Where is the Greens' statement on ACT CSIRO GM wheat?

WillowJim said :

I’m pretty sure the ACT Greens’ proposed ban on “non-ethical” industries includes companies that sell genetically-modified crops. Can’t find a link to it. But I always thought it was pretty ridiculous to include GMOs among “unethical” products like cluster bombs and pokies.

http://greens.org.au/policies/agriculture-natural-resources/genetically-manipulatd-organisms

Although, if you delve a little deeper to the activism behind this position, you’ll realise that their application and motivation for policy is far more extreme (incorrect).

The Greens use the Precautionary Principle liberally when it suits, and could not give a flying sausage when it is actually needed, i.e. Boat people smashing themselves on rocks.

I’m pretty sure the ACT Greens’ proposed ban on “non-ethical” industries includes companies that sell genetically-modified crops. Can’t find a link to it. But I always thought it was pretty ridiculous to include GMOs among “unethical” products like cluster bombs and pokies.

time_killer said :

Diggety said :

p1 said :

large multinationals releasing copyrighted plants, then suing people for growing them without permission when they didn’t want to grow them in the first place, is much scarier.

Agreed.

I’m still amazed they are patentable. It’s like parents patenting their retarded child, “but we made it!”.

It is still nature, f**k head. Discovery, not invention.

It’s not entirely that simple. Monsanto didn’t just randomly mix different strains and select for a desired trait, they actively chose genes, and inserted them into the genomes to achieve the desired outcome. They put in the R&D dollars to develop their roundup ready seeds and are therefore the creators. However, their business practices are dodgy.

What’s even scarier are the big pharma companies that are discovering genes (BRCA1) that are critical in cancer treatment, patenting the method to screen for that gene and then selling the test kits at extremely high prices.

Thanks, time_killer, I agree that it is not that simple. And I don’t believe it is part of a big, elaborate malicious plan, either. Although the consequenses are bad indeed.

We are seeing an previous oversight of drawing lines between discovery and invention played out. Most of the controversial patents are, in my opinion, discoveries.

The damage that has been done, however, is hard to undo. Because we are effectively trying to take away something that we said was theirs. Let them have it, but fix the flippin’ rules!

Diggety said :

p1 said :

large multinationals releasing copyrighted plants, then suing people for growing them without permission when they didn’t want to grow them in the first place, is much scarier.

Agreed.

I’m still amazed they are patentable. It’s like parents patenting their retarded child, “but we made it!”.

It is still nature, f**k head. Discovery, not invention.

It’s not entirely that simple. Monsanto didn’t just randomly mix different strains and select for a desired trait, they actively chose genes, and inserted them into the genomes to achieve the desired outcome. They put in the R&D dollars to develop their roundup ready seeds and are therefore the creators. However, their business practices are dodgy.

What’s even scarier are the big pharma companies that are discovering genes (BRCA1) that are critical in cancer treatment, patenting the method to screen for that gene and then selling the test kits at extremely high prices.

p1 said :

large multinationals releasing copyrighted plants, then suing people for growing them without permission when they didn’t want to grow them in the first place, is much scarier.

Agreed.

I’m still amazed they are patentable. It’s like parents patenting their retarded child, “but we made it!”.

It is still nature, f**k head. Discovery, not invention.

Here’s an interesting read of the scaremongering that takes place re GMO’s

http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7183/547.full

time_killer said :

What is it about GMO’s that you’re afraid of?

The only problem that I see is that a private company may design something that is fantastic for the global food shortage situation and then patent it. It’s great that the CSIRO is doing this, as it will be obliged to provide it to developing countries essentially for free!

I have to agree with this. While the idea of some mutant genetically engineered plant running wild and killing us all is kind scary in a “day of the triffids” kinda way, the idea of large multinationals releasing copyrighted plants, then suing people for growing them without permission when they didn’t want to grow them in the first place, is much scarier.

What is it about GMO’s that you’re afraid of?

The only problem that I see is that a private company may design something that is fantastic for the global food shortage situation and then patent it. It’s great that the CSIRO is doing this, as it will be obliged to provide it to developing countries essentially for free!

Sorry I-filed, but the Greens don’t like science if it disagrees with their policies.

http://greens.org.au/policies