Saving seeds, as anti-GMO activists demand, preserves unproductive farming, locks in poverty

|

The following essay arose as part of a discussion about seed saving and intellectual property that was organized in response to this 2003 article from the Genetic Resource Action International (GRAIN), which was been on the web for years and is often cited as an argument for seed saving:

It’s also a hot issue because the seed industry is working hard to secure legal systems that restrict seed saving by farmers, be it through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), bilateral trade agreements or direct lobbying of governments. PVP or plant breeders’ rights legislation is all about taking power away from farmers to produce and reproduce seeds. And these laws are gaining ground.

Governments caving in to the pressure often say, “Don’t worry, we will protect the rights of the farmers at all cost!” They swear that nothing will prevent farmers from continuing their “traditional” and “historic” practice of conserving, exchanging and further developing seeds. And so they write into their law this “farmers’ privilege”. Yet the fact is, the farmers’ privilege is a legal “yes, but” on seed saving – with the “but” getting bigger by the day.

Country after country that has established a plant variety protection law has progressively made the farmers’ exception more and more restricted. To the point that it becomes meaningless. Why? Because the breeders keep asking for stronger and stronger rights. Tightening the loophole that allows farmers to save seeds is the easiest way to give more power to the breeders.

A lot of people who opine about the current intellectual property issues in modern agriculture are unaware that the patenting of seeds didn’t start with biotech in the 80’s and ’90s. It started in the US with the Plant Patent Act of 1930 with assists from Thomas Edison and Florio LaGuardia. An updated version was passed in 1970 with the Plant Variety Protection Act which allows farmers to save conventional seeds but not to sell them. (you can copy and burn a CD, but you can’t start selling CD’s)

My response to the GRAIN piece was that it raised legitimate concerns, but breeding has become more sophisticated and resource intensive, the seeds add more value, breeders need to be rewarded properly and their rights protected.

The answer in the developing world is for seeds developed by public universities and NGO’s to be released under more permissive licenses, including releasing them into the public domain. I’ve also heard of efforts by NGO’s to buy breeding patents and release them into the public domain. That’s a promising idea. There are a number of grassroots groups doing open source breeding. All to the good.

Anastasia Bodnar also has had seed saving on her mind. She hada two part post discussing why breeder’s rights are important and a look at market power in the seed industry.

Basil breeding would be cool just as a hobby, and if I was in the business of selling basil, it could potentially be a way to create a niche market for myself. But hey, if I did then go and spend years making careful crosses, then sold my lovely purple Thai basil plants to people, then anyone who wanted more of the basil that I spent years developing could just plant the seeds from them. And there’d be nothing to stop them from selling the plants from those seeds. Unless there was a way for me to protect my invention.

If I was just doing this as a hobby or if I wanted to share my purple Thai basil with the world for free, that’d be great. Yay for sharing seeds! But what if I needed to make money from the basil? What if this was my full time job and I made money because my basil was special and if people just started growing it and giving it away or selling it, this would cut into my market and all of my efforts breeding a special variety would in the end have all been just a waste of time because now I can’t make a living off it. Boo for sharing seeds!

Where saving seeds makes economic sense

It occurs to me that there is a deeper issue here. Trying to protect farmers’ right to save seeds only has an economic importance in low productivity systems where the benefits of specialization haven’t kicked in. By and large, modern farmer’s don’t save seed because it isn’t a good use of their time and it would yield an inferior seed. If the pre-breeder’s rights seeds were so great, they would still be around to save and share.

If saving seeds is an economical use of a farmer’s time, that’s a bad sign. Energy and resources should be invested to help them raise productivity going forward rather than a backward looking approach of trying to preserve traditional farming. The right to save seed should be protected, and it’s hard to imagine instances where it won’t be. There may be improved seeds that come with strings attached, but if farmers don’t find those a fair bargain, they should be able to fall back on seed in the public domain or covered by more permissive agreements that allow for seed saving.

The bottom line is that if farmers are mired in such unproductive farming systems that saving and cleaning old seed is an economical use of their time, that should be seen as a sign that they need access to better infrastructure, risk management, non-predatory credit. It shouldn’t be a call to arms to defend low productivity farming.

But saving seed exerts a strong pull on the imagination of pastoral sentimentalists. There is a very appealing parsimony and self sufficiency associated with saving seeds. But in reality it’s a parsimony and self sufficiency forced by bad circumstance, not embraced through the farmer’s individual agency.

[POSTSCRIPT] It was brought to my attention that I gave short shrift to farmers in developing nations that save seed. Farmers in developing nations do save seed, and in some crops, more than I had realize when I wrote this. What I was reacting to in this piece is the tendency of some NGOs in developing countries to focus on shielding subsistence farmers from market forces and over romanticize traditional production, rather than helping them get the tools to integrate and adapt. The focus on seed saving is often a marker for that.

My emphasis is on the distinction between necessity and choice. Farmers in the first world are doing the math in a spreadsheet and making a cost benefit calculation about whether they can get sufficient yields to stay competitive without investing in the latest seeds. What we are talking about in developing nations is farmers saving seed out of necessity, because they can’t afford the seeds that could lift them out of farming at the subsistence level. There is a big difference between having the choice in 2016 between getting one more year out of seed you bought in 2011 and buying need seed and being trapped into saving 19th century seed in 2016.

[UPDATE:: To see the dramatic difference it makes to have the ability to choose to purchase improved (non-biotech) seed versus being trapped into saving it and replanting the same seed indefinitely, check out the next few minutes of this travelogue looking at farming in African villages.]

The Food and Farm Discussion Lab conversation on the subject has been excellent.

Marc Brazeau is a writer and. He blogs at Food and Farm Discussion Lab. Follow Marc on Twitter @realfoodorg.

  • sniper74

    Wow…so much crap and one sided article. Yep, your site is crap. Just

    shows which side you are on.

    Saving seeds is not a waste of time, nor energy. The reason why most farmers don’t save seed now days is because of contracts they have signed with their seed companies. How about reporting on that side?

    This site isn’t about science. You should be ashamed of yourself right now.

    Even your statement: By and large, modern farmer’s don’t save seed because it isn’t a good use of their time and it would yield an inferior seed. That’s like saying that every human on the planet came from inferior seed. No it wouldn’t yield an inferior seed. It yields the same as the seed they just planted.

    Go sit in Mansanto’s lap. You seem to love it there.

    • SniperMyths

      Wow, you’re full of misinformation. Let’s take a look:

      “Saving seeds is not a waste of time, nor energy. The reason why most farmers don’t save seed now days is because of contracts they have signed with their seed companies.”

      Incorrect. Patenting of plants has existed since 1930. Patented plants include thousands of examples that are certified organic, heirloom, non-GMO, conventional, etc. Mostly patenting prevents farmers from saving seed; however, seed saving is archaic in modern agriculture. India is a developing country and most farmers are impoverished, but they’re legally allowed to save GM seed (Farmer’s Rights Act, 2001). Even still, most don’t because it simply isn’t economically viable for them.

      Also, decades before GMOs existed farmers couldn’t save the seed of their hybrid crops (because hybrids greatly increase yield but produce an unreliable phenotype in the second generation) which previously–and still–dominates the seed market.

      Why do you know better than the farmers? You want them to waste their time and profits to save seed against their will?

      http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt

      “How about reporting on that side?”

      Farmers are clearly fine with contracts. They overwhelmingly favor GM crops whenever they exist. Once again, why do you know better than the farmers? You’re advocating against a “problem” that farmers don’t mind at all. Farmers don’t mind patents and they don’t want to save seed.

      “This site isn’t about science. You should be ashamed of yourself right now.”

      Says the person who only cited half truths and myths without a source. Classic anti-GMO. You should be ashamed. You’re fighting against a technology that yields more and is better for the environment and farmers. You’re fighting the huge consensus among scientists, farmers, and expert organizations. That’s why you’ll continue losing.

