Monsanto loses Indian legal battle over GM cotton patents

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – A court ruled on Wednesday that Monsanto cannot claim patents on its genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds in India, the Indian company that brought the case said.

Citing an Indian law that excludes seeds from being patented, Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd (NSL) argued that the U.S. seeds company was not eligible to claim patents and charge royalties from Indian seed companies.

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court agreed with NSL, ruling that India’s Patent Act does not allow Monsanto any patent cover for its GM cotton seeds, said Narne Murali Krishna, a company secretary for NSL.

A Monsanto India spokesman said the company was “very disappointed” with the court order.

“Today’s order will have wide-ranging, negative implications for biotech-based innovation across many sectors within India, and is inconsistent with other international markets where agricultural innovation has flourished,” the spokesman said in a statement.

Monsanto’s “false claim has got exposed today,” Kalyan Goswami, director general of the National Seed Association of India, said in a statement.

Late last year, NSL said it would not settle a long-standing intellectual property dispute with Monsanto over genetically modified cotton, despite some other Indian companies doing so.

Monsanto has been involved in a long-running battle in India over royalties paid by local seed companies for its GM cotton.

In 2016, the Indian farm ministry cut Monsanto’s royalties by more than 70 percent, triggering a long-running feud that drew in the Indian and U.S. governments.

In March, India cut the royalties paid to Monsanto for its GM cotton for the second time in two years, potentially fuelling another row with the U.S. company that threatened to leave India in 2016.

More than 90 percent of India’s cotton crop is genetically modified.

About the author

Comments

  • Denise

    Very good news!

    • Mottfolly

      Would you please explain why denying farmers the technology that has helped them recover from poverty is a “good” thing.

      • John Fefchak

        While Denise is busy, I will add a comment..Thank You.
        Technology advancement is good when the results are not compromising the health of people. Recovering from poverty at the culmination of slowly committing suicide is a game of roulette.

        • Kën Shrëk

          Wow, that was just stupid

        • alex

          So no evidence of any health compromise and nothing showing any link to suicide…. Just vile emotionally manipulative propaganda designed to control people using fear…. Truly … sickening

          • John Fefchak
          • richard

            …..kinda like the fear of feeding the planet mythology perpetrated by the cult of eminent nonsense…. Forty percent of the worlds food wasted and five hundred billion USD global subsidies doesn’t support you lame reductionist monothematic drivel…..

          • Farmer_Guy

            And I’m sure you have a better model you’d like to share, …

          • richard

            Yes, thank you for asking….Get rid of the grow more get less global subsidy feeding frenzy, so we can stop dumping taxpayer funded food on the developing world and they can develop their own form of self sufficiency. Send literacy not food and population growth declines, its a proven fact….. And we can get back to a real market based on real market signals and real prices relating to 2018 not 1918, which in real dollars is what we are living now…..Imagine, twenty dollar beans, canola and wheat…..and no need for our communities to be drenched in agritoxins and apocryphal myths of neo colonial feed the world platitudes……….Any questions?

        • Jason

          In what way is the technology compromising anyone’s health?

          • alex

            I guess now there no reason to develop better strains of bt cotton therecis going to be health compromises in people needing to use more insecticides

          • JoeFarmer

            If the Indian government isn’t going to let the private sector have intellectual property rights, the private sector isn’t going to develop new traits for the Indian market – no company is going to invest when there’s no chance to recoup that investment. The Indian government could choose to subsidize biotech research and distribute the results gratis to farmers, I don’t know if that’s their plan.

            Without private or public investment in advanced plant breeding, India is going to be left behind the rest of the world.

          • John Fefchak
          • Jason

            😂😂😂

            YouTube…. yah… I bet that’s a lot better source of information than all the worlds Academies of Science.

          • John Fefchak

            Did you even listen.? A great many world scientists have different opinions.

          • Jason

            And who are these “World scientists”?

          • alex

            Lol so the best you have is obviously … propaganda funded by the organics industry

          • John Fefchak

            There is a lot of that being published …propaganda?

          • Denise

            I get the impression that the shills are paid by the number of words they enter in the comment section rather than the presentation of any reasonable responses.

          • John Fefchak

            I often get that impression also.

          • John Fefchak

            What do you need to see….bodies?

        • Damo

          Evidence please?

    • alex

      Lol how exactly is it good new ad now that there is no way to make anything in developing new sed technologies in India there are going to be no new seed technologies produced in India.. . …

    • alex

      Now you can assert that going forward no Indian farmers will ever commit suicide due to the vile evils of seed breeding technology… It’s going to be such a good thing watching as the number of farmer suicide drops to 0

  • Warren Lauzon

    Pretty stupid move on India’s part. There is no other source for the seed, so they will have to develop their own (which is impossible with the no-patent law) or buy it at market prices and import it from the gray market.

    • Denise

      I think not. Pretty smart I’d say. India is leading the way. Patented seed was never an issue ,until Monsanto and their ilk came along with the greedy idea they could genetically tweak seeds (which actually belong to everybody) and claim ownership of them.. It’s akin to taking ownership of the water by adding a few drops of Dr. Carny’s love potion and claiming they have a patent on our water supply,now.
      Before Monsanto decided to try and dominate the world ,with terminator seed patents and pesticide dependency, the farmers had choices and those days are returning.
      The sleeping giant (people around the world) is waking up to the cold reality that corporations are dominating our food supply and we have to take back what inherently belongs to all of us.
      -Seeds which sustain life not terminate it. –

      • Harold

        I totally agree with you.
        The game is to take free seed out of the hands of the global public by capturing all seeds and controlling them through intellectual ownership which would grant the corporations great power and great control over the public. To do so, GMO, GE, was created and patented and the article is a total illustration of the Power that they were seeking to gain over the global public. This had everything to do with power and control and had nothing to do with our health. The mentions of our health were only virtues of deceptions and clearly the public are becoming more aware in this era. Clearly we both know the same.
        In contrast, does a sack of Organic seed or natures seed create the same Legal mess, court challenges, high costs, and punitive measures that a currently placed upon the farmer’s? What happens to the innocent Farmers whose lands have been taken by Monsanto’s drifting seeds; he ends up punitively controlling those farmers too. Does this happen when farmers have Organic seeds and they spread? If it did happen the offender would be punished but Monsanto when he offends he is not; isn’t that corporate handy and corrupt but of course this is something that we both know.
        We both know where the rice paddies get their rice seed for the next re-growth. All that corrupt Monsanto has to do is to add Vitamin A to it and then BS the public with a health fairy tale, and then he owns every seed that falls into the water. This scam is aptly called gold and we know where the gold and the power of the gold is going; hence – gold and rice – and when spoken fast it sounds just like golden rice.

        • alex

          So that must be why the overwhelming majority of farmers jump at the chance to use patented gm crops where thwy have the chance to

          • Denise

            Have you ever had dealings with a con man in a confidence game? In this case ,even the messengers believe the product they are selling is all it’s cracked up to be. The corporate hench men deal with governments and then have their minions do the field work.

          • Jason

            So… your theory is that 22 years ago, farmers were conned into using these expensive seeds and somehow they were fooled so completely that even 22 years later, they’re still using them??

            Are you serious??

          • Denise

            Look how long it takes to kick a bad habit? It’s hard. The devil you know vs the unknown. Change is scary. Admitting a mistake and not knowing it was a mistake is hard to come to terms with.
            Look how long it has taken many farmers,in North America, to come to the realization there have been some serious side effects from the GMO/agri-chemical addiction. Just like smoking, it was just fine until the health issues started to crop up (soil damage,super weeds,beneficial insects ,aquatic life and birds disappearing, water pollution, detriorating health in people and so on).
            The last straw is broken when the consumers say “Enough,no more. It is not as sweet as it was before.”

          • Jason

            😂😂 Ok… so products consistently get to 90+ % market share and stay there for multiple decades all because farmers are fooled and can’t break habits…

            90%!!

            And what are all of these “side effects”??

            Soil damage? Nope… soil health has been improving since the adoption of GM crops due to enabling conservation tillage systems.

            Super weeds?? Nope… there are 10X as many “superweeds” associated with non-GM herbicide systems as there are to GM.

            Beneficial insects?? Better under GM systems because of the adoption of Bt crops displacing broad spectrum insecticides.

            Aquatic life?? birds?! Water pollution?? Nope, nope and nope…. absolutely nothing to do with GM crops. In fact the USDA stated that the primary benefits from the adoption of glyphosate tolerant crops have been environmental due to the adoption of less toxic herbicides.

            You seriously don’t have any concept of what you’re talking about. But you’re right about one thing… the consumers get to decide and overwhelmingly they decide that fear mongering scare tactics like yours don’t work.

          • richard

            Yeah neither do wind bag platitudes of feed the planet myths…. when the whole thing is propped up on taxpayer largesse, chemical dependence…. and apocryphal notions of sustainability…..

          • Jason

            Yah…myths don’t generally work well. Which might explain why these crops have been so successful in every market they’ve been introduced worldwide. Were anything you’ve said true, we wouldn’t see the results we are seeing.

          • richard

            ….Funny I was in a large supermarket the other day…. I saw food labelled with Kosher, Halel, free range, antibiotic free, certified organic…. but I couldn’t for the life of me find one that read….”contains ingredients from trans-genic agriculture” or “this food contains the wonders of genetic modification”|…..So successful that they hide in the weeds with shame while at the same time sneering at the consumer who drives the food bus…???? Sounds like suicide marketing 101 to me……iAre we living on the planet of the apes?

          • Jason

            So? We seem to both agree that myths don’t work too well, so why should we perpetuate the myth that there is some magical difference between ingredients from GM & Non-GM crops?

            And are you really trying to make the argument that these crops haven’t been successful? When they reach 90+% market penetration every where they are available & the world wide GM crop acreage has increased every single year since introduction, that seems like a losing argument to me…. What about you?

          • richard

            Yup….successfully self destructing and terminally addicted…. to five hundred billion dollars usd global subsidies to jack up crops that are on life support from before they even go in the ground. Chemo agriculture leads to chemo therapy and only those who are dumb, depressed and agitated to seem to be able to connect the dots……. And none of them seem to be able to explain how corporate welfare (subsidies) are a path to sustainability or success…..Your market penetration is nothing more than a lame talking point for heelers to ape mindlessly…. …

          • Jason

            LOL.. Yah.. they’re “lame talking points” to those who don’t like to admit when they’re wrong.
            And I don’t know what the $500B is you’re referring to, but the US Farm Bill was a $956B bill, of which $810B was on nutrition programs (food stamps) and conservation efforts. The bulk of the remainder supported subsidized crop insurance to protect against crop failures. And nothing in the Farm Bill supports “chemo agriculture”. It supports all agriculture. In fact organic ag is the only production system that is specifically supported by any part of the Farm Bill.
            Odd that, were it the savior of the world, it should need specific funding to get anyone to try it… don’t you think?

          • richard
          • Richard,

            I’ve been working on this little (maybe not so little…) “speech” below off and on for a while now, and your posting of the link above has given me a reminder to complete it and release it into the wild.

            It’s my hope that this will give you, and others, some insight into what someone trained in journalism (me, U of R, 1994) looks for in a potential “source” of information online. There’s a lot of BS out there these days, as I’m pretty certain you’re aware… 😉

            My observations on the webpage whose link you posted above:

            Upper lefthand corner – “Updated xxx minutes ago” – a little bit of code that makes the page APPEAR to have been recently updated. If you open it again in 6 months time it will almost certainly have been updated mere minutes before.

            Date? There is no date on this “article.” When was it written?

            Whom is its author? Reputable sources of information (newspapers, scientific journals, etc) clearly publish the author’s name.

            At the end of the day an author (reporter/scientist) relies upon his or her reputation as (hopefully) someone that provides useful, relevant, balanced and objective information to his/her readers. I’m leery of content without bylines.

            There is a reference to a “Grant Potter” in the first graf, but who is Grant Potter? A staff writer? A freelancer? Can I trust Grant Potter? What else does Grant Potter write about?

            “Donate” in the upper righthand corner. This site is soliciting donations. Taken alone this isn’t a game changer for me. These days even pillars of journalism (such as The Guardian, in my humble opinion, anyway) have cap in hand asking readers for their support. But, one must also ask how far MIGHT an organization seeking donations go in order to secure a cheque? Could a wealthy benefactor pay to have anything published?

            Open the WP and you can see who advertises here. You may or may not know that our advertising department and our editorial department are operated independently of each other. You can read our “Editorial Code of Ethics” here: https://www.producer.com/editorial-code-of-ethics/

            Is there a similar “code of ethics” on this site? Reputable “news” sites all have one. Here are a few examples

            https://www.theguardian.com/info/2015/aug/05/the-guardians-editorial-code:

            https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html

            https://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article10200488.ece/BINARY/Editorial+Code+Book+External.pdf

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/?utm_term=.d847e40fd318

            The site also has a shopping cart. This begs the question, what are they selling? Are they really providing quality content, or do they want you to buy a t-shirt?

            The founder of WorldWatch is Lester Brown, a man my brief Googlings found to be widely described as an environmentalist. This isn’t a bad thing. I’m a hockey player. Chances are, knowing that, you might have some ideas on my thoughts about various aspects of the game. This info just tells us a little more about Mr. Brown and, say, what his thoughts might be on a subject like logging.

            Lastly, there are no quotes in the article. Apparently its author (Grant Potter) is sharing only his point of view on the subject.

            In journalism we reporters are NOT the experts. So, we go to considerable lengths to find people who are whenever we write about a subject.

