Strange things can happen to the best laid plans of geese and men.

I read where it is thought that the Oregon field with some GM wheat could have been eco 'terrorism'.

It's highly doubtful it would be eco-terrorism...they're more fond of burning or poisoning fields down rather than introducing that level of chaos.

This new Canadian GM connection makes a whole lot more sense, though. The old US GM wheat experiments not only ended many years ago, it was for summer wheat...not winter/spring wheat.

Still, there's no smoking gun about the gene spread yet so it's still up in the air.

Either way, it's only been found in a single field in a single instance.

South Korea has already fully lifted it's ban and Japan's ban on Western White probably won't be far behind.

nc-crn, The strange thing about the Oregon thing was that it was several years before it showed up. I believe it was Monsano that came to the conclusion that it was a 'plant'. I am curious as to how it was discovered...that might be revealing.

Here is a link that might be useful: GM wheat

Reading the article more fully (which I should have done to begin with) it seems this thing in Canada is a totally separate thing.

The GM wheat in Canada trials is a GM ani-fungal trait.

The wheat found in the US had a RU-Ready trait. It was discovered when a farmer spraying a field after harvest and preparing another crop had wheat that wouldn't die from RU spraying. He sent it to a state lab...lab confirmed it did have RU resistance...then the lab confirmed it contained the exact Monsanto patented trait for RU resistance via genetic markers.

...as far as sabotage...I dunno what Monsanto knows, but it's so highly unlikely. Wheat farmers would most likely not do it because it would screw their industry (and they don't want it) and most "eco-terrorists" have been more traditionally fond of burning or poisoning. It sounds like they know nothing. It's just as likely someone had an old crop of it and birds/rats discovered it, ate it, and pooped it out. The way it was found could be consistent with either scenario, but it being human-placed would be rather odd...whether for farmer revenge or "eco-terrorists" trying to make a point.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Jul 25, 13 at 20:54

I would think that a few stray plants could be an accident. If I wanted to sabotage and create international fear, I would want a more signifigant stand. I don't know the extent of the variant plants

I wonder if Monsanto then turned around and sued the Oregon farmer for growing RU-Ready wheat of their patented variety. They have been known to do exactly that. Probably not in this instance, though, since the seeds in question were never available for purchase to begin with.

That's not how it works...

They've only sued people who purposely collect/cultivate and then intentionally plant seeds with their patented genes.

Aka, people who want to be GMO farmers, but don't want to pay for it.

You have to go out of your way to do this because it's very purposeful.

You don't get sued because it ends up on your land...you get sued for deliberately cultivating and keeping a seed line that's owned by the gene patent holder. No one gets 80-95%+ genetic spread in their field (or anywhere close to it...hell, even 5% would be almost impossible and would require quite a coincidence) because of accidental pollination spread.

Everyone that has been sued knew exactly what they were doing...and it's not very many people.

nc-crn, Old tales seem to have nine lives...kind of like throwing feathers to the wind ...hard to get them all back.

One of the supreme court rulings was 5 to 4. The fact that the supreme court even agree to take the case indicates (to me) that the situation is not as cut and dried as some would like to present it.

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/organic/msg0512361230099.html

Here is a link that might be useful: link to another thread

Henry, The recent case where an Indiana farmer deliberately planted the GM soybeans to avoid the royalty, was ruled a clear cut case against him at the Supreme Court.

That the Supreme Court would take a case shows that their is perhaps a case there, but the case isn't always just one side of the coin.

Sorry I do not understand what the statement: "but the case isn't always just one side of the coin." implies.

Henry, It is good to talk ambiguously sometimes...no? First of all we have a divided Supreme Court...about 4 liberal/progressives; about 4 conservatives; and one or 2 switch hitters. With that kind of makeup, we often get close decisions. These decisions may be or not be before God proper and right. Even the reasons for taking certain cases rather than others can be politically motivated. This is what we are dealing with so things are not always cleanly cut. unless we get an 8 or 9 majority.

