Monsanto
Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, agriculture, biotechnology, and the farmer.
Mar 30, 2009 | Read | 61 Comments » Tags: green wedding, organic, Sustainability, Sustainable Agriculture
Author: Monsantoco 
My best friend is a bride to be and I have been asked to be one of her bridesmaids. Part of my duties as a member of the bridal party is to assist with planning and to find unique (and affordable) ideas for the special day. I take my bridesmaid role very seriously–lately I’ve been watching a lot of wedding-related TV to collect inspirations.
Surfing the channels the other day I flipped to the program “Gorgeous and Green – A Martha Stewart Wedding.” The TV show followed Martha’s assistant, Liesl Menning, as she planned her green wedding. As a Monsanto employee, and just someone who cares about the environment, I was excited to watch. I wasn’t disappointed; the program had a lot of great tips for staying green like how to make your own bouquet from local blooms and e-cards for save-the-dates.
Weddings are generally big affairs that require a lot of resources so it’s great to see ideas to make a wedding that is environmentally friendly. The show had a good focus on using sustainable products–sustainability is an important aspect of living green. Monsanto has made a commitment to sustainability and we have an award-winning internal publication that features sustainability facts and ideas for green living.
Sustainability is something that I’ve become very passionate about and I think that it is the future of agriculture. “Gorgeous and Green” frequently mentioned organic products and, while I am certainly not here to try to argue about whether organic is sustainable, I do wonder if it can be considered the only sustainable form of agriculture. Organic products have certainly marketed themselves well as green goods but there is more than one method to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture and related products. Biotechnology often gets overlooked although it continues to make environmentally responsible practices available to farmers.
Conservation tillage is one sustainable practice that has been made possible (and profitable) by biotechnology. The use of herbicide resistant crops means that herbicides can be applied to weeds after they’ve emerged (without tilling or turning over the soil). The plant residue is then left to cover the fields – protecting it from wind and water erosion. The ground cover also provides home for small animals, such as birds, mice and frogs. The practice of conservation tillage has reduced soil erosion by 1 billion tons. In addition, no-till can capture carbon in the soil and the reduction in fuel use decreases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – helping to control greenhouse gases.
Another sustainable attribute of biotech is resistance to unwanted insects. Since biotech plants are resistant to harmful insects they need very little, if any at all, pesticide applications. This means fuel and energy to manufacture and apply pesticides are reduced or eliminated. It also allows beneficial insects to live in the field (which can serve as food for local birds and other insect eaters).
The cumulative reduction in pesticides due to biotech for the period 1996-2006 was estimated at 289,000 metric tons of active ingredients. The ability to decrease pesticide and herbicide spraying has resulted in reduction in the release of GHG emissions, from machinery fuel, by 14.8 million metric tons (2006).
So if you, like my friend, are planning a green and affordable wedding or just want to live a little greener then it doesn’t have to mean going with just organic. There are plenty of sustainable sources for products and sometimes a little bit of research can uncover several green options for your needs.
Kate works on the corporate website for Monsanto in the public affairs department. She graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Truman State University. Kate grew up in an Air Force family and has lived in sevaral states and countries but spent the majority of her childhood growing up in Iowa. Kate enjoys art and photography as well as horseback riding.
Category: News and Views
Tags: green wedding, organic, Sustainability, Sustainable Agriculture
It is well established that Monsanto technology did end up on Mr. Schmeiser’s property by chance or aaccident, but through Mr. Schmeiser’s deliberate actions – despite the internet mythology what Mr. Schmeiser claims on his speaking tours:
Key quotes from Canadian court documents:
“Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000.”
AND:
…tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of this 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. …The trial judge found that “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s crop.
Read the court findings (lower court, appeals AND Supreme Court) at:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2002/2002fca309/2002fca309.html
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
Kate Says:
April 15, 2009 at 8:27 am
That’s certainly not what I am claiming.
===========
I did mean to edit out the “as you claim” but stand by the rest. I realize that isn’t what you actually claim. But I do consider it.
Kate Says:
April 15, 2009 at 8:27 am
Again – from the court document:
Other farmers who found volunteer Roundup tolerant plants in their fields, two of whom testified at trial, called Monsanto and the undesired plants were thereafter removed by Monsanto at its expense.