            By quoting “experts” our readers can readily check their credentials and make a determination whether this person is qualified to speak on the subject at hand. Also, we’ll include in our stories “experts” with differing points of view so a reader can judge for herself which “expert” they may choose to believe.

            Repeat this process enough times, with enough different experts, and we help our readers formulate an informed opinion on a subject.

            Voila, good (in my opinion) journalism.

            The fact there are no quotes in this article concerns me.

            So, in my humble estimation, the “article” linked to above is not a very reliable source of information.

            I’d welcome any thoughts you, or anyone, would care to share on my observations noted above.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Harold

            We see what happens in the media when a program Host says something that goes against political correctness or identity politics: they lose corporate sponsorship and the host is fired. Clearly, the corporations control what is said in the media because they are funding it. Clearly, the host cannot condemn the corporation that is “feeding” them, their hands tied, and mouth covered up. These corporations, who pull out, are reputable and carry with them many respected experts and highly decorated personnel, but when they overreach by forcing their own political correctness and agenda onto the public – they are out of bounds and it doesn’t matter what their lapel pin reads or displays; out of bounds they are corrupt.

            The public broadcasting system (PBS) relies upon donations and thereafter the public control the media, and the content, by way the public donations. PBS is in complete display and is in the public’s interests. The public is separate from political correctness and they do not withdraw funding when political correctness is not observed by the PBS. Any website reliant upon the public’s donations, good or bad, is a leg of the broader “PBS” and they naturally seek donations to continue to produce the “News”. Unlike mainstream media protection, if the “PBS” lies to the public, the public withdraws their funding because the public are not easy in their forgiveness. On the other hand, the media with corporate sponsorship can continue to lie provided they tow the Industry’s perspectives. You have Industry controlled Media and you have publicly controlled media running side by side and you choose your “poison”.

            I would further venture to say that the Public is starting to hate political correctness, and political identity politics, and what it stands for, and in a role reversal, the public’s mood is now to correct the politics. However, the bottom line is that you cannot be deceived if you have the background in knowledge.

            Furthermore, a reputable source is not a Newspaper, an Author, or a Science Journal; the reputable source is the product itself and the negative or positive results. Resorting to simplicity for the sake of an easy illustration, the reliable source is the volcano that the scientist is trying to explain. Anyone can see the volcano and can have various interpretations but the volcano remains the most reliable source and it is publicly on display to anyone and everyone. Hypothetically, cameramen can say with photos that there exists a Volcano where one does not exist at all. The most reliable source is the volcano itself, if I am allowed to express this in this manner of simplicity.

            Those things that are kept in secrecy and those of secrecy are not reliable sources no matter what honor or lapel pin they may possess. The greatest lies have been written in secrecy, and have always had within those lies the greatest truths, and the greatest people of honor. A lie does not create any meaningful results no matter how much meaningful truth is applied, or is thrown at it. If something is broken, it was designed that way by a lie, and it was broken from the start. The Industry and their representatives are far from being considered a reliable source when secrecy is standing behind them. I am not interested in the title, the lapel pin, the company LOGO, or the website of their own attempt at public indoctrination when secrecy is foremost standing behind them.

            Lets look at one other most reliable source called the National Debt and tell me how many financial experts that there have been; all along, the media has reported that there were some, but the results in defiance are speaking for themselves. The most reliable source is the debt itself. The GDP is another most reliable source – has there been evidence that there have been any experts involved? GDP, National Debt, Trade Deficit, and how many experts have there been? It looks like we are still waiting for just three to show up, and the three most reliable sources are saying this.

            Perhaps we should take the bar from its current step-over height, raise it to at least six feet, and then determine what an expert truly is. Do I need a website to find someone with another glossy lapel pin or another so called expert?
            This is my humble opinion.

          • richard

            Paul its ok with me to leave my response to you in here…..Its a discussion that will not go away….

          • As a matter of course I do publish/make visible replies such as yours, Richard. Even had you vehemently disagreed with what I had to say such transparency is, in my opinion, important.

            I’m just a little slow getting round to moderating the comments that have come in since I left work yesterday.

            I’ve just posted your reply now.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Jason

            And?

          • richard

            Paul I could not respond to you from your email….Thanx for your thoughts and for you journalistic integrity…. You have made me look at the Worldwatch posting in a different light…. You are correct, it is not long on references and named economists……However, the full report is available and perhaps worth both our scrutiny…. I do know that Lester Brown has been around a long time…. I have heard both Michael Enright and Vicki Gabareau interview him on CBC over twenty years ago….. The fact that he is an environmentalist is why he is not afraid to examine any number of pressing environmental issues…. It does not discredit he or his organization in my opinion…. The issue here is Paul, that there is a global convergence of low commodity prices, (see Les Henry Grainnews) and rising population and affluence in the developing world…ergo demand….. These are only possible if there is either global overproduction. or subsidy exporting (dumping) or both……..As the subject of this article, cotton is the worst subsidy offender (see recent WTO ruling on Brazil/USA cotton dispute)…. We cannot talk about any production ideology without full disclosure of underlying support for that vision….I believe it behooves WP to explore global subsidies and how they distort both domestic production and export clients ability to feed themselves. The point is that the whole GM house of cards mythology blows away in a good wind without the life support of taxpayer largesse….. all the best Paul

          • richard

            That’s correct…..90% market penetration is just another lame talking point….aka subterfuge….for the fact that the entire cult of GM mythologies is built on taxpayer largesse…..the same taxpayer you and your ilk refer to as ignorant and misinformed……oops!

          • Jason

            I love how hard you try to mask the fact that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about by trying to sound intelligent.

            It likely works on dolts, but those who understand what you’re saying see it for what it is… empty rhetoric.

          • richard

            downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies take the time to read the entire expose…..and then try to explain to me how 90% market penetration of GM soybean, corn and cotton production in the USA doesn’t affect market dynamics, ergo subsidies…..Then we can have an adult conversation on the cult of GM feed the planet myths….

          • Jason

            Frankly…I don’t think you’re capable of an adult conversation. You make idiotic claims and when challenged on them and shown that you’re wrong, you simply change the argument.

            Thanks, but no thanks.

          • richard

            As per usual the low brow bravado goes nowhere…. and the truth smacks…..which is why your little party is having its ass handed to it on a platter in India, Asia (Cargill non gmo project) and Europe…..Its a cold breeze blowing through the house of GM cards.

          • Jason

            😂 Ok. I guess the fact that worldwide gm acres have grown every single year since they were introduced in 1996 is “getting your ass handed”.

            You have a good weekend, ok?

          • obfuscate99

            Just as a very minor correction, but with these nut jobs, they will take any such mistake as a sign of malice and conspiracy.

            The trend in worldwide GMO acreage has been on an almost continual upward trend, but in 2015 there was a reduction. From 448 million acres in 2014 to 444 million acres in 2015. The value was back up in 2016 to 457 million acres (more than offsetting the loss in 2015).

          • Peter Harris

            … is this a conspiracy?
            Of course it is, a conspiracy to hide the evidence.

          • obfuscate99

            Please provide a link to the OECD-452 or 453 compliant study that showed causation at or below the current ADI.

            Oh, there aren’t any. …

          • Peter Harris

            Landmark lawsuit claims Monsanto hid cancer danger of weedkiller for decades.

            https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/22/monsanto-trial-cancer-weedkiller-roundup-dewayne-johnson

          • obfuscate99

            Please provide a link to the OECD-452 or 453 compliant study that showed causation at or below the current ADI.

            Oh, there aren’t any. Funny how the anti-Biotech groups have had decades to perform these studies. Industry, academia, and government labs have done them…repeatedly over the years.

          • JoeFarmer

            It really is amazing how with each post you successfully demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about agriculture.

          • richard

            The really amazing thing here is that neither you or Jason can refute anything I tell you… …. …..subsidies are gonna eat the nozzleheads alive…. I’m just the messenger…..Youre welcome…

          • JoeFarmer

            Apparently you didn’t notice that everything you have written has been refuted by Jason. I really don’t see how you could have missed that.

          • richard

            Its gotta be tough when the swamp is being drained around you….which of course is why your masters are merging and consolidating….. And the public is becoming increasingly disinterested in both paying for food at the till……and through their taxes……to enable corporate welfare ….aka GM mythology

          • JoeFarmer

            And there’s another demonstration of your complete lack of agricultural knowledge.

            Tip: When Kanawai Mamalahoe, the pretend PhD, upvotes you, that means you typed something really, really wrong.

          • richard

            Yeah, but funnily enough neither you or your gang of rocket surgeons can refute two PhD reports from two notable US think tanks on the destructive capacity of industrial agricultures addiction to subsidies as life support……..#entitlement #the swamp #betterlivingthroughdenial

          • JoeFarmer

            Everything you’ve typed has been refuted. If you’re unable to see that, seek professional help.

          • richard

            … ….no street cred…..twenty billion taxpayer subsidies…. looks like social welfare for the blowhard gm crowd…. can you spell hypocrisy

          • Kānāwai Māmalahoe
          • richard

            Yeah, I know….thanx for the link…..like the article says….the market has become saturated…. What these clowns don’t get is that there are large competivive forces coming out of the Black Sea for example….that don’t bare the usurious costs of GM licensing and distance to markets…..Without subsidies the whole GM sham falls apart before their eyes…..the cold firm hand of market realism meets thirty years of feed the planet myths…

          • obfuscate99

            …I’m going to guess you just missed the 2016 figures, as indicated above, the acreage did decrease from 2014-2015 (448MA down to 444MA), but the jump in 2016 more than made up for this (444MA to 457MY).

          • JoeFarmer

            What about 2016 & 2017?

            Oh, that’s right, the numbers increased, which had you shown them would have made you look foolish.

          • TED

            Are you for real?

            Farmers are going to notice if after 20 years their yields are going down rather than up. Farmers do this for a living. They don’t spend their days making stuff up on the internet.

          • Denise

            Yields aren’t everything, anymore. This is where the difference lies. Farmers guided by their GMO/pesticide dealers think that bushels per acre are the most important outcome. I can see how that thinking has lasted so long. Before pesticides/GMOs it was common sense.
            But now consumers/ importers want quality.
            Importing countries are placing demands on North Americans to clean up their act. They don’t want pesticide residues /GMOs grain.They refuse to import pork with ractopamine residues etc. Fussy, aren’t they?
            Abundance doesn’t matter if the quality of the product is poor. With escalating health problems and costs, it has become very clear that what we put in our mouths matters alot.
            Why do you think so many organic farms are popping up now?
            The truth had been suppressed for over 20 years by corporate stakeholders.
            Thank god for the internet, the corps are having a hard time keeping their secrets from us, anymore.

          • Hi Denise,

            Your comment about organic farms popping up got me curious, so I did a little digging.

            The most recent census of agriculture conducted by Statistics Canada (released May 10, 2017) has this to say on the subject:

            “The proportion of farms in Saskatchewan producing organic products declined from 2.9% in 2011 to 2.5% in 2016. Nationally, farms producing organic products accounted for 2.2% of the total farms in 2016.”

            The first part of this stat is specific to Saskatchewan, but Saskatchewan accounts for very nearly half (46.8%) of all cropland in Canada.

            You can find further details here:

            http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-640-x/2016001/article/14807-eng.htm

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Denise

            Thanks for the information. Saskatchewan organic farming did take a dip. Was it weather related, the floods?
            In the USA , there has been a 70% increase in organic farming since 2008.

          • That 70% increase might be a little misleading.

            According to the the latest USDA stats I could find (USDA Census of Agriculture from 2012, released in 2014) there are approximately 2.1 million farms in the U.S. I believe it’s a fair assumption that that number is shrinking, so let’s use 2 million current farms for the sake of both round numbers and accuracy.

            https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farm_Demographics/

            Though actual current U.S. farm numbers could be even lower they would have to be dramatically lower to alter my calculations below.

            The current total number of certified U.S. organic farms (from the 2015 USDA Certified Organic Survey, released September 16, 2016) is 12,818:

            https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/Executive_Briefings/2016/09_15_2016.pdf

            Even though there might have been 70 per cent growth since 2008, as a percentage, organic farms make up less than 1 per cent (about .06 per cent) of all U.S. farms.

            Now, there’s a reason I chose journalism as a career instead of math (I tell people I’m a writer, not a mather…) so I certainly stand to be corrected…

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Denise

            Hi Paul,

            Canada tends to be lagging a bit in organic production, but because of the demand, it will start to move quickly in that direction.
            Saskatchewan is on track to produce more organics. Some huge parcels of farmland were puchased recently and production will be underway,soon. I know that thanks to your WP.
            Canada Organic Trade Association Sept.13, 2017 paints a very postive picture. Ontario and Quebec are increasing their output of organic crops. Alberta is on that list too, but it probably has a lot more to do with free -range cattle.
            Even in the USA, home to Monsanto, the organics market is growing fast due to consumer demands.

            http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/11/10/organic-crop-acreage.

            It’s definitely taking off!

            Thank you for your post.

          • Harold

            There are those who produce organic food but they are not accounted for because they refuse to register in the governments punitive and costly systems. You will also find some of them in farmers markets and local sales and they invite you to also visit their farms to validate them. In other words, if you have got your own brain in your head, you do not need government or the opinions of others.
            Along with this, there are also private citizens who in the summer grow their own organic produce and these people are not accounted for either. Many Canadians are now resorting to home gardening, pot gardening on their decks, and local shared gardening on public and private lands. (Affordability -?) Does all of this represent a 2% reduction in organic sales? Do extra and increasing household debt and accumulative debt and affordability play a role in reduced organic demand; of course, they do, unless media bought and paid for propaganda is telling you otherwise.
            The true demand for organics is unknown and the unknown is compounded by its affordability. If there were a price match, the true demand would be known.

