Is the precautionary principle responsible for global warming?
David Friedman
"the precautionary principle." Roughly speaking, it is the rule that a
new technology which might do large and irreversible harm should not be
permitted until it can prove that it won't. The principle is currently
most visible in the controversy over genetically engineered crops.
It sounds plausible, until you start thinking about "might." It then
might occur to you that one virtue of the precautionary principle, from
the standpoint of those who want to use it to prevent technologies they
dislike, is that you never have to say you are sorry because you can
never be shown to be wrong. If, after fifty years, it turns out that the
technology you tried to ban is perfectly safe, that doesn't mean you
were wrong--you only said it "might" kill millions of people. No more
Paul Ehrlich fiascos, with false predictions discrediting the people who
make them.
The second problem, of course, is the assymetry. Banning genetically
engineered crops might result in many millions of unnecessary deaths.
The evidence for that "might" is very much stronger than for the one in
the other direction, since the immediate and intended effect of such
crops is to make it easier to produce food and the causal links between
expensive food and people dying are pretty straightforward. Furthermore,
some genetically engineered crops provide an alternative to the use of
chemical insecticides--and such chemicals "might" cause cancer.
One could discuss at greater length the justifications for that
assymetry--which come down to the idea that new technologies are in some
way special and especially dangerous--rather than special and especially
promising. And one could think about the world we would be living in if
the precautionary principle had been applied consistently for the last
three hundred years. But I would prefer to raise a narrower question,
and one that justifies my inflamatory subject line.
One area where the precautionary principle has been applied, without the
name, for quite a while is nuclear reactors. From fairly early on, the
technology has been subject to extensive regulation, based in part on
real arguments about real risks but also in large part on the idea that
it was a new and scary technology, connected with bombs and radiation
sickness and all that stuff. The opposition to nuclear energy has been
in large part based on ignoring evidence about causation--in particular,
the massive evidence that deducing adverse consequences of low levels of
radiation by looking at the consequences of high levels and assuming the
relationship is linear enormously overestimates the damage. Central to
the precautionary principle is that you don't have to show that a new
technology will cause damage--it is up to the other side to prove it
won't.
That regulation has made the production of electricity by nuclear power
much more expensive than it otherwise would be. I conjecture--it is only
a conjecture, since I don't know enough about the relevant history and
technology to be sure (hence the question mark on the subject
line)--that if nuclear reactors had been judged by the same standards as
other dangerous technologies, the cost of using them to produce
electricity would be enough lower so that they would in large part have
replaced fossil fuel. The use of fossil fuel--in large part to produce
electricity--is the biggest source of CO2.
Hence I conjecture that if we had not applied the precautionary
principle to nuclear reactors the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would
be substantially lower than it now is, and the threat of global warming
substantially less.
I look forward to evidence, pro or con, from those who know more than I
do about costs of electricity from nuclear power.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Thomas Palm
> The second problem, of course, is the assymetry. Banning genetically
> engineered crops might result in many millions of unnecessary deaths.
> The evidence for that "might" is very much stronger than for the one in
> the other direction, since the immediate and intended effect of such
> crops is to make it easier to produce food and the causal links between
> expensive food and people dying are pretty straightforward. Furthermore,
> some genetically engineered crops provide an alternative to the use of
> chemical insecticides--and such chemicals "might" cause cancer.
There is another factor to consider: if we apply genetic technology
before we know all the consequences there is an obvious risk of a
"genetic Tjernobyl" that would make it impossible to gain acceptance
for genetic technology even when we do know more.
Playing around with self reproducing systems is scary and there are
a couple of theoretical studies that are worrying. For example one
where it was shown that under the right circumstances salmon with
added growth hormones that escaped from fish farms could interbreed
with wild salmon, spread their genes, and perversely drive the
population towards extinction in the process.
> One could discuss at greater length the justifications for that
> assymetry--which come down to the idea that new technologies are in some
> way special and especially dangerous--rather than special and especially
> promising.
An asymmetry that can be motivated by the fact that if we have used
a technology for a long time we have a reasonable idea about the
risks of it, while new technologies always carries the risk of some
really serious problem. Combine this with the fact that at least in
the industrialised world we have no desperate need for further
economic growth and it makes sense to be careful.
> Hence I conjecture that if we had not applied the precautionary
> principle to nuclear reactors the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would
> be substantially lower than it now is, and the threat of global warming
> substantially less.
This isn't really a problem with the precautionary principle but with
the different way we adhere to it for nuclear power and fossil fuels,
and also the fact that many of the opponents to nuclear power don't
even bother to check all the extensive research that has been done
on the risks. Few areas are more studied. The precautonary principle
should be applied when we don't have data and might have slowed
the introduction of nuclear power, but is largely irrelevant by now.
(Or it might not have slowed it down. Initial development was done by
the military which has always followed different (or more commonly
no) rules.
David Friedman
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> > One could discuss at greater length the justifications for that
> > assymetry--which come down to the idea that new technologies are in some
> > way special and especially dangerous--rather than special and especially
> > promising.
>
> An asymmetry that can be motivated by the fact that if we have used
> a technology for a long time we have a reasonable idea about the
> risks of it, while new technologies always carries the risk of some
> really serious problem.
But also the possibility of some really serious benefit.
> Combine this with the fact that at least in
> the industrialised world we have no desperate need for further
> economic growth and it makes sense to be careful.
You may not have noticed, but you are under a death sentence--as am I
and everyone else. It sounds like a desperate need to me--and one that,
if it can be met, will only be met by new technology.
Furthermore, the industrialized world isn't everything. There are still
large parts of the world where people are poor and would prefer not to
be.
And finally--the point of my initial post--stasis isn't an option. It is
your view that if we merely continue with old technologies--fossil fuel
electricity, for example--we will eventually get into serious trouble.
Hence we have a desperate need for the new capabilities that new
technologies might give us.
> > Hence I conjecture that if we had not applied the precautionary
> > principle to nuclear reactors the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would
> > be substantially lower than it now is, and the threat of global warming
> > substantially less.
>
> This isn't really a problem with the precautionary principle but with
> the different way we adhere to it for nuclear power and fossil fuels,
You have two alternatives:
1. Define the principle as the webbed definitions I saw did, as
specifically applying to new technologies. Fossil fuel generation is an
old technology, so the principle didn't apply.
2. Define it to apply to all choices. You have now banned all ways of
generating power, all ways of growing food, childbirth and breathing. We
simply don't have the option of living in a way which nobody can
persuasively argue has some risks of serious adverse consequences in the
long run.
> and also the fact that many of the opponents to nuclear power don't
> even bother to check all the extensive research that has been done
> on the risks. Few areas are more studied. The precautonary principle
> should be applied when we don't have data and might have slowed
> the introduction of nuclear power, but is largely irrelevant by now.
> (Or it might not have slowed it down. Initial development was done by
> the military which has always followed different (or more commonly
> no) rules.
However much it is studied, someone can still make an argument that
there is an unconsidered dreadful risk lurking in it. Given the
mechanisms by which the decisions get made, once your principle is
accepted, whether the argument is true isn't important--only whether it
sounds plausible and is sufficiently scary. There was no basis, so far
as I can tell, for the opposition to irradiated foods (I think still
unavailable in the U.S.), other than the scariness of "radiated." I
can't see any basis for the opposition to eating genetically engineered
crops (as opposed to some arguments about problems due to growing them,
which are real although not, in my view, adequate).
I'm tempted to start another thread on whether the precautionary
principle in particular and environmentalism in general makes the sort
of catastrophe it is concerned with more likely. But that probably
requires too much economics for this group. The basic argument is very
simple: Secure property rights are the institutional framework that best
handles the problem of allocating goods across time, and they are
threatened by (among other things) the environmental movement, since it
provides politically persuasive arguments for seizing control of
property. The simple (real world) example is the lethal effect,
historically speaking, of the belief that speculation in foodstuffs is
wicked.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Don Libby
>
> There is another factor to consider: if we apply genetic technology
> before we know all the consequences there is an obvious risk of a
> "genetic Tjernobyl" that would make it impossible to gain acceptance
> for genetic technology even when we do know more.
Why should a "Tjernobyl" make it impossible to accept? The
consequences of bad design and bad operating procedure for injury
and death following the accident at Tjernobyl are no more severe
than a typical New Year's celebration in Thailand, with the
exception that the Tjernobyl accident happened once and New
Year's in Thailand happens once per year.
-dl
Thomas Palm
Why? Because people think that way. All risks are not considered
equal in real life.
Thomas Palm
>
> In article <3CA749E3...@chello.se>,
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
>
> > > One could discuss at greater length the justifications for that
> > > assymetry--which come down to the idea that new technologies are in some
> > > way special and especially dangerous--rather than special and especially
> > > promising.
> >
> > An asymmetry that can be motivated by the fact that if we have used
> > a technology for a long time we have a reasonable idea about the
> > risks of it, while new technologies always carries the risk of some
> > really serious problem.
>
> But also the possibility of some really serious benefit.
But the beneftits are to a larger extent known in advance. That's after
all the reason that we want to use the technology. It's the disadvantages
that come creeping up on us.
> > > Hence I conjecture that if we had not applied the precautionary
> > > principle to nuclear reactors the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would
> > > be substantially lower than it now is, and the threat of global warming
> > > substantially less.
> >
> > This isn't really a problem with the precautionary principle but with
> > the different way we adhere to it for nuclear power and fossil fuels,
>
> You have two alternatives:
>
> 1. Define the principle as the webbed definitions I saw did, as
> specifically applying to new technologies. Fossil fuel generation is an
> old technology, so the principle didn't apply.
>
> 2. Define it to apply to all choices. You have now banned all ways of
> generating power, all ways of growing food, childbirth and breathing. We
> simply don't have the option of living in a way which nobody can
> persuasively argue has some risks of serious adverse consequences in the
> long run.
Almost all general rules of behavior become disastrous if followed
to the letter. They should instead be seen as general guidelines
for what to do when you are otherwise uncertain.
Nevertheless you are right in that I shouldn't have tried to apply
the uncertainty principle to fossil fuels: we already know how
dangerous they are so we have every reason to reduce their use even
without applying it. It becomes silly if we are less afraid of a
known risk than of something that just might be dangerous.
> There was no basis, so far
> as I can tell, for the opposition to irradiated foods (I think still
> unavailable in the U.S.), other than the scariness of "radiated."
There is still some uncertainty to what chemical changes high doses
of radiation does to food, both in the way of reduced nutritional
contents and new, harmful substances being formed. Then one may also
wonder if the added storage time which we will doubtlessy see with
rediated food may cause other problems.
The risk may not be great, but I'd rather not eat much irradiated
food. I don't mind irradiated spices. The quantities are small, I
don't expect much in the way of nutrients from them and the chemical
preservatieves are nasty too. On the other hand, I'll stay
away from irradiated fruit for the time being.
> I
> can't see any basis for the opposition to eating genetically engineered
> crops (as opposed to some arguments about problems due to growing them,
> which are real although not, in my view, adequate).
That depends on the modifications. If you are allergic to some substance
you may not be happy to find it in a completely new product just because
someone put in a gene that produces it. Otherwise I agree that it is
the growing that is dangerous, but some people want to buy food they
think has been produced in an ethically sound way, not just food that
is safe to eat.
> I'm tempted to start another thread on whether the precautionary
> principle in particular and environmentalism in general makes the sort
> of catastrophe it is concerned with more likely. But that probably
> requires too much economics for this group. The basic argument is very
> simple: Secure property rights are the institutional framework that best
> handles the problem of allocating goods across time, and they are
> threatened by (among other things) the environmental movement, since it
> provides politically persuasive arguments for seizing control of
> property. The simple (real world) example is the lethal effect,
> historically speaking, of the belief that speculation in foodstuffs is
> wicked.
Why don't you write a book? You seem to be good at finding the worst
in environmentalism and projecting it to the entire movement. Looking
at Lomborg it doesn't take much knowledge to produce a bestseller
that way. There always seems to be a market for books that tells us
that there is nothing to worry about. Just let God, the market or
whatever handle everything and you will be just fine.
David Friedman
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> > There was no basis, so far
> > as I can tell, for the opposition to irradiated foods (I think still
> > unavailable in the U.S.), other than the scariness of "radiated."
> There is still some uncertainty to what chemical changes high doses
> of radiation does to food, both in the way of reduced nutritional
> contents and new, harmful substances being formed. Then one may also
> wonder if the added storage time which we will doubtlessy see with
> rediated food may cause other problems.
Boiling vegetables too long reduces their nutritional contents too.
Arguably pasteurizing milk reduces its nutritional content. There is a
missing sense of proportion when one jumps from "this might make the
food less good for you--and then again might not" to "it should be
illegal"--which isn't what you are arguing for but is what happened.
> > I
> > can't see any basis for the opposition to eating genetically engineered
> > crops (as opposed to some arguments about problems due to growing them,
> > which are real although not, in my view, adequate).
> That depends on the modifications. If you are allergic to some substance
> you may not be happy to find it in a completely new product just because
> someone put in a gene that produces it.
No doubt this is a theoretical possibility, but isn't it an
extraordinarily trivial one? Think about the number of genes a peanut
has. What are the odds that the particular ones it turns out to be
useful to put in transgenic corn happens to be jut the ones that makes
the protein that people allergic to peanuts are allergic to--and nobody
knows it? How does that probability compare with the odds that someone
used the knife to spread peanut butter and didn't wash it before using
it to spread butter on bread for someone allegic to peanuts?
> Otherwise I agree that it is
> the growing that is dangerous, but some people want to buy food they
> think has been produced in an ethically sound way, not just food that
> is safe to eat.
But "ethically sound" doesn't mean that those people have serious
grounds for believing that GE foods are wicked--it means that the idea
sends chills up their necks. Hence "frankenfoods." There are real
arguments for why there might be some risks, but not very strong ones,
once you think them through. The most serious risk is that some
insecticides and some herbicides will become less effective due to the
effect on the targetted organisms of GE crops designed to either produce
the insecticide or resist the herbicide (in the first case less
effective due to evolution, in the second less effective by the genes
spreading to wild relatives). The first effect already happens without
GE, the second is limited to the case of closely related species that
happen to grow near the cultivated species, and only gives them
resistance to the particular herbicide the cultivated species was
designed to be resistant too.
Once we have a mature nanotechnology, the potential problem becomes a
real and potentially serious one, but at this point it is pretty minor.
There are lots of people who want to buy "organic foods" (bizarre
terminology, but currently conventional--the only nonorganic food that
occurs to me is sodium chloride). That's why there are "organic food
stores." There are lots of people who want to buy food that is kosher or
hallal. For them there are stores, restaurants, and companies producing
foods labelled "kosher for passover" and the like. Your argument implies
either that because some people want not to eat certain kinds of foods
nobody should be allowed to or, in the weaker form, everyone should have
to be told information that most people don't care about.
I am curious about your views of labelling vis a vis Kosher and Hallal.
Should anyone producing food that isn't Kosher or isn't Hallal be
required to label it as such? How about vegetable products that might,
or might not, contain something (gelatin from bones, say) that
vegetarians disapprove of? Isn't the obvious solution to all such cases
to permit the labelling but not require it? If people care, producers
targetting those people will label--precisely the way we handle those
issues today.
> Why don't you write a book?
I have published four books, all on economic topics broadly defined;
three are currently in print--five and four if you count a
self-published book by myself and my wife on our medieval hobbies. You
can find them on Amazon. I'm working on two others at the moment. One of
them touches on some of these issues, which is one of the reasons I have
been posting here--asking questions of people with strong views is
sometimes an entertaining and fairly inexpensive way of learning things,
especially if you can find people on both sides.
The point about secure property rights is discussed in my _Hidden
Order_, currently in print in English, German and (I think still)
Japanese.
> You seem to be good at finding the worst
> in environmentalism and projecting it to the entire movement. Looking
> at Lomborg it doesn't take much knowledge to produce a bestseller
> that way.
It looks to me as though Lomborg's book required enormous effort of a
sort I am not interested in putting out.
> There always seems to be a market for books that tells us
> that there is nothing to worry about. Just let God, the market or
> whatever handle everything and you will be just fine.
Actually, I think the market for books predicting catastrophe if the
world doesn't follow the author's advice is better--more exciting, more
newsworthy, and a better opportunity for readers to feel both wiser than
other people and morally superior. If you disagree, read the posts here
by the bottom two thirds of the people who agree with you.
But my current writing project, _Future Imperfect_, as the title
suggests, does not argue that there is nothing to worry about. It does
suggest that the most serious worries may be things we can't do much
about. If you are curious, you will find an almost current draft on my
web site.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> > Why should a "Tjernobyl" make it impossible to accept? The
> > consequences of bad design and bad operating procedure for injury
> > and death following the accident at Tjernobyl are no more severe
> > than a typical New Year's celebration in Thailand, with the
> > exception that the Tjernobyl accident happened once and New
> > Year's in Thailand happens once per year.
>
> Why? Because people think that way. All risks are not considered
> equal in real life.
You missed the word "should." Do you really want to argue that all
things people do or think are things they should do or think? If not,
some further justification is required.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Frank Altschuler
interesting question that David friedman raised over in sci.environment (see
below).
Does anyone have an estimate for how much of Nuclear Power's cost is pure
litigation, and regulation and how much is actual real cost?
"David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-90DE12.0...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
Thomas Palm
You have an unfortunate tendency to ignore what really is for what
ought to be. This can be clearly noted in the way yuo present an
economic theory and when that turns out not to describe reality very
well complain that it is reality that doesn't work.
It doesn't mater whether some individual disaster ought to change
opinions, what matters is whether or not it will do it, and I'd say
that this is very likely to happen.
Thomas Palm
>
> In article <3CA76349...@chello.se>,
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> > That depends on the modifications. If you are allergic to some substance
> > you may not be happy to find it in a completely new product just because
> > someone put in a gene that produces it.
>
> No doubt this is a theoretical possibility, but isn't it an
> extraordinarily trivial one? Think about the number of genes a peanut
> has. What are the odds that the particular ones it turns out to be
> useful to put in transgenic corn happens to be jut the ones that makes
> the protein that people allergic to peanuts are allergic to--and nobody
> knows it?
The situation has occured with genes from the Brazil nut being transferred
into soy, but in that case the problem was discovered early on. I brought
it up just becasue it was something that had happened, but the real
potential for unpleasantness comes in the unforeseen.
> > Otherwise I agree that it is
> > the growing that is dangerous, but some people want to buy food they
> > think has been produced in an ethically sound way, not just food that
> > is safe to eat.
>
> But "ethically sound" doesn't mean that those people have serious
> grounds for believing that GE foods are wicked--it means that the idea
> sends chills up their necks. Hence "frankenfoods."
And neither do you have evidence that they don't have no grounds.
You just love to believe that people who disagree with you must all
be irrational.