      “Even your statement: By and large, modern farmer’s don’t save seed because it isn’t a good use of their time and it would yield an inferiorseed. That’s like saying that every human on the planet came from inferior seed.”

      Actually, humans aren’t GMO crops. By no means do I support eugenics, but it’s inarguable that each human in existence possesses traits that are disadvantageous.

      ” It yields the same as the seed they just planted.”

      You see, that was actually studied, and GMOs were found to significantly increase yields–even though that isn’t their specific purpose.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791/

      “Go sit in Mansanto’s lap. You seem to love it there.”

      Go sit in your corner without facts because the scientists, farmers, and experts overwhelmingly disagree with you. It’s okay, you’ll have anti-vaxxers and various “truthers” to keep you company.

      • marcbrazeau

        “The reason why most farmers don’t save seed now days is because of contracts they have signed with their seed companies.”

        This makes no sense. If farmers wanted to save seed, they wouldn’t purchase seed under a contract that prohibited reuse. The contract is only the proximate cause, but the decision not to save precedes that.

        It’s as simple as that.

        As I pointed out in the postscript, some farmers in the developed world do save seed, that happens to some extent in soybeans. Those farmers don’t buy soybean seed that is covered by a restrictive IP agreement.

      • sniper74

        Ha ha ha….such onesided BS crap. Quoting an
        unscientific news source that is pure opinion rather than an scientific basis? Wow…like I said…you are one sided. You ONLY see one side of the whole argument and refuse to listen to the other side.

        Hmmm…lets take a look.

        http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/current-issues-in-agricultural-contracts/contract-farming-whats-in-it-for-smallholder-farmers-in-developing-countries

        Seems to me there are many reasons why farmers are OK with contracts. But I want proof that the majority of farmers view contracts BECAUSE they don’t have to save seeds. I bet you can’t find one, let alone two articles that prove your point. That means you are holding on tight to a theory that is unsupported.

        No the reason why farmers go with contracts is because it’s forced upon them. Monsanto is well known in the agriculture world to sue any farmer from saving back seed,

        Here is proof:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/supreme-court-monsanto_n_2720057.html

        http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf

        So this is proof that Monsanto and GMO is all about profit by the seed companies and not about the farmers. Once again, destroys your theory as to why farmers don’t save seeds. It’s all about protecting the GMO science rather than the agriculture or the farmer. You apparently don’t care about the people involved. A farmer should have the right to save their seed if they want…but they are being sued if they do.

        Oh and don’t forget, you have even written an article earlier this year that proves beyond a doubt that it’s not about yield and better harvest, it’s all about protecting your intellectual property.

        https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/17/why-activists-but-few-farmers-complain-they-cant-save-patented-seeds/

        You remember that? So instead of you actually listening to the farmers, those in the community, the Environmentalists, and the activists, you use the whole …”Protecting our intellectual rights” as the reason behind why you sue farmers, sue the activists and then proclaim you are the grand daddy of inventions.

        Oh wow…so the whole GMO stuff has been around for less than 100 years? And that’s your point? Come on. Agriculture has been saving seeds since the dawn of human agriculture.

        Essentially your whole argument is based around the fact that Monsanto sues you if you save your seeds and use them the following years. That’s the REAL reason why farmers don’t save seeds anymore. They don’t want a lawsuit that makes it difficult to make money the next year, or have to sell the farm. Get a clue will ya. Essentially your whole intellectual property crap doesn’t have anyone fooled.

        Even your article:

        https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/07/07/farmers-abandoning-organic-farming-despite-lure-of-higher-price-premiums/

        Shows proof that the people are speaking out. You put a spin on the fact farmers are not going organic, while that might be a short term fact, the fact is, most farmers are starting to go that direction. Why? Because the people are now starting to demand to know what is in their food. Yet you geneticists are refusing to cooperate. Hence the reason why the majority of Monsanto’s money now goes towards lobbying Washington DC to stop the fight. IF GMO’s were all that great, then why are you so afraid of actually putting your info on products? Why are you so afraid to allow a farmer to save seed? Why are you requiring a farmer to sign a contract? Shouldn’t the farmer be allowed to plant what he wants, when he wants, and have the final say in what gets planted?

        You see, all you will do is go around bashing others, without actually listening. You simply just toss more money into fighting the issue, rather than solving or showing proof. Monsanto has sued third party companies that have used their seed to do research. Why? Is it because they are afraid of the truth? Wouldn’t it be prudent, if GMO’s are not dangerous, then allow third party, non influenced research groups to do their studies? Again, the answer is, NO, because of the intellectual property issue.

        Go go blow it will ya. Your gig is up. We know your tricks.

        • agscienceliterate

          You have obviously never asked farmers why they do not save seeds, and why they choose to buy GE seeds. And that they are certainly not “forced” to buy any type of seeds. And “center for food safety” as your source? You just cemented your ignorance.

          • sniper74

            Ah…I don’t NEED to ask farmers why they don’t save seeds. It’s a Federal legal case against Monsanto and it’s well known that they have signed contracts that stated they CAN’T save seed.

            Why? Is it because farmers don’t want to? Nope. I have proven without a doubt, so good that in an actual trial, the Jury would hand me the case. Monsanto has come out and said it’s a violation of their contract, and the REASON is because it’s a patented seed. In other words, if a Farmer saves seed back for the following year, not only is it illegal because of the contract, but it’s putting a crimp in the company’s bottom line.

            FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

            If it wasn’t about the money, then why put it into the contract that you can’t save seed back? Huh? Nobody seems to want to answer that because the truth is, Monsanto doesn’t give a crap about the Farmers. They don’t care about the food. All they care about is Money.

            Like I said, GMO tricks are up. Everyone knows about the game they play. Nobody is buying it anymore.

            http://www.reuters.com/article/usda-gmo-report-idUSL1N0LT16M20140224

            But while insecticide use has gone down, herbicide use on
            GMO corn is rising, the report states. Herbicide use on GMO corn
            increased from around 1.5 pounds per planted acre in 2001 to
            more than 2.0 pounds per planted acre in 2010. Herbicide use on
            non-GMO corn has remained relatively level during that same time
            frame, the ERS said.

            Hmmm…people are realizing that using GMO crops have increased more pollution than ever before.

            And the over reliance on glyphosate has translated to an
            increase in weed resistance, which makes crop production much
            harder. Glyphosate is the chief ingredient in Roundup herbicide
            sold by Monsanto, and its use has translated to the glyphosate
            resistance seen in 14 weed species and biotypes in the United
            States, according to ERS.

            Hmmm…interesting…the same science is now increasing more and more herbicide resistance weeds. Go figure. Once again showing proof that Science is NOT solving the problem.

            Monsanto has the most authorized field releases with 6,782,
            followed by DuPont Pioneer, with 1,405.

            Hmmm…once again, showing proof it’s about the bottom line.

            Yet Consumers are now waking up and realizing that GMO is crap science. They want to know what is being put in their food. Which is why most states are now voting in GMO labeling laws. Wake up. Just because something was voted down, doesn’t mean that it’s not an issue that consumers want. Consumers vote with their wallet. That’s the reason why more and more Food companies, like Kellogg’s are now buying up Organic farms and increasing their Organic food. Wake up…smell your GMO roses. GMO use has plateaued…more and more countries are starting to put bans on their use.

            If companies like Mansanto think and feel that GMO is not a big deal, then why are they fighting the whole labeling their products? Why do they force Farmers to sign contracts? Perhaps if GMO was such a great thing, they would just allow the Farmer to make the decision as to what they want to plant, when, how, and if they want to save seed back. Seems to me that if GMO’s were so good for the Environment, the farmer, and the population, then there would be no need for contracts, no need to sue third party research companies, no need to sue farmers near where their GMO crops are, that are not using GMO. So many lawsuits out there. That usually indicates trouble, either their product isn’t that great, or they don’t care about the farmers.

