Reproducibility

Originally posted by wildgrass
This is a legal issue, not a scientific one. Apparently, if a GM seed blows into your non-GM field from an adjacent farm, you are still legally required to pay the company for that seed. That seems ridiculous.

Are you sure about that, it sounds a little urban mythy. I had a look on snopes.com, but the only GM links that came up (search term GM crops) were these two [1][2]. What I heard of happening in Australia [3] was that an organic farmer had his field contaminated with GM pollen from a nearby GM field owned by someone else and so couldn't sell his produce as organic and had his claim for damages dismissed, which was a huge problem for him as organic yields are lower.

[1] http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/monsantocorn.asp
[2] http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/gmobeedeaths.asp
[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-gmo-organic-idUSKBN0E90HL20140529

Originally posted by DeepThought
They'd have to use organic crops as a control. I assume you mean insecticide, using herbicides on crops is going to defeat the objective of the farmer. If the plant produces its own insecticide then I'd prefer it to be tested. One of the points with CRISPR is that they can actually control where the new gene is inserted, which wasn't possible in the e ...[text shortened]... allow them all through, they test each one. So I am suggesting that each one should be tested.

Of course they should be tested. I think they are tested. Here is a very informative review if interested (it should be open source) [1].Basically, GM crops have faced extensive regulatory review, and it is unlikely that they pose any health concerns at all.

Perhaps the testing is not to the satisfaction of some. But if there is no initial indication of illness or effect you are testing, or time frame, it becomes impossible to outline a clear medical trial on the subject.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4057531/

Originally posted by DeepThought
Are you sure about that, it sounds a little urban mythy. I had a look on snopes.com, but the only GM links that came up (search term GM crops) were these two [1][2]. What I heard of happening in Australia [3] was that an organic farmer had his field contaminated with GM pollen from a nearby GM field owned by someone else and so couldn't sell his produc ...[text shortened]... beedeaths.asp
[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-gmo-organic-idUSKBN0E90HL20140529

I think you're right. I probably heard it from some punk at a cocktail party. I did, however, find a Supreme Court decision on a lawsuit filed by Monsanto against a farmer, who they accused of saving seed from the prior year [1]. I'm not fluent in legalese, but the farmer claimed that he used a different seed, and the patented seed must have pollinated his crops from somewhere else. So there is precedent for biotech companies suing farmers for patent infringement, but since the judge clearly ruled here it was not patent infringement, perhaps they subsequently stopped suing farmers.

[1] http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html

Originally posted by DeepThought
They'd have to use organic crops as a control.

And what sort of studies? Following people who eat the different crops over 20 years?

I assume you mean insecticide, using herbicides on crops is going to defeat the objective of the farmer.
No, I did mean herbicide. Monsanto sells herbicides. They also sell crops that are resistant to their herbicide. Thus, you buy their seeds, buy their herbicide, then go crazy with the herbicide and kill all the weeds.

One of the points with CRISPR is that they can actually control where the new gene is inserted, which wasn't possible in the earlier set of GM crops so that there were more potential gotcha's from gene interactions.
Actually I doubt that. We don't know enough about gene interactions for there to be gotchas in one instance and not in the other. But I honestly don't think gene interactions are a genuine risk. The reality is that gene interactions take place in ordinary plants too, but we don't worry about it do we?

Other foods aren't new, the risks are known.
You are mistaken. Almost all crops are undergoing intensive breeding programs almost all the time. The key difference with GM crops is we can introduce new genes from other species. The real concern is whether those genes produce products that are dangerous to us. And, as I said before, the concern about how the crops are grown, ie what chemicals are used.

With medical trials they don't just test one drug from a class of drugs and allow them all through, they test each one. So I am suggesting that each one should be tested.
I suspect some testing is done. But I think the testing should only be done if it makes scientific sense to do so. There isn't a good argument for blanket testing of GM crops but not testing new varieties of crops created the traditional way. The last time we discussed GM crops I pointed out that many famous varieties were created by exposing seeds to gamma rays which increases the mutation rate. Why would that be inherently safer than GM?