> There are real
> arguments for why there might be some risks, but not very strong ones,
> once you think them through. The most serious risk is that some
> insecticides and some herbicides will become less effective due to the
> effect on the targetted organisms of GE crops designed to either produce
> the insecticide or resist the herbicide (in the first case less
> effective due to evolution, in the second less effective by the genes
> spreading to wild relatives). The first effect already happens without
> GE, the second is limited to the case of closely related species that
> happen to grow near the cultivated species, and only gives them
> resistance to the particular herbicide the cultivated species was
> designed to be resistant too.
You are considering only one very special case of genetic modification.
Resistance to Roundup may not be that dangerous. When it come to BT maize
we are on the other hand dealing with a naturally occuring substance, and
if resistance to it should become more prevalent it may have more
serious biological consequences.
The real can of worms opens once you start adding genes that benefit
plants in a more general sence, however. There has been talk about
moving genes that can convert inorganic nitrogen into plants. Imagine
the damage that sort of gene could do in creating a superweed!
Then there is also the small issue with who owns the right to the
plants. It seems that with current laws a farmer can be sued if any of
his plants are cross pollinated with gene modified plants that
contain proprietary genes.
> Once we have a mature nanotechnology, the potential problem becomes a
> real and potentially serious one, but at this point it is pretty minor.
*If* we ever get mature nanotech of the self reproducing kind.
> There are lots of people who want to buy "organic foods" (bizarre
> terminology, but currently conventional--the only nonorganic food that
> occurs to me is sodium chloride).
I fail to see what is so bizzare about it. Words do get a new meaning
in new situations and talking about "food grown using organic fertilizer"
does become rather clumsy after a while.
> > There always seems to be a market for books that tells us
> > that there is nothing to worry about. Just let God, the market or
> > whatever handle everything and you will be just fine.
>
> Actually, I think the market for books predicting catastrophe if the
> world doesn't follow the author's advice is better--more exciting, more
> newsworthy, and a better opportunity for readers to feel both wiser than
> other people and morally superior. If you disagree, read the posts here
> by the bottom two thirds of the people who agree with you.
There is a market for those books too. What is hard to sell is
books presenting a situation in a neutral way.
David Friedman
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> > But "ethically sound" doesn't mean that those people have serious
> > grounds for believing that GE foods are wicked--it means that the idea
> > sends chills up their necks. Hence "frankenfoods."
>
> And neither do you have evidence that they don't have no grounds.
> You just love to believe that people who disagree with you must all
> be irrational.
Sure I do--I read their web sites. It may not be sufficient evidence to
convince you, but it's evidence.
> The real can of worms opens once you start adding genes that benefit
> plants in a more general sence, however. There has been talk about
> moving genes that can convert inorganic nitrogen into plants. Imagine
> the damage that sort of gene could do in creating a superweed!
The reason I am sceptical of this line of argument is that evolution has
been designing superweeds for a very long time. As long as we limit
ourselves to the same technology it has access to--standard carbon based
life--creating plants that are superior in any general sense is hard.
What we have done successfully so far is basically to create plants that
are superior in characteristics that have not been selected
for--resistance to our herbicides, ability to produce what we want.
That's why the problem does become serious when and if we have serious
nanotechnology. It can create designs that evolution couldn't, given the
continuous path evolution follows.
> Then there is also the small issue with who owns the right to the
> plants. It seems that with current laws a farmer can be sued if any of
> his plants are cross pollinated with gene modified plants that
> contain proprietary genes.
Anyone can be sued for anything. The odds of winning that suit strike me
as extraordinarily low. Do you have evidence that anyone has tried?
> > There are lots of people who want to buy "organic foods" (bizarre
> > terminology, but currently conventional--the only nonorganic food that
> > occurs to me is sodium chloride).
>
> I fail to see what is so bizzare about it. Words do get a new meaning
> in new situations and talking about "food grown using organic fertilizer"
> does become rather clumsy after a while.
There are lots of organic chemicals--pesticides--whose use disqualifies
something from being described as "organic."
> > > There always seems to be a market for books that tells us
> > > that there is nothing to worry about. Just let God, the market or
> > > whatever handle everything and you will be just fine.
> >
> > Actually, I think the market for books predicting catastrophe if the
> > world doesn't follow the author's advice is better--more exciting, more
> > newsworthy, and a better opportunity for readers to feel both wiser than
> > other people and morally superior. If you disagree, read the posts here
> > by the bottom two thirds of the people who agree with you.
> There is a market for those books too. What is hard to sell is
> books presenting a situation in a neutral way.
It's hard to know what a "neutral way" is. Lomborg doesn't say global
warming isn't happening, or is a fraud, or anything similar--he argues
that various problems exist but are considerably less serious than often
claimed. So if "neutral" means "not at either extreme," he is neutral.
Of course if "neutral" means "holding the positions that Thomas Palm
thinks are most defensible," you have to write the book yourself.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Thomas Palm
>
> In article <3CA7FB90...@chello.se>,
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> > The real can of worms opens once you start adding genes that benefit
> > plants in a more general sence, however. There has been talk about
> > moving genes that can convert inorganic nitrogen into plants. Imagine
> > the damage that sort of gene could do in creating a superweed!
>
> The reason I am sceptical of this line of argument is that evolution has
> been designing superweeds for a very long time. As long as we limit
> ourselves to the same technology it has access to--standard carbon based
> life--creating plants that are superior in any general sense is hard.
This is true, but it is an armsrace between different species. If we
go in and artificially enhance some of them they would get an advantage.
The competition might catch up, but it would take a long time doing so.
(Except for bacteria and viruses that evolve very rapidly).
You don't even have to enhance species to get disasters. All you need
to do is move them to a place where they have no natural enemies. For
example at the moment we seem to be losing the bottom life along the
shores of the Mediterranean to a new weed, Caulerpa taxifolia that was
spread from salt water aquariums.
The problem with self reproducing organisms is that the damage is in
no sense proportional to the size of the original emission. Just a few
algae spilled, and the ecology of the Mediterranean is changed. Wehn
you deal with chamicals or radioactive substances you at least know
the the damage is proportional to the quantity of substance. You can
to small scale testing and expect the damage to be limited even if you
do a mistake.
Have you read the story about the Australian team that by mistake
created a lethal strain of mousepox:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\2001\01\010110180440.htm
"In this particular experiment they modified a mousepox virus to include the
gene for a substance called interleukin-4 which affects the immune system.
The aim was to boost the level of the animal's immune response to block
reproduction.
They found that the extra gene also had the effect of suppressing part of the
mouse's immune system which deals with viruses - the cell-mediated response
- with the result that lab mice normally resistant to the virus died. Furthermore
it reduced the efficacy of vaccines used to protect them by about half."
We just can't predict very well what genetic changes will do, even
when applied to an isolated individual. Once let loose inte the
ecosystem and free to mutate and intercat with other organisms it
becomes almost impossible.
> What we have done successfully so far is basically to create plants that
> are superior in characteristics that have not been selected
> for--resistance to our herbicides, ability to produce what we want.
We have only just gotten started and seen neither large benefits or
really large risks
> That's why the problem does become serious when and if we have serious
> nanotechnology. It can create designs that evolution couldn't, given the
> continuous path evolution follows.
On the other hand. If we have even the smallest instinct for self
preservation we make sure those system will not have the ability
to mutate, and in that case we will at least know that what we
release is the same as what we will have in five years.
Stupidity and malice can, of course, still create a nightmare when combined
with high tech. Becoming a true luddite sometimes is tempting.
> > Then there is also the small issue with who owns the right to the
> > plants. It seems that with current laws a farmer can be sued if any of
> > his plants are cross pollinated with gene modified plants that
> > contain proprietary genes.
>
> Anyone can be sued for anything. The odds of winning that suit strike me
> as extraordinarily low. Do you have evidence that anyone has tried?
It has been tried, and Monsanto won:
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/percy.htm
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.html
From the verdict:
"Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from
seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's
land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field
from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or
plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does
not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the
seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell."
You tell me if that means he does own the seed or if he doesn't.
The issues in this case aren't perfectly clear, but I think there are
some other cases too. Monsanto doesn't even have to win all cases.
All they have to do is scare farmers to the point where they rather
pay for Monsanto's seeds than risk ending up in court.
> > There is a market for those books too. What is hard to sell is
> > books presenting a situation in a neutral way.
>
> It's hard to know what a "neutral way" is. Lomborg doesn't say global
> warming isn't happening, or is a fraud, or anything similar--he argues
> that various problems exist but are considerably less serious than often
> claimed. So if "neutral" means "not at either extreme," he is neutral.
Of course, everyone wants to present himself as being in the middle
no matter how far to one edge he really is.
David Friedman
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> > The reason I am sceptical of this line of argument is that evolution has
> > been designing superweeds for a very long time. As long as we limit
> > ourselves to the same technology it has access to--standard carbon based
> > life--creating plants that are superior in any general sense is hard.
> This is true, but it is an armsrace between different species. If we
> go in and artificially enhance some of them they would get an advantage.
> The competition might catch up, but it would take a long time doing so.
> (Except for bacteria and viruses that evolve very rapidly).
My point is that they have already been evolving for reproductive
success for a very long time. In order for us to "artificially enhance"
some of them, we have to be able to make a change that is an
improvement. Given that evolution has access to much more powerful tools
than we do--provided it has enough time--why do you think we can do it?
The obvious exception is when we are "enhancing" them in a way that
wouldn't have lead to reproductive success in the environment they
evolved in. The two obvious examples are giving them characteristics
that benefit us at their expense and giving them characteristics that
are beneficial only because of features of their environment that are
very new--most obviously features we created.
> You don't even have to enhance species to get disasters. All you need
> to do is move them to a place where they have no natural enemies. For
> example at the moment we seem to be losing the bottom life along the
> shores of the Mediterranean to a new weed, Caulerpa taxifolia that was
> spread from salt water aquariums.
Some more famous examples happened in Australia a while back. Then there
was Kudzu, the weed that ate the south. Demonstrating that the problems
you are concerned with are not problems particularly associated with
genetic engineering.
> Have you read the story about the Australian team that by mistake
> created a lethal strain of mousepox:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases\2001\01\010110180440.htm
> "In this particular experiment they modified a mousepox virus to include the
> gene for a substance called interleukin-4 which affects the immune system.
> The aim was to boost the level of the animal's immune response to block
> reproduction.
> They found that the extra gene also had the effect of suppressing part of the
> mouse's immune system which deals with viruses - the cell-mediated response
> - with the result that lab mice normally resistant to the virus died.
> Furthermore
> it reduced the efficacy of vaccines used to protect them by about half."
> We just can't predict very well what genetic changes will do, even
> when applied to an isolated individual. Once let loose inte the
> ecosystem and free to mutate and intercat with other organisms it
> becomes almost impossible.
Do you have any plans to shield earth from cosmic rays? Absent that,
preventing random genetic changes isn't an option. Genetic engineering
is non-random with respect to the particular features that are being
added, but it's still random with respect to the unintended consequences
that might occur.
I should add that engineered plagues are a different issue--because
disease organisms aren't optimized by evolution for killing people,
rather the opposite.
> > That's why the problem does become serious when and if we have serious
> > nanotechnology. It can create designs that evolution couldn't, given the
> > continuous path evolution follows.
> On the other hand. If we have even the smallest instinct for self
> preservation we make sure those system will not have the ability
> to mutate, and in that case we will at least know that what we
> release is the same as what we will have in five years.
Who is "we?" You have the choice of either trying to keep nanotech a
government monopoly--in the extreme case a monopoly of a world
government maintaining itself by nanotech--or letting lots of people do
it. The former means that a lot of the research is being done for
military purposes and ordinary private people don't have access to the
technology to try to create defenses for themselves. The latter means
that a bright teenager in his basement ... .
Hence "Solution Unsatisfactory."
> > Anyone can be sued for anything. The odds of winning that suit strike me
> > as extraordinarily low. Do you have evidence that anyone has tried?
> It has been tried, and Monsanto won:
> http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/percy.htm
> http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.html
Thanks. Very interesting. Note the following:
"This led Dr. Downey to conclude that the seeds provided to him from the
1997 sample taken of plants growing along the road allowances of fields
2 and 5, demonstrated that the canola plants growing there were not the
result of pollen movement into those fields, or out crossing between
glyphosate-resistant and susceptible plants. Rather, in his view, the
high percentage of glyphosate-tolerant plants, among those which had
germinated, indicated they were grown from commercial Roundup Ready
canola seed."
> From the verdict:
> "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from
> seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's
> land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field
> from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or
> plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does
> not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the
> seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell."
> You tell me if that means he does own the seed or if he doesn't.
Also from the verdict:
"[118] It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr.
Schmeiser's field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have
survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998. However, I am
persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey, an expert witness appearing
for the plaintiffs, that none of the suggested sources could reasonably
explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a
commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser's
crop. His view was supported in part by evidence of Dr. Barry Hertz, a
mechanical engineer, whose evidence scientifically demonstrated the
limited distance that canola seed blown from trucks in the road way
could be expected to spread. I am persuaded on the basis of Dr. Downey's
evidence that on a balance of probabilities none of the suggested
possible sources of contamination of Schmeiser's crop was the basis for
the substantial level of Roundup Ready canola growing in field number 2
in 1997."
I've only gone over the case briefly. It looks to me as though the judge
is saying that he thinks Schmeisser is lying--that he in fact used
commercially grown GE seed without a license and pretended it was the
result of accidental polinization. What is less clear is whether the
judge thinks the result rests on that.
The interesting case would be if Schmeisser deliberately sprayed roundup
on fields that he thought had some fraction of open pollinated roundup
ready Canola, and used the surviving plants for his seed.
I am curious, incidentally, as to your view on the terminator gene
controversy. That approach provides a way of enforcing intellectual
property rights in GE plants that doesn't depend on identifying--or
misidentifying--infringers. But it was fiercely attacked by opponents of
GE crops.
> > It's hard to know what a "neutral way" is. Lomborg doesn't say global
> > warming isn't happening, or is a fraud, or anything similar--he argues
> > that various problems exist but are considerably less serious than often
> > claimed. So if "neutral" means "not at either extreme," he is neutral.
>
> Of course, everyone wants to present himself as being in the middle
> no matter how far to one edge he really is.
So what did you mean by "neutral?" Agreeing with you? I'm not sure why
that would make a book less sellable than agreeing with Lomborg, which
was your original point.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Thomas Palm
> My point is that they have already been evolving for reproductive
> success for a very long time. In order for us to "artificially enhance"
> some of them, we have to be able to make a change that is an
> improvement. Given that evolution has access to much more powerful tools
> than we do--provided it has enough time--why do you think we can do it?
Evolution works in small steps that all have to be beneficial to the
organism. Our gene modifications can take shortcuts or move genes over
species barriers bringing a much more sudden change than is likely to
occur naturally. (I know genes jump between species, but then usually
between closely related ones, not from a fish to a plant as is being done
with trying to provide protection against frost).
> > You don't even have to enhance species to get disasters. All you need
> > to do is move them to a place where they have no natural enemies. For
> > example at the moment we seem to be losing the bottom life along the
> > shores of the Mediterranean to a new weed, Caulerpa taxifolia that was
> > spread from salt water aquariums.
>
> Some more famous examples happened in Australia a while back. Then there
> was Kudzu, the weed that ate the south. Demonstrating that the problems
> you are concerned with are not problems particularly associated with
> genetic engineering.
It is a problem that occurs even in the absence of gene modification.
Still, if we don't just want to wait and see what happens we have to
look at the closest analogies available. That bad things happen even
in the absence of gene modification is no reason to use it, only to be
more careful in how we spread conventional organisms.
> > We just can't predict very well what genetic changes will do, even
> > when applied to an isolated individual. Once let loose inte the
> > ecosystem and free to mutate and intercat with other organisms it
> > becomes almost impossible.
>
> Do you have any plans to shield earth from cosmic rays? Absent that,
> preventing random genetic changes isn't an option. Genetic engineering
> is non-random with respect to the particular features that are being
> added, but it's still random with respect to the unintended consequences
> that might occur.
It is also much faster and more drastic than random mutations.
> I should add that engineered plagues are a different issue--because
> disease organisms aren't optimized by evolution for killing people,
> rather the opposite.
This wasn't a deliberately engineered superplague. They just happened
to create one unintentionally.
> Who is "we?" You have the choice of either trying to keep nanotech a
> government monopoly--in the extreme case a monopoly of a world
> government maintaining itself by nanotech--or letting lots of people do
> it. The former means that a lot of the research is being done for
> military purposes and ordinary private people don't have access to the
> technology to try to create defenses for themselves. The latter means
> that a bright teenager in his basement ... .
>
> Hence "Solution Unsatisfactory."
Hence my suggestion that perhaps one ought to become a luddite. If
the alternatives are either to become a victim of grey goo or a
government with total power, limiting research doesn't sound so bad,
does it?
What is your solution?
The best solution I've seen to how to handle dangerous technology is
in "The Transparent society" by David Brin. He essentially says that
the least disturbing sacrifice is to give up privacy. If everyone can
spy on everyone else it will be hard for any side to abuse the system
too much without getting caught.
> > > Anyone can be sued for anything. The odds of winning that suit strike me
> > > as extraordinarily low. Do you have evidence that anyone has tried?
>
> > It has been tried, and Monsanto won:
> > http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark/percy.htm
> > http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.html
>
> Thanks. Very interesting. Note the following:
>
> "This led Dr. Downey to conclude that the seeds provided to him from the
> 1997 sample taken of plants growing along the road allowances of fields
> 2 and 5, demonstrated that the canola plants growing there were not the
> result of pollen movement into those fields, or out crossing between
> glyphosate-resistant and susceptible plants. Rather, in his view, the
> high percentage of glyphosate-tolerant plants, among those which had
> germinated, indicated they were grown from commercial Roundup Ready
> canola seed."
Yes, one expert claimed this. The case wasn't perfectly clearcut, but
then one would expect Monsanto to start with the easiest case and be
able to produce expert witnesses to at least hint at deliberate use.
It is alos unclear whether the judge even considers that a necessary
requirement for patent infringement.
> > From the verdict:
> > "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from
> > seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's
> > land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field
> > from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or
> > plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does
> > not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the
> > seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell."
>
> > You tell me if that means he does own the seed or if he doesn't.
Does the judge think that you are allowed to use accidently contaminated
seeds or not?
> The interesting case would be if Schmeisser deliberately sprayed roundup
> on fields that he thought had some fraction of open pollinated roundup
> ready Canola, and used the surviving plants for his seed.
As far as I can tell neither side claims roundup was ever used, and
since this is the only advantage of the "stolen" gene I fail to see
Schmeiser's motive for stealing it. At the contrary, Schmeiser argues
that he was harmed by it.