            The lower priced GE and GMO products and consumer’s low wages keep the industry in business. When you add up the costs, of GMO and GE taxpayer payments to GMO related research and development subsidies and the like, GMO is very expensive. On the shelf, GMO appears to be costing less until you look at your other hand, which is annually paying government taxation that is distributed to the GMO industry. All government Grants, loans, and annual funding – is our money – not the governments own money – and that money is the money that the GMO industry is not paying to prop up their own organization. The Organic industry on the other hand needs none of this. If taxpayers dollars in kind were used to keep Organic prices low, we would see a dramatic change. Taxpayers are paying to protect the GMO industry.

            I would further venture to say that the GMO product and Crop prices are kept low because the farmers are not being paid full compensation for what they produce and so forth are being screwed when they go to sell it. When they are screwed, government funding, grants, loans, tax breaks, which are all another cost to taxpayer’s, is another cost attributed to the GMO industry and is a further cost that the Industry does not pay. Organic prices may be a little higher, but at the same time, tax money is not leaving by way of the other hand.
            Furthermore, Data is only as good as the person producing it and this creates many of our visionary problems. In other words, you can see a problem as plain as day and Data will tell you that there is no problem and vice versa. Data will tell you that there is a problem when a problem does not exist at all.
            I say all of this Denise, because you are on the right track and regardless of all that I had to say.

          • Denise

            Good points. I don’t have a great deal of confidence in government statistics either, Harold.
            People are very careful about telling the government anything they don’t have to. It definitely skews the results of data collection.
            People are smart enough to know that this information can or may be used against them, at a later date.
            In government there are “public servants” whose only job is to look for ways to grab more tax dollars, legally, of course.

          • Harold

            The person who is looking for ways to steal money away from the public is the Finance Minister. (Canadian and Provincial) Our so called other representatives are the ones looking for the public’s approval to the illusions that they create. Thereafter, they need funding provided by the Finance Minister who in turn steals the money from the taxpayer in increased taxation, punitive fees, etc. As always, if we accept their illusion, the theft thereafter becomes legalized through the department of justice by way of Acts, Codes and Regulations and jail for non-compliance to the illusion set forth. Because we are programmed and brainwashed and taught not to speak out-of-turn when a perceived authority is present, there is a lot of organized theft from the taxpayer for which the government is calling “fair taxation” and “fair fees” and “fair public restrictions” because it has such a nice and heartwarming ring to it. When does the Public Servant have any Authority in the room – when it is the Taxpayers or Voters – who are the Authority and the Master? Public servant? Somehow, when we all went to school, we had gotten our thinking placed upside down for us and that includes the politicians coming out from the very same school rooms. We do all suffer from the “cultivated mushroom syndrome” when we are continuously kept in the dark and are fed plenty of the “experts” BS.

          • Peter Olins

            I agree that quality of crops is also important. That’s why it’s good news that, over the past couple of decades, GM technology has resulted in a substantial reduction in the level of mycotoxins produced by fungi living on corn:

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2.pdf

            Also, don’t forget the increase in quality resulting from the lower hazard quotient of chemical pesticide residues.

            Do you have any evidence for your claim that “escalating health problems” are a consequence of reduced food quality? Which medical condition, and what food component?

            I disagree with your dismissal of crop yield as an important factor: this is good news for farmers, for national economies, for consumer prices, and for the non-farming environment.

            You also mention pressure from importing countries: can you give some more specific evidence, so that we can discuss this?

            Finally, you claim that “the truth has been suppressed”. What would you like to know? This is an ag. website, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who could answer your questions.

          • alex

            Are you talking about the organics industry

          • Harold

            Farmers, as always, jump at any chance to produce whatever the consumer demands. If they do not move what they produce then they go broke and that is all relative to their failure in recognizing the consumer’s demands. The other side of the coin is where debt outweighs the profit and it does not matter what you are selling (moving) – you go broke and a patent does not mean a damn thing. India has reduced Monsanto’s royalty payments (farmer debt) by 70%; gee, should I wonder why?
            Were you trying to enlighten me with your perceptions of the obvious?

          • richard

            Interesting how the more industry underestimates organic growth, prices to farmers continue to trend upwards….

          • Harold

            Perhaps a bit off track, if you look you will find that mother corporations have bought up the majority of the Organic companies either outright or have bought a controlling interest. For example, PepsiCo is one of them among others. Unfortunately I cannot point to the study but you will find it if you look. At this time, I do not remember which university completed that study.

            Yes, they do underestimate organic growth because it serves them to deceive the public. Of course you, many others, and I remain unmoved (organic growth) so their only reasonable target is the fence sitters. They have already forced the low income earners to buy their product in economic duress so their success is over-rated as well.

            They would be happy to see the organic sector fail because they truly do not give a damn about human beings and their choices nor do they give a damn about the livelihood of a human being providing those services. The GMO and GE Industry is not the humanitarian organization that they are pretending to be and in fact they are the very opposite as they are displaying. Look at how people have to defend themselves just over a simple freedom of choice, a choice that causes no harm and they fight tooth and nails that you should not have any choice at all. Is that science talking or is that greed and corruption talking?

            Their science, which is not their science, it is everybody’s science, but it is hidden from us in trade secrets, is used to demonize our choices as human beings, and that is not science. Science open and transparent is inviting, and it demands to be proven wrong. It is only when science is proven wrong that it is enabled from stagnant to advance. Science does not debunk science: science builds upon science and when I hear the word debunk, I know that the messenger is 100% full of BS. The closed doors of the GMO industry speaks loudly of how corrupt it is and money their ultimate goal and humanity is the least of their concerns. On a global scale this is only repeated.

            However, personally I am not surprised that the Industry spits word acid at me, because given my description of them; I would be more surprised if they did not and it would likely trouble me more. I cannot think of a reason why they would act differently so I expect it and true to form, they deliver as described. It is all about the money, power, and control over the people, and dare I say industry puppets.
            Obviously we look in the same places.

        • Farmer_Guy

          Harold. Go read about hybridization of seeds and why farmers stopped saving seeds in the 1930’s. Then come back and read your post again.

          • Harold

            It seems that you have firsthand knowledge of what the farmers knew in 1930 and who or what was educating them. What makes you think that an Authors opinion is a historical fact? What do you want me to read; was all knowledge written? What is the reason for Norway owning an original seed Bank; is it because we trust science technology? I do not have to re-read my post; it stands as is. Canola is a hybrid rapeseed, so if this is the case, why would farmers be holding any other seed other than canola if canola is the new demand? Did you think that you were actually telling me something of value? Seeded and unseeded watermelon; what should I be thinking? Do I need a history book to understand this hybrid and who is holding what seeds?

        • Damo

          Wow, what it must be like to live in your world.

          You must be miserable thinking everyone is out to get you.

      • alex

        … .. The thing isn now in reality nobody is going to have any incentive to develop new gm technologies for the Indian market… Sorry you’re so ideologically opposed to the idea of using molecular genetics in crop breeding that you think not using such a technology is better

        • Denise

          You do know the gm cotton technology in India was a bust? A lot of people suffered great financial losses and many farmers comitted suicide as a consequence.

          • alex

            You do know that goes back to well before bt cotton was used and the rates of farmer suicide decreased after bt cotton was introduced

      • richard

        You see why GM looks like a faith based religion and glyphosate the holy wine….In 1970 BG (before glyphosate) we actually had a burgeoning public and private seed breeding sector sector…. no seeds inoculated with patents and agritoxins and no missionary zeal for the privilege to borrow corporate property(seed) in order to survive…..When a producer pays twenty dolllars a pound for seed that he receives twenty cents a pound for, at harvest… its hardly a surprise that he sees himself as part of a cult of superior tithing….

        • Jason

          You clearly don’t have the foggiest idea how the seed business works.

          • richard

            seventy dollars an acre to grow canola in western Canada, three and a half pounds per acre seeded@ $20/lb…..and an average ten dollars a bushel sale price….you do the math sir….

          • Jason

            That math is pretty simple. You’ll exceed your canola seed costs by $280 an acre at that avg yield of 35bu. So what’s your point?
            You made some silly claims about the seed industry which aren’t true. That leads one to believe you aren’t real experienced in that area.

          • richard

            … seventy is the usurious cost of license only….another average two hundred seventy to grow it (Manitoba Agriculture)…. That’s three hundred and forty…. ten an acre less than your net projection…..Wow!…..Try to compete with Europe and Black Sea neither of whom bought into the GM fantasy

          • Jason

            Oh, I see… because the cost of other inputs is high, GM crops must be bad.
            Got it.

          • richard

            … GM just doesn’t compete in the new world with its licensing racket…….and is why it requires more than its share of the $500B USD global ag. subsidies orgy in order to pretend it is actually viable….

          • Jason

            Please do explain to us all how GM agriculture “requires more than its share” of global subsidies. According to your source, the biggest subsidies are coming from Asia where most countries aren’t growing gem crops to any large degree.

          • richard

            after all that market penetration??? Anyway if you take the time to read the Cato Institute report I kindly provided you…….corn, soybeans, cotton and wheat are the largest beneficiaries of subsidies…..sounds like 75 percent market penetration…..

          • Jason

            Have you read your report? East Asia and the EU account for 79% of your subsidies and they aren’t growing GM crops to any degree. They mention that China subsidizes commodities like rice & wheat, neither of which are GM crops yet. In fact, your report doesn’t mention GM crops at all!

            So, again…explain to us all how GM crops require “more than it’s share” of global subsidies.

          • richard

            wow, ignorance is bliss…. its twenty to thirty billion a year propping up US agriculture over the last twenty years in the US….Are you really naïve enough to believe that low commodity prices with growing global affluence/demand is a function of anything but subsidies/dumping?….. Educate yourself, then we can have an adult conversation on real world agriculture…. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

          • Richard,

            Your link is incomplete or broken…

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • richard

            I have tried at least three times to enter this link Paul….If you read the article you will see much of the Worldwatch research reiterated……and it contains a full set of references at the end…………………………………………….. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies Please revert with comments

          • richard

            thanx for the heads up Paul…try this…….downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies It you enter the triple w it will open for you…. a really well researched indictment of American subsidy agriculture entitlement and how it affects productivity, prices and waste of capital…..

          • Jason

            😂😂 You’re fantastic! Let’s recap… shall we?

            You started by showing complete ignorance of not only how the seed industry works, but also seemed unaware of how to calculate return on seed investment. After which you tried to prove that GM seeds some how require some greater share of world subsidies than non-GM crops. After a couple of requests to explain that nonsense, you disproved your own claim with the very source you provided. You claimed your source stated corn, soy & cotton where among the main crops subsidized. It turned out your source said no such thing.

            Then, when your world subsidies angle clearly was not working, you switched to US subsides to show GM crops don’t work. Somehow … the country using the MOST GM seeds in the world, while also having a FAR lower level of subsidization than the countries not using them is some kind of evidence against GM crops??

            And you top it all off by telling me to “educate myself”. THAT, my friend, is rich!

          • richard

            Instead of trying to imagine what I think why don’t you have a look at my first three posts on this thread…. I don’t like subsidies anywhere on planet earth and I don’t like chemo agriculture and I don’t like food waste……..The fact that your GM delusions contribute to all three is incidental and is why you need to be outed….. You cannot brag about GM market penetration and all its so called success and then proclaim that it has nothing to do with the perversity of overproduction, flat markets and subsidy agriculture anywhere…..Anyone who reads the downsizing government document I posted can clearly see the whole nightmare takes place globally including your country and it is insidious how bureaucrats and lobbyists disguise it…. You should phone Chris Edwards the author of the research and yell at him…. because you are dead wrong about the big five subsidy crops in the US… three of which are largely GM….39 percent of the nations two point one million farmers receive subsidies with the lions share of the handouts going to the largest producers of corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat and rice…..and we know the biggest farmers are the biggest users of GM….If you wanna continue with your better living through denial, its at you peril…. but its nothing more than willful ignorance…. — downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

        • Damo

          … no one is paying more for seed than they are making on the harvest.

      • Warren Lauzon

        That whole “terminator seed” thing is just stupid. Never existed, never used.

        • Denise

          I agree it was stupid. But,man, it sure would have helped Monsanto and their ilk dominate the world’s seed and food supply.
          Thankfully it was absolutely opposed by farmers,indigenous people,NGOs and some governments.
          2006.

          • Warren Lauzon

            How would it help? It was initially developed to prevent the spread of GMO crops into the wild and adjacent non-GMO fields, as the seeds would not sprout.

      • Peter Olins

        “…genetically tweak seeds…”

        Oh, if science were only that simple: a little tweaking here, a little tweaking there, and Bingo, a wonderful new crop solving world hunger and poverty! Go for it, Denise.

        • Denise

          Of course, it’s not that simple. It has taken a lot of messing around with genes and inserting genes, here and there, to get plants to act against their true nature.
          The time will come or has it already arrived?when it will be realized that a lot of mistakes were made “playing god” on such a grand scale without using the “Precautionary Principle”. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

          • Damo

            You realize that all crops have been bred to “act against their true nature” don’t you? After all, how many wild broccoli or tomato plants do you see?

          • Peter Olins

            And don’t forget kale, the spawn of Satan.

          • Harold

            Who decided that Kale was “the spawn of Satan”? I suppose fiction is just as good as any fact. Tell us more about the “spawn of Satan” because so far I’m having difficulty taking anything that you saying very seriously when you resort to a statement such as yours. Did you run out of steam and just needed to fill in some empty space?

          • Peter Olins

            Member of the brassica family produce a set of natural pesticides and repellants (such as glucosinolates).