            Hmmm…lets take a look at what is happening in the Organic farming industry.

            2014 Organic Survey, which show that 14,093 certified and exempt organic
            farms in the United States sold a total of $5.5 billion in organic
            products in 2014, up 72 percent since 2008.

            https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Newsroom/2015/09_17_2015.php

            The top 10 states in sales accounted for 78 percent of U.S. organic
            sales in 2014, with California leading the nation with $2.2 billion.
            Additionally, the industry shows potential for growth in production as
            approximately 5,300 organic producers (39 percent) report that they
            intend to increase organic production in the United States over the next
            five years. Another 688 farms with no current organic production are in
            the process of transitioning into organic agriculture production.

            Oh wow…no wonder why Monsanto and the GMO crap makers don’t want farmers to break their contracts.

            Sales have increased by 78% from 2008? That’s over 8 years of data. Wow. Yep…Monsanto is panicking because they realize that organic farming is taking off and it’s hitting their bottom line. No wonder why they sold themselves to Bayer. They are losing money.

            But then don’t take my word. Go investigate it yourself. You will find that Organic gardening is taking off, and not just in Liberal States, but Republican states as well. There is money there, and more and more farmers are waking up to realize this.

          • hyperzombie

            Ah…I don’t NEED to ask farmers why they don’t save seeds.

            Why not? I don’t save seed mostly because it is a huge pain in the ass and for me it would require buying/renting expensive equipment. Most farmers rotate crops and farm saved seed does not store all that well, the longer you store it the less yield you get. Some farmers do save seed but they are mostly wheat and barley farmers, and they would only save seed for a season or 2, then buy new seed. Some crops you cant save seed even if you wanted to, corn, beets and cotton for example, they are all F1 hybrids.

            if a Farmer saves seed back for the following year, not only is it illegal because of the contract, but it’s putting a crimp in the company’s bottom line.

            This goes for all modern seed, GMO or not, Monsanto or not. The seed breeders need to recoup the investment in research to get their investment back. This is a good thing. Farmers by buying patented seed are supporting research and development of new seed varieties and traits that benefit the same farmers directly, this is a good thing.

            Herbicide use on GMO corn increased from around 1.5 pounds per planted acre in 2001 to more than 2.0 pounds per planted acre in 2010.

            Yes and believe it or not the higher amount is a good thing. It just means that farmers are using multiple modes of action now instead of relying on a single herbicide. This will help eliminate the weed resistance issues. Then corn farmers will most likely go back to 1.5lbs.

            Hmmm…interesting…the same science is now increasing more and more herbicide resistance weeds.

            Yes and this happens with all weed control methods. There are tillage resistant weeds, fire resistant weeds and even hand weeding resistant weeds. nature adapts. Older herbicides for the most part have far more resistant weeds. The herbicide for soy that GMO soy replaced has over 120 resistant weeds.

            Seems to me that if GMO’s were so good for the Environment, the farmer

            Well of course they are good for the farmer and the environment or farmers would not keep buying them year after year. GMOs are the most successful Ag technology improvement ever.

            $5.5 billion in organic
            products in 2014, up 72 percent since 2008

            Sounds like a lot, but pepsico’s sales are over 10x higher, and that is just pepsi.

            There is money there, and more and more farmers are waking up to realize this.

            Nope, Organic acreage has peaked at about 0.6% of all farmland in the USA and is not growing by anything or not much. If there was more money in Organic most farmers would have switched over by now.

          • sniper74

            I don’t save seed mostly because it is a huge pain in the ass and for me it would require buying/renting expensive equipment.

            Wow…so if you bought the equipment outright…would you need to purchase it every year?

            You realize that most companies buy equipment that are expensive and then write it off as a business expense at the end of the year? Computer companies buy a ton of high end servers and routers every year. Leasing computers has become a thing of the past since most companies realize that it doesn’t save them any money in the end. They can keep deducting said equipment from their asset sheet every year and then the expense becomes nullified.

            would only save seed for a season or 2, then buy new seed. Some crops
            you cant save seed even if you wanted to, corn, beets and cotton for
            example, they are all F1 hybrids.

            So wait…you just agreed that farmers do in fact save seed. wouldn’t that mean saving seed is actually a benefit? Just not you because you believe that equipment is expensive. Hmm…lets see…farmers save seed for a season or two? Ahh…that’s my point. They save seed back from this current year, to help reduce the cost of buying new seed next year. then save seed from that year, to help reduce seed from the next year…etc. That’s the whole purpose. So obviously you don’t have a business degree, nor an accountant. Must be a small farmer.

            Oh BTW, hybridization is different than GMO. I hope you at least grasp that concept. And the only reason they are hybrids is because of companies making them into Hybrids, which defeats the purpose of my argument.

            The seed breeders need to recoup the investment in research to get their investment back.

            Ha ha ha…you just made my point. It’s not about the farmers. It’s about a companies bottom line. The Science company’s bottom line.

            Yes and believe it or not the higher amount is a good thing. So you are saying that a higher amount of herbicide is better? Have you tasted herbicide? Do you even know what herbicide is? Did you realize that several countries in Europe have banned Roundup? Italy was one that just recently banned it. Why? Because of the science and the methods used for proving their product. which once again is my argument. The Science is NOT sound because it’s biased. It’s bought and paid for. when a third party scientist tries to test it, Monsanto sues them. that is NOT science. That’s rubish. Because there is no way to tell whether the facts are true. Which goes against science. Farmers should know this. Agriculture is a Science.

            http://www.gmoseralini.org/roundup-is-more-toxic-than-declared-new-criigen-study/

            pepsico’s sales are over 10x higher, and that is just pepsi.

            Huh? You do know that Pepsico does more than just Pepsi right?

            PepsiCo companies

            * Pepsi-Cola
            * Gatorade
            * Quaker
            * Frito Lay
            * Tropicana

            So when you say Pepsico does more than 10x that amount of sales, which part of Pepsico are you talking about? You do realize that Pepsico has bought several Organic farms and products right? You do realize that part of those sales are to Pepsico.

            Oh and here are some Rock Solid facts about Organic, this is directly from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA for short). If you are a true farmer, then you know who these people are.

            https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Newsroom/2015/09_17_2015.php

            Read up. This report was for 2015. released the results of the 2014 Organic Survey, which show that 14,093 certified and exempt organic farms in the United States sold a total of $5.5 billion in organic products in 2014, up 72 percent since 2008.

            Those are facts. You can’t deny facts. its public knowledge. Perhaps you need to sit down and actually learn something for once. You seem to not know all that much. You definitely have very little knowledge of business. No accounting at all. No scientific knowledge behind you. So I am going to go out on a ledge here and say that you are probably a small time farmer. Probably a 1 person operation. Probably picked up farming because you live in a rural area and what ever degree, if you have one, is not working out. So all you do is peruse the internet looking for something and thought, why not. Instead of actually researching, which is what scientists do, you probably read some articles along the way and decided, yep that’s what I want to do. You have no real passion for Farming. No understanding of the market itself. You just do what everyone else is doing. yeah good farming ethics there.

          • hyperzombie

            Wow…so if you bought the equipment outright…would you need to purchase it every year?

            So spending 300,000 dollars plus on equipment to save myself 5000 dollars on seed per year, in your opinion is a wise decision? My accountant believes otherwise. I know how depreciation works, i have equipment. To make tax deductions work you first need to make money, no profits no need for tax deductions. First rule of business is to make a profit, without that there is no business.

            So wait…you just agreed that farmers do in fact save seed.

            Yes and I never said otherwise. There are farmers that only grow seed as well.

            wouldn’t that mean saving seed is actually a benefit?