> I am curious, incidentally, as to your view on the terminator gene
> controversy. That approach provides a way of enforcing intellectual
> property rights in GE plants that doesn't depend on identifying--or
> misidentifying--infringers. But it was fiercely attacked by opponents of
> GE crops.
From the perspective of managing the risks of genetic contamination it
seems to be somewhat useful, although I wouldn't trust it to actually
be very effective at preventing spread. Mutations will tend to render it
ineffective.
From the perspective of security of the food supply I consider it scary.
It will seriously limit the availability of seeds for major foodcrops
and in case of an unforeseen event we may be in real trouble. It will
also undermine the independence of farmers putting them under more control
by a few big companies, and I don't consider that to be a good thing.
It would essentially transfer the food supply to a monopoly or or at
least an oligopoly
> > > It's hard to know what a "neutral way" is. Lomborg doesn't say global
> > > warming isn't happening, or is a fraud, or anything similar--he argues
> > > that various problems exist but are considerably less serious than often
> > > claimed. So if "neutral" means "not at either extreme," he is neutral.
> >
> > Of course, everyone wants to present himself as being in the middle
> > no matter how far to one edge he really is.
>
> So what did you mean by "neutral?" Agreeing with you?
Agreeing with what researchers in a field has to say.
> I'm not sure why
> that would make a book less sellable than agreeing with Lomborg, which
> was your original point.
Discussing both sides of an issue confuse people. It is much easier
to present only one, either "we are all gonna die" or "everything
will be fine".
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>One argument that comes up with increasing frequency goes by the name of
>"the precautionary principle." Roughly speaking, it is the rule that a
>new technology which might do large and irreversible harm should not be
>permitted until it can prove that it won't. <..>
That is a misunderstanding of the precautionary principle.
Key points in understanding the precautionary principle is,
that a risk analysis may actually end out in a position
of scientific uncertainty about the risk -- in this situation,
the precautionary principle states, the scientific uncertainty
should not be a reason for taking a position of political
inaction in relation to that risk.
E.g. in relation to a new technology, which -might- do
large and irreversible harm, we -might- politically decide
not to permit it.
It is correct, that the precautionary principle would tend
to put the burden of proof (i.e. the burden of reducing
the scientific uncertainty) with the proponents of a new
technology.
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
RR
> In article <3CA8112F...@chello.se>,
> I've only gone over the case briefly. It looks to me as though the judge
> is saying that he thinks Schmeisser is lying--that he in fact used
> commercially grown GE seed without a license and pretended it was the
> result of accidental polinization. What is less clear is whether the
> judge thinks the result rests on that.
>
> The interesting case would be if Schmeisser deliberately sprayed roundup
> on fields that he thought had some fraction of open pollinated roundup
> ready Canola, and used the surviving plants for his seed.
Get it from the source
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Legal Opinions
http://www.biotech-info.net/percy_schmeiser.html
David Ball
wrote:
>One argument that comes up with increasing frequency goes by the name of
>"the precautionary principle." Roughly speaking, it is the rule that a
>new technology which might do large and irreversible harm should not be
>permitted until it can prove that it won't. The principle is currently
>most visible in the controversy over genetically engineered crops.
It needn't apply only to new technology, David. In general, it
refers to any precautionary measures that are applied to any activity
that can impact on human health or the environment, even when a strict
cause/effect relationship has not been established. The case you
outline above is merely a subset of the whole.
>
>It sounds plausible, until you start thinking about "might." It then
>might occur to you that one virtue of the precautionary principle, from
>the standpoint of those who want to use it to prevent technologies they
>dislike, is that you never have to say you are sorry because you can
>never be shown to be wrong. If, after fifty years, it turns out that the
>technology you tried to ban is perfectly safe, that doesn't mean you
>were wrong--you only said it "might" kill millions of people. No more
>Paul Ehrlich fiascos, with false predictions discrediting the people who
>make them.
Your viewpoint is flawed, David. You view this as a method of
stifling development. It isn't. It is a method for dampening stupidity
and it takes a "better the devil you know" approach. If there is a
risk of sticking your finger in a light socket, perhaps the best
approach is not to stick your finger in the light socket. It is sound
risk management.
Applied to climate change, it merely states that since the
climate system is something we cannot control and that our influences
are affecting that system in ways that we cannot predict, the best
policy is to step backward and reduce our influence.
Applied to weather forecasting, it means that I can't tell you
whether the tornado approaching your town will kill you, but it might
be a good idea for you to heed the warning that has been issued and
take shelter.
You are correct that it is very difficult to assess the
validity of the precautions taken after the fact. That is the nature
of the process.
>
>One area where the precautionary principle has been applied, without the
>name, for quite a while is nuclear reactors. From fairly early on, the
>technology has been subject to extensive regulation, based in part on
>real arguments about real risks but also in large part on the idea that
>it was a new and scary technology, connected with bombs and radiation
>sickness and all that stuff. The opposition to nuclear energy has been
>in large part based on ignoring evidence about causation--in particular,
>the massive evidence that deducing adverse consequences of low levels of
>radiation by looking at the consequences of high levels and assuming the
>relationship is linear enormously overestimates the damage. Central to
>the precautionary principle is that you don't have to show that a new
>technology will cause damage--it is up to the other side to prove it
>won't.
Again, you view this from a simplistic subset of the issue.
Central to the Precautionary Principle is that we should do no harm.
Yes, there are people who will attempt to take this to its most
illogical extreme - some will say we should do nothing while others
(yourself?) will suggest that we should do everything. There is a
middle ground.
>
>Hence I conjecture that if we had not applied the precautionary
>principle to nuclear reactors the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would
>be substantially lower than it now is, and the threat of global warming
>substantially less.
And if pigeons were dodo's the latter wouldn't be extinct.
It's a meaningless argument.
David Ball
wrote:
Spoken like someone who doesn't live in Tjernobyl's backyard,
Don.
James A. Donald
> example at the moment we seem to be losing the bottom life along the
> shores of the Mediterranean to a new weed, Caulerpa taxifolia that was
> spread from salt water aquariums.
This new species evolved naturally, without human intervention.
Nobody bred it, nobody played with its genes. Since the oceans are
all connected, there is no particular reason to suppose it was
transported in salt water aquariums, though it may well have done so.
It is a normal part of evolution that new species appear, and wipe out
old species. Attempting to hold back the clock is intervention also.
People are reluctant to call it a new species, because it only
appeared very recently and they want to wipe it out, but it cannot
thrive under the conditions and in the places where its ancestral
species thrives, nor can it interbreed with its ancestral species.
Different range, genetic incompatibility.
Naming it the new species that it so plainly is, is a political act,
for to so name it implies it has as much justification to live and
thrive as any other, implies that new species are appearing as old
species go extinct, as was always the case.
David Friedman
Torsten Brinch <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
> Key points in understanding the precautionary principle is,
> that a risk analysis may actually end out in a position
> of scientific uncertainty about the risk -- in this situation,
> the precautionary principle states, the scientific uncertainty
> should not be a reason for taking a position of political
> inaction in relation to that risk.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a position of scientific uncertainty
about the risk." We are always uncertain about the risk--that's why it
is a risk.
Consider my decision to cross the street. It could be that a drunk
driver is about to come around the corner at fifty miles an hour and
will run me down if I cross the street just now. From my standpoint, I
can assign a probability to that event--and because it is very low, the
expected cost of crossing the street is less than the expected benefit,
so I do it. But in fact, the drunk driver either is or is not
approaching the corner (out of my sight). The probability that if I
cross the street just now he will run me down is (ignoring effects at
the quantum mechanical level) either zero or one.
What's the difference betweeen that situation and a new technology? We
have some estimate of the probability that something bad could happen.
In a sense, we are confident that estimate is wrong--if we knew enough
more, the risk would become either much more likely or much less likely.
That's the reason one learns more.But at this time we have to act on
available information. So we see whether our best estimate of the
expected cost is more or less than of the expected benefit.
The precautionary principle, if it says anything, says to do other than
that--to forbid some new technologies even though expected cost is less
than expected benefit--because actual cost might be larger than actual
benefit. The same is true for my crossing the street.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> > Hence "Solution Unsatisfactory."
>
> Hence my suggestion that perhaps one ought to become a luddite. If
> the alternatives are either to become a victim of grey goo or a
> government with total power, limiting research doesn't sound so bad,
> does it?
If those are the only alternatives, it doesn't--but it probably isn't an
option either. The limiting is being done by governments, they have
strong incentives to do research, and on the whole their incentives are
probably worse than those of the people they are limiting.
> What is your solution?
My current best guess on nanotech is that you let it develop and hope
offense doesn't have too big an advantage over defense. It can be used
for both--cell repair machines vs nanoplagues. Much large resources will
go into defense, given that my interest in not getting killed is much
larger than the random smart teenagers interest in playing around, and
there are a lot more of us. That might not work--i.e. might lead to
catastrophe--which is one more reason to be in favor of space
colonization.
I've been having the argument with someone involved in nanotech for a
while. Every time he gives my seminar a guest lecture on nanotech he
slants it towards the arguments for regulation, in the hope of getting
me to work out arguments against--at least, that's my interpretation.
You can see the result so far in the nanotech chapter of _Future
Imperfect."
> The best solution I've seen to how to handle dangerous technology is
> in "The Transparent society" by David Brin. He essentially says that
> the least disturbing sacrifice is to give up privacy. If everyone can
> spy on everyone else it will be hard for any side to abuse the system
> too much without getting caught.
Brin is mostly concerned with surveillance technology. The first two
chapters of the book are very interesting, and I generally assign them.
But you would need a pretty strong version of his system to control
basement nanotech once the technology is reasonably well worked out.
> Yes, one expert claimed this. The case wasn't perfectly clearcut, but
> then one would expect Monsanto to start with the easiest case and be
> able to produce expert witnesses to at least hint at deliberate use.
> It is alos unclear whether the judge even considers that a necessary
> requirement for patent infringement.
My point about what is interesting about it. But I think it's clear that
the judge believed that expert from the bit I quoted.
> Does the judge think that you are allowed to use accidently contaminated
> seeds or not?
I cannot tell, but I would be very surprised if the final result was
that you couldn't.
> > The interesting case would be if Schmeisser deliberately sprayed roundup
> > on fields that he thought had some fraction of open pollinated roundup
> > ready Canola, and used the surviving plants for his seed.
>
> As far as I can tell neither side claims roundup was ever used, and
> since this is the only advantage of the "stolen" gene I fail to see
> Schmeiser's motive for stealing it. At the contrary, Schmeiser argues
> that he was harmed by it.
I think if you look more carefully, Schmeiser says he used roundup in
places in order to check whether or not the canola was roundup ready--as
an experiment. He claims he didn't spray it generally.
Suppose he deliberately used roundup in order to kill all canola that
didn't have the gene, with the result, in a few generations, of
producing his own strain of roundup ready canola and selling the seeds.
Do you think Monsanto would then have a legitimate case against him?
If you don't, let me offer the following case, which seems to me
analogous.
You are reading a book on your lawn. I, your next door neighbor, use a
camera with a telescopic lens to photograph the pages. I then OCR them,
print them, and sell copies of the book.
The information I used was brought by photons coming onto my property
without my permission--just like the pollen. But I then deliberately
processed that information to get someone else's legally protected
intellectual property--just like the farmer in my hypothetical.
> > So what did you mean by "neutral?" Agreeing with you?
> Agreeing with what researchers in a field has to say.
> > I'm not sure why
> > that would make a book less sellable than agreeing with Lomborg, which
> > was your original point.
> Discussing both sides of an issue confuse people. It is much easier
> to present only one, either "we are all gonna die" or "everything
> will be fine".
Lomborg's book is a counterexample. You don't think he has properly
evaluated and balanced what researchers in a field have to say. But he
in fact gives neither of your versions, and he gives arguments on both
sides. And it seems to have sold lots of copies--helped, I would like to
believe, by the immoderate attacks on it.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Ball
wrote:
>
>The precautionary principle, if it says anything, says to do other than
>that--to forbid some new technologies even though expected cost is less
>than expected benefit--because actual cost might be larger than actual
>benefit. The same is true for my crossing the street.
>
Incorrect. It states do no harm and if there is a risk of
doing harm take precautionary measures. Nothing more.
Ian St. John
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:96dc81b9.02040...@posting.google.com...
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> > For
> > example at the moment we seem to be losing the bottom life along the
> > shores of the Mediterranean to a new weed, Caulerpa taxifolia that was
> > spread from salt water aquariums.
>
> This new species evolved naturally, without human intervention.
Actually, no. It seems to be a mutation specific to saltwater aquarium
supplies. The specific mutation does not seem to be found in the natural
range.
> Nobody bred it, nobody played with its genes. Since the oceans are
> all connected, there is no particular reason to suppose it was
> transported in salt water aquariums, though it may well have done so.
Actually, this is bullshit. The source is well known as the aquarium was the
only source of this specific mutation, and the infestation started at the
site of the discharge. The plant reproduces mostly by regeneration of broken
sections, so the whole infestation represents a single clone. It is not
known what caused the mutation, but it could have been deliberate in the
search of a better aquarium plant.
>
> It is a normal part of evolution that new species appear, and wipe out
> old species. Attempting to hold back the clock is intervention also.
No. NOT introducing pest species is smart. If you were right, the "day of
the triffids" should have been "the day mankind gave up and let nature wipe
him out". While we may not be able, and have no interest in stopping
evolution and competition, the introduction of species without competition
into a vulnerable ecosystems is devastating and is not part of normal
evolutionary processes. It takes a lot of time to create a predatory species
to control the wild proliferation and centuries to recover to a balanced
ecosystem.
>
> People are reluctant to call it a new species, because it only
> appeared very recently and they want to wipe it out, but it cannot
> thrive under the conditions and in the places where its ancestral
> species thrives, nor can it interbreed with its ancestral species.
> Different range, genetic incompatibility.
Due to the mutation and the fact that it does not spread sexually but by
fragmentation. It is unique in that it is all one close of a single mutation
in some aquarium somewhere.
>
> Naming it the new species that it so plainly is, is a political act,
> for to so name it implies it has as much justification to live and
> thrive as any other, implies that new species are appearing as old
> species go extinct, as was always the case.
I'm not sure it is a new species, but I doubt if the name or the status as a
species has anything to do with the damage it does.
David Friedman
wra...@mb.sympatico.ca (David Ball) wrote:
If it is as vague as "take precautionary measures" then it says nothing.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
wra...@mb.sympatico.ca (David Ball) wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:19:39 GMT, David Friedman <dd...@best.com>
> wrote:
>
> >One argument that comes up with increasing frequency goes by the name of
> >"the precautionary principle." Roughly speaking, it is the rule that a
> >new technology which might do large and irreversible harm should not be
> >permitted until it can prove that it won't. The principle is currently
> >most visible in the controversy over genetically engineered crops.
>
> It needn't apply only to new technology, David.
I think if you do a web search, you will that that is what the term
normally refers to. It isn't merely a fancy name for "be careful."
> >One area where the precautionary principle has been applied, without the
> >name, for quite a while is nuclear reactors. From fairly early on, the
> >technology has been subject to extensive regulation, based in part on
> >real arguments about real risks but also in large part on the idea that
> >it was a new and scary technology, connected with bombs and radiation
> >sickness and all that stuff. The opposition to nuclear energy has been
> >in large part based on ignoring evidence about causation--in particular,
> >the massive evidence that deducing adverse consequences of low levels of
> >radiation by looking at the consequences of high levels and assuming the
> >relationship is linear enormously overestimates the damage. Central to
> >the precautionary principle is that you don't have to show that a new
> >technology will cause damage--it is up to the other side to prove it
> >won't.
>
> Again, you view this from a simplistic subset of the issue.
> Central to the Precautionary Principle is that we should do no harm.
> Yes, there are people who will attempt to take this to its most
> illogical extreme - some will say we should do nothing while others
> (yourself?) will suggest that we should do everything. There is a
> middle ground.
And why does this contradict my point about nuclear energy? Given
uncertainty, "take actions that you are sure will do no harm" isn't
normally an option, which is part of the point of that example.
Forbidding a technology, or regulating it in ways that make it much more
costly, might do harm too--in this case, arguably, the particular harm
people here are so concerned about.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Thomas Palm
>
> In article <3CA8267E...@chello.se>,
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
>
> > > Hence "Solution Unsatisfactory."
> >
> > Hence my suggestion that perhaps one ought to become a luddite. If
> > the alternatives are either to become a victim of grey goo or a
> > government with total power, limiting research doesn't sound so bad,
> > does it?
>
> If those are the only alternatives, it doesn't--but it probably isn't an
> option either. The limiting is being done by governments, they have
> strong incentives to do research, and on the whole their incentives are
> probably worse than those of the people they are limiting.
A government in total control has no incentive to allow anything that
can topple it's power, including dangerous research. There is always
a risk that it will fall into the wrong hands.
> > What is your solution?
>
> My current best guess on nanotech is that you let it develop and hope
> offense doesn't have too big an advantage over defense. It can be used
> for both--cell repair machines vs nanoplagues. Much large resources will
> go into defense, given that my interest in not getting killed is much
> larger than the random smart teenagers interest in playing around, and
> there are a lot more of us. That might not work--i.e. might lead to
> catastrophe--which is one more reason to be in favor of space
> colonization.
Ask the Israelis how spending a lot more on defence helps them against
suicide bombers. Assume we drop goverment control on fissile materials,
how long until we had a general nuclear holocaust? Defence is generally
a lot harder than offence. After all the defender has to be prepared
against everything all the time while the attacker only has succeed with
one attack, once.
Belief that you can outrun destruction also seems hopeless: the people
you run away will will be just as fallible as the ones behind and have
access to equally dangerous technology. Assuming we spread enough I
guess it would be possible that we managed to disperse faster than
we destroyed the worlds we colonized, but in the face of such a human
cancer devouring the galaxy, I'd rather see that we stayed at home
and died quietly taking only one planet with us.
Unless we fundamentally change human nature or have some benevolent AI
take control I see little hope if nanotech really does become that
simple. I used to work in a nanotech related field, and this is one of
the reasons I quit.
> I've been having the argument with someone involved in nanotech for a
> while. Every time he gives my seminar a guest lecture on nanotech he
> slants it towards the arguments for regulation, in the hope of getting
> me to work out arguments against--at least, that's my interpretation.
> You can see the result so far in the nanotech chapter of _Future
> Imperfect."
I scanned it quickly and didn't really find anything really new there.
> > The best solution I've seen to how to handle dangerous technology is
> > in "The Transparent society" by David Brin. He essentially says that
> > the least disturbing sacrifice is to give up privacy. If everyone can
> > spy on everyone else it will be hard for any side to abuse the system
> > too much without getting caught.
>
> Brin is mostly concerned with surveillance technology. The first two
> chapters of the book are very interesting, and I generally assign them.