            Some humans are more sensitive to these pesticides, and find them painful and/or disgusting. I guess I’m just one more example of kale succeeding in its instinct to deter being eaten. (I can just about handle arugula if it’s swamped with dressing, though.)

            One of the ironies of human breeding of crops that are suitable for human consumption is that we have reduced the amount of natural pesticides and deterrents. This makes them more palatable and nutritious for us, but also more susceptible to pests. Hence the need for added chemical pesticides, or biological pesticides produced through techniques such as genetic engineering.

            Hopefully that was less Biblical and more factual, Harold. :~)

          • Harold

            Biblical use would have been more factual than what you had posted; the Bible was not your reference, and if anything, it was your attempt to re-write into it your own suitable scripture. Where does it say in the Bible that Kale was “the spawn of Satan”? You were not at all biblically factual to even be “less Biblical”. Truly, you were being less of what?

            The chemistry within the plants is the reason that they can even exist but industry chemicals are not the reason of the plants existence; they are not the same. Each variation of plant is different and is demonstrable by its various vitamin content (elements, water reaction, and energy) and chemistry.

            You and I are made from the same materials and the exact same materials bring us health. You will suffer the same as I if we both lack in Iron, Vitamin C, and the whole host of other nutrients. If the body and its defenses are compromised, we will suffer various food intolerances and sicknesses. (Gut health, skin, mouth, and nostril pathways) I can grow and eat Kale and you cannot. Do you actually think you were made that way, or do you think that your own immune system has been compromised?
            What is Gluten intolerance and how is it caused? Were the people who do not suffer this intolerance built with uncommon materials; what materials were uncommon? What you are describing to me – the walking sick, and the doctors struggling to keep them alive. Were we made that way? One extra beer makes you intolerant to all of the beer that was consumed and hopefully with the analogy I do not need to explain, what body inflammation is or cell toxicity; I am sure that you can figure that one out for yourself. I would say that if you can define the “true nature” of you, then the “true nature” of a plant will become obvious.

          • Damo

            Hey, I happen to like kale.

            But no, you won’t find that superfood in nature, either.

          • Peter Olins

            Cue the sound-track.

          • Peter Olins

            I’m not sure you can define what the “true nature” of a plant is. For example, wheat feeds much of the world, and is the result of a menage a trois of three ancient wild grasses, followed by countless subsequent breeding events. Do you think wheat is “true to nature”? Is 10,000 years long enough to wait for your fears to show up?

            Likewise, members of the brassica family are barely recognizable:
            https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5638f775dd08957b788b463e-750-867.png

          • Harold

            Explain what the “gold gun” is and does, what gene editing is and does, and how nature is doing the very same thing. One is a Man made event and the other is a nature’s event as is pictured. It goes to show you that nature does tremendously well on its own and does not need to rely upon the stupidity of the human mind for it to function. The functions of nature cannot be patented but human involvement can be, so I will ask you again; what does a gold gun and gene editing do other than to circumvent nature to create the intellectual ownership of nature?

          • Peter Olins

            Stone-age humans used lumps of natural rock. “Nature” created silicon, but the patents coming out of Silicon Valley are the product of human effort and ingenuity.

            If you can show us a valuable, high-yielding, crop plant that occurs spontaneously in “nature”, feel free to share it with the rest of the world.

          • Harold

            If you are up on the current NEWS, Silicon valley producers won’t even allow their own children the use of some silicon valley’s own products because they claim that it produces harmful psychological effects; does this have something to with ingenuity and the human effort? Apparently, they would rather that their kids play with the “Stone-age” rocks rather than the alternative, which is brain washing and social incompetence.
            Moreover, nature helps us create many things but it is not instructing us on how to destroy ourselves; that has been a manmade endeavor and we are undeniably doing exceeding well. One example among many are the plastics and they and their particles are now found in the remotest parts of the oceans and inside the fish and now plastic particles are found in our drinking water; is this an example “of human effort and ingenuity”? If so, then I wonder what the definition of human foolishness is. For what we know now, we would have never approved the sale of plastic drinking bottles or any disposable plastics in the first place. Blindness to this current problem is now our answer and our solution and we keep buying. Our “human effort and ingenuity” has come full circle.

            A Maple tree grew spontaneously and it produces our much loved maple syrup, which is naturally loaded with nutrients. I wonder what the alternative “Aunt” brand is as the industry progressive piece of human effort and ingenuity.

            Be that as it may, perhaps you should ask the farmers where their “high-yielding” crops are sitting and ask Canadians about the “high yielding” animal toilet, that feeding the world beef and pork has created, here in Canada; real human effort and ingenuity.
            Nonetheless, when you yourself can create “a high yielding crop plant”, why not tell us all about it then; until then, you are just an industry reporter and bystander is all.

          • richard

            algae, grasses, fungi (mushrooms), insects…..all spontaneous and all essential to higher lifeforms…. And all perfect in their inimitable state of evolution….which of course is why reductionist science is at war with all of them in its vain attempt to prove that “SCIENCE” rules…..

          • Denise

            Let’s not get off track, here. When a poison-coated and/or genetically-altered seed is designed to grow while everything around it is terminated, it might be wise to question this amazing DEfeat of nature..
            The corporate THEY say,”AH BUT it is safe for humans and animals to eat.”
            Hmm.. Reminds me of the fairy tale where the ugly, old witch held out a beautiful,shiny, red apple for the trusting, young girl to eat.
            Now what was the moral of that story?

      • obfuscate99

        …you really aren’t a student of history are you?

        Plant Patent Act (1930).

        First GMO Patented: 1980…by General Electric.

        First FDA Approved GE (for human Insulin): 1982

        You’re dates appear to be a bit off, as variety protection has been around for far, far longer than you appear to think.

        I guess we can add another topic that you have no meaningful education in to the list.

        • Harold

          People such as you in academia in a thousand years from now are going to find a toilet seat and think that it was worn around the neck as some symbol of authority and they will be history students as well. Were all things in history written? You certainly act as if the reading of history is the same act as living it. You could stand to tone down your pompous attitude and be just a little more humble. Your little history lesson does not include what was beyond the horizon or the entire panoramic view of those times whereby you can claim to be of any authority. Was the Plant patent act meaningful and you waving it around is something meaningful? For what end; a gold star placed upon your chest because someone took the time in the past to write something down for you and you read it. I guess you have earned your gold star. Let me slobber on the sticky part and place it upon you.

          The plant patent act was to set forth to capture and to own the plants of nature for the purposes of industry and profit. Is there any other reason for a patent? However, food is the necessity, which is basic to all human life, so therefore I do not give a damn who you think that you are, necessities for human life should never receive a patent and in doing so is corrupt and leads to further corruption. You have presented a document that has done just that and today the Industry expresses it.

          Moreover, food is not a TV set or anything of the nature whereby a patent can be justified. Because we enact a law is does not mean that the Law was ever justified. The Law is often times called an ASS for a very good reason. You do not need a history lesson to see where the law has become an ASS. You may need a history lesson if stroking the ASS has become your pleasure.

          Is it ok that Denise focuses more so on now-time and the correction than she does on the past and cancelled time or does she need to stroke the ASS as well for the feeling of now-time justification?

          • obfuscate99

            Actually the plant protection act was put into place to allow breeders to recoup the costs associated with developing a new variety.

            From first cross to release, the process currently takes about 10 years (varieties that can manage more than one generation per year take less).

            In addition to this, less than 1% of the progeny from the original cross will end up being viable options for cultivation. The reasons for this range from reduced yield to simple plant architecture, which is required for harvesting.

            Here’s the thing, no one is stopping farmers from starting their own breeding program. There are thousands of registered varieties that as off patent, as well as heritage varieties that can be used without restriction.

            Can you take a guess how many farmers elect to do this?

            A vanishingly small number.

            Most farmers do not want to carve out plots in their fields to maintain a breeding program. Getting the plants fromnl the initial cross to a near isogenic variety takes multiple generations, and the decision to include disease resistance also requires that the farmer willingly contaminate part of their land to test for individuals with sufficient resistance, who also meet the checks for yield.

            Oh, and of the farmer wants to develop a hybrid variety, every single year they have to make crosses between the two parents, while also maintaining the parental lines themselves.

            Care to try again? Perhaps after you examine just how complex variety development is.

          • Denise

            Sorry, I can’t buy your argument. Hybridization is not as difficult as you are trying to make it out to be. It’s not as difficult to develop as genetically modified seeds/plants. Not as costly and a lot safer,too.
            A farmer would not be undertaking the cross breeding of plants on his own, although he could and has done it, in the past. The breeders do it, like you say.
            With GMO technology, I can see how difficult it is ,narrowing the hunt, to find the genes you want and editing them. It is a hugely expensive endeavor on many fronts.
            Other than finding a way to make those genetically altered plants resistant to chemical pesticides ,what else have they really accomplished to withstand the test of time and Mother Nature?
            It’s boiling down to making the chemical pesticides stronger and using more product to control the weeds. Gylphosate and 2,4-D combined (Enlist Duo) Wow! Great achievement! Boy, those GMO plants can sure tolerate a lot of poisons, but can we?
            Many wonderful traits, like drought-resistance, can and have been transferred by creating hybrids.
            Also, there are fewer risks of uncontrollable “unintended consequences” occurring, such as Superweeds, and the myriad of other environmental problems caused from using too much chemical/pesticide and pesticide-resistant GMO seeds/plants.

          • obfuscate99

            Well thank you for showing that you have no applicable knowledge of plant breeding or seed production.

            I never said hybridization was difficult, I wrote that generating hybrid varieties were. You are conflating a general term, with a much more specialized products.

            Modern hybrid varieties are development to make use of the hybrid vigor effect. By crossing two genetically distinct (and divergent) parents, the seed from these crosses will exhibit hybrid vigor as the minor genetic differences in the hybrid lead to increased yield (that’s the big trait, there are many smaller changes that can occur).

            These crossed must be made every hear, as the seed harvested from the hybrids themselves will not possess the hybrid vigor effect, and in fact will begin to segregate in the normal Mendelian manner (for diploid species 1:2:1). The critical thing is that, those parental lines MUST be maintained in as isogenic lines. This means that the breeder has to ensure that there is zero cross pollination that occurs between the parental lines and any other variety or line. Failure to do this will almost certainly result in the loss of the hybrid vigor, and with it the major advantage for the line.

            So just to recap. Every Single Year the farmer has to maintain:

            A) The genetic purity of the parental lines
            B) Carefully cross the parental lines enough times to ensure the production of enough seed for the next growing season.

            If, at any point, the farmer fails at B) next years crop is effectively dead. They can plant, but the hybrid effect will be lost, and the plants will lose much of their uniformity, with impacts on days to maturity, overall yield, differences in vegetative vs reproductive growth, and any expected disease resistance is literally a crap shoot.

            If they at any point they lose track of A) the entire line is dead. end of story, start from scratch. All over again.

            Do you know how quickly I can sequence something like corn today? Actually, any species for which there is a good reference sequence?

            – DNA extractions and library prep: 1 Day, with QA/QC on day two just before

            – Sequenc generation to a depth of about 30X (can be as low as 5X, but i always like to have more than is required for extra certainty of the individual base calls): 60 hours.

            – Reference assembly: 6 hours

            – Annotation and variant calling: 2-3 days.

            Cost: About $2,400 in reagents, and if the bioinformatics is done in house…that’s pretty much it.

            This is why GE has become easy, predictable, and highly repeatable.

            Now, an appeal to nature is not the tact to use against a scientist. I don’t dive a rats posterior about some romanticize or anthropomorphize version of “Mother Nature”, and the development of herbicide resistant varieties has enabled a massive reduction in far more ecologically damaging agronomic techniques.

            What do you think has the bigger negative impact. Applying phosphorylate at the recommended levels per-emergance, or having to go through and flame weed (organic loves this one)?

            How about stretching black plastic over the soil so that the ground heats up enough to kill off any weeds…and also wipes out most of the rhizosphere?

            I know, how about having to plow after each season, rather than allow the root systems of the previous years crop help to minimize soil erosion?

            Finally, when we perform broad hybridization (which is usually the case when bringing in things like drought resistance, and many time disease resistance). Do you have any idea how difficult this can be?

            I am not kidding with this. When researchers first started trying to get things like CBB, drought, and salt resistance in to crops like P. vulgaris (dry bean), it took embryo rescue, months of tissue culture before finally trying to back cross it to a registered vulgaris variety.

            Oh, and the only reason why they were able to do even that was because of one uggggly plant, ICA Pijao. Without this line the original crosses wouldn’t have even been possible.

            This is the stuff that people on the outside don’t see. This is why variety development has shifted to specialized companies and organizations.

            It is hard, complex, prone to failure, and even after the line is developed, it has to be maintained.

            Please don’t try to minimize this. There’s a very good reason why farmers were quite happy to move away from this.

          • Denise

            Isn’t it interesting that for all the trouble it is to create hybrid seeds, Monsanto and friends do just that!
            They create and sell hybrid seeds spliced with the genes from Bt (Bacillus thuringgiensis) bacteria.
            And guess what? It is registered as a pesticide,not seed, by the EPA.
            Guess what? EVERY year the farmers have to buy a new batch of “pesticide”seed from the agri-chemical corps, like Monsanto/Bayer.
            EVERY year ,whether it’s needed or not, the soil is treated with a hit of poison (Bt seed) which is systemic and migrates into waterways.
            This ‘pesticide seed’ is helping with the evolution of Superweeds and the disappearance of our beneficial insects.
            GMOs are unknowns and the methods used to determine their safety hasn’t changed since the 1980s.
            The herbicide resistance feature in the GMO plants are failing ,too,which is evidenced by more and stronger amounts of glyphosate+2,4-D combo and dicamba needed to kill the weeds.
            Those GMO plants can SURE withstand a lot of poison.
            But, I’m not so sure that people and animals can, until we are genetically altered or evolve, like the superweeds, into Superbeings!

