO finally would achieve its goal of unregulated world trade, that is.
But the biggest problem for Iraqs farmers are not the seeds buddies...its the Adatyrk dam in Turkey.... Why does no one complain about the Turks daming up the Euphrat for
<i>their</i> agricultural industry?
How? They don't have much population, arable land, or cash, compared to many other countries.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the superior grain they buy from us... I would be careful about that statement. The mesopotamian agriculture is millenia old and fertilisation is known for that extent of time. They also do cultivate crops since then and have developed very sophisitcated agricultural technologies. I would not rate their seeds as so much inferior. Especially as ecological (free of genetic engineering) cereals they could have some impact on the market. If the WTO finally would achieve its goal of unregulated world trade, that is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Their "mesopotamian agricultural technology" is inferior to modern technology. They'll use the same techniques that everyone else uses, without some variation depending on crops and land. They might do well on the organic market, if they didn't use GM seeds, but GM seeds are superior for the regular market, in terms of quality and quantity of grain per $ spent.
I would love to see some US Marines going door to door saying "Give us your seeds!"
<a href='http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Ferrie.htm' target='_blank'>Percy VS Monsanto</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All nine judges agreed that Monsanto had to bear the costs because Schmeiser had not profited in any way from this contamination. Schmeiser correctly pointed out that this will make it very difficult for Monsanto to keep suing farmers whose fields are contaminated, because this ruling requires that Monsanto prove that “a farmer has profited from” unwanted seed. “This decision has removed the teeth from their patent,” he observed, and pointed out that “now parliament will have to act, because we have a conflict between plant breeders’ rights and patent law.”
Then, on June 11, the Supreme Court handed down a zinger of a decision making corporations fully accountable for the damage they cause to the environment through negligence or (greedy) intent. The Supreme Court ruled that our environment and everything in it “should be valued on more than just a (potential) market value basis,” said Sierra Legal lawyer Robert Wright.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Percy got sued by Monsanto because his plants got crosspollinated. Monsanto won the case, in that the ruling relating to GM plants and crosspollination was upheld, but Monsanto was allocated all the court fees, and Percy didnt have to pay one red cent, and thanks to the precedent set down, Monsanto will be unable to sue farmers for cross pollination. As with most cases of "Justice gone wrong", the initial ruling requiring Percy to fork out hundreds of thousands was overturned on appeal, but most people dont get to hear that part of it. Common sense wins out 99% of the time - its unfair to assume that the Iraqi's will get the shaft by their justice system, whose job it will be to determine whether Iraqi farmers should or should not be fined for innocent cross pollination.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just want to say thank you for posting the extended aftermath of that case; I was pretty ticked off with the ruling and until your post, I didn't know that Monsanto had to pay for all the costs.
Ever since watching <i>The Corporation</i>, and how they completely screwed American milk to the point where PETA's arguments against dairy products look justified, I have absolutely loathed Monsanto. They fit the exact stereotype of the 'evil corporation'. If this story concerning Monsanto and Iraq is true, I pray to God that the Iraqis send a clear 'No' to accepting GM seeds and sticking with their own seeds.
Hmm... looks like <a href='http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Harassment.htm' target='_blank'>Monsanto's still trying</a>. I'm not that great in legal knowledge, but if Monsanto doesn't give a dink that their seeds/crops are contaminating the crops of farmers WHO DON'T WANT THEIR PRODUCTS, can't farmers counter-sue on the basis that Monsanto products ruined their crops? I hope <a href='http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Wife.htm' target='_blank'>cases like these</a> will be successful.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CLARIFICATION - February 2005
The report jointly issued by Focus on the Global South and GRAIN in October 2004 on Iraq's new patent law has received a lot of attention worldwide. <b>It has also generated a misunderstanding that we wish to clarify.</b>
<b>The law does not prohibit Iraqi farmers from using or saving "traditional" seeds.</b> It prohibits them from reusing seeds of "new" plant varieties registered under the law - in practical terms, this means they cannot save those seeds for re-use. The report has been revised to express this more clearly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The original website fell prey to that misunderstanding. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent. If this is true then I see no problem with any of this. GG Misinformed sources.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Iraq will most certainly <span style='color:orange'>not </span>become a major competitor on the agricultutral sector anytime soon so its purely academical in my eyes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How? They don't have much population, arable land, or cash, compared to many other countries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
read more carefully. Besides, the Euphrat provided Iraq with large and very fertile areas in the past, like the Nile did and does for Egypt.
Difference is that this extremely important river has been damed up by the Turks, who are actually building an agricultural industry to compete on the world market <i> right now</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
As for the superior grain they buy from us... I would be careful about that statement. The mesopotamian agriculture is millenia old and fertilisation is known for that extent of time. They also do cultivate crops since then and have developed very sophisitcated agricultural technologies. I would not rate their seeds as so much inferior. Especially as ecological (free of genetic engineering) cereals they could have some impact on the market. If the WTO finally would achieve its goal of unregulated world trade, that is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Their "mesopotamian agricultural technology" is inferior to modern technology. They'll use the same techniques that everyone else uses, without some variation depending on crops and land. They might do well on the organic market, if they didn't use GM seeds, but GM seeds are superior for the regular market, in terms of quality and quantity of grain per $ spent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do not underestimate traditional seeds. Many researches are beeing made lately about ancient crops that show that many traditionally cultivated seeds have superior resistances against bacterial or fungal infections. What we implement genetically with considerable sideeffects and costs is innate to those plants.
Of course those genetic engeneered seeds are larger and in most cases superior, but we all know that engeneered plants do tend to have weaknesses to sudden unexpected environmental circumstances.
I am also not trying to imply that the old days wooden ply is what they should use to fertilize the hard rocks of Iraqs desert, I just wanted to express that they do in fact grow crops for quite a longer time than we do, and they know what they do.
Many ancient civilizations did have very successful agricultural industries. From the Celtic Briton tribes we know that around 0 BC they produced an amount of crops equaling the total output of Britains argricultural sector after WW2 ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but GM seeds are superior for the regular market, in terms of quality and quantity of grain per $ spent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They will not gain a standing on the regular market. The agricultural sector is heavily
regulated by trade subvetions. We do protect our own farmers by imposing high tolls on third world conrty exports. I doubt we will make an exception for Iraq. Well, maybe since Iraq has an important ressource to offer. Who knows.
There's nothing special about Iraq that isn't true for dozens of other countries.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They will not gain a standing on the regular market. The agricultural sector is heavily regulated by trade subvetions. We do protect our own farmers by imposing high tolls on third world conrty exports. I doubt we will make an exception for Iraq. Well, maybe since Iraq has an important ressource to offer. Who knows.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GM crops are "superior for the regular market, in terms of quality and quantity of grain per $ spent." I wasn't counting tariffs, subsidieds, and regulations. If you don't have those (and those aren't really necessary), then GM crops are better. I see GM crops at my local supermarket. Why? People don't buy them because they are GM, they buy them because they are better in terms of quality and quantity per dollar spent. Crops like organic crops are not better for the regular market because they are more expensive to produce. They are good for speciality markets.