> But you would need a pretty strong version of his system to control
> basement nanotech once the technology is reasonably well worked out.
If nanotech reaches the basement level it wouldn't work, but say that
society decides on an earlier stage that we don't want it to become
that simple and ban it early on. In that case a transparent society
may ensure that it is very hard for anyone to cheat.
Nuclear weapons, for example, was not developed in a basement but
by a huge government program. Not until that information was out
has it become possible to build a bomb, if not in a basement so
at least at a decent university.
> > Yes, one expert claimed this. The case wasn't perfectly clearcut, but
> > then one would expect Monsanto to start with the easiest case and be
> > able to produce expert witnesses to at least hint at deliberate use.
> > It is alos unclear whether the judge even considers that a necessary
> > requirement for patent infringement.
>
> My point about what is interesting about it. But I think it's clear that
> the judge believed that expert from the bit I quoted.
Yes, and that is rather scary IMHO.
> > As far as I can tell neither side claims roundup was ever used, and
> > since this is the only advantage of the "stolen" gene I fail to see
> > Schmeiser's motive for stealing it. At the contrary, Schmeiser argues
> > that he was harmed by it.
>
> I think if you look more carefully, Schmeiser says he used roundup in
> places in order to check whether or not the canola was roundup ready--as
> an experiment. He claims he didn't spray it generally.
If you didn't own a DNA lab, how would you test if you had any crops
resistant to roundup? What Schmeiser did was a perfectly reasonable
way of testing what kind of crops he had.
> Suppose he deliberately used roundup in order to kill all canola that
> didn't have the gene, with the result, in a few generations, of
> producing his own strain of roundup ready canola and selling the seeds.
> Do you think Monsanto would then have a legitimate case against him?
At that point Monsanto would have a case against him, but this is a
totally hypothetical case with no evidence supporting it.
> If you don't, let me offer the following case, which seems to me
> analogous.
>
> You are reading a book on your lawn. I, your next door neighbor, use a
> camera with a telescopic lens to photograph the pages. I then OCR them,
> print them, and sell copies of the book.
>
> The information I used was brought by photons coming onto my property
> without my permission--just like the pollen. But I then deliberately
> processed that information to get someone else's legally protected
> intellectual property--just like the farmer in my hypothetical.
But in this case it is more as if you were being sued for merely
having had the opportunity to read the book by those stray photons,
with little concern for whether you did.
David Ball
wrote:
>In article <3ca8a3f7...@news.escape.ca>,
> wra...@mb.sympatico.ca (David Ball) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 17:38:12 GMT, David Friedman <dd...@best.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The precautionary principle, if it says anything, says to do other than
>> >that--to forbid some new technologies even though expected cost is less
>> >than expected benefit--because actual cost might be larger than actual
>> >benefit. The same is true for my crossing the street.
>> >
>> Incorrect. It states do no harm and if there is a risk of
>> doing harm take precautionary measures. Nothing more.
>
>If it is as vague as "take precautionary measures" then it says nothing.
>
Those are situationally dependent, so vagueness is not a
problem. You cannot specifically define precautions that cover all
situations.
David Ball
wrote:
>In article <3ca88d18...@news.escape.ca>,
> wra...@mb.sympatico.ca (David Ball) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:19:39 GMT, David Friedman <dd...@best.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >One argument that comes up with increasing frequency goes by the name of
>> >"the precautionary principle." Roughly speaking, it is the rule that a
>> >new technology which might do large and irreversible harm should not be
>> >permitted until it can prove that it won't. The principle is currently
>> >most visible in the controversy over genetically engineered crops.
>>
>> It needn't apply only to new technology, David.
>
>I think if you do a web search, you will that that is what the term
>normally refers to. It isn't merely a fancy name for "be careful."
Incorrect.
I notice you snipped the other contexts of the precautionary
principle I posted in an effort to keep the discussion focussed in the
narrow confines you have defined for it. It won't work. If you want to
look at the issue in terms of the thread you started (i.e. Is the
precautionary principle responsible for global warming?), then your
argument is nonsense. GHG emissions are responsible for PART of the
warming. If you want to contend that concern over nuclear power has
forced a reliance on fossil fuels and that this has led to the
problem, you're going to have to do a lot more to establish cause and
effect. All you are doing is speculating. Nothing more. What's more,
you are looking at the problems associated with climate change in such
a simplistic fashion that you have no hope of establishing
cause/effect.
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>In article <aj8gauol0ldu3vhtq...@4ax.com>,
> Torsten Brinch <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
>
>> Key points in understanding the precautionary principle is,
>> that a risk analysis may actually end out in a position
>> of scientific uncertainty about the risk -- in this situation,
>> the precautionary principle states, the scientific uncertainty
>> should not be a reason for taking a position of political
>> inaction in relation to that risk.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "a position of scientific uncertainty
>about the risk." We are always uncertain about the risk--that's why it
>is a risk. <snip>
That is a misunderstanding of the term risk. A risk can
be very well characterizable, quantifiable etc by science.
Key point in understanding the term risk in risk analysis
is the concept of hazard, as something which can be identified,
the adverse effects of which can be qualitatively and/or
quantitative evaluated and/or made subject of establishment
of exposure-effect relationships, etc.
A structured approach to do so is called risk assessment,
and is ideally the basis for risk management decisions.
Risk assessment is science's contribution to risk analysis,
simply put.
However, risk assessment may miss its target, and in stead
end out in a state of uncertainty, at the current state
of science. How now to make risk management decisions?
This is where the precautionary principle comes in. Stating,
that a scientifically established state of uncertainty
about a risk should not be a reason for taking a position
of political inaction in relation to that risk.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Vito De Lucia
the PP is an application of rational decision making, specifically aimed
at tackling problems relating to the environmnet and showing scientific
uncertainty and risks of irreversible or near-irreversible effects. It
is a tool of risk management. A too strict interpretation would actually
mean forestalling the undertaking of activities or the deployment of new
technologies, but that is not an inherent trait of the PP per se. It
merely aims at erring on the side of precaution and so it shifts the
burden of proof, so that in the face of uncertainty (potential)
polluters or resource users have to prove that an activity and/or
technology is not harmful to the environment. In the US there is a
similar concept called "reasonable ecological and medical concern" to be
negatively proved in order to perform activities that modify the status
quo ante, and has been applied in at least one court case (a mining
license if I recall correctly).
The considerations to be done in evaluating the single cases are many.
The level of uncertainty, the degree of irreversibility, the
distribution of harmful outcomes, short-term and long-term perspectives,
the possible benefits one would forego in the case of precautonary
action or non-action....
It is usually stated so that lack of scientific certainty should not
prevent from taking precautionary action. In the case of GMO it is the
opposite - forbid until we reach a *reasonable* certainty of the
possible consequences so that an effective measurement of costs and
benefits (not only market-related) can be performed.
It also incorporates (or at least it borders with ), somehow, the notion
of strong sustainability, where there is no fungibility between natural
and human-created capital.
>I'm not sure what you mean by "a position of scientific uncertainty
>about the risk."
When scientific uncertainty is such that a probability distribution of potential outcomes is not possible is one interpetation.
thanks
ciao
Vito
--
------------------------------------
"Doctrine is like a raft, when you have crossed the river leave it on the bank."
Buddha
------------------------------------
RR
> If you didn't own a DNA lab, how would you test if you had any crops
> resistant to roundup? What Schmeiser did was a perfectly reasonable
> way of testing what kind of crops he had.
There are send in GMO testing places such as this one:
http://www.gmocert.com/qq.htm
http://www.gmocert.com/faq.htm
http://www.gmocert.com/order.htm
But I suspect that they are not well known. Additionally one would have to
be pretty sure which areas of his crops are contaminated. Schmeiser's
method of using Round-up would be the logical, quick and dirty method that
would occur to most people I would think.
An interesting new facet of this is that he cannot seem to get rid of it,
even using a broad-leaf weed killer like 2, 4-D. Of course this will have
to be independently verified.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/contamination.htm
Art
> simple: Secure property rights are the institutional framework that best
> handles the problem of allocating goods across time, and they are
> threatened by (among other things) the environmental movement, since it
> provides politically persuasive arguments for seizing control of
> property.
In relation to the global warming how would one define and enforce
property rights in stable climate?
Art
Vito De Lucia
T.P.
>Does the judge think that you are allowed to use accidently contaminated
> seeds or not?
D.F.
>I cannot tell, but I would be very surprised if the final result was
>that you couldn't.
Hi,
" [92] Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating
from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a
neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into
his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the
seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them.
He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or
of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell."
The rights are split into material ownership and rights of use. Consider
a CD, you own the actual audio support, but do not have any right to use
the music, which is protected by IPR regime. The key though is
"economic" use, so I believe the farmer could in theory use the
gene/plant, as he did, to test whether they were contaminated, but could
not, for instance, harvest from those plants and gain economic benefits
without paying the technology fee to Monsanto.
I have not read that carefully the whole thing though, especially the
part referring to the testing and the sampling.
David Friedman
Vito De Lucia <lu...@online.no> wrote:
> " [92] Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating
> from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a
> neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into
> his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the
> seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them.
> He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or
> of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell."
My guess is that that means he can eat the seeds, or sell them to be
made into oil, but he can't select out the ones with the patented genes
and then sell them to be used as seed to grow roundup ready canola.
As I said, it seems clear from the opinion that the judge doesn't
believe Schmeisser's account of what happened. Note that Schmeisser's
canola is growing in 370-1030 acres of (depending on the year) non GE
canola, and the nearest GE canola to the field from which the GE seeds
were supposedly harvested was five miles away! Under those
circumstances, what percentage of the pollen reaching Schmeiser's canola
plant do you think is going to be from the GE canola? Doesn't one
percent sound like a wildly high guess?
"The results of these tests show the presence of the patented gene in a
range of 95-98% of the canola sampled."
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
ar...@hotmail.com (Art) wrote:
You can't. That's why global warming could be a real problem. It isn't
an issue of "allocating goods across time" but of externalities.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Vito De Lucia <lu...@online.no> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the PP is an application of rational decision making, specifically aimed
> at tackling problems relating to the environmnet and showing scientific
> uncertainty and risks of irreversible or near-irreversible effects. It
> is a tool of risk management. A too strict interpretation would actually
> mean forestalling the undertaking of activities or the deployment of new
> technologies,
Indeed.
> but that is not an inherent trait of the PP per se. It
> merely aims at erring on the side of precaution
And precisely how much are you supposed to "err?"
Making decisions on the basis of expected costs and benefits, including
small probabilities of low costs, doesn't require the precautionary
principle--it's the conventional decision making rule. The PP is adding
something else--namely deciding against new technologies even when the
conventional rule comes out in favor of them. As a principle it provides
no basis for choosing between "block a new technology if costs seem
almost as high as benefits" and "block it if there is any possibility at
all of very large costs."
> and so it shifts the
> burden of proof, so that in the face of uncertainty (potential)
> polluters or resource users have to prove that an activity and/or
> technology is not harmful to the environment.
But since one can never prove that, for an old or new technology, that
means blocking new technologies.
Consider the argument that I started this thread with. It might be
right--whether it is I don't know. So it might be the case that the
precautionary principle, applied to nuclear power generation, produces
very large adverse environmental effects. Hence, following the
precautionary principle, we must ban the use of the precautionary
principle until its supporters can prove that it is not harmful to the
environment. If you find that unconvincing, explain the difference
between that and forbidding GE crops until it can be proved that they
pose no threat.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> > If those are the only alternatives, it doesn't--but it probably isn't an
> > option either. The limiting is being done by governments, they have
> > strong incentives to do research, and on the whole their incentives are
> > probably worse than those of the people they are limiting.
>
> A government in total control has no incentive to allow anything that
> can topple it's power, including dangerous research. There is always
> a risk that it will fall into the wrong hands.
And how does the government maintain its total control? Not an easy
thing to do. Better and better nanotech would certainly help.
> > My point about what is interesting about it. But I think it's clear that
> > the judge believed that expert from the bit I quoted.
>
> Yes, and that is rather scary IMHO.
If I have it right, the nearest GE canola to the field the seed was
supposedly harvested from was five miles away. The crop was in a field
of non GE canola. Under those circumstances, can you seriously explain a
percentage of GE pollen as high as one percent?
"The results of these tests show the presence of the patented gene in a
range of 95-98% of the canola sampled."
> > > As far as I can tell neither side claims roundup was ever used, and
> > > since this is the only advantage of the "stolen" gene I fail to see
> > > Schmeiser's motive for stealing it. At the contrary, Schmeiser argues
> > > that he was harmed by it.
> >
> > I think if you look more carefully, Schmeiser says he used roundup in
> > places in order to check whether or not the canola was roundup ready--as
> > an experiment. He claims he didn't spray it generally.
>
> If you didn't own a DNA lab, how would you test if you had any crops
> resistant to roundup? What Schmeiser did was a perfectly reasonable
> way of testing what kind of crops he had.
Sure. But it was inconsistent with what you had said, and relevant to
one thing that might have been going on, so worth mentioning.
> > Suppose he deliberately used roundup in order to kill all canola that
> > didn't have the gene, with the result, in a few generations, of
> > producing his own strain of roundup ready canola and selling the seeds.
> > Do you think Monsanto would then have a legitimate case against him?
> At that point Monsanto would have a case against him, but this is a
> totally hypothetical case with no evidence supporting it.
It isn't what happened this time, so far as I can tell, but it is
something someone could do, and interesting.
Again--how do you get canola almost entirely GE by pollen pollution from
miles away?
> But in this case it is more as if you were being sued for merely
> having had the opportunity to read the book by those stray photons,
> with little concern for whether you did.
Except that the judge explicitly says he doesn't believe that version of
what happened.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
RR
> If I have it right, the nearest GE canola to the field the seed was
> supposedly harvested from was five miles away. The crop was in a field
> of non GE canola. Under those circumstances, can you seriously explain a
> percentage of GE pollen as high as one percent?
>
> "The results of these tests show the presence of the patented gene in a
> range of 95-98% of the canola sampled."
--------------------
> Again--how do you get canola almost entirely GE by pollen pollution from
> miles away?
From a news report posted earlier at:
http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?layout=displaynews&doc_id=NR20020328670.2
_781400058d647aae
"'The study concludes that "gene flow can occur over long distances", and
that some varieties of GM crops interbreed with others "at higher
frequencies and at greater distances than previously thought".
Cross-pollination by GM oilseed rape has been recorded about two and a half
miles away from the crop, compared to an isolation distance of 600m.
Research in Scotland has suggested that bees could carry the pollen at least
six miles. The report warns that "over time even small amounts of gene flow
can have important effects on evolutionary change'"
The report can be downloaded here:
http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2002_28/en
RR
in an area overgrown with GMOs you would, of course, get a high percentage
of GMOs found.
Jeffrey Siegal
>
> I'm cross posting this in the hopes of getting some feedback on an
> interesting question that David friedman raised over in sci.environment (see
> below).
>
> Does anyone have an estimate for how much of Nuclear Power's cost is pure
> litigation, and regulation and how much is actual real cost?
One point that has been made repeatedly over here in sci.energy is that
back when the last nuclear power plants were being built in the United
States, interest rates were in the high double digits. The discount
rate for something like a nuclear power plant was probably close to
25%. For a project with a discount rate of 25%, delaying completion by
just four years doubles the cost. I suspect there is little doubt that
litigation and regulation delayed the completion of those plants by at
least four years, and probably much more in some cases.
Ian St. John
<A whole lot that doesn't seem to be economics... >
<snip>
>
> If I have it right, the nearest GE canola to the field the seed was
> supposedly harvested from was five miles away. The crop was in a field
> of non GE canola. Under those circumstances, can you seriously explain a
> percentage of GE pollen as high as one percent?
>
> "The results of these tests show the presence of the patented gene in a
> range of 95-98% of the canola sampled."
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/AcresUSAstory.pdf
"In his defense, Schmeiser showed his own farm-based evidence that the
fields ranged from nearly zero to 68% Roundup Ready. These tests were
confirmed by independent tests performed by research scientists at the
University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, MB. Schmeiser's defense also contained
evidence that he didn't knowingly acquire Monsanto's product, segregate the
contaminated seeds for future use or spray his canola with Roundup"
Can you explain why a field sown with the monsanto seed in a deliberate act
would vary so wildly over the area? Beyond that, he points out
"We found out later that they had secured a sample from another company
which they claimed had come from my field, but it was not my seed. What I
had taken in was bin run seed, which was never cleaned, and what this
company provided was clean seed - it was a totally different seed."
Since he was a organic producer, and sold the seed as grain, he would not
have cleaned the seed. That is fairly simple to understand. That monsanto
'salted' the samples is also not hard to understand, given their attempts at
coercion and intimidation.
The range of 0 to 68% is reasonable if you read the "guide to soybean seeds"
at http://www.percyschmeiser.com/crime.htm I have a lot of faith in the
University of Gueph in farming and agriculture matters.
<snip>
>
> Except that the judge explicitly says he doesn't believe that version of
what happened.
Wrong again.. "He ruled that it didn't matter how Monsanto's genetically
altered canola got on to my land. The judge went on to specify that if it
blew in by the wind, cross-pollinated by flood, birds, bees, animals, fell
off farmer's trucks, or migrated from the neighbor who may be growing it in
the field next to mine - even if it blows into my field against my wishes -
it does not matter, I infringed on their patent. Number two, he ruled that
if my field is crosspollinated with Monsanto's genetically altered Roundup
Ready Canola, my conventional plants would become their property. That was a
very startling decision which basically means that a farmer can lose his
entire field."
RR
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:B1AE924DA83018F6.4D5D9E02...@lp.airnews.net...
> Since he was a organic producer, and sold the seed as grain, he would not
> have cleaned the seed. That is fairly simple to understand. That monsanto
> 'salted' the samples is also not hard to understand, given their attempts
at
> coercion and intimidation.
This is a big case. Given other sneaky things Schmeiser has documented it's
not hard to imagine a small plane flying low at night over fields dropping
seed...
Ian St. John
"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:HMaq8.18453$Eb5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
No need for paranoia. Normal distribution as documented would be quite
adequate, given the characteristics of the plant.
RR
> No need for paranoia. Normal distribution as documented would be quite
> adequate, given the characteristics of the plant.
Of course. I'm not actually saying that they would do something like
that...
;-)
Ian St. John
The problem really seems to be that the Federal Judge was so focussed on
"patent rights" that he missed or ignored the agricultural realities. It
comes of living in the urban/corporate landscape.
What I find curious is that Andrew Langer and David Gossman, two zealots of
the Libertarian "property rights will replace regulations" school, have been
strangely silent. They keep saying that "if they pollute your land, you sue
them, so no regulations are needed". Here we have a case where they pollute
your land and then *sue you* out of your livelihood! Kinda puts the lie to
that "property rights" libertarianism. I wonder where they are hiding while
this thread rips their cherished illusions to tatters? ;-)
RR
Saskatchewan. It should be interesting to see how that comes out. I hope
he brings a good lawyer. You know Monsanto will.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Appeal.htm
David Friedman
<B1AE924DA83018F6.4D5D9E02...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > Except that the judge explicitly says he doesn't believe that version of
> what happened.