            Yes, and that is why I mentioned it. But this benefit does not last long, a few seasons at most. Pure certified seed (purchased) has many benefits though, higher germination rate, better genome, less weed seed, more flexibility(choice) for the farmer.

            help reduce the cost of buying new seed next year. then save seed from that year, to help reduce seed from the next year…etc.

            Well you can only do it profitably for a season or 2. Then you will loose money from saving seed, and it really doesn’t save much money. Saving seed is not free, it comes with costs. Seed has to be cleaned, stored, treated, and loaded (your own seed doesn’t come in convenient bags), plus the risk that you may not even want or need this seed in the future. There are always trade offs.

            And the only reason they are hybrids is because of companies making them into Hybrids

            Totally false. The reason that there are hybrids is because of Hybrid vigor, increasing yield about 50% over non hybrids. Hybrid vigor is a real thing, and it was not made up by corporations to profit off of dumb farmers.

            It’s not about the farmers. It’s about a companies bottom line. The Science company’s bottom line.

            Is is about the farmers. If seed companies didnt produce a product that benefited farmers they would go out of business. Farmers help the seed companies make money and they provide better seed, it is mutually beneficial. No farmer will buy expensive seed unless they get a return on that investment. Why do you think farmers are stupid?

            Yes and believe it or not the higher amount is a good thing. So you are saying that a higher amount of herbicide is better?

            Yes and I explained why. Did you not read the comment?

            Have you tasted herbicide? Do you even know what herbicide is?

            What does taste have to do with anything? Herbicides are applied at a rate that you couldn’t even taste it right after spraying. 16 oz per acre, that is like spraying a soda evenly on a football field then claiming you can taste it.

            Did you realize that several countries in Europe have banned Roundup? Italy was one that just recently banned it.

            Nope, no countries ban Roundup. Some countries ban homeowners from using them but it is available for agriculture.

            Farmers should know this. Agriculture is a Science.

            Yes so true. That is why farmers listen to the Ag professionals, not activists and random people on the internet.

            Probably a 1 person operation.

            Nope, family operation. 7 of us now.

            You have no real passion for Farming.

            Funny, if I had no passion for it I wouldn’t be defending it from nut cases on the internet. Farming is not only my job it is a lifestyle, that I intend on keeping.

            yeah good farming ethics there.

            You don’t know anything about farming, how would you know about the ethics?

          • agscienceliterate

            ….because, like Trump, you have all the answers, and don’t need to ask nobody nuttin.’

          • sniper74

            And that they are certainly not “forced” to buy any type of seeds??

            Huh? Ah…no they are not FORCED to BUY Monsanto Seed. The issue is, once they buy in, they are now locked in to a multi year contract. Which means that if the next year they decide to go a different direction, they get sued. Think about it. Put yourself in the Farmers shoes. You aren’t making a ton of money, you are promised a big yield and more money from the crappy science seed, you decide what the heck…might as well. Now you are stuck. You have to keep using their seed until your contract runs out. Seems like most farmers are realizing the mistake. Which is why Monsanto is hurting.

          • agscienceliterate

            Farmers most certainly are not locked into multi year contracts. The contract applies to the year the seeds are bought.If you would bother to talk to one, you would know that they make their purchasing decisions every single year in the fall, based on what they want to grow the next year and based on markets. They make their choicesfreely every single year. Many farmers rotate crops between GE and conventional, and often also organic until the weeds get too bad and they go back to GE for a year or two.

          • sniper74

            Hmm…that might be the case, but then you need to look at the contract. Get a clue. Farmers, more and more Farmers, are realizing that using Mansanto and other GMO crops are not the way to go. But then again…look at the TUG.

            To use Seed containing Monsanto Technologies solely for a single planting of a commercial crop,

            Right there, they are saying that they can only use the seeds ONCE. Why is that? The clue is right here in this statement:

            By the spring of 2015, first generation Roundup Ready soybean technology will be off patent in the United States. However, other patents,
            such as varietal patents that cover specific varieties of soybean, are likely to continue for several more years after the Roundup Ready trait has expired.

            Which proves my point. It’s about the bottom line for Monsanto. Not the farmer. Not the consumer. But the company. It’s about the bottom line. Once again, proving that all they do is use the seeds once and that’s it. That once the patent is up, they will no longer allow it’s use.

            Don’t believe me? Then lets read page 33 of this Tug, link below.

            5. GROWER RECEIVES FROM MONSANTO COMPANY:
            a A limited use license to purchase and to plant Seed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement in the United States of America

            this once again shows proof that to Monsanto, it’s not about the farmers wishes, but rather Monsanto’s wishes. Farmer has NO control over the plant, the seed, nor how it’s planted. If you don’t follow the TUG, you get sued by Monsanto. If something happens to that seed and it doesn’t grow right, or you have lower than what was promised, you can’t even sue Monsanto back. It has to go to binding arbitration…which means, it’s not a legal case. Once again showing proof that Monsanto not only sues others outside of the court, that try to go against them, and they wont even allow a third party to buy some seed and test it.

            So once again, you tell me where there is NO bias? when you have a company that sues farmers for defamation of their character because the farmer signed a contract saying they can’t sue or bring any lawsuit against them. When you have a contract that strictly prohibits third party scientific exploration of the seed.

            Hmm…here is a TUG (Technology Use Guide), essentially the Contract they sign.

            http://www.monsanto.com/sitecollectiondocuments/technology-use-guide.pdf

            First you will see that in this contract, they can’t sell their seed to anyone else, which organic growers can actually do as part of the Free Market system that we live in. They can’t even give it away to help another farmer. Once again, this goes against what was once tradition and should be encouraged. Farmers helping out other farmers. That’s kind of the purpose being a part of a community and all.

            My whole statement about Farmers being afraid of saving seed is sound. It’s rock solid. The reason why they can’t save seed has nothing to do with them not wanting to…but rather they legally can’t. Otherwise, they will lose their farm just because they will have to sell it to pay the legal fees. Once again…proving my assumption is correct. If you disagree, then why is it specifically written into the contract that they can only use the seed for one crop, even if they have terminated…in writing I might add…but can’t sell the seed, can’t give it away, and can’t use it once the growing season is done?

            So as far as your “they are not locked into multi year contracts” it’s been debunked because they are under a contract that clearly states they can only use the seeds ONCE. No need for a Multi year contract, because you can’t even use the seeds for the next year anyways. What happens to all that unused seed? Must get burned and destroyed. Once again showing proof that it’s all about the bottom line and no care in the world about the farmer or the consumer.

            See heirloom seeds have no need for a patent. They can be sold, bought, traded, freely and openly by anyone who uses it. There isn’t a company that can claim it’s theirs and only theirs.

            So if GMO was so safe, then why do they have need for a patent? Why does a farmer have to sign a contract? Why destroy or not allow a farmer to reuse seed already purchased? Why fight labeling laws? Why sue third party science labs from using GMO seed in experiments? It’s not about the farmer at all. It’s not about the consumer. It’s about Money. Follow the money.

            Farming should never be about being restricted. Farming should be about knowing what is being grown is pure, natural, and about the process of growing the crop.

            But then again, you are so biased that you can’t see past the curtain. You just take some paid scientist’s word against statistics of a third party who has not been bought out by Monsanto. Of course you probably are on the payroll of Monsanto. Which therefore proves a personal bias. You don’t want to speak out how evil the corp is, because you might lose your job and your income.

            If you don’t work for Monsanto, then come out…tell us who you really are. Show us proof that you don’t work for Monsanto. Show us your profile on Facebook, twitter, and tell us what degree you have and where you got your degree. I bet you wont do that. Because you are afraid to.

          • agscienceliterate

            Your opinions are worthless. Talk to farmers about why they willingly sign contracts. Your speculations are way off–base.

          • sniper74

            So MY opinion is worthless? there is no opinion here, it’s ALL Facts. Why are you afraid of FACTS? You seem to be someone who backs science right? Isn’t Science based around FACTS?