          • obfuscate99

            So once again, broad sweeping statements…and also inaccurate ones to boot.

            Let’s start with your seed registered as a pesticide claim. I’m going to guess that you never bothered to read this:

            Anderson, et al. v. EPA (2016)

            It was the activists that wanted the seed classification, but the courts rightly struck that down. In fact, during the trial, the EPA quite succinctly was able to dismiss the case, as they had already approved the Cry protein, the plaintiffs were effectively asking the EPA to regulate the product twice.

            Tisk, tisk, tisk, farmer are no forced to buy seed from Monsanto, Pioneer, Batyer, Syngenta, really any company. There are literally thousands of lines that are no longer under variety protector, and they can use those to your heart’s content.

            In fact, you might want to take a look at any of the seed catalogues out there.

            Guess what? The farmers overwhelmingly choose to plant the GE varieties. The increase in seed cost is more than offset by the actualized yield.

            You keep on tossing the word poison around, but that’s only true when the dose reaches the NOAEL limit. As the ADI are generally set far, far below the NOAEL, there is a huge buffer before any cytotoxic effects occur.

            Never forget, it’s the dose that makes the poison. Quite literally everything will cause harm, and even kill. A few examples:

            1. Water: Drinking too much can cause water intoxication…plus try breathing water and see how that works out. (Note: do not do this)

            2. Oxygen: For something so key to life on our world, oxygen has some very interesting properties. One of these is the fact that, once the partial pressure of oxygen >1.6 it begins to act as a broad spectrum toxin, with the heart, lungs, and eyes. Think it’s hard to reach this level? Just going 6m underwater will put you into the danger zone.

            Do you know what is the most effective method for dealing with herbicide resistant weeds?

            Switch the herbicide, and ensure that you are not using the same one that was used in the previous planting. Of course, another option is to pyramid herbicides, in order to target individuals that may have developed resistance to one of the compounds in the mix.

            Now, in regards to your additional fearmongering when dealing with the CRY proteins making their way to water. Do you have a stomach with a basic pH? Do you have the receptor protein needed for Cry1A interaction?

            As is normally the case, effects on aquatic life only happen at much higher concentrations.

            I had to laugh at your comment about genetic engineering in general, and your assertion that the methods haven’t changed from the 1980’s.

            Both the techniques, as well as the tox screens have most certainly been modified over he years. Heck, even the OECD 451-453 studies saw major revisions in the 90’s, and currently, they are once again being examined.

            Add in the rapid advancement of sequencing technology, we can within a matter of days know exactly where the transgenes landed…if they used a transgene at all. In silico analysis of the wild-type and transgenic lines can be taken down to the single nucleotide scale. Also, by leveraging some of the value added properties for the next generation sequencer, in addition to getting the raw sequence data, you can also use the reaction kinetics to determine the degree of cytosine methylation, which contributes to epigenetic regulation of the genes in that region.

            Do we know everything? Thankfully no, as I quite enjoy my position when provides endless questions to be answered.

            In the absence of a causative relationship, your fears, are not based on the data, more on ideology.

            Now onto the glyphosate, 2,4-D mix, you do know that these two herbicides are in entirely different classes, right? Glyphosate is a class 9 herbicide, while 2,4-D is a class 4.

            Also, do you know much about 2,4-D…actually any auxin analogue.

            What kind of plant is it utterly ineffective against? As a hint, it’s a huge group, and one that we have been cultivating for millennia, under different species.

            Have fun!

          • obfuscate99

            Well my original reply is in Limbo, but just one tiny detail that you’re overlooking.

            It’s blatantly obvious why Monsanto, and all of the other companies and institutions that work to develop new varieties, hybrid lines included.

            It’s called having a $1.6 billion dollar research budget (2017 figure), core facilities and test plots all over the world, as well as the research staff to manage dozens of independent variety development goals.

            What I wrote earlier is absolutely correct, and unlike a local farmer, they have no qualms about sacrificing land to maintain these isogenic parents…even going to far as to only grow one of the parents at any given site, thus minimizing the chance for contamination.

            That’s not an option for most farmers, so for them buying the seed is the most economical way for them to work.

            Now are you going to toss some more faulty information into the ring, or are you capable of learning from your mistakes?

          • Harold

            You have described exactly what a patent does. If you do not have a patent – you do not have a controlling interest. A controlling interest is a capture – it is not a release. The release occurs after the patent has expired. If you do not have a patent – you do not have a controlling interest. Let us review what I said shall we?

            “The plant patent act was to set forth to capture and to own the plants of nature for the purposes of industry and profit”.

            Lets review what you said shall we?

            “Actually the plant protection act was put into place to allow breeders to recoup the costs associated with developing a new variety”.

            “From first cross to release, the process currently takes about 10 years” (varieties that can manage more than one generation per year take less).

            Does it occur to you that you were saying the very same thing? Do I really need “to try again”?

            What a farmer decides to produce on their farm is determined by the individual farmer and their best judgment and best promise of a return; I can see by Data what a farmer is doing but I cannot verify what the farmer would rather be doing. I hear the Farmers complaints when the markets become saturated but I cannot verify what they each thought that they should have or could have produced instead. I hear the farmer’s complaints when they try to sell their produce and they are under-cut and not awarded full compensation.
            Meanwhile I am sure that you will tell me what most farmers do as though their world is just fine. When a farmer changes their mind, your mind is changed thereafter so you are not the keeper of your own opinion.

            My comment was about Humanity vs. Industry yet you did not see the picture. Got anything helpful on the Humanitarian side, or do you not have that side within you nor the education. Are they interconnected or are they separate issues? Does one affect the other? Each will suffer regardless so which side suffers the most? Some parts of the world go hungry and something’s are patented, but the corporation does not hunger nor do they thirst. It is interesting that you only focused upon Industry. What is science for and why do you do what you do? Humanity is the reason for science but science has been lost to the Industry. Clearly, you have displayed the loss by not picking up on humanity.

            If you want to talk about plant science, let us start at the top. Let us talk about energy and its force of attraction. Oh, that is right – nobody knows anything about that. Let us talk about the human energy and its force of attraction. Oh yah, nobody knows anything about that either. I guess that makes us all very smart. Perhaps we should examine just how complex energy is, when without it, nothing of variety is developed – not even you. Are you smart enough to know what knowledge is behind my prior statements, because I think not. You are probably too busy staring at my deliberate and dumbed down speech. I do know the difference between a science symposium and a comment section of a local newspaper and I write accordingly. I enjoyed your statement about the complex because the complex is something that not even you understand.
            Nonetheless, there is not a thing that you know – or can do – that was not forwarded or passed to you by others present or past whereby you can boast. You are not an Island unto yourself and the opinions of others are telling you just that. Furthermore, I share my opinions and that is all. I am not your student nor are you my teacher or director. Take your lapel pin off; you will find that your speech has not changed but perhaps your attitude toward others will.

          • Denise

            In times like these, the history of patents isn’t all that relevant. It’s just some distraction talk. 1980 is recent and the historians are still waiting to find out how this chapter in history will be written.. Hopefully the good guys win or we’re all screwed.
            Thanks Harold, for bringing the focus back on what matters, the here and now of the situation.
            I have been distracted by what is going on in Manitoba.
            The Manitoba PC provincial government has been working diligently to take away Manitobans’ democratic rights on several fronts. Who will benefit from this? The hog industry.( Bill 19 )
            I hope the Western Producer will tell it’s readers the ‘inconvenient truth’ about this government’s and corporate hog industry’s attempt to over take the province and trample on people’s rights
            It’s worst than anybody knows, outside the province of Manitoba.

          • Denise,

            I would argue that the WP’s coverage of the livestock industry (including hogs in Manitoba) in western Canada is comprehensive. Of course, I recognize I might be biased.

            You are always welcome to pen a “letter to the editor” or, if you so choose, a longer “op ed” piece for publication in the WP on any subject you feel would be of interest to our readers.

            Letters to the editor can be sent to newsroom@producer.com, but if your preference is to craft a longer op ed I would suggest you talk to our editor, Brian MacLeod, first.

            You can reach Brian vie email at brian.macleod@producer.com, or by his direct phone line at 306-665-3537.

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Denise

            I think a ‘letter to the editor” will suffice. Thanks!
            Will it appear in the WP printed publication, too?

          • Indeed they do!

            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Denise

            Hi Paul,
            Hope you can find some time to check out what is happening in the Killarney-Turtle Mountain Municipality
            with regards to HyLife hog industry’s expansion plan.
            HyLife wants 4 new hog barn sites,to be built, between the US border and the town of Killarney.
            A total of 50,000 more hogs are slated for that area, if their plan is approved.
            Rural residents are opposing the plan. There are already many hog barns in the area.
            Neighbours are concerned about family health, quality of life, property values, and the draining and polluting of aquifers etc.No escape from the toxic factory hog odours when they are surrounded by hog barns, on all sides.
            Their democractic rights are under seige.
            The Killarney Guide posted many of their letters and there is a front page article on the developing story ,too.

          • Denise

            Why was My comment listed as spam?

          • As far as I can tell, Denise, all your comments have been approved. I’m not sure why your comment may have been considered spam by the Disqus system.
            Cheers,
            Paul – WP web editor

          • Denise

            Thanks, Paul. I appreciate your quick response.

          • Harold

            Denise, I have to disagree with you. Patents are relevant until they expire. Until patents expire, they carry with them full nature and cause and are enforceable. In India, which is a sovereign Nation/Country, they can make up their own Laws, which have cause force and effect, which can make any patent unenforceable within their own country. What is bad about law and how law becomes an ass is the stupidity of allowing the first patent law, because it gives legitimacy to every patent thereafter. The plants of nature should never have received a patent and industry be damned.

            In reference to bill 19, bill 19 is an offer to the public of a governmental proposed enactment. As I have said to you before – silence is acceptance and in silence, a bill is made law.
            What is silence? Silence is – no contrary evidence proving that there was in majority a disapproval to bill ###, when it was lawfully presented and offered.
            What people continuously fail to recognize is that undeniable evidence is the signatures of the land/property owners in majority accounted and that evidence is placed upon what is called a petition with an order withdrawing their consent and it is then given to the government and it is recorded. Running wild in town hall meetings, roaming, and parading in the streets in protest, is not the gathering of undeniable evidence of a majority, and the people will fail and they continuously do. You cannot have a public servant – if the public in majority will not give a written order to that servant – for an undertaking on the public’s behalf.
            In a democracy, the will of the majority is done, and there has to correspond with it undeniable proof that it is in fact the will of the majority. The order is: the withdraw of your consent; to bill 19.
            Silence is agreement, and thereafter the law is enacted, but unknowingly, activists are creating their own silence while thinking that they are doing otherwise. The Queens Loyal Opposition is your voice but your voice must be undeniably that of the majority. If you live in a small town, you cannot have the government work for you at any level unless you can prove that the local authority has ignored your majority and lawful order; petition.
            The only purpose of town halls and street performances is to gather public awareness to the petition so that the public may find it, sign it, and be of one voice of majority. If this does not happen, you are then the minority, you are silent, and the Bill is passed into Law. The public continuously fail and yet they always follow the exact same recipe of failure yet expecting a different result; the result is the same; they are never heard by government. The public does not know how to be heard and were never taught how to be heard owing to our failing education system but that does not mean that there isn’t a way.

          • Denise

            I don’t disagree that patents are very relevant!
            What I meant to say and I think I said it ,fairly clearly, in my post to Warren Lauzon, was that patents were not an big issue or “problem” until Monsanto and their ilk
            got their hands on GMO seed biotechnology and realized they could patent this new pesticide -resistant GMO seed and use it to dominate seed sales. They did a fine job of convincing the farmers that this would make their lives easier and that this was the next big step in “modern farming practices”.

            You are right about how democracy slips away. Manitobans need to wake up, right now! When good people fail to speak up, bad things happen. Bad things are happening in Manitoba.
            There’s a lot of hand wringing going on, in the rural areas, but only a small group of Manitobans are carrying the heavy load of taking action and trying to prevent the removal of rural residents’democratic rights, by the Brian Pallister’s PC government.
            The PC government calls it “loosening the red tape” (Bill19) to enable the hog industry ,which is dominated by Hylife and Maple Leaf Foods, to expand and build ‘more than’ two hundred and fifty new hog barns, mostly in southern Manitoba and slaughter more hogs.
            They want to reduce the conditions in place, for building barns and the path for rural residents’ to oppose the construction of these barns, near them.
            In other words, they are planning to take away neighbours and communities’ democratic rights with Bill19.
            The hog industry wants the important regulations to be relaxed, such as distance of new hog barns from neighbours, proper lagoon covers , hog slurry treatment and spreading amounts and times, controls on toxic hydrogen sulfide,methane, ammonia etc.( they want to continue polluting air and water) and standard fire codes and regulations. They are such a bother and expense.
            The Pallister government is accommodating them.

            The residents of the city of Winnipeg (1 million plus)do not care all that much about what goes on in rural Manitoba. It really doesn’t affect them that much, they think!
            They do care about Lake Winnipeg, however, which is dying from pollution. Winnipeggers love their beaches. That might activate them!
            It’s a bad situation.