>
> Wrong again.. "He ruled that it didn't matter how Monsanto's genetically
> altered canola got on to my land. The judge went on to specify that if it
> blew in by the wind, cross-pollinated by flood, birds, bees, animals, fell
> off farmer's trucks, or migrated from the neighbor who may be growing it in
> the field next to mine - even if it blows into my field against my wishes -
> it does not matter, I infringed on their patent. Number two, he ruled that
> if my field is crosspollinated with Monsanto's genetically altered Roundup
> Ready Canola, my conventional plants would become their property. That was a
> very startling decision which basically means that a farmer can lose his
> entire field."
You are quoting what Schmeiser says that the judge said, and simply
taking it for granted that it is true. I quoted what the judge actually
said in the case.
Try reading the webbed case as well as Schmeiser's version.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
<HMaq8.18453$Eb5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> This is a big case. Given other sneaky things Schmeiser has documented it's
> not hard to imagine a small plane flying low at night over fields dropping
> seed...
I am curious as to what "documented" means in this context. Do you mean
things Schemisser has claimed, or things he has provided substantial
independent evidence for?
You might think about why Monsanto would want to engage in an activity
that already gets them bad publicity, and would be a PR catastrophe if
they got caught.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
> One point that has been made repeatedly over here in sci.energy is that
> back when the last nuclear power plants were being built in the United
> States, interest rates were in the high double digits. The discount
> rate for something like a nuclear power plant was probably close to
> 25%. For a project with a discount rate of 25%, delaying completion by
> just four years doubles the cost. I suspect there is little doubt that
> litigation and regulation delayed the completion of those plants by at
> least four years, and probably much more in some cases.
You are confusing real and nominal interest rates. At the point when
nominal interest rates were in double digits real rates were low,
sometimes even negative. It's the real rate that is appropriate for
calculating whether a project is worth doing.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
That can explain why one seed in ten thousand was roundup ready. Do you
really think it explains 90+%? Your two and a half mile figure doesn't
say anything implying that most of the plants were cross
pollinated--only at least one.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Thomas Palm
From the case itself:
"[119] Yet the source of the Roundup resistant canola in the defendants' 1997
crop is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement
which relates to the 1998 crop. It is clear from Mr. Schmeiser himself that he
retained seed grown in 1996 in field number 1 to be his seed for the 1997 crop.
In 1997 he was aware that the crop in field number 2 showed a very high level
of tolerance to Roundup herbicide and seed from that field was harvested, and
retained for seed for 1998."
It doesn't matter how you get the patented genes. If you somehow get them
into your field it is a patent violation to use those seeds.
"Here the defendants grew canola in 1998 in nine fields, from seed saved from
their 1997 crop, which seed Mr. Schmeiser knew or can be taken to have known
was Roundup tolerant. That seed was grown and ultimately the crop was harvested
and sold. In my opinion, whether or not that crop was sprayed with Roundup
during its growing period is not important. Growth of the seed, reproducing
the patented gene and cell, and sale of the harvested crop constitutes taking
the essence of the plaintiffs' invention, using it, without permission. In so
doing the defendants infringed upon the patent interests of the plaintiffs."
It doesn't matter if you actually use the properties of the patented genes.
The judge was very partial to Monsanto and I really don't see why you are so
eager to defend it.
Thomas Palm
> You might think about why Monsanto would want to engage in an activity
> that already gets them bad publicity, and would be a PR catastrophe if
> they got caught.
Since when did that stop industry? The assumption is that you won't get
caught, or at least that your PR-department and lawyers are much stronger
than your opponents. If they can corner the market, it's worth a bit of
bad PR. It may even be good for them to get a reputation as bullies. That
way the next farmer they lean on will know it won't matter if he is right.
Monanty will use its financial muscle to crush him if he resists.
Did you read:
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Revenge.htm
RR
> > "'The study concludes that "gene flow can occur over long distances",
and
> > that some varieties of GM crops interbreed with others "at higher
> > frequencies and at greater distances than previously thought".
> > Cross-pollination by GM oilseed rape has been recorded about two and a
half
> > miles away from the crop, compared to an isolation distance of 600m.
> > Research in Scotland has suggested that bees could carry the pollen at
least
> > six miles. The report warns that "over time even small amounts of gene
flow
> > can have important effects on evolutionary change'"
>
> That can explain why one seed in ten thousand was roundup ready. Do you
> really think it explains 90+%? Your two and a half mile figure doesn't
> say anything implying that most of the plants were cross
> pollinated--only at least one.
90% is Monsanto's figure.
"This was a Monsanto internal test. It was not an independent test. We have
reason to question it. Their entire case is built upon it."
"Tests done for the defence by the University of Manitoba found about 65 per
cent of the samples survived Roundup."
http://www.canoe.ca/AllAboutCanoesNewsJun00/21_seed.html
Now why, as someone else pointed out, would a farmer sow this odd mixture of
organic and GMO seeds?
Jeffrey Siegal
> You are confusing real and nominal interest rates. At the point when
> nominal interest rates were in double digits real rates were low,
> sometimes even negative. It's the real rate that is appropriate for
> calculating whether a project is worth doing.
That's assuming you expect the value of the output to increase in line
with expected overall inflation, which is a highly questionable
assumption given cost-based rates, which was the norm at the time. And
I'm not sure anybody really knows what real rates were at the time,
because there was no readily available market expectation for long term
inflationary prospects. (Using short term inflation rates to compute
long term real rates is incorrect.)
In any case, most of the plants were, in fact, built. (Though this too
may be the result of cost-based rates.) They were just built at a much
higher cost than if they had been built more quickly.
RR
> In article
> <HMaq8.18453$Eb5.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > This is a big case. Given other sneaky things Schmeiser has documented
it's
> > not hard to imagine a small plane flying low at night over fields
dropping
> > seed...
>
> I am curious as to what "documented" means in this context. Do you mean
> things Schemisser has claimed, or things he has provided substantial
> independent evidence for?
How's this for starters?
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Fieldsinspections.htm
Check out the rest of his site for more.
> You might think about why Monsanto would want to engage in an activity
> that already gets them bad publicity, and would be a PR catastrophe if
> they got caught.
Actually *they* should think about that. They *were* caught. Their public
relations is in the toilet (and not just based on this, there's also
Anniston Alabama etc.)
> David Friedman
> www.daviddfriedman.com/
Ian St. John
Wreong one more time!! I did read the judgement, in the court archives
(http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct256.html) and at
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/T1593-98-%20Decision.pdf. It agrees with the
statement of Percy Schmeiser, so your insinuations are exposed, and your
inaccuracy revealed. I am puzzled at your lack of reading comprehension.
A summary states:
"These reasons set out the bases for my conclusions, in particular my
finding that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a
number of the claims under the plaintiffs' Canadian patent number 1,313,830
by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola
fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to
have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was
found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs' patent. By
selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the
plaintiffs' patent."
This clearly says it doesn't *matter* how the seed got there, or if you
benefit in any way, only that it had the gene. In other words, if Monsanto
pollutes your organic fields with 'volunteer' seed, you might as well sell
out since they own you, lock stock and barrel.
Did you bother to read about seed properties at
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/crime.htm?? It makes the point for how
difficult it is to remove contamination fromn a field. The 'volunteer
superweed' outcompetes your other seeds if you use roundup, because it
survives it. It can even survive broad spectrum broadleaf herbicides. And if
you don't spray, it keeps on coming too. For years afterwards.
As to sampling by Monsanto..
[39] " In an attempt to determine why the plants had survived the
herbicide spraying, Mr. Schmeiser conducted a test in field 2. Using his
sprayer, he sprayed, with Roundup herbicide, a section of that field in a
strip along the road. He made two passes with his sprayer set to spray 40
feet, the first weaving between and around the power poles, and the second
beyond but adjacent to the first pass in the field, and parallel to the
power poles. This was said by him to be some three to four acres in all, or
"a good three acres". After some days, approximately 60% of the plants
earlier sprayed had persisted and continued to grow. *Mr. Schmeiser
testified that these plants grew in clumps which were thickest near the road
and began to thin as one moved farther into the field."
[117] "Mr. Borstmayer, who farmed on the same grid road but further
north from Bruno than Mr. Schmeiser's fields numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4,
testified that in the winter of 1996-97 a bag of Roundup Ready canola seed
had fallen from his truck in Bruno and broken open, and some seed was lost
before he put the broken bag back on his truck to be hauled past Schmeiser's
fields to his own. Further, after harvesting his 1997 crop he trucked it to
the elevator on the grid road to Bruno, past Schmeiser's fields, with at
least two loads in an old truck with a loose tarp. He believes that on those
journeys he lost some seed."
[41] Before the 1997 crop was harvested, acting for Robinson
Investigations, on August 18, 1997, Mr. Wayne Derbyshire, after trying
unsuccessfully to speak with Mr. Schmeiser at his garage and at his
residence, took pod samples of canola from the west side, along the road
allowance, beside field 2 and from the south and east sides along the road
allowances bordering field 5. He testified he did not trespass on
Schmeiser's land, taking his samples from the crop *apparently* planted, as
Mr. Schmeiser does and many other farmers do, in the road allowance
bordering his fields.
So a lot of seed was lost along the bordering road, following which the
contamination spreads from the GE plants there by pollen and wind into the
main fields, and by sampling only on the road allowance ( to avoid
trespass?) one gets mostly lost seed from the road, not planted seed. Given
that the tests of the area saved as 1998 seed showed heavy but not total
contamination, it is not unexpected that contamination rates on his field
would be 1 to 68 percent. Farmers do not have any way to separate out RR
seed from the rest!! Nor can they stop farming just to make Monsanto
happy... Profit margins are slim.
James A. Donald
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> > > For example at the moment we seem to be losing the bottom
> > > life along the shores of the Mediterranean to a new weed,
> > > Caulerpa taxifolia that was spread from salt water
> > > aquariums.
James A. Donald
> > This new species evolved naturally, without human
> > intervention.
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> Actually, no. It seems to be a mutation specific to saltwater
> aquarium supplies. The specific mutation does not seem to be
> found in the natural range.
The fact that it is adapted to a different range, and cannot
interbreed with its ancestral species, makes it a new species, and
since it is taking over the new range in many oceans, it is not
specific to salt water aquaria.
And even if it is true that this new species spontaneously evolved
in salt water aquariums, which pure speculation, that would not
make it any the less a new species, would not make its evolution
any the less natural, since there was no breeding, no intent to
change the species. The resistance to so naming it is merely
political.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
a0SoqBX5M3O7l+8agaCppALFyNE63aN+ECUT9IBR
4THOkrMjrYIObH4YzHBz+QWUN0teorE5qMZ/qYiDB
Ian St. John
> In article <3CA8B8FA...@chello.se>,
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
>
> > > If those are the only alternatives, it doesn't--but it probably isn't
an
> > > option either. The limiting is being done by governments, they have
> > > strong incentives to do research, and on the whole their incentives
are
> > > probably worse than those of the people they are limiting.
> >
> > A government in total control has no incentive to allow anything that
> > can topple it's power, including dangerous research. There is always
> > a risk that it will fall into the wrong hands.
>
> And how does the government maintain its total control? Not an easy
> thing to do. Better and better nanotech would certainly help.
>
>
>
> > > My point about what is interesting about it. But I think it's clear
that
> > > the judge believed that expert from the bit I quoted.
> >
> > Yes, and that is rather scary IMHO.
>
> If I have it right, the nearest GE canola to the field the seed was
> supposedly harvested from was five miles away. The crop was in a field
> of non GE canola. Under those circumstances, can you seriously explain a
> percentage of GE pollen as high as one percent?
>
> "The results of these tests show the presence of the patented gene in a
> range of 95-98% of the canola sampled."
As to sampling by Monsanto..
This same Canola then spread to the rest of the field NOT from five miles
away.
Please learn something before you put your foot in your mouth again.
>
> > > > As far as I can tell neither side claims roundup was ever used, and
> > > > since this is the only advantage of the "stolen" gene I fail to see
> > > > Schmeiser's motive for stealing it. At the contrary, Schmeiser
argues
> > > > that he was harmed by it.
> > >
> > > I think if you look more carefully, Schmeiser says he used roundup in
> > > places in order to check whether or not the canola was roundup
ready--as
> > > an experiment. He claims he didn't spray it generally.
> >
> > If you didn't own a DNA lab, how would you test if you had any crops
> > resistant to roundup? What Schmeiser did was a perfectly reasonable
> > way of testing what kind of crops he had.
>
> Sure. But it was inconsistent with what you had said, and relevant to
> one thing that might have been going on, so worth mentioning.
I'm not sure what kind of innuendo this is, but remember that Mr Schmeiser
is in the business of growing plants on a low profit margin. He cannot spend
all of his time trying to solve the problems of Monsanto and genetic
dispersion.
>
> > > Suppose he deliberately used roundup in order to kill all canola that
> > > didn't have the gene, with the result, in a few generations, of
> > > producing his own strain of roundup ready canola and selling the
seeds.
> > > Do you think Monsanto would then have a legitimate case against him?
>
> > At that point Monsanto would have a case against him, but this is a
> > totally hypothetical case with no evidence supporting it.
>
> It isn't what happened this time, so far as I can tell, but it is
> something someone could do, and interesting.
However, since he is in the business of selling grain, not seed, the point
is merely insult.
>
> Again--how do you get canola almost entirely GE by pollen pollution from
> miles away?
Still having trouble reading???
>
> > But in this case it is more as if you were being sued for merely
> > having had the opportunity to read the book by those stray photons,
> > with little concern for whether you did.
>
> Except that the judge explicitly says he doesn't believe that version of
> what happened.
No. He specifically ruled that knowledge of the contamination was the basis
of the case, NOT how it got there. Mostly he agreed that it was probably an
unintentional contamination, and he agreed that it profited Mr Schmeiser not
a bit.
119] "Yet the source of the Roundup resistant canola in the defendants'
1997 crop is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of
infringement which relates to the 1998 crop. It is clear from Mr. Schmeiser
himself that he retained seed grown in 1996 in field number 1 to be his seed
for the 1997 crop. In 1997 he was aware that the crop in field number 2
showed a very high level of tolerance to Roundup herbicide and seed from
that field was harvested, and retained for seed for 1998."
Please read something about the FACTS before making a fool of yourself
further. The BASIS of the infringement was that Percy *knew* that his fields
had become contaminated, not that he made any effort to seed RR canola. The
levels of contamination in the areas not bordering the roads is consistent
with pollen from spilled or 'lost seed' from a loose tarpauling and the
spread of the contamination due to using seed saved from the roundup sprayed
test area ( 60% survival rate ).
Ian St. John
Repeating a stupid statement does not make it smarter. One more time. The
source of the contamination was probably spilled or 'lost seed' from the
roads bordering the property and the resultant plants spreading their
pollen. This is consistent with the patchy appearnce of the RR which
declines with distance from the road. Spreading from a distant site would
make a much more uniform contamination.
Your second 'lie' is about the 98% contamination. The samples with this
level of contamination were take *from the road* where the spillage occurred
and can be taken as not representative of the fields themselves. The level
of RR resistance in the seed was estimated as 60% and the level of testing
*over the fields* was 1 to 68 %, in line with testimony.
Give it a rest. Crap is crap, and you cannot just ignore what you don't want
to listen to.
Thomas Palm
>
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> > For
> > example at the moment we seem to be losing the bottom life along the
> > shores of the Mediterranean to a new weed, Caulerpa taxifolia that was
> > spread from salt water aquariums.
>
> all connected, there is no particular reason to suppose it was
> transported in salt water aquariums, though it may well have done so.
There is very good reason to assume it was spread by man, and in
particular through salt water aquariums. That it spontaneously
should have been transported to outside the Oceanographic Museum of
Monaco just a few years after they started to harbor the species
is extremely unlikely.
> It is a normal part of evolution that new species appear, and wipe out
> old species. Attempting to hold back the clock is intervention also.
It has been estimated that approximately half of today's species will
become extinct if humans continue to transport species back and forth
over the globe, effectively removing any barriers to transport that
exist naturally. Do you consider this a natural process?
Australia is one example of a continent that has been hit hard with
rabbits, cane toads etc spreading and wiping out local fauna. But
I guess you see no problem with that either.
> People are reluctant to call it a new species, because it only
> appeared very recently and they want to wipe it out, but it cannot
> thrive under the conditions and in the places where its ancestral
> species thrives, nor can it interbreed with its ancestral species.
> Different range, genetic incompatibility.
Whether it is a new species or not is a bit unclear. Apparently
it can only reproduce through cloning in the new areas it colonizes.
This is not a good recipe for long time survival, although it can
do a lot of damage before a parasite catches on.
Ian St. John
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:96dc81b9.02040...@posting.google.com...
> --
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> > > > For example at the moment we seem to be losing the bottom
> > > > life along the shores of the Mediterranean to a new weed,
> > > > Caulerpa taxifolia that was spread from salt water
> > > > aquariums.
>
> James A. Donald
> > > This new species evolved naturally, without human
> > > intervention.
>
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > Actually, no. It seems to be a mutation specific to saltwater
> > aquarium supplies. The specific mutation does not seem to be
> > found in the natural range.
>
> The fact that it is adapted to a different range, and cannot
> interbreed with its ancestral species, makes it a new species, and
> since it is taking over the new range in many oceans, it is not
> specific to salt water aquaria.
>
> And even if it is true that this new species spontaneously evolved
> in salt water aquariums, which pure speculation, that would not
> make it any the less a new species, would not make its evolution
> any the less natural, since there was no breeding, no intent to
> change the species. The resistance to so naming it is merely
> political.
The fact is that you do not know if the mutation or traits of this species
were deliberate or accidental. Nor does it matter to the people that are
infected whether a new strain of smallpox was intentionally bred to produce
a bioweapon or came about by spontaneous mutation. The fact is that this
species of taxifola is decimating the Mediteranean Sea.
Ian St. John
You are both ignoring the fact that there is a much closer source, lost seed
from the road bordering the farm and that there were years of spreading
before being discovered in 1997.
As to the testing being 98%,
[73] The defendants urge that if admitted this evidence should be
disregarded because its reliability is questionable since the Court cannot
be satisfied about the integrity of the samples. The testing on the 1997
samples by Mr. Mitchell is said to be of limited value. There is no
explanation of the discrepancy in size or the nature of the original sample
of pods delivered to Mr. Mitchell in September 1997 and the seeds, the
balance of the 1997 sample, delivered by him to Dr. Downey for a further
grow-out test in early 2000. The samples from HFM provided to the
plaintiffs, and by HFM's successor, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, to Mr.