            Talk to farmers about why they are willingly sign contracts? Hmmm…lets see. If Monsanto promises better yield and more bang for the buck, wouldn’t someone who is worried about the money be willing to trade his sole to the devil?

            How about the fact that you can’t purchase Monsanto or GMO seed without signing one. Again…that is a fact.

            Now when you have one seed manufacturer playing god with nature, pays out money to push out all the other seed groups, just like this article talks about…again, not my opinion, but facts…then do they have a choice?

            If GMO was so good, then why are they forcing someone to sign a contract. You can’t even answer that.

            Why is it, that Organic farming growing? Why is it that there are more farmers markets than ever before? Why is it, that smaller farms are increasing, yet large farms decreasing? Why is it, that less and less young people willing to go into farming? Yet the older generation still keeps increasing the farms?

            But then again…like I said…you are biased. You can’t think outside your box.

            I am finished here. You are so illogical and so biased. I hope you get a big fat raise. Because it’s so obvious that you WORK for monsanto. Good riddance. I hope you have a good retirement fund setup for when GMO’s go the way of the dodo bird as shown proof it is.

          • agscienceliterate

            GE seeds are patented. Seeds have been patented since 1930.

          • sniper74

            ha ha ha thats friggin funny. Only since 1930? Sounds to me like since God patented natural seeds since the beginning of time, thats better. But gee..just because it’s been patented since the 30’s doesn’t mean that they are good for you, healthy for you, or that it’s perfectly fine. I mean…gee back in the 30’s it was perfectly ok to beat your wife. yet we have learned and progressed enough to realize that what we had back in the 30s was wrong. Times change. Because as more science has come out, and more info comes out, we are realizing that GMO is crap science. Especially since it’s not really out there for people to duplicate or replicate.

            Like I said and keep saying over and over and over and over again. You have not shown ANY proof that is unbiased, that GMO crops are better in anyway shape or form. When the company who patent’s the products locks down the science, and sues anyone trying to debunk their own science. That right there is against Science altogether. Which is why I call it crap science. Science is supposed to be open minded, open to suggestions, open to people trying to debunk their theory. Instead, Monsanto has turned Science into a profit, which is against all Ethical approach.

            Itally just banned all Monsanto’s roundup product. There have been more and more European nations doing the same thing. The consumers want to fight back against them. If you can’t see and grasp that, then either you are not a real scientist, in which case everything you are saying is just an opinion and like you claimed my opinion was worthless, then so is yours. So either prove and answer all my questions, or your crap is just that…crap.

            I have proven my thoughts with actual facts. Yet you can’t even back your thoughts up with facts. Go play in your sandbox. maybe someone else weak minded enough to listen to you will agree with you.

          • Damo

            That may be the dumbest rant I ever read on disqus.

          • agscienceliterate

            1) I don’t work for Monsanto or any seed company.
            2) Goodbye.

          • agscienceliterate

            No one’s “forced” to sign a contract, unless they buy ANY type of patented seed. It has nothing at all to do with GE seeds in particular.

          • hyperzombie

            Farmers most certainly are not locked into multi year contracts.

            Field crops yes, orchard trees,nope.

          • Damo

            I know many farmers, and they have the option of changing seed at any time. Some even buy multiple varieties from multiple companies in the same year.

            Why not go buy some seed and see for yourself.

          • sniper74

            Nah…still not right. Still showing that I am correct. It’s all about the bottom line. I should be able to save seed and buy seed with no contract as to how I use it.

            Perhaps if you read the contract better, you will see what I am saying. Or you can just be a typical blind person and not read the agreement. Your choice.

          • Damo

            What are you talking about? You have the freedom to save seed. Just don’t buy the patent protected seed.

          • sniper74

            NO, every farmer should be allowed to save seed. There should be no legal contract with seed at all. That’s my point and what I keep saying. Either English is a second or third language, or you are not reading….or perhaps you failed at reading comprehension.

          • Damo

            OK, why? Why should scientists and engineers not get compensated for the work they do?

          • sniper74

            Because that’s not what Science is about. They should get paid to do the research, and that’s it. Seed and farming should never be about making money, it should be about making them better. if you hide your science so that you can make money, that is an Ethical violation.

            Science is about forming a hypothesis, then testing said hypothesis over and over again to make sure that your hypothesis is correct. That means I should be able to take your science and duplicated it and get the same results. Science is never about the money.

            Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm human and animal
            subjects, students, and the public. For example, a researcher who
            fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a
            researcher who fails to abide by regulations and guidelines relating to
            radiation or biological safety may jeopardize his health and safety or
            the health and safety of staff and students.

            Since we are talking about health of the Public because this is our food, then the research should be open to the public to view, to test, and to use.

            I am not saying that they shouldn’t get compensated for their product, I am saying that if a farmer buys 1000 seeds from their company, and they plant 500, and save back 500, then that should be their right.

            All science should be allowed to be tested by a third party, not affiliated with the company, to ensure that their testing methods, and product are valid and safe.

            Would you like it if a chemical company claims they did scientific study on their product and claimed it was perfectly safe, only to find out that they had done no actual research and it was causing yourself or kids to get cancer? I bet you would be on the front line screaming your head off saying that they need to be held accountable.

            What I am saying is that Monsanto shouldn’t be suing anyone. they shouldn’t be suing a farmer for saving seed back. They shouldn’t be suing another farmer for using a non Monsanto product and it might cause cross pollination. They shouldn’t be suing a third party for testing and releasing any scientific findings on their product. That right there is a major red flag in the scientific community.

          • agscienceliterate

            “Seed and farming should never be about making money.”
            So, farmers should work without profit? You are in the wrong country, but there is a banana republic somewhere down south that would love to have you as one f their puppets.

          • Damo

            Do you know any farmers? I do and they happily sign these contracts and pay a premium for quality seed with the traits they want. Why? Because it gives them an advantage, saves them money, and uses less chemicals being cheaper over the long term.

            Now, why shouldn’t they pay extra so researchers can continue to work and develop new seeds with new traits that will eventually give the farmers even more of an advantage? When you pay extra for quality seed it is the same as paying extra in a quality cell phone, car, etc.

          • Jason

            I am not saying that they shouldn’t get compensated for their product, I am saying that if a farmer buys 1000 seeds from their company, and they plant 500, and save back 500, then that should be their right.

            FYI… that IS their right. If a farmer has bought 1000 units of gmo seed, he can plant those seeds when ever he wants…now….later… 10 years from now. He has bought the seed AND a license to use the technology in those seeds for one planting…. whenever that planting may occur.

            A farmer can not plant all 1000 seeds, harvest them and then replant the harvested seed, assuming he/she has signed a technology use contract stating they will not do that.

            See the difference?

            Also, regarding this:

            They shouldn’t be suing another farmer for using a non Monsanto product and it might cause cross pollination. They shouldn’t be suing a third party for testing and releasing any scientific findings on their product. That right there is a major red flag in the scientific community.

            Monsanto has sued farmers for breach of contract. They have never sued anyone for cross pollination nor testing their product and releasing findings.

          • hyperzombie

            Why are you trying to take away a farmer’s right to buy whatever kind of seed they want. Do you have a problem with orchard crops, they are patented as well. And for fruit trees not only cant you reproduce them you have to pay royalties every year for the life of the tree. No one ever complains about that.

          • agscienceliterate

            Well, then, you need to go to Congress and get the laws changed. Go do it.

          • agscienceliterate

            Not if it’s patented. Look up seed patenting law. Your lack of understanding of farming, patenting, and the law are pretty appalling. Educate yourself.

          • agscienceliterate

            Nope. They most certainly are not “locked into a multi-year contract.” Where did you get that misinformation? They make decisions every year. You just make up stuff because it fits your rhetoric?