===================
One thing I would say to that, look how early on the contamination/”volunteer,” which sounds so much more friendly, started. Immediately. There is clearly a problem.
Deborah,
First – volunteer is a common term used in agriculture. You can ask any farmer. I didn’t use it because it sounds friendlier.
Perhaps, instead of this ‘problem’ of contamination by drifting pollen (again, the closest Roundup Ready canola field was 5 miles away) there is another culprit in the case of Mr. Schmeiser? The court case stated that none of Mr. Schmeiser’s suggested possible sources can explain the concentration of the patented trait in his field.
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.
Kate Says:
April 16, 2009 at 8:53 am
Deborah,
First – volunteer is a common term used in agriculture. You can ask any farmer. I didn’t use it because it sounds friendlier.
—————-
I understand you did not coin the term and did not mean to imply it. I only meant to note that it is quite a euphemism for “contamination.”
Kate, my point was not that you coined the term “volunteer,” I was merely pointing out the euphemism. The real point is that the gm contamination problem started immediately in Canada. And probably elsewhere, but here we have documentation.
Brad and Ewan,
You’ve got it wrong. Plant breeders rarely breed hybrids in Australia, therefore buying seed is a a rarity. Not only is it far more expensive due to seed industry cuts and freight etc but you are risking introducing new weeds to your property. Farmers like saving their own seed as we select the cleanest and best grain and store it on farm without the excessive costs associated with processing certified seed. It has also adapted by survival of the fittest for the soil and weather conditions of our farm.
Any Plant Breeder Right specifically retains the ability for farmers to replant our own seeds. The plant breeder can however deduct a small fee at either the seed stage or when delivering the grain for sale.
What is a key issue in Australia is the identification of the specific variety. Currently we run an honour system where farmers identify which grain they are delivering and pay the appropriate end point royalty.
What will happen with a patent?
How much GM is to be present for Monsanto to deduct their end point royalty? A positive test? If so, the lithmus test registers positive at between 0.1% and 0.5% contamination which will occur even though the non-GM farmer does not want it.
A quck Google search reveals plenty of companies selling hybrid seed in Australia. I can only assume someone must be buying it. Here is one of the links http://www.fatcow.com.au/t/Hybrid-Seeds
Growers have a choice whether to choose a seed that can be saved, or not. Many will choosen(even in Australia) seeds that cannot be saved legally when the “plusses” of buying annually outweigh the “minuses”.
Accidental presence will not trigger requirement to pay “royalty”.
Julie,
When you say I got it wrong do you mean the link you supplied us got it wrong?
and I quote
“The seed or other propagating material which is purchased with the authority of the breeder can be sown and the harvested material (first generation crop) can be sold. A farmer can save the seed (or other propagating material) from the first crop and use it to grow a second generation crop. The harvested product from it can only be sold with further authorisation from the grantee.”
So yes, you have the right to replant whatever seed you grow. However, you specifically do not have the right to sell anything other than the first generation seed without “further authorisation”
I dont see how this functionally differs from a patented product – other than, in general, as I understand it, patented seeds will not allow you to grow the second generation (essentially the permission to grow is enforced as a seed purchase each season)
Yes, it does differ considerably. A patented GM product means the farmer is a contract grower for the patented product and seeds can not be replanted meaning the GM company dictates future planting options. A plant breeder right only covers the recovery of a fee for plant breeding.
And Brad, I did not say hybrids were never grown, they are rare in broadacre cropping. Almost all Australian broadacre farmers replant almost all of their seed.
Julie:-
A patented GM product means the farmer pays a fee for the GM product(and the breeding).
A plant breeder right means the farmer pays a fee for the breeding.
In neither case does the farmer have an explicit right to replant and subsequently sell second, third, or n generation products without the consent of the initial seed supplier (be that the patent holder, or the breeder)
Unless the information in the link you initially provided was wrong. It may be that breeders waive these rights, or charge fees less than patent fees – but the rules, as your source presents them, show no appreciable commercial difference between the treatment of patented or plant breeder right covered crops.