Schmeiser and Mr. Freisen, both of untreated seed as received from Mr.
Schmeiser and of treated seed before its return to him, were all said to be
of cleaned canola seed. Mr. Schmeiser's evidence is that he had delivered
"bin run" seed from the old Ford truck as it had been unloaded by Mr. Moritz
when he harvested the 1997 crop of field 2. Seed from cut plants swathed and
then run through Schmeiser's combine, it is urged, would contain more chaff
than seed that is identified as "cleaned".
On the other hand, we have testing form the University of Manitoba that
shows contamination of 1 to 68%, and testimony that the seed on which the
1998 crop was based showed about a 60% survival rate. Which are we to
believe?
The point of this suit was that Percy believed he had a right to 'seed save'
as practiced by generations of farmers, and which was his common practice,
while the Monsanto corporation is pushing it's patent as a form of
'protection racket'.
Art
> > property rights in stable climate?
>
> You can't. That's why global warming could be a real problem. It isn't
> an issue of "allocating goods across time" but of externalities.
This should probably apply to many other environmental issues where
negative externalities (existing or potential) are dispersed over a
large population.
I am assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) that no market
solution is possible when property rights cannot be defined.
The only other option I know of is government intervention.
You seem to be arguing that by following the PP governments are likely
to make decisions that exacerbate the problem (preventing nuclear
plants that can replace fossil fuels from being built). The PP has
been working well for governments and I don’t see a reason why
they would abandon it.
If market solutions are impossible and government solutions are likely
to do more harm than good, would we be better off simply accepting the
risks that come with new technologies?
RR
http://www.nelsonfarm.net/
Monsanto still suing Nelsons, other growers
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=326
The Implications of the Percy Schmeiser Decision
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=319
Biotech big biz to farmers, consumers: 'Plant what we tell you to, eat what
we tell you to'
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=551
CropChoice.com
http://www.cropchoice.com/pastheads.asp?sort=topic_all&ID=53#53
Vito De Lucia
>And precisely how much are you supposed to "err?"
There is no such a rule a priori. It must be evaluated on a case by case
basis.
>Making decisions on the basis of expected costs and benefits, including
>small probabilities of low costs, doesn't require the precautionary
>principle--it's the conventional decision making rule. The PP is adding
>something else--namely deciding against new technologies even when the
>conventional rule comes out in favor of them. As a principle it >provides
>no basis for choosing between "block a new technology if costs seem
>almost as high as benefits" and "block it if there is any possibility >at
>all of very large costs."
I don't understand why you assume the PP has been made up to forestall
progess. It is a tool specifically intended to be used whenever
environmental risks are involved in decision making. Simple cost/benefit
can't work. Environmental risks always involve non marketed goods and
services, biogeophysical processes and feedback mechanisms which are not
all understood let alone accounted for. In many cases, like GW,
consequences are large, time-frames extremely long, distribution of
possible damages very uneven. How do we know a limitless use of GMO's
won't create monster weeds or wipe out species - insects maybe - or
destroy soils and what are the costs of that happening? You can't
evaluate that only in monetary terms. Nor in a a few years perspective.
It is a rule for safety. To be used wisely, to be sure, but to be used
nonetheless.
>But since one can never prove that, for an old or new technology, that
>means blocking new technologies.
No, it does not. Nowhere you will find that negative prove of harm must
be total (zero risk), expect in industry publications that use this
extreme and unreasonable point to the detriment of the value of the PP.
>Consider the argument that I started this thread with. It might be
>right--whether it is I don't know. So it might be the case that the
>precautionary principle, applied to nuclear power generation, produces
>very large adverse environmental effects. Hence, following the
>precautionary principle, we must ban the use of the precautionary
>principle until its supporters can prove that it is not harmful to the
>environment. If you find that unconvincing, explain the difference
>between that and forbidding GE crops until it can be proved that they
>pose no threat.
First, although I liked the convoluted logic of this bit :-), the
question of nuclear might need to be reopened in the face of GW problem.
But it is a choice of two bads, while we want to move towards a good
(renewables?). I am not very familair with the technical apsects of
storage and other issues so I cannot say for sure, but nuclear has a
low-probability high-risk profile, directly (accidents, leakages etc.)
and indirectly (terrorist acts, military deployment). I'd like to insure
myself by paying few cents more per Kw of electricity rather than having
a nuclear plant in my country, but that is a personal position. The
causation you assume is so indirect as to melt under the sun, in my
opinion. A nice speculation, but it does not hold. There is only a
correlation. And nuclear isn't the only option we have to tackle GW.
Another point, the use of the PP does not mean that the choices will
always be right. Its main scope is to be a tool for decision-making
under *uncertainty* with risks of *irreversible* damages.
The issue with the GMO's is that every know test must be run in
controlled conditions so as to give us the best possible knowledge of
the issues involved, and a way to determine risks and benefits, at all
levels. I for one see a risk in the fact that seeds are patented in the
first place, and that corporations may reach a power position in the
food market that is really problematic.
But, not even the wise can see all ends :-)
thanks
ciao
Vito
--
------------------------------------
"Doctrine is like a raft, when you have crossed the river leave it on
the bank."
Buddha
------------------------------------
Vito De Lucia
>to do more harm than good, would we be better off simply accepting the
>risks that come with new technologies?
MArket solutions are possible. The Kyoto Protocol has in-built
market-based mechanisms to reach its target at the least-cost on the
international arena. So it can be done domestically, if one country so
pleases. The fact that the PP isn't effective is only a speculation. The
PP is a decision-making tool or guideline, and determine a
higher-then-normal risk-aversion when dealing with environmental issues,
not well understood in their far implications and with possible
irreversible outcomes. (Example: If an island sinks, it has sunk, can't
haul it up. Wouldn't you have paid - being an islander - 10$ more per Kw
electricity (=result of taking action) with hindsight to prevent it from
sinking?)
RR
> You are both ignoring the fact that there is a much closer source, lost
seed
> from the road bordering the farm and that there were years of spreading
> before being discovered in 1997.
This scenario seems the more likely in this case.
Consider, though, the island of Rakata of Krakatoa fame lying between
Sumatra and Java at a distance from them of 40 km. A devastating volcano
blows in 1883 and obliterates all traces of the local flora. Does the
island remain a wasteland? Nope. Within 50 years it had 271 plant species.
Although we talking about pollen here it has been observed that canola seeds
(what Schmiser grew) are:
"very small, round, and smooth, it travels readily in the wind."
http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-08.html
I don't believe that 5 miles is at all a long distance for wind travel. And
if someone were to live in a funneling valley I can imagine even longer
distances depending on wind strength.
RR
> An interesting new facet of this is that he cannot seem to get rid of it,
> even using a broad-leaf weed killer like 2, 4-D. Of course this will have
> to be independently verified.
> http://www.percyschmeiser.com/contamination.htm
Prairie producers concerned...
Herbicide Resistance is Out of Control say Canola Farmers
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=155
David Friedman
Vito De Lucia <lu...@online.no> wrote:
> I don't understand why you assume the PP has been made up to forestall
> progess.
Because the definitions I found specifically applied it to new
technologies. But "made up to forestall progress" is still an
overstatement. Presumably it was made up by people who were concerned
with particular new technologies and wanted a scientific sounding
argument for opposing or restricting them.
> It is a tool specifically intended to be used whenever
> environmental risks are involved in decision making. Simple cost/benefit
> can't work. Environmental risks always involve non marketed goods and
> services, biogeophysical processes and feedback mechanisms which are not
> all understood let alone accounted for.
I'm afraid I don't see why "non marketed goods and services" rules out
simple cost benefit analysis. It might make it harder--but that's
equally true of any way of trying to make the decision, short of the
simple rule "don't change."
>In many cases, like GW,
> consequences are large, time-frames extremely long, distribution of
> possible damages very uneven.
Possible benefits too.
> How do we know a limitless use of GMO's
> won't create monster weeds or wipe out species - insects maybe - or
> destroy soils and what are the costs of that happening? You can't
> evaluate that only in monetary terms. Nor in a a few years perspective.
> It is a rule for safety. To be used wisely, to be sure, but to be used
> nonetheless.
But you can evaluate in monetary terms the much more obvious and direct
consequence of making very poor people a little less poor by letting
them grow food at lower cost? That, after all, is the other side of the
scale you have put your thumb on.
> >But since one can never prove that, for an old or new technology, that
> >means blocking new technologies.
> No, it does not. Nowhere you will find that negative prove of harm must
> be total (zero risk), expect in industry publications that use this
> extreme and unreasonable point to the detriment of the value of the PP.
But since the argument is about scientific uncertainty, which always
exists, and rejects the standard attempt at probabilistic calculation, I
don't see on what basis (other than how many votes you can get in a
legislature) you decide where to stop.
> First, although I liked the convoluted logic of this bit :-), the
> question of nuclear might need to be reopened in the face of GW problem.
> But it is a choice of two bads, while we want to move towards a good
> (renewables?). I am not very familair with the technical apsects of
> storage and other issues so I cannot say for sure, but nuclear has a
> low-probability high-risk profile, directly (accidents, leakages etc.)
> and indirectly (terrorist acts, military deployment). I'd like to insure
> myself by paying few cents more per Kw of electricity rather than having
> a nuclear plant in my country, but that is a personal position. The
> causation you assume is so indirect as to melt under the sun, in my
> opinion. A nice speculation, but it does not hold. There is only a
> correlation. And nuclear isn't the only option we have to tackle GW.
It may be wrong, but it isn't a correlation, since I don't have a bunch
of different planets with different nuclear policies to do statistics
on. It is a plausible argument for causation--at least as plausible as
most of the arguments used against GE organisms and the like.
What is your problem with the causal argument? Do you think the heavy
regulation of nuclear reactors due to the sort of worries we are
discussing didn't raise the cost of using them to produce electricity,
hence reduce the degree to which they were used? Do you think nuclear
reactors produce CO2 through some previously unknown mechanism? Do you
think that having more reactors and fewer coal burning generators would
not affect the level of CO2? Do you think the CO2 emitted by human
actions doesn't effect global climate? What stage in the causal chain do
you disagree with? So far you seem to be simply asserting the causation
isn't there, but not offering any defense of that assertion.
> Another point, the use of the PP does not mean that the choices will
> always be right. Its main scope is to be a tool for decision-making
> under *uncertainty* with risks of *irreversible* damages.
And as my example is designed to point out, stopping things also has
uncertain consequences which might do irreversible damage, so you can't
use that argument to conclude "when in doubt, stop it."
> The issue with the GMO's is that every know test must be run in
> controlled conditions so as to give us the best possible knowledge of
> the issues involved, and a way to determine risks and benefits, at all
> levels. ...
Reread that paragraph, and think about it in terms of my point about
"proof" and standards that cannot be met. "every known test." "the best
possible knowledge." If you are using those words literally, you are
setting a standard that can never be met. One can always get a little
better knowledge by running one more experiment.
> But, not even the wise can see all ends :-)
So we are told--by an author who had serious doubts that the invention
of the airplane had done as much good as evil.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
ar...@hotmail.com (Art) wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote in message news:<ddfr-
> > > In relation to the global warming how would one define and enforce
> > > property rights in stable climate?
> >
> > You can't. That's why global warming could be a real problem. It isn't
> > an issue of "allocating goods across time" but of externalities.
>
> This should probably apply to many other environmental issues where
> negative externalities (existing or potential) are dispersed over a
> large population.
Correct. Those are cases were not only does the simple property rights
solution not produce the optimal outcome, the simple property rights
solution backstopped by tort law doesn't do it either, since you have
lots of injured parties each with very small injuries.
> I am assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) that no market
> solution is possible when property rights cannot be defined.
It isn't so much that they can't be defined as that there is no way of
defining them which results in each person's use of his own property
only affecting him, a small number of people with whom he is voluntarily
interacting, and a small number of people who could use something like
tort law to force him to take account of costs he is imposing. That's a
slight oversimplification because it ignores the fact that pecuniary
externalities are an effect but not a problem, but it will do for the
moment.
> If market solutions are impossible and government solutions are likely
> to do more harm than good, would we be better off simply accepting the
> risks that come with new technologies?
My current guess is that that is usually the least bad
solution--although there could be technologies (current candidates are
nanotech and A.I.) for which the least bad solution was still
catastrophic. Of course, one can also try to improve the legal system to
make both market solutions and legal solutions work better--for instance
by changing the ways in which property rights are bundled to get closer
to the sort of definition described above. And I'm not arguing that no
government intervention can ever do any good, although my own opinion is
that on net governments, very broadly, do more harm than good.
But my point on the PP was narrower than my general view of these
issues, which is that the market solution is the only way of
coordinating large numbers of people that works tolerably well, and when
we have situations that it can't deal with we are therefore in serious
trouble. My point here was rather that the PP doesn't make sense in its
own terms, since not permitting a new technology might have the same
sorts of effects that are given as an argument against permitting it. So
far as I can tell, the PP ultimately consists of a fancy label for
putting a thumb on the scale, justified by looking at only a selective
subset of possible consequences.
Incidentally, you can find the draft of the book I am currently working
on--about future technologies and human responses to them--webbed at:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/future_imperfect_draft/future_imperfect.htm
l
Comments welcome. It's still missing a chapter on space and a final
summary chapter.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Vito De Lucia <lu...@online.no> wrote:
> MArket solutions are possible. The Kyoto Protocol has in-built
> market-based mechanisms to reach its target at the least-cost on the
> international arena.
But the taxes, quotas, or whatever are being set politically, not, like
ordinary prices, by the market. And we have no good mechanism for
getting political institutions to make the right decision.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Consider, though, the island of Rakata of Krakatoa fame lying between
> Sumatra and Java at a distance from them of 40 km. A devastating volcano
> blows in 1883 and obliterates all traces of the local flora. Does the
> island remain a wasteland? Nope. Within 50 years it had 271 plant species.
>
> Although we talking about pollen here it has been observed that canola seeds
> (what Schmiser grew) are:
> "very small, round, and smooth, it travels readily in the wind."
> http://www.greens.org/s-r/26/26-08.html
>
> I don't believe that 5 miles is at all a long distance for wind travel. And
> if someone were to live in a funneling valley I can imagine even longer
> distances depending on wind strength.
>
> http://www.purefood.org/Organic/farmersfight081701.cfm
It only takes one seed to start a species on a barren island. We are
talking about how much pollen it takes to outcompete the pollen from the
field the plant is growing in, sufficiently so that most of the next
generation has the GE genes.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
<3A0430F0002B6094.F6AC50D0...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
(lots of stuff from several posts)
In most lawsuits, if you believe everything the defendant says and
disbelieve everything the plaintiff says, you will conclude that the
defendant should win. That is what you appear to be doing. It is the
judge's job to decide, among other things, what evidence to believe.
That is what he was doing. his conclusion was:
[118] It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr.
Schmeiser's field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have
survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998. However, I am
persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey, an expert witness appearing
for the plaintiffs, that none of the suggested sources could reasonably
explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a
commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser's
crop. His view was supported in part by evidence of Dr. Barry Hertz, a
mechanical engineer, whose evidence scientifically demonstrated the
limited distance that canola seed blown from trucks in the road way
could be expected to spread. I am persuaded on the basis of Dr. Downey's
evidence that on a balance of probabilities none of the suggested
possible sources of contamination of Schmeiser's crop was the basis for
the substantial level of Roundup Ready canola growing in field number 2
in 1997
Note also:
---
[102] The evidence of Mr. Schmeiser is that seed for his 1998
crop was saved from seed harvested in 1997 in field number 2 by his
hired man Mr. Moritz. That seed was placed by Mr. Moritz in the old Ford
truck, then located in field number 2, directly from the combine after
it was harvested from the area of that field previously sprayed with
Roundup by Mr. Schmeiser. That "testing" by him resulted, by his
estimate, supported by Mr. Moritz, of about 60% of the sprayed canola
plants surviving in the "good three acres" that he sprayed. The
surviving plants were Roundup resistant and their seed constituted the
source of seed stored in the old Ford truck.
[103] Knowledge of the nature of that seed by Moritz, the hired
hand, is attributable to Mr. Schmeiser and to the corporate defendant.
Mr. Schmeiser must be presumed to know the nature of the seed stored in
the truck by Mr. Moritz who acted under Schmeiser's general instructions
in harvesting the crop.
[104] In spring 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was treated
by HFM, then mixed with bin run seed and fertilizer and used to seed the
whole of 1,030 acres of canola grown by Schmeiser in nine fields in 1998.
---
If that is correct, it sounds as though Schmeiser, far from trying to
avoid growing GE canola, was deliberately selecting for it--spraying a
field with roundup to kill the plants that didn't carry the gene then
using the survivors from that field to seed his entire area the next
year. Doesn't that seem a little puzzling on his account of what was
going on?
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> From the case itself:
>
> "[119] Yet the source of the Roundup resistant canola in the defendants' 1997
> crop is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of
> infringement
> which relates to the 1998 crop. It is clear from Mr. Schmeiser himself that
> he
> retained seed grown in 1996 in field number 1 to be his seed for the 1997
> crop.
> In 1997 he was aware that the crop in field number 2 showed a very high level
> of tolerance to Roundup herbicide and seed from that field was harvested, and
> retained for seed for 1998."
> It doesn't matter how you get the patented genes. If you somehow get them
> into your field it is a patent violation to use those seeds.
I don't think that's right. This gets us back to the point I thought you
agreed on--that if the farmer deliberately selected to get the seeds
carrying the gene, then he was violating the patent. Look at:
---
[102] The evidence of Mr. Schmeiser is that seed for his 1998
crop was saved from seed harvested in 1997 in field number 2 by his
hired man Mr. Moritz. That seed was placed by Mr. Moritz in the old Ford
truck, then located in field number 2, directly from the combine after
it was harvested from the area of that field previously sprayed with
Roundup by Mr. Schmeiser. That "testing" by him resulted, by his
estimate, supported by Mr. Moritz, of about 60% of the sprayed canola
plants surviving in the "good three acres" that he sprayed. The
surviving plants were Roundup resistant and their seed constituted the
source of seed stored in the old Ford truck.
...
[104] In spring 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was treated
by HFM, then mixed with bin run seed and fertilizer and used to seed the
whole of 1,030 acres of canola grown by Schmeiser in nine fields in 1998.
---
Doesn't that sound as though he deliberately sprayed an area with
roundup, then used the seeds from the plants that survived the process
to plant his whole area the next year? Is that consistent with his
account--that he was trying to avoid the GE gene?
Look back at what you quoted. It seems to me that the judge's point is
that Schmeisser was deliberately using seed he knew to be roundup
resistant, hence deliberately trying to violate the patent. He could,
after all, have used seed from any other part of his fields that hadn't
been sprayed with roundup, since he says he doesn't normally use it on
the canola plants themselves.