    • Jason

      Actually, saving seeds is nothing like human reproduction. Human reproduction crosses two diverse sets of genes. Crops often self pollinate, resulting in the propegation of inferior recessive genes…. sort of like marrying your cousin. The resulting seed is a hodgepodge of traits, many of which may not be wanted.

      So… in order to make sure a farmer gets specific, high producing crop traits, they buy seed from a company that can insure them the genetics they want. I can assure you if that because that’s the business I’m in.

      • sniper74

        Actually what you are talking about is NOT GMO related. That’s called Hybridization. Two different subjects. Hybridization is essentially Darwins way of sorting things out. GMO is scientifically manipulating the DNA and RNA of a plant at the molecular level.

        Crops often self pollinate, sort of marrying your cousin. In reality that’s close, but no cigar. Most plants use wind to pollinate plants nearby. Only when you have a small crop do they pollinate themselves.

        So what I want from you is a complete list of all Seed and Manufacturers that you use. Then trace back what was done to that seed.

        There is a reason why most countries, even the United States have put a ban on cloning animals.

        Lets take Wheat for example. Wheat is not GMO. It’s a hybrid. You take one strong pure strain of wheat and mate it with another one. That to me is the way it should be done. It’s been done since the beginning of time and those that claim that if you don’t Genetically modify plants, then after two or three seasons, the plants are just not strong enough or good enough, is pure BS. When I mean pure BS…I mean so laden with BS that it smells so crappy and can be smelled across the Galaxy. If their statement was true, then we would have ZERO plants today because they would have all reduced themselves to a state of not being able to be pollinated anymore.

        Did you know that GMO wheat is not authorized for sale in the US? If Hybridization was so bad, then we wouldn’t be growing wheat at all today. Nor Fruit, like Apples and Oranges, or even Bananas.

        Humans facilitate this hybridization now, but cross-pollination is a natural process that has been occurring for nearly 10,000 years. (Much longer than the 87 or 88 years of Genetically Modifying plants)

        Some of the desirable traits that are selectively bred in wheat include better drought tolerance, fuller seed heads, better baking quality, and shorter stalks. Continuing hybridization has led to wheat varieties that use fewer resources (fertilizer, water, fuel) and yield more wheat per acre.

        My argument is not about the proceedure, but rather that the public is becoming more and more aware of the GMO and now asking for it to be labeled, and thus is going to kill off GMO because most people are starting to want a choice. Most people will choose Organic over GMO if they can.

        People can’t seem to grasp that, yet more and more farmers are turning Organic because people want a choice. Organic isn’t any more expensive than GMO. It might cost a few more cents, but now that there is a much larger demand, that price will come down once more farmers adapt to it.

        I have already proven, Statistically from the USDA, that Organic farming has increased since 2008, and keeps growing. Yet none of the so called “Scientists” on this page can even come up with a third party scientific study that shows that GMO crops are safe. Why? Because it’s all biased and paid for by the Scientists that created them. Why? It’s because of the money. They are not in it to help Agriculture at all. They are in it for the money. If that wasn’t true, then why patent their product? Why hide behind biased science and reports? You can’t find one unbiased science report out there. Because Monsanto and the big Seed manufacturers will sue them for illegal use of their product. If it was really safe, then they wouldn’t be chasing after them, nor the innocent farmers nextdoor using non GMO seed. All this info is public info. All the court cases of Monsanto suing farmers and third party individuals are out there, they can’t deny them because they are public knowledge.

        • Jason

          Wow… this is a very long winded way of showing that you;re unfamiliar with this topic.

          1) No one was talking about GMO or hybridization. I gave you reasons why modern farmers rarely replant their own harvested crop. That’s not hybirdization…that’s not GMO… that’s simply plant biology.

          2) You stated:

          In reality that’s close, but no cigar. Most plants use wind to pollinate plants nearby. Only when you have a small crop do they pollinate themselves.

          I’m afraid you’re incorrect. In the case of crops who’s seeds are most often harvested & replanted, the plants pollinate themselves or very nearby neighbors. I don’t have the foggiest idea what you are referring to by “very small crops”. I’m not sure how the size of the crop would effect the biology of the plant.

          3) You also said:

          Lets take Wheat for example. Wheat is not GMO. It’s a hybrid.

          Again.. you are incorrect. Hybrid wheat exists but is a very, very small percentage of the wheat grown in the US. Most wheat seeds are “cultivars” or cultvated varieties. I would suggest you study up on hybrid seeds so that you understand the differences in terminology. Hybrid seeds are also NOT ABLE TO BE REPLANTED. And whether something is a hybrid or a cultivar is unrelated to whether or not it could also be a GMO.

          The rest of your long winded post is just nonsense and not really relevant to the point I was making.

          • sniper74

            Wow more stupid idiots commenting once again.

            Hybrid wheat exists but is a very, very small percentage of the wheat grown in the US.

            Wow…so far off. As in 1000000% off. In the United States the use, sale of, or growth of GMO Wheat has been denied by the EPA because of the issue of Glysphonate Residue that comes from it. EPA denied Monsanto their request to grow it, test it, or even sell it.

            The transgenic wheat that was furthest developed was Monsanto’s MON 71800, which is glyphosate-resistant via a CP4/maize EPSPS gene.[28]
            Monsanto received approval from the FDA for its use in food, but
            withdrew its EPA application in 2004, so the product was never marketed

            Here it is…Directly from the horses mouth.

            https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/wheat/background.aspx#.UbTFBPYaePU

            Genetic improvement has been slower for wheat because of the grain’s
            genetic complexity and lower potential monetary returns to commercial
            seed companies, which discourage investment in research. In the corn
            sector, where hybrids are used, farmers generally buy seed from dealers
            every year. However, many wheat farmers, particularly in the Plains
            States, use saved seed instead of buying from dealers every year. In
            addition, U.S. food processors are wary of consumer reaction to products
            containing genetically modified (GM) wheat, so no GM wheat is
            commercially grown in the United States.

            Hmmm…once again, not only proving that you have no clue as to what you are talking about, but it also proves that farmers do in fact save seed as well as the Consumer reaction to products containing GM is a big topic among farmers.

            At the same time it proves that Hybrid seed are indeed able to be replanted several times. Perhaps you might want to read up on F1 Hybridization. It’s a time consuming process, takes usually 5 to 8 years to be done right, and some claim it’s expensive. But when you stop and think about it, how expensive is it to develop your own GMO lineup? Look at how much Monsanto makes and spends creating their scientific monsters in the lab.

            At the same time, F1 Hybridization is what killed off our planets biodiversity. Essentially we killed off our natural ability to survive is something happens. Lets say all these seed companies go bankrupt…which is a distinct possibility…or for them to control what people eat…which is even scarier. You can’t go back. You can never go back. Once you have killed off non native species, it’s gone.

            Here is what happens when you do GMO seed.

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/04/farmer-monsanto-genetically-engineered-wheat/2388957/

            That’s a proven fact. It’s public knowledge. Monsanto says it was sabotage. Sure, maybe some pissed off farmer, or pissed off scientist did it. But this should be a clue as to what is wrong with GMO crops.

            But further proof you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

            I don’t have the foggiest idea what you are referring to by “very small
            crops”. I’m not sure how the size of the crop would effect the biology
            of the plant.

            You just claimed you have the foggiest idea of what a very small crop is. Hmm…think for a second…drive out to Kansas and tell me, are those small crops or large crops?

            Then go and visit someone who has a garden. I hope now that you understand the concept between a very small crop and a large crop.

            Our issue today is, nobody grows their own food. Nobody raises their own food. Our culture is now starting to change back. Gardeners are starting to pop up. Small farms of Hydroponics are appearing. The small family farms are now a trend. Organic crops are popping up all over the place. Which is why the Scientists, who have no clue as to whether or not their food is safe for future use, is now creating a major issue where our crops are not able to keep growing, or keep pollinating themselves if something major does happen. Most of Europe have banned GMO crops. Italy just banned Roundup in public areas. What does that say to you? It says that people are not trusting these GMO and scientists, because people are waking up to the crock of BS they have spewed out for decades.