          • Harold

            Anytime a basic which supports human life is patented, Monsanto or not, it is wrong. GMO seed was the capturing of the natural plant, and thereafter the seeds are intellectually owned and from there was the capture of the pesticide and its use. All of it is wrong when it comes to the necessity’s that support human life. A TV set does not support human life and therefore a patent is justifiable. Monsanto has said (deceived) that there is no difference between a natural plant and a GMO plant so therefore if true, a patent should never have been granted. You may have said what you said in clarity, but I could not agree.

            Regarding Bill 19, they (government and corporation) are simply seeking to gain jurisdiction over you and to do so a law must be created. Without a law, there is no jurisdiction over you.
            I do not believe that there are people who do not care. There are people, who are kept unaware by media and the like, and therefore they cannot care and there are those who do care but think that nothing can be done. How many people say that – it is government so what can you do, and they throw their hands up in the air in defeat? They continuously see activists fail right in front of them using the same old methods that are proven to not work and therefore they stay at home and they do not arrive.

            You do not have to put on any petition a reason such as you have described. You only place upon a petition the withdraw of your consent to the bill 19 and signatures of the majority in one voice; We the undersigned do not consent to bill 19 – is as simple as anything can get. (You need proper legal wording) People do not know the simplicity and therefore they do not know their own power. Because it is so, the government and the corporate will gain the jurisdiction and the people will fail. You do not at anytime need to give the government a rational reason or an explanation or an argument for your withdraw of your consent; they are your servant and not your master. So how many people do you think fully understand this? How many people understand the power of property and the power of their signature? A petition is property and signature, and it will represent a minority or a majority voice when completed. A majority voice is needed and if you do not have it, you have to abandon and accept the will of the majority. That is why the majority is kept in the dark by the media; it favors the corporation and the government and they both feed the media money and news. There are people who care; they just do not know what to do. It is very easy to say that people need to “wake up”, but “wake up to what exactly? Before anything, they first need to know about their power of property ownership and signature and thereafter after the rest will follow. From that, they will understand a majority voice and in power be encouraged to be included. They have to know of their own power first before they can deal with any issue. .

          • Denise

            Thanks Harold

          • Harold

            Please remember that a Petition has no age limit. Any person who can write their own name, address, and provide a signature (on their own) is eligible to sign a petition. There are times when Families forget to include all members of their family when they go to sign a petition. In other words, if your 8 year old can write their name, address, and provide a signature without assistance, (assistance is committing a fraud) your 8 year old is eligible to sign a petition. A child does not need to understand the issue, the child only needs to trust the parent’s direction and most do, and the child is a citizen and lives jointly on that property.

            It would seem to me that you need municipal and county support (Petition – signed in majority) before you approach the Province and the ministry. Do the small step first, starting with the hardest – the municipality. After that, you may gain support from the provincial public when they learn that the County and Municipality have been ignored by the government.
            It is secondary and less meaningful but a politician and political party always has the fear of losing their job in the next election especially when you have undeniable evidence in your hand. At that time, your movements may become a little easier.

            Just so you know, the word petition means: [ a formal written request to a court for an order of the court. It is distinguished from a complaint in a lawsuit which asks for damages and/or performance by the opposing party] It means exactly the same when you are handing it into the government. The government is the court and the court is the government. The court is a leg of government. The government are law makers.
            Can you see the difference between – a street performance, media, public meetings vs a petition signed in majority?

          • Denise

            Thank you for more of your valuable information. I have passed it along, just in time!

          • Harold

            Do you now know what to write in you Media letters? people Power, a Web site, [ that comes with complete subject matter, fact and evidence content including volunteer participation and news generating remedies and instruments creating public awareness and a downloadable written Petition, with time period, and petition gathering sites] The last act is to hand the order to the legislature.

            You may need sympathetic Corporate and Business help to fund your handouts – which informs Citizens of their power and leads the public to your Web site. The only sign you should posses or demonstrate with is one with a web site in bold print. Furthermore, standing in front of any Corporation/Store front related to the Hog industry is a waste of time and effort, is a fool’s errand, and should be discouraged.

            Standing in front of your MP and MLA’s local street office (the law maker and breaker) is an Ideal place to gain awareness. You are not there to talk to the MP/MLA, or to educate them, and attendee’s back are toward the storefront. If the MP/MLA comes outside, you do not turn around, the MP/MLA talks to you from road side. (Symbolic) The best spokesman is the only one to speak while the rest remain completely silent. (Representation to media the same in likeness. web site, web site, web site) There is only one thing to say to the MP/MLA; “we do not consent to Bill 19, now have a good day”. You have just given your MP/MLA your notice to an order. (Petition) Very simple, you are the knowledgeable, and the MP and MLA they are not, otherwise you would not be there; Public and public servant in one place.

            The most important thing is that everyone in the public’s view is calm, happy but sincere, and peaceful, and well dressed, and I cannot stress this loudly enough. These instructions have to be included in this web site for volunteers and gathering places. You do not have to display any anger at any time, your petition is your anger and a piece of paper is never angry but it will get the work done. There is no power in anger – it gains you the very opposite. No one who is peaceful wants to join an angry crowd. Peaceful and well dressed – they will – and that group will be noticed and respected and people will listen.

            Door to door works if you have a Web site pamphlet in hand along with a few words to encourage a visit to the web site. Your web site could include the words of encouragement that the people will respond to and this could be of benefit to your volunteers. Sometimes, just a single misplaced word or a sentence uttered can lose the listeners interest. Another concern is the volunteer saying too much. The listener will believe they are informed, and thereafter, will not visit the Web site at all and will remain less informed and less motivated; you have then wasted your time and effort and you have lost a potential volunteer or other contributing help.
            I have never yet seen a well crafted web site of a petition, and in this age, it is your most important tool. Your web site should also call for volunteer web site contributors such as planners, Lawyers, and the like because often times they are out there but believe that they are not needed unless there has been a request. A politician may help you but provided their actions do not go against their sworn oath to the Queen and her Corporation. However, the Politician who will help in some way will be a member of the Queens Loyal Opposition, which is the instrument of your voice to the government currently in power.

            A petition can also be used to repeal any current Law that is now offending the public. No Canadian has to wait for the promises of their Government or wait for any Election to have a Law repealed. It is Your Constitutional Right to repeal any Law, Act, Code, or Regulation, that offends the public majority and all that needs to done is to prove the majority’s will; the petition – order to perform. You need to find the law hindering you and tell the public why it is beneficial for them to repeal it and then you set forth an order of majority; very simple with today’s technology.

            Will I find any of this valuable information on your petition web site? If it were explained, how would the visitors to your site respond? Will they keep saying afterwards – it is Government, so nothing can be done? The utterance is not about our intelligence – it is about our lack of knowledge – the failed duty of our so called highly honored but failing government run, and controlled, education system.
            The Canadian Constitution -is the Supreme Law of Canada – and it gives to all Canadians all of their Rights – period.
            A Bill, and all Bills for that matter, take away the public’s Rights and gives those Rights, that you previously owned and enjoyed, to the government and the corporation and then they now own them – and they charge you a fee or a Tax for that service – period. That is exactly what Bills, Acts, Codes, Regulations, do and what Government does. The Government has no other function.
            The Government is not your friend, as you already know, and never are, no matter how the politician is smiling and is baiting you. That is precisely why they (Politicians) are public servants and you/public are the Master; you are the one with the money and conscience between right and wrong.
            To get any of your Rights restored, you repeal the Act, Bill, Code, Regulation, with a lawful order called the petition and you can do this at anytime without any delay – Period; A majority – consent – to – repeal.

            Why the government and corporations have a vested interest in keeping the public confounded and confused is to prevent any public majority interference. The confusion is the reason that petitions are deemed irrelevant by the public and are overlooked and the reason that public displays are of no benefit.

          • Denise

            I don’t think I can mention,here, the name of the group that is working on behalf of all Manitobans to repeal Bill 19 and try to prevent the Province from being overrun by 2 corporations’ hog operations, with the assistance of the Manitoba provincial government.
            Fortunately, this group has been through a similar situation and learned “the hard way” that every “i” must be dotted and every “t” crossed in the wording of the petition.
            Maybe this time, I hope, the people will not be caught off guard and be able to put forth a united front.
            In the Killarney/Turtle Mountain Municipality, a handout explaining what Bill 19 is all about has been put in people’s mailboxes. Almost nobody had heard about the bill or had a clue what it was in it.
            As of Saturday, the petiton is available online for people to stop Bill 19.
            As well,a local rural farmer is circulating his own petition to stop the hog barn expansion.
            Many’letters to the editor’ have been written and published in The Killarney Guide, expressing concerns and oppositon to hog barn expansion,planned for south of Killarney.
            There two battles going on:
            1. Province wide – Stop Bill 19 ( a bill which would make it very difficult ,if not next to impossible, for rural residents and ‘ local councils’ to oppose the hog expansion. The provincial government wants to remove Conditional Use Hearings from rural communities.
            2. Locally- To stop the expansion of 4 new factory hog Sites (I believe that means approx. 70,000 more hogs ) in a small area south of Killarney . The community in and around Killarney/Turtle Mountain R.M. are saying: “Enough, already.”
            The Manitoba Dept. of Agriculture would like 285 more new barns, in the province, “to ensure an adequate supply of hogs for Maple Leaf and HyLife slaughter facilities.
            “The Dept of Agriculture sees “public conflict”,”public pressure “plus locally controlled conditional use approval processes in the way of “growth of the industry.”
            A great suggestion: to stand in front of the MP/MLA ‘s office to gain awareness. I’ll pass that idea along.
            Thank you for your input, Harold

          • Denise

            Thanks ,Harold. My comments back to you were detected as spam. For what reason ,I don’t know?

          • Denise

            Thank you for your advice, Harold.
            You are absolutely right about how we must proceed in order to have this disgusting bill (Bill 19) withdrawn.
            I can tell you have had some first hand experience with this kind of issue.

      • RobertWager

        So the fact seeds have been patented since the 1930’s and include certified organic seeds means what to your argument. This ruling, if not overturned by a higher court, will mean agricultural innovation will leave India and the country will suffer bigtime for it.

    • Harold

      Why do you view the people of India so stupid and the rest of us so smart? Do you believe that India doesn’t have Universities and technology? India has been involved in science and technology long before Canada or the United states existed and in 1986 a separate department was created under the Ministry of Science and Technology to place more of a specialized focus on each. Perhaps you should stop watching media programming and their narrow lens scope and dig a little deeper into India yourself.

      Monsanto is not selling seeds and then walking away: he is selling seeds and ownership of those seeds which means that after the purchase Monsanto still owns the seed. In other words, if you buy the Car, lock, stock, and barrel, the dealership still owns the car; intellectual ownership (dealer) along with your physical ownership (farmer) all gained from using the farmer’s own savings and money. It’s a good scam, and all you have to do is force it down someone’s throat. Apparently, India is not that stupid after all.
      Speaking of stupid, did you catch Trudeau’s behavior while in India? Yes, we truly sent India our best. About one week later, was there any controversy during or after the President of France visited India? Prime Minister Narendra Modi met President Emmanuel Macron at the Airport while previously Modi had totally ignored Trudeau’s arrival, which further Illustrates that India is not stupid. Modi knows the difference between a jet-setting holiday seeker and somebody who is actually arriving there to do some real business. Modi had better things to do than to be Trudeau’s selfie-taking and sight-seeing Tour Guide which is why Trudeau was met on the Airport tarmac by India’s most Junior Minister. Modi meeting Trudeau at the airport as Trudeau’s official holiday Tour Guide would have been an act of Modi insulting himself. Mr. Trudeau still has a lot to learn about ethics and business and he himself should only be a junior politician until he learns them.
      None of what happened in India is unusual and in fact it is understood and is ordinary but thereafter our Liberals and media are lying to Canadians about Trudeau’s true intent which was really a taxpayer funded Liberal vote-seeking scam and a family holiday all in one, clouded and labeled a business trip.
      So why are we so smart and India so stupid when we cannot even ourselves manage our own affairs?

      • Warren Lauzon

        India wants Bt cotton. Where are they going to get the seeds? Nobody in India will do the research because of the patent laws.

        • alex

          Yea see those opposed to the use of molecular genetics being used to breed crops obviously don’t grasp reality all that well

        • Denise

          That’s a fairy tale. Indian farmers don’t want it.

        • Denise

          That’s a fairy tale. Indian farmers do not want Bt cotton seed.

          • Peter Olins

            Why do you claim they “do not want Bt cotton seed” when roughly 90% do? Where are you getting your information from? (Seriously, do you just make stuff up?)

            https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/204820/2/09-Deepak%20Shah.pdf

          • alex

            So is that why it’s used by the overwhelming majority of farmers and why they ignored the governments attempts to ban bt cotton and why they smuggled in bt cotton to force its deregulation

          • Warren Lauzon

            Then why were 90% of them using it?

        • India definitely has the capacity to make their own Bt crops. The patents might be expired or expire soon. The problem is non functional approval system.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Seed companies make money by selling seeds with specific traits. If companies selling seeds with those traits can no longer charge a premium for those seeds, nobody will develop them. India seems incapable of doing that.

        • Harold

          What person – is India – that you can make such a broad statement, as “India wants Bt cotton”? What do you know about – “nobody in India”? Is India what Monsanto says it is and Monsanto is India? Where do you get your inside knowledge of what the Indian government is doing or what the Indian researchers have discovered?
          It is easy to dismiss the talking points that you disagree with and it is just as easy to find support when doing so. Without Monsanto, the entire globe is doomed; isn’t it? All science supports “him” meaning that there is no other science to be had; it is a nice fairy tale and it might make for a good Hollywood science fiction movie – the world according to Monsanto and their team of scientists. The Article spells out, right in front of you, what Monsanto’s true intent is – and it is not freedom.
          Further to the Article, there are many Bt cotton user testimonies that you have totally ignored in order to favor your support of the Monsanto Corporation. Are you one of India’s Bt cotton farmers and therefore you are enabled to go head to head with India’s government or are you one who simply gathers the Monsanto press releases and NEWS?