> The judge was very partial to Monsanto and I really don't see why you are so
> eager to defend it.
Because you are eager to attack it, of course.
I don't know if the decision was correct. More important, I don't know
how broad a principle that judge was arguing for. I'm simply trying to
establish:
1. His words and decision are at least consistent with the narrower
principle that I think you have agreed is correct--that starting with a
low percentage of GE genes due to cross polination and then deliberately
trying to breed a pure GE strain from that does violate the patent.
2. The facts at trial provide a reasonable degree of support to the
claim that Schmeisser either was doing that or was using commercial GE
seed without license, and make his explanation look quite implausible.
Hence the judge could reasonably have found against him on those
grounds.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Vito De Lucia
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
>In article <3CA9E79D...@online.no>,
> Vito De Lucia <lu...@online.no> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why you assume the PP has been made up to forestall
>> progess.
>
>Because the definitions I found specifically applied it to new
>technologies. But "made up to forestall progress" is still an
>overstatement. Presumably it was made up by people who were concerned
>with particular new technologies and wanted a scientific sounding
>argument for opposing or restricting them.
Presumably, why?
Afaik, in an international context, something akin to
the precautionary principle was first expressed in the
UN World Charter for Nature -- in 1982 -- and there is
no indication there, that it was made up by people who
were concerned with particular new technologies.
("11. <..> (b) Activities which are likely to pose a significant
risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination;
their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits
outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential
adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities
should not proceed;")
Also, to take another example, there is no reason at all
to think that the precautionary principle was enshrined
in the European Union treaty (Article 174), and subsequently
interpreted in case law by the European Court for a wider
scope (e.g. cases C-157/96 and C-180/96) due to concerns
directed against particular new technologies.
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Vito De Lucia
Ian St. John
Depends a bit on which is upwind, eh? Nor does it need to spread from five
miles away. The contaminated seed gathered for the 1998 crop was clearly
bordering the road where the seed spills occured and the pattern of
increasing contamination closer to the road makes such seed very likely the
source of the contamination.
Ian St. John
> In article
> <3A0430F0002B6094.F6AC50D0...@lp.airnews.net>,
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> (lots of stuff from several posts)
>
> In most lawsuits, if you believe everything the defendant says and
> disbelieve everything the plaintiff says, you will conclude that the
> defendant should win. That is what you appear to be doing. It is the
> judge's job to decide, among other things, what evidence to believe.
> That is what he was doing. his conclusion was:
>
> [118] It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr.
> Schmeiser's field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have
> survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998. However, I am
> persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey, an expert witness appearing
> for the plaintiffs, that none of the suggested sources could reasonably
> explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a
> commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser's
> crop.
http://www.canoe.ca/AllAboutCanoesNewsJun00/21_seed.html
"This was a Monsanto internal test. It was not an independent test. We have
reason to question it. Their entire case is built upon it."
So, "In most lawsuits, if you believe everything the plaintiff says and
disbelieve everything the defendent says, you will conclude that the
plaintiff should win. That is what you appear to be doing."
The fact that an expert witness said ( on the basis of Monsanto's results
alone ) that this level of contamination could not be natural is fine as far
as it goes. You would not get 98+% contamination in a natural situation.
OTOH, this is *dependent* on Monsanto being lily pure and totally honest
about tests conducted internally. This is not reasonable for the judge to
accept as proven, so the testimony is not really convincing.
"Tests done for the defence by the University of Manitoba found about 65 per
cent of the samples survived Roundup. "
A natural condition? The seed saved in the Ford would be about 100%
contaminated. After all, if you take a field that is 60% RR and kill all
plants that are *not* RR by spraying with Roundup, the surviving plants will
be.....???
"In spring 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was treated by HFM"
So the seed from HFM will be what percentage contaminated?? Remember that
all the *non-contaminated* canola was killed off.. Need help?
"then mixed with bin run seed and fertilizer and used to seed the whole of
1,030 acres of canola grown by Schmeiser in nine fields in 1998"
I gather that the 'bin run seed' was not 100% contaminated.. I would need
some data on the relative quantities of the bin run seed and the HFM treated
seed to have an idea of what level of contamination was present in the 'bin
run seed' to get the resulting 65 percent contamination.
As a seed saver, Percy believed that he was entitled to use his seed on his
land, no matter if it contained RR genes or not, as it was not by his
actions, nor did he profit from it. He did not isolate the RR seed in one
area of his farm, and thus did not use the RR quality, or make it possible
to use RR as an advantage. What farmer would spray Roundup on a crop that
would kill a third of his crop as well as the weeds???
> His view was supported in part by evidence of Dr. Barry Hertz, a
> mechanical engineer, whose evidence scientifically demonstrated the
> limited distance that canola seed blown from trucks in the road way
> could be expected to spread.
And volunteer RR canola cannot then spread by pollination of the plants
downwind in the farmers field??? The level of lost seed is irrelevant after
a few years. The contamination spreads.
> I am persuaded on the basis
of Dr. Downey's
> evidence that on a balance of probabilities none of the suggested
> possible sources of contamination of Schmeiser's crop was the basis for
> the substantial level of Roundup Ready canola growing in field number 2
> in 1997
Well. A mystery then. Apparently the judge is an expert in probabilies as
well as canola growing.... (not). I wonder what the mechanism was, really.
After all, the seed in the 3 acrese was 60% tolerant, which was only
discovered by Percy in 1997. I wonder how long it had been spreading from
roadside spillage? However, this is the flaw in the judgement. It takes
Monsanto's internal tests as proven, ignores all other evidence and then
makes the logical deduction from a flawed assumption.
> Note also:
> ---
> [102] The evidence of Mr. Schmeiser is that seed for his 1998
> crop was saved from seed harvested in 1997 in field number 2 by his
> hired man Mr. Moritz. That seed was placed by Mr. Moritz in the old Ford
> truck, then located in field number 2, directly from the combine after
> it was harvested from the area of that field previously sprayed with
> Roundup by Mr. Schmeiser. That "testing" by him resulted, by his
> estimate, supported by Mr. Moritz, of about 60% of the sprayed canola
> plants surviving in the "good three acres" that he sprayed. The
> surviving plants were Roundup resistant and their seed constituted the
> source of seed stored in the old Ford truck.
You will note that the judge *now seems to support the testimony of 60%
contamination as reported by Percy.. This in contradiction to the statement
that he believes Monsantos claim of 98% contamination.
> [103] Knowledge of the nature of that seed by Moritz, the hired
> hand, is attributable to Mr. Schmeiser and to the corporate defendant.
> Mr. Schmeiser must be presumed to know the nature of the seed stored in
> the truck by Mr. Moritz who acted under Schmeiser's general instructions
> in harvesting the crop.
Not in dispute. The farmer used seed that he knew was contaminated. The
contamination was not intentional ( nobody disputes this ) and represented
about a 60% rate for seed bordering the road. This rate is not unreasonable
given a significant seed loss and a few years of cross pollination of the
nearby 30 meters of farmland.
>
> [104] In spring 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was treated
> by HFM, then mixed with bin run seed and fertilizer and used to seed the
> whole of 1,030 acres of canola grown by Schmeiser in nine fields in 1998.
Again. Not is dispute. Percy used seed that he knew was RR contaminated. For
that matter, his entire field was to some degree contaminated and he did not
feel that there was a real barrier to using the seed as opposed to throwing
it away. He did not use *only* the RR tested seed which would have been a
deliberate act to steal the RR gene, as a 100% RR crop *could* use Roundup
for weed control.
> ---
> If that is correct, it sounds as though Schmeiser, far from trying to
> avoid growing GE canola, was deliberately selecting for it--spraying a
> field with roundup to kill the plants that didn't carry the gene then
There is clear testimony that the field was sprayed in the discovery of the
contamination. You cannot look at a plant and say 'yes, that is a RR canola
plant". Is this too complicated for you? What other mechanism would you
suggest for discovery???
> using the survivors from that field to seed his entire area the next
> year. Doesn't that seem a little puzzling on his account of what was
> going on?
If his fields are contaminated, then he has two choices. He can fall on his
sword and give up commercial farming, or he can say that he is not profiting
from the gene, doesn't care if it is there, and use whatever seed he has
saved in whatever manner he wishes. Why should he throw away seed that he
has collected? Sure, it is contaminated. In fact, his entire seed stock is
contaminated. Does it matter if it is 1 percent or 60 percent??? Not to a
farmer that is just looking to keep on his feet. If he had really isolated
the RR seed to 100percent and planted that, you might have a case, but he
didn't as documented by *independent* testing.
Christ on a crutch, what do you think the dangers of smoking would be
reported as if the Tobacco companies were the only people reporting the
testing??? I don't blame them so much for the misinformation as I blame the
judge for taking their word against that of all the independent sources.
Profit margins are not high, and he felt he had a right to use his own saved
seed. I agree myself. If Monsanto wants to protect it's patent, it should
have developed a *nondestructive* test to isolate the RR gene from other
Canola seed, or built in a terminator gene to prevent multiyear spread. As
it is, they have created a destructive superweed that even infests fields
that do not grow canola and cannot be eradicated by anything less than
salting the earth. As an irresponsible act, it beggars descripition.
RR
> It only takes one seed to start a species on a barren island.
Though potentially possible it would be very unlikely. Many more
individuals are born than survive. This a central "tenant" of evolution
(Malthus -> Darwin). This is especially true of plants. Though only one
may finally do the trick the chances are that many, many will have died in
the attempt. Further, though the species without competition is in a
position to evolve more rapidly, this would still take time and as decreases
in genetic variability due to the Founder Effect would lead to inbreeding it
becomes a race against time. A much more likely scenario in the case of
Krakatoa is that very many seeds actually made it to the island.
>We are
> talking about how much pollen it takes to outcompete the pollen from the
> field the plant is growing in, sufficiently so that most of the next
> generation has the GE genes.
Well as it seems that these plants become hard to eradicate perhaps they are
out-competing the non-GMO naturals.
> David Friedman
> www.daviddfriedman.com/
Andrew Taylor
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> Actually, no. It seems to be a mutation specific to saltwater
>> aquarium supplies. The specific mutation does not seem to be
>> found in the natural range.
>
>The fact that it is adapted to a different range, and cannot
>interbreed with its ancestral species, makes it a new species, and
>since it is taking over the new range in many oceans, it is not
>specific to salt water aquaria.
>
>And even if it is true that this new species spontaneously evolved
>in salt water aquariums, which pure speculation, that would not
>make it any the less a new species, would not make its evolution
>any the less natural, since there was no breeding, no intent to
>change the species. The resistance to so naming it is merely
>political.
This is sci.environment at its best - with all the above claims, by
both Ian and James being incorrect.
The invasive Caulerpa taxifolia population in the Mediterranean has not
been shown that to be genetic different to its ancestral wild population.
One reason being the ancestral wild population isn't known!
It has been shown to be genetically very similar to a native population
from Moreton Bay in Australia [1].
This study also found it to be very similar to European aquarium
populations, strongly supporting transport to the Mediterranean via the
aquarium trade.
It has been suggested that the low temperature tolerance of the
Mediterranean population is a genetic adaption, however lab tests on
the Moreton Bay population found similar low temperature tolerance [2].
If you accept the native populations of Caulerpa taxifolia as a
single good species, then the Mediterranean population must also be
of that species. The Mediterranean population is genetically and
morphologically more similar to native southern Australian populations
of Caulerpa taxifolia than these populations are to native Caulerpa
taxifolia populations elsewhere in the world.
Andrew Taylor
[1] Wiedenmann J. Baumstark A. Pillen TL. Meinesz A. Vogel W. DNA
fingerprints of Caulerpa taxifolia provide evidence for the introduction
of an aquarium strain into the Mediterranean Sea and its close
relationship to an Australian population. Marine Biology. 138(2):229-234,
2001 Feb.
[2] Chisholm JRM. Marchioretti M. Jaubert JM. Effect of low water
temperature on metabolism and growth of a subtropical strain of Caulerpa
taxifolia (Chlorophyta).Marine Ecology-Progress Series. 201:189-198, 2000.
David Friedman
<7715805D17CE7E4A.85564B8C...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> The fact that an expert witness said ( on the basis of Monsanto's results
> alone ) that this level of contamination could not be natural is fine as far
> as it goes. You would not get 98+% contamination in a natural situation.
> OTOH, this is *dependent* on Monsanto being lily pure and totally honest
> about tests conducted internally. This is not reasonable for the judge to
> accept as proven, so the testimony is not really convincing.
> "Tests done for the defence by the University of Manitoba found about 65 per
> cent of the samples survived Roundup. "
And do you think you could get that by blowing pollen from a field miles
away? By whatever amount of pollen you got from some seed that happened
to be spilled in the road, happened to germinate and grow--competing
with 300+ acres solidly planted with non GE canola?
> A natural condition? The seed saved in the Ford would be about 100%
> contaminated. After all, if you take a field that is 60% RR and kill all
> plants that are *not* RR by spraying with Roundup, the surviving plants will
> be.....???
My point precisely--although I don't know if Roundup literally kills all
of the non RR or just most of it.
> "In spring 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was treated by HFM"
> So the seed from HFM will be what percentage contaminated?? Remember that
> all the *non-contaminated* canola was killed off.. Need help?
> "then mixed with bin run seed and fertilizer and used to seed the whole of
> 1,030 acres of canola grown by Schmeiser in nine fields in 1998"
And why does Schmeiser use all of the seed that is high RR, add as much
ordinary seed as gives him what he wants, when he says that he wants to
avoid RR?
> > I am persuaded on the basis
> of Dr. Downey's
> > evidence that on a balance of probabilities none of the suggested
> > possible sources of contamination of Schmeiser's crop was the basis for
> > the substantial level of Roundup Ready canola growing in field number 2
> > in 1997
>
> Well. A mystery then. Apparently the judge is an expert in probabilies as
> well as canola growing.... (not).
He is an expert in evaluating conflicting testimony--that's his job.
Whether he did it well this time I don't know, but I think his judgement
is likely to be more reliable than yours.
> > [104] In spring 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was treated
> > by HFM, then mixed with bin run seed and fertilizer and used to seed the
> > whole of 1,030 acres of canola grown by Schmeiser in nine fields in 1998.
>
> Again. Not is dispute. Percy used seed that he knew was RR contaminated. For
> that matter, his entire field was to some degree contaminated and he did not
> feel that there was a real barrier to using the seed as opposed to throwing
> it away. He did not use *only* the RR tested seed which would have been a
> deliberate act to steal the RR gene, as a 100% RR crop *could* use Roundup
> for weed control.
But he apparently used all of the RR tested seed he had, from the
information given. Since killing lots of his Canola in the process of
concentrating the gene would be expensive, he didn't get enough RR seed
to plant the whole area--especially since he seems to have been sharply
increasing the area planted over time.
> > ---
> > If that is correct, it sounds as though Schmeiser, far from trying to
> > avoid growing GE canola, was deliberately selecting for it--spraying a
> > field with roundup to kill the plants that didn't carry the gene then
> There is clear testimony that the field was sprayed in the discovery of the
> contamination. You cannot look at a plant and say 'yes, that is a RR canola
> plant". Is this too complicated for you? What other mechanism would you
> suggest for discovery???
> > using the survivors from that field to seed his entire area the next
> > year. Doesn't that seem a little puzzling on his account of what was
> > going on?
> If his fields are contaminated, then he has two choices. He can fall on his
> sword and give up commercial farming, or he can say that he is not profiting
> from the gene, doesn't care if it is there, and use whatever seed he has
> saved in whatever manner he wishes. Why should he throw away seed that he
> has collected? Sure, it is contaminated. In fact, his entire seed stock is
> contaminated. Does it matter if it is 1 percent or 60 percent??? Not to a
> farmer that is just looking to keep on his feet. If he had really isolated
> the RR seed to 100percent and planted that, you might have a case, but he
> didn't as documented by *independent* testing.
He had a large quantity of canola seed from the previous year's harves.
On your story,some of it was about 60% GE (hadn't been sprayed), some of
it about 100% (from plants that had been sprayed and survived). If he
wanted as little GE contamination as possible, which is your story, he
would have used some of the former for seed, pressed the latter for oil.
If he wanted as much as possible, he would have done it the other way
around--which seems to be what he did.
>If Monsanto wants to protect it's patent, it should
> have developed a *nondestructive* test to isolate the RR gene from other
> Canola seed, or built in a terminator gene to prevent multiyear spread.
They were working on the latter, and apparently stopped in the face of
massive opposition from the same people who are opposing GE crops in
general. I assume you did notice that.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >We are
> > talking about how much pollen it takes to outcompete the pollen from the
> > field the plant is growing in, sufficiently so that most of the next
> > generation has the GE genes.
>
> Well as it seems that these plants become hard to eradicate perhaps they are
> out-competing the non-GMO naturals.
Their only advantage is resistance to herbicides which the farmer says
he normally didn't use on canola plants--only to clear out stuff when
there wasn't canola growing (and at one point to test for GE in part of
one field). So why would they have been out competing the naturals in
his fields?
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Torsten Brinch <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
Could be that you are correct. I was judging by how I saw it being used.
It isn't clear that the UN bit you quoted qualifies as the PP, since it
doesn't seem to be limited to new technologies, as at least the
definitions I found were.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
RR
> It only takes one seed to start a species on a barren island.
Ok, so say it only took one seed to start the contamination. Does that make
it any less devastating (especially to an organic farmer - which I don't
believe Percy was at the time) when it begins to spread undetected until it
has basically taken over and is only discovered accidentally when it's too
late? Does that make the liability of the company that promised that this
*couldn't* happen any less? Isn't it absurd that the company can now *sue
the farmer* for patent infringement??? C'mon now, how about some common
decency here?
Percy is only one of many at the victim end of Monsanto's heavy handedness
as the links I have provided demonstrate.
BTW, there are lots of ways that plants can be pollinated.
Ian St. John
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=155 How are they outcompeting
the wheat? By being resistant, any episode of pesticide spraying, even from
wind drift from nearby field would affect the growth of the originnal
canola, but not the RR. Not to mention clearing of weeds from roadsides (
which was how the contamination was discovered) Evolution is the science of
propagation of small advantages.For that matter, the occasional past
spraying of roundup, persisting in the soil, could put the original plant at
a disadvantage, even if the crop was not sprayed *that* year.
Andrew Taylor
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
> Apparently
>it can only reproduce through cloning in the new areas it colonizes.
>This is not a good recipe for long time survival, although it can
>do a lot of damage before a parasite catches on.
Thomas Palm is showing his biases from belonging to a species which
reproduces only sexually. Caulerpa no doubt scorn his inability to
reproduce from fragments. Obligate asexual organisms have been around
for some time. I'm not sure if obligate asexuality occurs much in
macroscopic plants but there are certainly examples of plants which are
repoduce largely asexually - Bracken (Pteridium) is an abundant and
ubiquituous group where I believe very extensive populations reproduce
only vegetatively.