            More proof you have no clue as to what you are talking about:

            gave you reasons why modern farmers rarely replant their own harvested
            crop. That’s not hybirdization…that’s not GMO… that’s simply plant
            biology.

            Plant biology before human kind started playing god in the early 1900’s, was so diverse. Why? Because plant biology allows for cross pollination at a natural level. If you took ANY Biology class in High School or College, which I have, you would realize this. This is how plants in the wild develop and grow. If you took humans out of the equation, the ONLY plants left to flourish would be the naturally pollinated, naturally grown ones.

            By the 1990s an estimated 95% of all farmers in the First World and
            40% of all farmers in the Third World were using Green Revolution hybrid
            seeds, with the greatest use found in Asia, followed by Mexico and
            Latin America.

            The world lost an estimated 75 percent of its food biodiversity, and control over seeds shifted from farming communities to
            a handful of multinational corporations.

            Now you tell me, how is allowing companies dictate what you grown, how you grow it, and how much you can grow, is beneficial?

            If we are so worried about people going hungry in third world nations, and even in our own nation, wouldn’t it be prudent to remove the multinational corporations and allow mother nature to take it’s course? Seems prudent to me, but we have already crossed that threshold that we probably can’t. At least with some crops. Get ready. In 10 years from now, either organics will have taken over and these multinational corporations will have failed, or our planets food source will be reduced, and the price of food skyrocketing.

          • Jason

            One of my favorite things in the world is when someone calls me an idiot and then goes on to post a bunch of stuff proving who the real idiot is.

            You apparently aren’t reading what I am telling you. Nobody is saying anything about GMO wheat… except you. I am saying that wheat seeds are not hybridized. They are cultivars. And that being GMO has nothing to do with whether something is a hybrid or a cultivar. Many hybrids are also GMOs as are many cultivars. Just as many others are not. In fact… you seem to be against GMOs because farmers can’t replant them, yet a big proponent of hybrid seeds which farmers also can not replant.

            You’re babbling on & on about things that are not only not relevant to the conversation, but in many cases, not even true. You claimed that the EPA denied Monsanto’s application to use roundup ready wheat and then IMMEDIATELY posted a quote stating that, not only was it approved for use in food by the FDA, but that Monsanto withdrew the application from the EPA. How exactly could the application have been denied over residue concerns when the application was withdrawn?? In fact, glyphosate is currently approved for use on non-GMO wheat as a desiccant. So…where are the residue concerns???

            You really should study up on modern agriculture if you’re going to spend time arguing about it.

          • sniper74

            One of your favorite things is to be called
            an idiot? Yeah I can bet. First off, you were the one who claimed that Hybrid Wheat was a small percentage. I have shown you FACTS that if this discussion was a legal battle, I would have won just based upon the FACT. Do YOU know what a FACT is? a thing that is indisputably the case.

            Here is a FACT. One that you clearly typed and stated.

            3) You also said:

            Lets take Wheat for example. Wheat is not GMO. It’s a hybrid. Again.. you are incorrect. Hybrid wheat exists but is a very, very small percentage of the wheat grown in the US.

            You stated that Hybrid Wheat exists but is a very very small percentage. That’s a fact.

            I have clearly shown without a shadow of a doubt that wheat in the US is NOT GMO.

            One thing is clear, you don’t know the difference between the FDA and the EPA. Two different organizations. One controls what FOOD we eat, and the other the ENVIRONMENTAL impact.

            Like I said, the EPA denied them the ability to grow or even test their GMO Wheat. Since you clearly are NOT a scientist, have never approached the EPA on doing things, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

            EPA denied their application in the 90’s, but they can keep attempting it. Monsanto realized it was an uphill battle so they withdrew it.

            In 2005, Monsanto halted its field trials of GE wheat and withdrew its application for deregulated status. There was concern that the Canadian and Australian Wheat Boards might not approve the glyphosate-tolerant variety, leading Monsanto to reevaluate the marketability of the GE wheat variety at that time

            https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43100.pdf

            http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/business/unapproved-canola-seed-may-be-on-farms-makers-say.html

            http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/business/monsanto-shelves-plan-for-modified-wheat.html?_r=0

            But then again, you have proven to be allergic to facts. Good bye. I hope that one day you will wake up, and realize that GMO is not the way to go.

          • Jason

            I have clearly shown without a shadow of a doubt that wheat in the US is NOT GMO.

            Why do you keep bringing up GMO wheat?? Where have I ever said that wheat in the US is genetically modified?

            Like I said, the EPA denied them the ability to grow or even test their GMO Wheat.

            So… let me get this straight. Now, your claim is that the EPA denied an application to even TEST roundup ready wheat back in the 90s??? This is your claim, even though you, yourself, have posted several sources that specifically state that this crop being actively tested in US fields from ’98 to 2005??

            Are you sure you don’t want to rethink that??

            And lastly… how does any of this have anything to do with why farmers would or would not replant harvested crop seeds?

          • Damo

            I think someone should explain the difference between cultivar and hybrid to this guy. He obviously is confusing the term hybrid with everything else.

        • Damo

          Give me the name of one court case where Monsanto sued someone for saving seed for personal use.

          • sniper74

            Sure thing. That’s an easy one that anyone with a simple brain should be able to look it up. but here you go.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

            https://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-lawsuit-supreme-court-487/

            https://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser

            And here is word directly from Monsanto, which all cases won, since saving seed is in violation of the patents and the contract. Feel free to read.

            http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx

            At the end of the day, we pursue saved seed matters for three main reasons:

            First, almost all our customers stick to their agreements, but
            some do not. Those who do not have an unfair advantage over other
            farmers, because everyone else is paying for seeds that they are saving
            illegally.

            Second, no business in any industry can survive without being
            paid for its products – this is true for agriculture just like it is for
            medicine, computer software, environmental science, etc. In May 2013,
            the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the role that patent rights play in
            enabling innovation in biotechnology and other fields where breakthrough
            discoveries require substantial R&D investments that depend upon
            the protections afforded under U.S. patent law.

            Third, while it’s important to Monsanto to protect our
            investment, it is extremely important to the entire agricultural
            community that we be able to continue to reinvest in new and better seed
            technology.

          • Damo

            The very first link was someone that bought seed from a grain elevator that was sold to the elevator as a harvested crop. The farmer than replanted that seed. He did not save seed from one year to the next. That is why Monsanto sued.

            I won’t bother reading any more of your links, because if the very first one was a lie, chances are the rest are, too.

            Now, you may want to go through and refine that list and weed out the ones that don’t show someone intentionally violating the patent for profit, then I will be happy to discuss a case where some farmer saved his own seed and replanted it for a crop the following year.

          • sniper74

            Nope. If you can’t take the time, then this is a waste of my time. You wont change your mind. You don’t give a crap about the whole thing. Never have. None of you are. You are all biased and can’t take the time to investigate on your own. Just shows how bigoted you are.

            I keep asking everyone to show me a Third Party, non paid for or funded by Monsanto, report as to the safety of GMO crops, food, and environmental impact. Yet nobody has been able to provide one.

            Why is that? Oh wait…it’s because Monsanto has the money to squash and kill those reports off.

            So here is what I want before I do what you want me to. Since you seem to be very demanding, even though I have proved that Monsanto has sued farmers for saving seed, because the first one, the grain elevator shouldn’t have sold the seed to him in the first place, since it wasn’t the proper place, legally, to do so. But you can’t even grasp that concept. Obviously the grain elevator stored and held back those seeds, and since storing them is considered to be a part of saving.