          Moreover, this Article had nothing to do with India and their abilities to do scientific research – it was about India reducing Monsanto’s punitive royalties by more than 70 percent. That 70% was causing harm to India’s farmers and to the Indian economy. It was all about THE MONEY and not about Bt cotton or the seeds or science. Who benefits from a 70% reduction in Bt seed Royalty payments if it is not 90% of India’s farmers and India’s economy? Clearly India have decided not to be taken for ransom by Monsanto the seed salesmen.

          The cost to a society is the other side of the scale, when it comes to weighing the industry profits, whereby the proper balance is justified. When debt becomes greater than profit, you are forced to abandon what it is that you are doing; It is all about the MONEY.

          • Warren Lauzon

            If Monsanto’s fees were too high, why did so many Indian farmers buy the seeds? They were not forced to – they could have easily used the cheaper conventional seeds.

          • Harold

            When do you find out that you have been “had”; before, or during the purchase, or after you have used what you have purchased? Is this rocket science?

          • Jason

            So 90+% of Indian farmers were fooled and continue to be fooled decades later?

            Ok… that sounds legit. 🙄

          • Harold

            What does 90% of the farmers have to do with a 70% reduction of Monsanto’s royalty payments? Do they benefit (90%) in profit and thereafter so does the Indian economy; what can be more plain in your face than this? Are the Farmers and Indian government fooled? How long have Canadians been fooled by our past and present finance ministers and governments; DECADES? Are Canadians legit? Will Monsanto make us more legit? …

          • Jason

            Your contention is that farmers were fooled into using GM crops. My point was that seem VERY unlikely that almost the entire country’s farming population were all fooled and continue to be fooled year after year decades later.

            Were the products of no value, the Indian govt wouldn’t need to kill Monsanto’s royalty because there would be no demand for their products, brainiac.

            So… to answer your question, Do they (Indian farmers) benefit in the profit. Yes…of course they do. Farm profits in India have been rising since GM crop introduction. That is the very ready that Bt cotton still holds an overwhelming majority of Indian cotton acres. To borrow a phrase, “what can be more plain in your face than this?”

            How long have Canadians been fooled? Since someone fooled them into believing them Hockey was a real sport.

          • Harold

            My overall contention was not your narrow focus of what you think it is and your suggestion of hockey shows exactly how narrow and meaningless your scope truly is.

          • Warren Lauzon

            If they only bought the seeds once you might have a valid argument. But they continued to buy the seeds year after year.

          • Damo

            They bought the seeds before they were even available. The black market was bringing seed into the country. It was so popular, that many people began selling counterfeit seed, which is what led to the approval to begin with.

            The whole Indian farmers are committing suicide because the seeds don’t work is just a scam to sell Shiva to western rich busybodies.

          • Harold

            You forgot the part about the farmer losing all of the family’s livelihood through the investment and the associated and accumulative debt related to the Bt scam which was the contributing cause to the farmers own suicide. When they believe that they are no longer a contributor to the family or are a burden to the family and harm, they commit suicide, because there is nowhere else to run. Unlike Canada, they do not have the taxpayer funded “dole out system” and safety nets and the interventions that we have.
            Furthermore, it is not necessarily that the seeds did not work; it was more so that the accumulating debt associated to them did not work. It may very well be that India’s move to lower Monsanto’s royalties is also an anti-suicide bid, but that is something that you would not be proud of to announce to the world media and it would be kept in silence.
            On the other hand, there is also a conspiracy theory that Monsanto was involved in that black market or was the black market. it’s only a theory, but if someone wanted to undermine a sitting government to gain a future approval, the black market is certainly one way to do it; you get the people to approve through the black market and eventually the hand of government is forced by the will of the people; a conspiracy theory.
            Another conspiracy theory is that the “black market” here in Canada, is responsible for forcing the Canadian government to change the Marijuana Laws; this is only a conspiracy theory as well, because there was no “black market” selling marijuana, in private, to gain the public’s approval; was there? It is just another conspiracy theory. However, since the Canadian legalization enactment, look at all of the marijuana Royalties that its users are now paying to the Canadian government. Who does the Canadian government think that they are; Monsanto?

          • Damo

            Except that happens to some percentage of all farmers. GE doesn’t really play a role I farmers over-mortgaging themselves. It happens here I the US, too.

            Indians are adopting it at far higher rates than the suicide rate. Oh, the rise in suicide also began before the approval of the seed.

            The sad thing is, I don’t really care about Monsanto’s profits, but I feel like I need to keep defending a company I don’t care about because people like you keep intentionally confusing the lies about Monsanto with the lies about GE in general.

          • Harold

            You say that you REALLY do not care, but knowing what NOT CARING actually looks like – you are displaying the exact opposite. Sad indeed; you say that you are not – but in action, you are. It looks like the old saying – “you will know them by their actions”, (and not words) rings true. Thanks for verifying the very old and time honored adage.

            Nonetheless, as my previous comment had already covered the obvious you need not have provided more of the obvious; I do live in Canada as well, and I am not a stranger to what happens here.

            Be that as it may, Monsanto and the GE and GMO industry can defend themselves and they do it exceeding well without your help. I see their Data and their reports just as all people can do and there is a mountain of it and more convincing than you could ever be. The trouble is, I do not stop there, – I begin there.

            It is an interesting perspective that you have: “…people like you keep intentionally confusing the lies about Monsanto with the lies about GE in general”. Are you saying that there are real lies that are being confused? Your statement sure confused me.

            So in depth, what is a lie exactly; do you know, or is it a word that you casually just throw around when you disagree with someone’s point of view? What is a lie exactly and in depth please?

          • Damo

            Yes, there are real lies about Monsanto. You already provided many of them. There are also real lies about GMO, like they aren’t safe. So, yes, you decide to intentionally confuse people by suggesting that the lies about Monsanto hold true for all companies that make GMOs and vice versa.

            Thanks for providing an example of true dishonesty with your actions.

            Also, what does living in Canada have to do with anything?

          • Harold

            I incorrectly assumed that you were a Canadian. You made a reference to Over-mortgaging, saying all farmers, and pointing to the united states. The same happens here in Canada; very obvious.
            Furthermore, I didn’t ask you to repeat yourself; I asked to tell me what a lie is. Wordsmith the word lie for me; what does it mean?

          • Damo

            … you don’t know what a lie is? No wonder you keep repeating them, Sorry, I won’t teach you what that word means because I am not your parents–if I were, you would know why lying is wrong.

            Or are you just trying your best to distract by focusing on me and the definition of the word lie?

          • Harold

            The trouble is – you think you know what a lie is – but you do not, and that is why you are not explaining it. The distraction you speak of, is the emptiness of word knowledge, and in emptiness, you have nothing to say. Your parents do not teach you what words mean; the dictionary does, and your parents get the same meanings from the very same book. If your parents have been mistaken, then you are mistaken as well. My interest is merely this – if you are going to accuse me of lying, then you had better know what a lie is by its dictionary meaning, in the very least. If you are going to accuse me of dishonor then you should also know what that word means as well. Honor, Honest, dishonor.

            In discovery, I have learned that most people know the word by only their ability to spell it and to place it properly in a sentence but thereafter they have an emptiness of the word’s meaning and words become their own best guess. The origins of a word give meaning to a word, and thereafter is a description.

            Lie means – to lie down. Lying down is rested in your truth. A new truth provided – if it stands to reason (fact and evidence) – makes you stand with it, and in new truth – you are again at rest in truth – a lie – and this is repeated over, and over again in life. You are in a constant state of a lie – rested – until a new truth arrives, and is added to your truth. A lie cannot be told without truth. The greatest lies have the greatest truths and a abundance of truth. All people are liars simply because there is no one who knows all truth. All people LIE and are rested in their own beds of their own known truth.

            Apparently, I do know what a lie is and you will notice that I did not need to send you to your mother to get an answer. I am not surprised that you are distracted and unfocused when I ask you for a word definition.

            A parent will blindly say to their child – do not lie to me – instead of correctly saying – do not withhold any truth. A child cannot withhold a truth that a child does not know. When the child deceives, the child tells all truth but is withholding one or more known truths. Deception, and misleading – is with the withholding of a known truth but Deceivers and Misleaders are not forgiven in society because they withhold a truth that is known to them. (Secrecy) That is what you are teaching your children and regardless if a parent knows how.

            By word definition, you cannot accuse me of lying unless your truth can be added to mine. You cannot accuse me of deception or being misleading unless you can prove that I know of a truth that I am withholding.

            So far, all you have provided is your say so; no truth that I can add to my own truth or no evidence that I am withholding from you a truth known to me.

            Clearly, your writing shows that do not know the meaning of the word lie and therefore I have not taken you seriously at all.

            Without truth, there can neither be an organic or a GMO Industry and to say that one or the other have no truth are the actions to those who set out to deceive or they have become the instrument of the deceivers. In these industries, they both have undeniable and verifiable truth, but in one of those industries, there is secrecy and undisclosed truth and what do you think mommy said? Do not withhold the truth. What did your mommy tell you; not to lie?
            The fact of the matter is, your saying ”…I am not your parents–if I were, you would know why lying is wrong”, is obviously a false statement and in fact the very opposite would hold true.

            You will die not knowing all truth and everyone else the very same and therefore all people liars and at rest, but in your lifetime you will be met by deceivers and they withhold known truth, a truth not added to your truth. Truth is used to deceive and that is why many are deceived; they are presented many truths, but minus one. (Secrecy)

            We live in a world of secrecy – corporate, government and their agencies, and the like, and we think that we are what; all knowing? I know that you find it very easy to be assertive towards me, but clearly you are pointed in the wrong direction, and are serving their keeping of secrecy well. Does it occur to you that they are withholding known truth from you but are giving you all other truth instead and in abundance? You keep pointing to it and yes I see it too and it is massive and more convincing than you are. I know what they are doing and all of it is true but they are withholding truth at the same time in secrecy, and in that, you have justified them, and have left them unaccountable.

            Before you make an accusation, what does the word honest mean? Its root is in a Latin word. If you are a farmer, you understand what a seed is, what a root is, and what a root gathers: the same is each of our words.

          • Damo

            Wow, all that, and nope, no proof that Shiva is being honest. No proof that bt cotton is causing suicides. No proof at all of anything. Just waxing philosophical about what the word “lie” means, even though everyone knows what it means. You know as much about etymology as you do biology.

          • Harold

            You have proven to me that you are a poor investigator.
            Tell us what Truth Shiva is saying, and add your own truth to it, and let us see what you can prove. Add law, Social economics, Government, and GDP, and trade deficit, to the equation. So far, the only thing that you have provided is your say so.
            I am not drawn into your Illusion that Shiva is the entire scope and disproving him disproves an event. This again shows me the shallowness of your investigative ability.

          • Damo

            “Tell us what Truth Shiva is saying,”

            She isn’t. That is the problem. She lied. There is no evidence of what she said. And you are saying I need to provide evidence that she is a liar–but no, she needs to provide evidence that she is telling the truth, that is how it works. Actual suicide numbers in India do not reflect what she is saying.

          • Damo

            “I am not surprised that you are distracted and unfocused when I ask you for a word definition.’

            Ha, that is just it, I am not distracted. That is why you wrote several paragraphs of nonsense. Because you wish to distract me from exposing dishonesty. But it didn’t work. This discussion is not about me or how much you know about the word lie (very little , apparently).

            Do you have proof outside of Shiva’s word, that suicides in India are caused by farming ge derived crops?

            If not, you can go elsewhere.

          • Harold

            When people are caught telling a lie, they know that they will not be favored by the person that they have lied to. The act of living and its consequences proves it to them over, and over again. Often time people unknowingly lie because they lack certain details and sometimes those details were deliberately withheld from them. A lie is loaded with truth – but not all truth. The lie is repeated over, and over again, it spreads, and the one holding all of the truth, the deceiver, has a vested interest in the untold truth kept concealed and secret while the other undeniable truth is kept well known.

            You are a very poor investigator if you do not know what a lie is – BEFORE you even hear one. The only thing that you seem to know is that a lie is morally wrong, so your defensive posturing really has not surprised me in least; Is this your honor/honest?

            If were distracted, I would not have detected that you did not know what a lie is and clearly you are equally troubled by the word honest. In fact, I am very focused to the smallest of details and being so it helps me determine between who might be a true investigator and who is raised by only the force of their own petards.

            Speaking of petards, you request that I “can go elsewhere”. Either you disrespectfully believe that the WP is your house, or you ignorantly believe that your post placed here is not up for readership discussion. Which would it be? It would seem to me that if I did not want the “Intellectuals” or the “fools” to scrutinize any of my comments, I just would not post anything at all.

          • Damo

            “. In fact, I am very focused to the smallest of details and being so it helps me determine between who might be a true investigator and who is raised by only the force of their own petards.”

            In other words, Shiva is a liar and you will try and bluff your way out of admitting that she is.

            None of what you have said has provided any evidence that Shiva is correct and the actual numbers are wrong. You just blather hoping I will forget what the original subject was.

          • Harold

            So, you are trying to determine investigators because you are not one.

            I examine only the investigators who claim that there is a wrongdoing to discover if they are capable of performing an investigation in the first place. In Court this would be called – testing the credibly of a witness. If you are going to call someone a liar then the burden of proof is yours – and no one else’s. Your “blather” is not proof of your claim – for which you have the onus to gather in fact and evidence and to present.