There is politics in everything that goes through the court and not all decisions are 'right'.

Thank you Wayne for the followup explanation.

Either way, patent holding GMO companies aren't driving up on lands saying "I notice you have some RU-resistant grain/soy that didn't die after you sprayed...you need to pay us."

In fact, a chunk of these farmers file claims with the companies to get them to pay for the additional chemicals/time spent getting rid these pest "weeds." It's usually a few hundred bucks (if that) and it gets paid without going to court.

Almost everyone who gets busted is because other farmers rat out the offending farmer who's going around the system to be a GMO farmer without going through the same system the legal GMO farmers have to go through.

There's a whole lot less of this going on compared to the late 90s and very early 00s when farmers were testing out the legality of this...mostly because they always lost in court when challenged on the issue of being able to keep and cultivate the patented GMO seed outside of the existing distribution system.

The link provided below for an article written in 2008 seems to indicate that Monsanto does sue farmers who don't purposefully try to grow GMO crops.

Here is a link that might be useful: Monsanto - Harvest of Fear

Fwiw, Gary Rinehart's nephew (who planted the seed along with his dad, G.Rinehart's brother) and Monsanto settled...his nephew planted saved seed on G.Rinehart's sharecropped land and G.Rinehart transported it (and was seen loading it into planters) after his nephew isolated, collected, and stored it.

The following was stated: "G.Rinehart transported it (and was seen loading it into planters) after his nephew isolated, collected, and stored it."

Again no documentation. Even Monsanto's version does not support the above.

Monsanto states: "With the knowledge that there was saved seed on the property, and his statement that he sharecropped that property, Monsanto filed suit against Gary Rinehart. We had attempted to discuss the matter with him in the store, but he was uncooperative. Lawsuits are a legal, and often the only, option available when one party in a dispute is uncooperative.

As part of the lawsuit, Monsanto attorneys filed an affidavit stating that investigators had observed Gary Rinehart driving a pickup truck used to transport the saved seed. Gary Rinehart refuted this allegation. We conceded this point and determined that his nephew, Tim, was the person who planted the saved seed on Gary RinehartâÂÂs land. We dismissed the case against Gary Rinehart."

Here is a link that might be useful: Monsanto's version

Your own link supports what I said...

"Monsanto eventually reached an agreement to settle the case with Tim Rinehart, his brotherâÂÂs son. The settlement involved Tim Rinehart agreeing to settle on the seed that he had planted." ...along with a slew of other stuff in the link you gave.

They found illegal seed crops on Gary's land intentionally planted...they found Gary transporting the seed to the land (though this was later conceded because they went after Tim and Gary became irrelevant)...there was a claim of sharecropped (shared) land (which put the heat on Tim, not Gary because Tim planted it)...they ended up dropping the suit against Gary and sued Tim (the nephew)...and they settled with Tim being the one who took responsibility for planting the seed on his share of the land.

Seed was found on land intentionally cultivated and planted...Monsanto went to take care of it. This was NOT a case of some accidental drift and it was NOT a case of a few plants on a piece of land. It was a case of an illegal GMO farmer trying to bypass the system. This is why they were sued...which was/is the point of this to begin with.

What went wrong? They sued the landowner rather than the actual farmer...the landowner who actually visits the land and isn't an absentee tenant. What happened? When Gary actually decided it was time to "talk about it" when he refused to out Tim initially because all of a sudden he was being sued...the suit was dropped by Monsanto...and they went after Tim.

You can blame whoever you want, whichever side you want...but if Gary would have implicated Tim to begin with the initial case wouldn't have happened. When you have a landowner with illegal seed on his land...sueing the landowner is generally a starting point. The crux was it was Tim who was planting it on the land he was renting/farming from Gary. This could have been prevented rather than stonewalled.

...and btw...you're going to have to "get over" me not documenting everything. I can't imagine what it's like to be your personal car mechanic if you expect exact documentation of known issues to those in the industry out of every professional in any field.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Wed, Jul 31, 13 at 2:54