            I want 20 third party, not funded by Monsanto, not affiliated with any Government or company owned by Monsanto, safety reports. I then want 5 reports from environmental agencies, not bought, paid for, or controlled by Monsanto or any other GMO company.

            I then want a solid answer as to why Poland just banned GMO, as well as why Italy banned Roundup and it’s chemicals on any and all Public spaces. I don’t want this crap of “Oh they don’t know what they are talking about”.

            But I know you wont, because you can’t find it.

            Goodbye closed minded person.

          • Damo

            You got caught lying and it is MY fault?

            Typical of you anti-science trolls.

          • sniper74

            I never said it’s your fault. But it’s not false either. It’s a fact. Just because the FARMER wasn’t saving it doesn’t mean that it’s not about saving seeds.

            Fact is, Monsanto originally sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to
            farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting. The farmers sold their
            soybean crops (also seeds) to the local grain elevator, from which Bowman then bought them. After Bowman replanted the crop seeds for his second harvest, Monsanto filed a lawsuit claiming that he infringed on their patents by replanting soybeans without a license.

            Essentially he did save the seed. He sold it to the grain elevator, then bought the seeds back. Since technically the seed never went back to Monsanto, the grain elevator was saving them, and then resold them.

            If you call that a lie, then perhaps you need to go back and tell the judge that he lied as well.

            The Court held that, when a farmer plants a harvested and saved seed, thereby growing another soybean crop, that action constitutes an unauthorized “making” of the patented product.

            The Court even stated that when a farmer plants a harvested and saved seed…so there…go wipe the mud off your face. You Ogre.

            Here is even more facts…In 1999, Indiana
            farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought soybean crop seeds from a local grain
            elevator for his second crop of the season. He then saved seeds from his second crop to replant additional crops in later years. He replanted seeds from the original second harvest in subsequent years
            for his second seasonal planting, supplementing them with more soybeans
            he bought at the elevator. He informed Monsanto of his activities. Notice that he saved seeds from his second crop to replant. Monsanto argued that the second-generation seeds were not subject to
            exhaustion because they had not existed until Bowman created them and
            had not been sold at the time of infringement.
            He noted that even when exhaustion applied, it did not allow one to
            create new copies of the patented product, which the second-generation
            seeds were.

            But these are facts. You seem to be so allergic to facts that you choose to ignore them, rather than grasp them. That’s fine. I am done debating this crap with you, because obviously you just like to twist your words and other peoples words to your liking and then you call it a day. You can’t even come up with something original with no factual basis to try to even attempt a discussion. I have better things than to waste my time with a bunch of bigots who can’t grasp simple concepts let alone facts that have been presented, even facts DIRECTLY from Mansanto. I guess you agree that the facts that I have present have given my whole argument to be so good, that you have nothing to do but throw a temper tantrum and tell me I am presenting false info. this is a court case that went to the Supreme Court for crying out loud. You can’t get more factual than that, but you just call it a lie. That’s fine.

            Go eat your GMO cancer causing crap. I will sit here and eat my nice organic raised, farm fresh vegies and beef. good day…troll!!

          • Damo

            You lie and I am the troll?

            No wonder you can’t see the science, your hypocrisy levels are too high. I am sure an organic beet juice fast should realign your chakra.

          • sniper74

            You lie and you are the troll. You didn’t even take time to READ. Either that or you failed reading comprehension in school.

            Go back and READ. It’s there, you just need to look. I guess you lied when you said you read it.

          • Damo

            I did read, you lied. Goodbye.

          • Damo

            One more thing, you call me close minded, but I said I was willing g to talk about any time Monsanto actually sued a farmer for saving seed, so what do you do? Provide me a list of links where none of that is applicable. In fact, you then pour, insult, change the subject, and finally say you are done talking.

            It is obvious who the close minded person is here.

          • sniper74

            You are closed minded. You didn’t even take the time to READ through the whole thing.

            In 1999, Indiana
            farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought soybean crop seeds from a local grain
            elevator for his second crop of the season. He then saved seeds from his
            second crop to replant additional crops in later years.

            This is factual. It’s a Supreme Court case. Can’t get more factual then that.

            Yet at the same time you can’t even provide me with Third party evidence that GMO crops are safe. By third party, I mean non paid for, non controlled, non biased evidence. All these things are facts. Of which YOU choose to ignore and read and grasp. So yes…you are closed minded.

            Definition of Closed minded:
            having or showing rigid opinions or a narrow outlook.

            Your outlook is so narrow that you didn’t take time to READ the whole case did you? You didn’t even take time to read the others, including what Monsanto stated on their website. I studied that in college. We did almost an entire semester discussing this case.

            I am far from being closed minded. There has not been ONE solid piece of evidence from you showing that GMO crops are safe. I ask for simple things. Third party, non monsanto affiliation scientific proof. Yet all you do is DEMAND that I show YOU proof of my argument. You can’t even take the time to do that. So who is the one that is closed minded again? Who is the troll? All you do is try to poke holes in my argument, yet you don’t provide anything substantial. Yep…closed minded my ass. Either you are a Monsanto employee and wont admit it, (to afraid?????), or you work in the Genetic sector and wont admit it, or you simply have no clue and don’t want to admit that.

          • Damo

            You said you would produce a farmer that saved his own seeds for a harvest the following year, then send me a list of links,none of which are the case. The very first one is a farmer that bought seed for use as feed and planted it. You are still lying about it.

            Sorry, get some integrity and we will talk.

          • Damo

            Now, because I pointed out your lies, I am employed by Monsanto? Once again, provide proof. Which you won’t since you have no integrity.

          • agscienceliterate

            An independent nonprofit:
            http://www.genera.biofortified.org
            I betcha not good enough for you, though.

          • sniper74

            I never changed the subject. YOu are the one who can’t even grasp the simple concept. I didn’t pour any or insult any until I was told I was wrong and never proved I was wrong. All you do is just make a statement and ask that I prove myself. Yet you can’t even prove anything.

            I did provide you with a list of links. You stated that you wouldn’t look through with them because you claim, that the first one was a lie. That I was telling you fake stuff.

            Go back and READ…or do you have problems with that?

            He then saved seeds from his second crop to replant additional crops in later years.

            do you NOT see where it stated, HE THEN SAVED SEEDS FROM HIS SECOND CROP.

            How is that not saving seeds. Lets see…using your piss poor logic. I save seeds back from my second crop, and then reuse them….how is THAT not SAVING SEEDS.

            Here it is again…proving how little you pay attention.

            He replanted seeds from the original second harvest in subsequent years
            for his second seasonal planting, supplementing them with more soybeans
            he bought at the elevator.

            Hmmm…HE replanted seeds FROM the original Second harvest. Hmmm…yeah I guess I am the one who is telling falsehoods now. Not you…since you seem to fail to get past the first few paragraphs.

            yeah I guess since you can’t comprehend what was actually going on, that you fail to comprehend the whole case. You see, he saved seeds back from his ORIGINAL harvest, with the INTENT to use it a second time. But according to you this isn’t called saving seeds at all. So all this time that I have been saving money, I guess I haven’t been actually saving money…just having money.

            Wow…it’s can’t get any clearer than that, but it went right over your head.

          • Damo

            I never said the links were lies, I said they didn’t demonstrate what you claimed they did. In other words, you lied.

          • agscienceliterate

            http://www.genera.biofortified.org
            Entirely privately funded.
            C’mon, let’s hear your rants about these studies….. counting down … 3…. 2…. 1…..

  • Good4U

    Bring back the ‘terminator’ technology. If harvested grain/seed were not capable of germinating, all of this “saving seed” BS would go away. The “organic” farmers could save all the seed they want, and plant it to their heart’s content…right up until they go out of business or starve. The rest of the growers who actually produce good, plentiful food & fiber from biotechnically advanced seed supplies wouldn’t have to worry about anybody suing them for specious reasons.