            You go right ahead, try your “blather” in Court some day, and see how far you get. Go ahead, make a claim that someone lied, and expect everyone else to provide you with your evidence. …
            What is it that you want me to prove, when it is you – who have the claim of someone’s wrongdoing? There is very little that you pick up on and yet you believe that you are an investigator.

            Now you are claiming that I am deceiving you by withholding information. Exactly what information am I withholding – that you have firsthand knowledge of – that I in fact am in possession of it? You have no proof of the deception for which you have made the claim. (In Court, this would be called a cross examination)

            You have to know what a lie is, and you have to know what deception is and what I previously asked you – what was your response: go ask your parents. You would not be considered – an expert witness – upon the stand. Your “blather” cannot even pass the test in an ordinary Court House and yet you think you have proven your case, but I am not surprised at all. I even told you how to gather fact and evidence to prove your case …

            I am not trying to have you “forget” anything but in fact I want you to remember something and to present something that actually proves your case. You are holding the claim of the wrongdoing and I am not; hence, I investigated your investigative skills, just as I would in any Court Administrative Proceedings.

            In the preponderance of the evidence and the witness testimony the case is dismissed. That is what you have provided so far. For now, you only have an opinion and no case and that is OK as well.

          • Damo

            So, once again, this long distraction is more proof that you have no proof.

            Thanks.

          • WeGotta

            Nice job slicing through the idiotic lobbyist doublespeak.

      • Farmer_Guy

        Because you don’t understand how patent protection generates innovation and technology. India has screwed their farmers, whose lives were improving through modern farming

        • Denise

          Indian farmers can’t afford GMO seeds, financially or environmentally. They are smart to free themselves from a blood sucking host like Monsanto.
          Hybrids are better, stronger, and cost much less.
          They can’t afford to destroy the life-giving properties and nutrient-rich qualties of their soil from using Bt cotton seed.

          • Jason

            Why do you say they can’t afford them when around 90% of the acres are planted to bt cotton. How could that be if they can’t afford them?

            And how on earth would bt cotton destroy anyone’s soil?? Do you ever step back & think about what you’re posting?

          • Denise

            We all know how well monculture is working out for everybody and the environment.
            We also know MANY Indian farmers have declared bankruptcy and committed suicide.
            It’s all there on the internet.
            Check out Dr. Vandana Shiva . She even made a movie on the subect of GMO seed and how it has affected the lives of Indian farmers and their families.

          • Damo

            Anyone can say anything on the internet, doesn’t make it true. Shiva is a con artist, the Indian suicide thing is false.

          • Harold

            You might have a very good point. I found you on the internet as well.

          • Damo

            Good, I am glad you found me, now I can start explaining to you all the ways you are wrong.

          • Harold

            I am still waiting for you to start. Your many one liners have said nothing at all.

          • Damo

            Well, for one, we don’t use natural selection–haven’t for about a millenia–in order to breed crops. What else do you need schooling on?

          • Harold

            Sorry, you are on the internet and cannot be believed; I believe that it was your assertions and not mine. Have you since changed your mind?

            If you wish to school me, start by explaining your own existence from energy to seed to womb and to birth. A natural selection whereby you are here and the others that were with you – are not. The same process is the seed and plant life.
            Without energy, there is no seed and there is no life. School me on the energy source and the sources laws of attraction. Where does the energy source come from, and what are its laws, and where does it go when it is no longer present and what energy absorbs it, and what are those laws? …

          • Damo

            “Sorry, you are on the internet and cannot be believed; I believe that it was your assertions and not mine. Have you since changed your mind? ”

            Of course I can’t be believed. You don’t know me. Go check this stuff out at your local university.

            “If you wish to school me, start by explaining your own existence from energy to seed to womb and to birth.’

            How did we go from plant breeding to the birds and the bees? Are you really this dense you don’t know what a zygote is? Or is this another attempt to change the subject and not be truthful?

            Sorry, but I can’t make heads or tales of everything else you said. Are you talking about conservation of energy? Or are you just making stuff up?

          • Harold


            DNA is not possible without an energy source. Plant life is not possible without an energy source. Your body or its DNA cannot exist without an energy source. On the other end of the line, perhaps an ordinary grave yard may explain the rest to you. Perhaps a compost pile will explain the remainder. Do you think that you will find active and reproductive DNA in either location? … Am I talking about “conservation of energy”? …

          • Harold

            The three dots before DNA and the three dots after the word “Location” and the three dots after the word “energy” represent potions of my comment which have been deleted by the WP. The comments represent what the WP wants you to hear and not what I would freely say. The WP house, their rules. I thought the I would point out the dots, just in case the readers mistakenly believe that they were mine.

          • Jason

            Shiva?? 😂😂. Are you for real? She’s a total charlatain!

            No… Indian suicides due to bt cotton is a total myth. That story has been debunked SO many times.

            And yah… so far, mono cultures are working out pretty well. It’s taken our species from hunter gatherers to the dominant species on the planet.

            Not too shabby. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • alex

            Don’t worry shiva will soon be so thankful for the massive decrease in farmer suicide that will result from this ruling

          • alex

            So if paying for the royalty on gm seeds has caused a massive suicide epidemic of Indian farmers we should now seed Indian farmer suicide become a thing of the past as there are no more royalties for them to pay

          • Harold

            Suicides are common place everywhere in the world for various reasons so for you to think that your question has any merit is very telling of your understanding of suicide.

            There has never been a pre-existing condition of “no suicides” even amongst the very successful and the rich. Suicides cannot be pointed to royalties but they are more so associated to the loss of wealth, income, freedom, health, mental health, and a host of other circumstances. You cannot prove that any condition of intervention has prevented a suicide because suicide is contained in the individuals mind and not contained on a useless data sheets or in the minds of anyone with their preconceived illusionary notions. You can only recognize the contributing factors and then eliminate as many as you can.

            Elimination does not mean more legislation; in fact, it means the very opposite; freedom. A 70% reduction in royalty payments is 70% freedom gained and that freedom is used to operate their farms. These are very simple economics.

            If you lose a farm to circumstances of overwhelming debt – it is a contributing factor to suicide – but there is no data sheet that one confers with before they commit suicide to see if their actions have been previously approved by the expert and intellectual think tanks.

            A royalty reduction is only a totally reasonable method under the circumstances but in no way is it a guarantee of the Indian individual’s actions or reactions.
            When something is over-priced, – then something is over-priced – and you need either a loan or you do without it. Doing without something that sustains your livelihood puts one in a very needy situation and forces their hand to pay the high costs and thereafter they can only hope for the highest return to pay back the debt and allow them enough profit to repeat the process again. Added to this, the weather also plays a role in determining their success.

            More importantly, who is Monsanto’s competition whereby the competition keeps the royalty and seed payments at their lowest costs? Now is not that a power that you would like to have; no competition!!. I would say that, that is too much dictatorial power to have over anyone. Can you see what India is doing? Because the Canadian Government does not protect our Canadian interests and is lame, it does not mean that India’s government should match it and be the same.

            I would say that when we can clean up our own back yard and things here become exceeding well groomed that it would be in that time in which we could preach to the people of India and be justified. Here in Canada there is a mental-melt-down if you do not address somebody by the proper gender pronoun, of their own choosing, and we think that is important enough to send one off to jail. For me, that is an intelligence level just above that of an ordinary house plant. I wonder how many gender pronouns the house plant needs to help us to determine what it is in its nature.

            Perhaps the simplicity of male and female and a few skipped biology lessons are much, much too overwhelming for the ordinary Canadian soul and we need to prevent their suicides too; isn’t that their threat? In India they lose a farm and here in Canada we lose a gender pronoun. (Liberal party think tank)

          • richard

            Its the story of triumph of human dignity over corporate ideology, being replicated all over the world…

          • Harold

            Cant afford them? The fact that India has reduced Monsanto’s royalties by 70% should have been your first clue. Is it too obvious?

          • Farmer_Guy

            GMO cotton is a hybrid. Please detail and support your assertion that non GE is better for soil health. …

          • Denise

            Can do. Do you want a long detailed explanation or the short one?

        • Harold

          I don’t need to “understand how patent protection generates innovation and technology”; that is India’s Job and they are doing quite well without my understanding. Your understanding of “how patent protection generates innovation and technology” doesn’t help India one iota at all.

          • Farmer_Guy

            Of course you don’t, Harold. Ignorance and ideology are bliss

    • richard

      The grey market??? You mean Europe….where they have rejected GM for thirty years and produce as much cotton and canola as North America without the seventy dollar and acre protection racket (licensing agreement)?

      • Warren Lauzon

        No reason they cannot buy it in the US, just costs a lot more.

      • Pogo333

        There is a rather robust illicit Bt cotton seed pipeline from China into northern India. That flow of marginal Bt seed from China to India has created serious resistance problems in portions of India.

      • Farmer_Guy

        Tell us about all the cotton grown in Europe…

        • richard

          In my travels, Ive seen it growing in Turkey, Greece, Spain… the point is GM is not a panacea… its a expensive technology…. And North American producers paying seventy dollars an acre for the license to grow GM, plus seventy a tonne to get it to salt water, plus fifty a tonne to reach distant export markets……are at a distinct disadvantage to for example, Black Sea growers/exporters who can do all of the above for one third the cost… GM has had forty years to get it right and breed better nutrition into the programme….instead it continues to wallow in the commodity bias of grow more get less…..and just another reason why it takes five hundred billion USD annual global subsidies to float the whole sham.

          • Farmer_Guy

            And yet still my Memphis/Eastern carries a 750 point premium over the cotton from other areas you just mentioned. Tell us more about your knowledge of superior breeding.

            Again, I look for your expertise to outline a better model. But we both know you won’t or can’t, because you’re just another anti science ideologue with an internet connection.

      • Warren Lauzon

        And in Europe pesticide use per acre continues to climb to record amounts, despite more restrictions. https://www.pan-europe.info/issues/pesticide-use-europe

        • alex

          #FactsDon’tMatter

          • richard

            #nordoesreality

        • richard

          Versus the hockey stick climb of glyphosate and neonicotinoid use in N.A.

          • Warren Lauzon

            While you totally ignore the fact that total pesticide use has dropped dramatically.

          • richard

            Except in GM corn, soybeans and canola where your two favorite party drinks coat every single field with a layer of reductionist hubris…..One would think after forty years you guys might quit chasing your tails…..I don’t see Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or Elon Musk defending their worldview…..only a buncha monkeys without bananas defending a cult of myths….

          • Farmer_Guy

            Richard, tell us this amazing system you’ve developed which circumvents natural selection. Are you looking for investors? Oh you silly armchair ag professionals are quite the entertainment

          • richard

            Been farming forty years successfully without any of the various agribiz accoutrement…. and believe me there is no level of fear, loathing and envy that will lead me to despise you so quit trying……The answer is to follow natural selection not circumvent it… that’s what you guys are trying to do….an end run around natural law, war with nature…… Which always ends up looking like herding cats….or pushing rope….or chasing your own tail….Which in the case of the dog always ends up with the dog realizing he’s an idiot….and stops…?

          • Damo

            Natural selection??!! We gave that up around the time teosinte became maize. Natural selection makes tiny bitter apples and forget about cabbage, broccoli, or cauliflower. Actually forget about any crop that depends on man for its cultivation, which is about all of them. The fact that you suggested it shows you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • richard

            Selection occurs every day in plant breeding ….except with gene jockeys drunk on technology…. and natural selection is inevitable in spite of scientific hubris….

          • Damo

            Yes, selection does occur everyday in plant breeding. But you said natural selection.

          • Farmer_Guy

            Thank you for your eloquent non-answer

      • Pogo333

        Europe produces about 220,000 metric tons of cotton per year (almost all of it in Greece, and most of the remainder in Spain). The US produces about 3,700,000 metric tons of cotton per year. I don’t think that a 16-fold higher production rate would qualify as “as much” in the math most of us use. And yes, the Greek and Spanish cotton producers receive subsidies.

    • richard

      see above

  • RobertWager

    so very sad for India. The mass exodus of Agricultural investment will leave them right back to the pre-Green revolution state.

    • alex

      At least vandana shiva can celebrate the fact that no more Indian farmers will commit suicide

    • Harold

      That is future time fiction and future time fear; let us see what happens when future facts arrive and see if your fiction and fear rings true. Because Monsanto looses a little money it does not mean that all progress has been stopped dead in its tracks.

      Steering people with the aid of future time fictional fear seems to work these days and comparing now time with the past and cancelled time seems to go hand in hand in providing fear; that leaves nothing but to maintain the status quo as though there is no progressing away from it. How handy. Create a fictional fear and make people believe your fiction and you will have them eating out of your hands and seeking your direction; Brainwashing 101.

      Are you India, that you can be sad, or are you Monsanto and have lost a little cash, or are you an Indian farmer, or have you only feigned your Industry affection?
      At what point do we say that Monsanto has too much Money, has too much power, and has too much control? Should the sky be the accepted limit? What competition keeps Monsanto’s seeds at the lowest possible prices? Perhaps the Indian government had the answers to these questions, and things are not so sad after all. Perhaps the sadness was Monsanto it’s self. It would explain why Monsanto was figuratively “booted off the Island”.

  • Denise

    Monsanto and their government sponsors underestimate the public’s intelligence.. It’s a big job spreading misinformation and trying to convert the misbelievers.
    You know the old saying: “You can fool some of the people some of the time. But, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Therein lies the problem for agri-chemical /GMO corporations. The truth will win out in the end.
    vallianatos.blogspot.ca

explore

Stories from our other publications