Andrew Taylor
Ian St. John
> In article
> <7715805D17CE7E4A.85564B8C...@lp.airnews.net>,
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > The fact that an expert witness said ( on the basis of Monsanto's
results
> > alone ) that this level of contamination could not be natural is fine as
far
> > as it goes. You would not get 98+% contamination in a natural situation.
> > OTOH, this is *dependent* on Monsanto being lily pure and totally honest
> > about tests conducted internally. This is not reasonable for the judge
to
> > accept as proven, so the testimony is not really convincing.
>
> > "Tests done for the defence by the University of Manitoba found about 65
per
> > cent of the samples survived Roundup. "
>
> And do you think you could get that by blowing pollen from a field miles
> away? By whatever amount of pollen you got from some seed that happened
> to be spilled in the road, happened to germinate and grow--competing
> with 300+ acres solidly planted with non GE canola?
David, pay attention:
1: Contamination from 'lost seed' along the roadway. NOT from 'miles away.
Thirty yards or so.
2: Growth of that contamination through pollination over a few years to
about 60% of a 3 acre strip bordering the road.
3: testing to determine contamination leaves a 3 acre area with 100% RR
traits *in the surviving 60%*
4: Mixing of this seed with 'bin run seed' of unknown contamination results
in 65% RR seed. If there was no contamination of 'bin run seed' then, we can
assume a 2/1 ratio for the "3 acre" treated seed vs the 'bin run' seed.
Would 3 acres equivalennt be enough seed? That is a 700:1 ratio, but a
reference documents that each canola plant can produce 6,000 - 10,000
plants, so it is not unreasonable.
I find this a quite reasonable scenario.
>
> > A natural condition? The seed saved in the Ford would be about 100%
> > contaminated. After all, if you take a field that is 60% RR and kill all
> > plants that are *not* RR by spraying with Roundup, the surviving plants
will
> > be.....???
>
> My point precisely--although I don't know if Roundup literally kills all
> of the non RR or just most of it.
Define RR? Not killed by Roundup? If it was killed by Roundup, is it Roundup
resistant? What was the point of this quibble?
>
> > "In spring 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was treated by HFM"
>
> > So the seed from HFM will be what percentage contaminated?? Remember
that
> > all the *non-contaminated* canola was killed off.. Need help?
>
> > "then mixed with bin run seed and fertilizer and used to seed the whole
of
> > 1,030 acres of canola grown by Schmeiser in nine fields in 1998"
>
> And why does Schmeiser use all of the seed that is high RR, add as much
> ordinary seed as gives him what he wants, when he says that he wants to
> avoid RR?
How? It is already in his fields. He has the seed saved anyway. It is no
better or worse to him than any other seed. Remember, he 'diluted' it to
prove that he *could not* benefit from the RR trait. Why would he do this if
he was trying to preserve the RR gene? Why convict a guy of *not* benefiting
from a gene he *did not* want? Doesn't he have to do some illegal act?
Planting his own seed on his own land was not illegal, nor did the claims
include any mention of benefit from the contamination.
>
> > > I am persuaded on the
basis
> > of Dr. Downey's
> > > evidence that on a balance of probabilities none of the suggested
> > > possible sources of contamination of Schmeiser's crop was the basis
for
> > > the substantial level of Roundup Ready canola growing in field number
2
> > > in 1997
> >
> > Well. A mystery then. Apparently the judge is an expert in probabilies
as
> > well as canola growing.... (not).
>
> He is an expert in evaluating conflicting testimony--that's his job.
> Whether he did it well this time I don't know, but I think his judgement
> is likely to be more reliable than yours.
Not true. Anyway, in his *ruling* as opposed to his *opinion* he stated that
the source didn't matter to the legal argument. He also made opinions about
the independent testing which contradict this. Again, he sidestepped by the
fact that his *opinion* was not a basis of the *ruling*.
>
> > > [104] In spring 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was treated
> > > by HFM, then mixed with bin run seed and fertilizer and used to seed
the
> > > whole of 1,030 acres of canola grown by Schmeiser in nine fields in
1998.
> >
> > Again. Not is dispute. Percy used seed that he knew was RR contaminated.
For
> > that matter, his entire field was to some degree contaminated and he did
not
> > feel that there was a real barrier to using the seed as opposed to
throwing
> > it away. He did not use *only* the RR tested seed which would have been
a
> > deliberate act to steal the RR gene, as a 100% RR crop *could* use
Roundup
> > for weed control.
>
> But he apparently used all of the RR tested seed he had, from the
> information given. Since killing lots of his Canola in the process of
> concentrating the gene would be expensive, he didn't get enough RR seed
> to plant the whole area--especially since he seems to have been sharply
> increasing the area planted over time.
Why don't you actually do a bit of reasearch? How many plants grow from one
canola plant? Would 2 acres be enough to plant 1400?
Hint: Look at material above. 2 acres of 100% RR seed from the testing site
could have planted his entire farm easily. That he didn't is probably a
testiment to the fact he didn't want 100% RR seed and had no real use for
it. He certainly couldn't sell "monsanto clones". He couldn't use Roundup on
65% RR plants. What kind of motive do you deduce?
You misapprehend. Where do you get the information that the *entire* 1400
acres was 60% RR? I have only heard of the strip along the roadway, which
diminishines as you get farther away. I'm not sure why he used that saved
seed except why not? It is his seed, and no worse than any other.
>
> >If Monsanto wants to protect it's patent, it should
> > have developed a *nondestructive* test to isolate the RR gene from other
> > Canola seed, or built in a terminator gene to prevent multiyear spread.
>
> They were working on the latter, and apparently stopped in the face of
> massive opposition from the same people who are opposing GE crops in
> general. I assume you did notice that.
Fine. Build in a *succeptability* to a pesticide or treatment. One that is
not used in canola growing. If they can build the problem, they can build
the solution instead of this organized intimidation of the farmer who won't
buy their seed.
Thomas Palm
From what I have understood asexual reproduction is a dead end, but
sometimes succesful in the short run. It is "tempting" genetically
since you don't have to dilute your own gene pool with that of other
individuals, but you lose the ability to adapt to change.
We have a number of asexual species, not only among plants, but also
amoung lizards. Theses gradually die out and are replaced by new
species that lost their ability to reproduce sexually.
Being able to do _both_, can be a very succesful reproductive strategy,
but sexual reproduction is needed to keep up in the evolutionary
armsrace. The bracken I know are perfectly capable of sexual
reproduction.
Ian St. John
"Andrew Taylor" <and...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
news:a8dece$75a$1...@rana.cse.unsw.edu.au...
Fine, but it reproduces by regeneration, so native populations would be
*identical* not similar. That there are similarities to native wild
populations is hardly surprising, eh?
David Friedman
"RR" <@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:ddfr-D7A3B6.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>
> > It only takes one seed to start a species on a barren island.
>
> Ok, so say it only took one seed to start the contamination. Does that make
> it any less devastating (especially to an organic farmer - which I don't
> believe Percy was at the time) when it begins to spread undetected until it
> has basically taken over and is only discovered accidentally when it's too
> late?
You are missing the point.
Percy claims he doesn't spray Roundup on his canola plants (except as an
experiment to check for GE contamination). So why would you expect
roundup ready plants, starting at a population of (say) 1%, to "spread
undetected until it has basically taken over?" This isn't a contagious
disease, it's sexual reproduction. The GE plant has no advantage in the
environment Percy provides.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
<A12EE78B0E0AFC93.79463CE5...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=155 How are they outcompeting
> the wheat? By being resistant, any episode of pesticide spraying, even from
> wind drift from nearby field would affect the growth of the originnal
> canola, but not the RR.
RR isn't resistent to pesticides. It's resistent to herbicides. If
Percy's neighbors are spraying herbicides--chemicals designed to kill
plants--on his crop plants, he has perfectly straightforward grounds to
sue without worrying about GE crops.
> Not to mention clearing of weeds from roadsides (
> which was how the contamination was discovered) Evolution is the science of
> propagation of small advantages.For that matter, the occasional past
> spraying of roundup, persisting in the soil, could put the original plant at
> a disadvantage, even if the crop was not sprayed *that* year.
And this got the frequency from <1% to 60-90+% (according to who you
believe) in how many generations? RR hasn't been around all that long,
and you are talking about very small selective advantages.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
<B340B3218C10AC36.869C645A...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > And why does Schmeiser use all of the seed that is high RR, add as much
> > ordinary seed as gives him what he wants, when he says that he wants to
> > avoid RR?
>
> How? It is already in his fields. He has the seed saved anyway. It is no
> better or worse to him than any other seed.
According to him, it is worse--he claims to be opposed to RR. But he
acts as if it is better--as if, given the amount of seed he needs, he
wants as much of it as possible to be RR. That's one reason to be
sceptical of his claims--factual as well.
> > But he apparently used all of the RR tested seed he had, from the
> > information given. Since killing lots of his Canola in the process of
> > concentrating the gene would be expensive, he didn't get enough RR seed
> > to plant the whole area--especially since he seems to have been sharply
> > increasing the area planted over time.
>
> Why don't you actually do a bit of reasearch? How many plants grow from one
> canola plant? Would 2 acres be enough to plant 1400?
Why do the research, when the case already contains the information? If
he used all of the tested seed and some other seed to sow the area, then
the tested seed itself wasn't sufficient.
> Hint: Look at material above. 2 acres of 100% RR seed from the testing site
> could have planted his entire farm easily. That he didn't is probably a
> testiment to the fact he didn't want 100% RR seed and had no real use for
> it. He certainly couldn't sell "monsanto clones". He couldn't use Roundup on
> 65% RR plants. What kind of motive do you deduce?
I don't know his motive. One possibility is that he dislikes GE crops
and wanted to make a cause celebre against them. Another is that he was
in the process of selecting out RR canola with the long term intention
of making money selling it--hopefully after first winning a court case
establishing that it was entirely his since it was based on blowing
pollen for which he was not responsibility.
> > He had a large quantity of canola seed from the previous year's harves.
> > On your story,some of it was about 60% GE (hadn't been sprayed), some of
> > it about 100% (from plants that had been sprayed and survived). If he
> > wanted as little GE contamination as possible, which is your story, he
> > would have used some of the former for seed, pressed the latter for oil.
> > If he wanted as much as possible, he would have done it the other way
> > around--which seems to be what he did.
> You misapprehend. Where do you get the information that the *entire* 1400
> acres was 60% RR? I have only heard of the strip along the roadway, which
> diminishines as you get farther away. I'm not sure why he used that saved
> seed except why not? It is his seed, and no worse than any other.
I was describing what I thought your account was--that blowing pollen
and the like had brought the whole crop to 60%. If you assume that most
of the crop was much lower than that, my argument becomes even stronger.
He could have had almost no RR in his next harvest by using seed that
hadn't been "tested" and didn't come from the edge. Instead he chose to
use all of the high RR seed and as much other seed as needed.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Gordon Couger
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:A12EE78B0E0AFC93.79463CE5...@lp.airnews.net...
Round Up does not persist in soil. It is inactive almost as soon as it
touches it. If drift was the problem his neighbors would be suing somebody
for the damage. I have been involved in both sides of the drift problem and
it goes only a short way into the feild. No one sprays in winds that would
take the drift very far becase they can't get an even coverage in the feild
they intend to spray.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
"Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:3CAA870C...@chello.se...
You are right about both being a good armsrace. I have fought it with green
bugs an aphid that feeds on wheat. It reproduces asexually most of the time
but sexually about once a year. If one female come along that is resistant
to control methods you have a real problem until you find a method that
works. Fortunately there are enough insecticides that we were always able to
rotate them and find one that worked.
Genes can mutate and move around in asexual reproduction as well just not as
fast. I would say that Bermuda Grass, while it can still reproduce sexually
it is almost impossible to get seed to come up and survive in my part of the
world, is doing real well asexually. In very sandy soil it is a very
difficult weed to control. It is propagated almost 100% by sprigging. The
only time I have ever seen seeding work was near springs.
Gordon
Vito De Lucia
if you read the motivation of the sentence, par. 94 to 100 I think (I am
recalling), you will see that the judge believed that reasonable actions
had been taken by Monsanto to avoid uncontrolled spread of their
seeds/plants, and that was the reason why no loss or waiver of their
patent rights was identified.
The point in question was whether the farmwr was making money out of
Monsanto's patented genes.
Torsten Brinch
wrote:
I don't understand your reasoning. Why would you presume
that the precautionary principle was -made up- by people who
were concerned with particular new technologies and wanted a
scientific sounding argument for opposing or restricting them,
because you observe that the principle is being -used- in
relation to particular new technologies?
>It isn't clear that the UN bit you quoted qualifies as the PP,
>since it doesn't seem to be limited to new technologies, as
>at least the definitions I found were.
There is a misunderstanding here. The precautionary principle
is certainly not limited to new technologies. E.g. one
of the European court cases I make reference to above
was dealing with a ban on export of beef from UK.
Correct, the UN bit does not qualify as the PP, (which was
also why I presented it only as being something akin to it.)
What is expressed in that bit has elements from the PP, but
is not the PP. It was just what I found when I searched for
the roots of the PP, in the context of your presumptions
about those roots.
Searching forwards in time again, in an international context,
I find a clear expression of the PP in the Ministerial Declaration
of the Second International Conference on the Protection of
the North Sea, in 1987, which states that
"in order to protect the North Sea from possibly damaging
effects of the most dangerous substances, a precautionary
approach is necessary which may require action to control
inputs of such substances even before a causal link has
been established by absolutely clear scientific evidence",
The same viewpoint was reiterated with even more
specific reference to the full blown precautionary principle
at the Third International Conference on the Protection of
the North Sea, in 1990.
"the participants ... will continue to apply the precautionary
principle, that is to take action to avoid potentially damaging
impacts of substances that are persistent, toxic and liable to
bioaccumulate even where there is no scientific evidence to prove a
causal link between emissions and effects"
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Andrew Taylor
Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> wrote:
>>From what I have understood asexual reproduction is a dead end, but
>sometimes succesful in the short run.
Perhaps on evolutionary timescales for eucaryotes, although there
are interesting exceptions - there is class of Rotifers (Bdelloidea)
where sexual reproduction is unknown and apparently absent for tens of
millsions of years.
But asexual reproduction alone is certainly sufficient for some plant
and even a few vertebrate populations to persist for thousands of years.
Even if the invasive Mediterranean Caulerpa taxifolia populations can only
reproduce vegetatively their eventual evolutionary doom may unfortunately
be some time off.
Andrew Taylor
Ian St. John
> In article
> <B340B3218C10AC36.869C645A...@lp.airnews.net>,
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > And why does Schmeiser use all of the seed that is high RR, add as
much
> > > ordinary seed as gives him what he wants, when he says that he wants
to
> > > avoid RR?
> >
> > How? It is already in his fields. He has the seed saved anyway. It is no
> > better or worse to him than any other seed.
>
> According to him, it is worse--he claims to be opposed to RR. But he
> acts as if it is better--as if, given the amount of seed he needs, he
> wants as much of it as possible to be RR. That's one reason to be
> sceptical of his claims--factual as well.
Or he doesn't care if it is RR because he doesn't use Roundup in the
concentration that RR survives but normal canola doesn't. He has not been
shown to care aas long as the plant survive and are salable. He may have
objections on the grounds that it is not a trait that he wants, but it also
isn't a trait that costs him anything.
>
>
> > > But he apparently used all of the RR tested seed he had, from the
> > > information given. Since killing lots of his Canola in the process of
> > > concentrating the gene would be expensive, he didn't get enough RR
seed
> > > to plant the whole area--especially since he seems to have been
sharply
> > > increasing the area planted over time.
> >
> > Why don't you actually do a bit of reasearch? How many plants grow from
one
> > canola plant? Would 2 acres be enough to plant 1400?
>
> Why do the research, when the case already contains the information? If
> he used all of the tested seed and some other seed to sow the area, then
> the tested seed itself wasn't sufficient.
Again you don't understand farming practices. The level of seed planting
does not have to be fixed. One can plant more or less. Often one plants more
just to be sure of sufficient germination. Let us also point out that he
could plant fields 1,2 with RR and fields 3,4 with bin run, then use only
field 1 for the next generation. He did not, which makes his statement that
he wasn't seeking to profit from RR traits reasonable.
>
> > Hint: Look at material above. 2 acres of 100% RR seed from the testing
site
> > could have planted his entire farm easily. That he didn't is probably a
> > testiment to the fact he didn't want 100% RR seed and had no real use
for
> > it. He certainly couldn't sell "monsanto clones". He couldn't use
Roundup on
> > 65% RR plants. What kind of motive do you deduce?
>
> I don't know his motive. One possibility is that he dislikes GE crops
> and wanted to make a cause celebre against them.
He could do that by suing them for the contamination from the roadside. Are
you forgetting that this is Monsanto *suing him*??
>
Another is that he was
> in the process of selecting out RR canola with the long term intention
> of making money selling it--hopefully after first winning a court case
> establishing that it was entirely his since it was based on blowing
> pollen for which he was not responsibility.
He couldn't sell RR seed. How does he make money on it? If he uses 100% RR
seed and uses Roundup in high levels, *then* he might be infringing and
profiting, but he showed no intention to do that, and you cannot convict
someone on the basis that he *might* someday commit a crime. He could have
saved the RR seed separately until then. No. There is no logic here.
>
> > > He had a large quantity of canola seed from the previous year's
harves.
> > > On your story,some of it was about 60% GE (hadn't been sprayed), some
of
> > > it about 100% (from plants that had been sprayed and survived). If he
> > > wanted as little GE contamination as possible, which is your story, he
> > > would have used some of the former for seed, pressed the latter for
oil.
> > > If he wanted as much as possible, he would have done it the other way
> > > around--which seems to be what he did.
>
> > You misapprehend. Where do you get the information that the *entire*
1400
> > acres was 60% RR? I have only heard of the strip along the roadway,
which
> > diminishines as you get farther away. I'm not sure why he used that
saved
> > seed except why not? It is his seed, and no worse than any other.
>
> I was describing what I thought your account was--that blowing pollen
> and the like had brought the whole crop to 60%. If you assume that most
> of the crop was much lower than that, my argument becomes even stronger.
> He could have had almost no RR in his next harvest by using seed that
> hadn't been "tested" and didn't come from the edge. Instead he chose to
> use all of the high RR seed and as much other seed as needed.
Your argument is that he should have tried to avoid the RR trait by
selecting non-RR contaminated seed. I agree. *Please* try to understand that
I *agree* on that point, but I also do not see a *crime* as having been
commited by using ANY seed that is on his property, as long as he doesn't
try to use the patented trait.