Originally posted by wildgrass
I think you're right. I probably heard it from some punk at a cocktail party. I did, however, find a Supreme Court decision on a lawsuit filed by Monsanto against a farmer, who they accused of saving seed from the prior year [1]. I'm not fluent in legalese, but the farmer claimed that he used a different seed, and the patented seed must have pollinated his ...[text shortened]... stopped suing farmers.

[1] http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html

Re your post immediately prior to this. The long term trials (reference 14) are in animal models, not humans. Five years follow up is normal in medical trials (this sentence is more in response to twhitehead).

Regarding the court case, the appellants (the farmers are appealing the decision of the lower court, Monsanto are responding) were shown to have "used" the modified organism, but apparently unwittingly, their crop was over 95% GM. They did not purchase it and did not hold a licence. But because they had a backup provision in herbicidal resistance and failed to prove adequately that they didn't "use" the plant's ability the court argues that this does not make a difference, the patent was still infringed. The following paragraph is as follows:

The Patent Act permits two alternative types of remedies: damages and an accounting of profits. Here damages are not available, in view of the respondents’ election to seek an account of profits. The inventor is only entitled to that portion of the infringer’s profit which is causally attributable to the invention. A comparison is to be made between the appellants’ profit attributable to the invention and their profit had they used the best non-infringing option. The appellants’ profits were precisely what they would have been had they planted and harvested ordinary canola. Nor did they gain any agricultural advantage from the herbicide resistant nature of the canola since no finding was made that they sprayed with Roundup herbicide to reduce weeds. On this evidence, the appellants earned no profit from the invention and the respondents are entitled to nothing on their claim of account.

Because the farmer did not use herbicide they did not make any extra profit, so they did not gain any advantage from using the GMO relative to normal canola, this means they are liable to Monsanto but the liability is $0. However, the decision was in Monsanto's favour so in future they may be able to sue other farmers for damages using this decision as a precedent. I don't know if that's possible, or would make a difference in a case with identical facts, it would need a lawyer who knows about Canadian IP law to say.

One of the Judges dissented, arguing that the appellants did not infringe the patent:

In the result, the lower courts erred not only in construing the claims to extend to plants and seed, but also in construing “use” to include the use of subject‑matter disclaimed by the patentee, namely the plant. The appellants as users were entitled to rely on the reasonable expectation that plants, as unpatentable subject‑matter, fall outside the scope of patent protection. Accordingly, the cultivation of plants containing the patented gene and cell does not constitute an infringement. The plants containing the patented gene can have no stand-by value. To conclude otherwise would, in effect, confer patent protection on the plant. Since there is no claim for a “glyphosate-resistant” plant and all its offspring, saving, planting, or selling seed from glyphosate-resistant plants does not constitute an infringing use. As was done here, the respondents can still license the sale of seeds that they produce from their patented invention and can impose contractual obligations, such as prohibition on saving seeds, on the licensee.

The preceding paragraph made the point that what was patented and used was not the plant, but the gene. The plant is unpatented, the patent only extends to the gene. So, unless Monsanto builds the entire organism from scratch they can't patent the whole thing. The ability to prohibit saving of seeds applies only to knowing licensees. But this is a dissenting position. The majority decision of the court was in Monsanto's favour.

I think an organic farmer could argue that their business depended on not using the herbicide and therefore they could gain no benefit from the gene. It could only harm their business.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Re your post immediately prior to this. The long term trials (reference 14) are in animal models, not humans. Five years follow up is normal in medical trials (this sentence is more in response to twhitehead).

Regarding the court case, the appellants (the farmers are appealing the decision of the lower court, Monsanto are responding) were shown to h ...[text shortened]... cide and therefore they could gain no benefit from the gene. It could only harm their business.

Thank you for the thorough legal analysis! A very intriguing case, I think.

The GM issue is quite off topic, but again I think applies to the general distrust/misunderstanding of scientific methods, and exploiting irrational fear of new technology. It is perfectly reasonable to ask the question, "Do GM crops cause allergies?" But that answer is clearly no. If you continue to assert that they do, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then it becomes irrational. And then you have a highly-cited medical review article (cited earlier) stating things like:

"GM crops have a more than 20-year track record of being grown and used commercially without a single human illness known to be caused by GM food or feed. Moreover, billions of animals have been fed predominantly GM diets for consecutive generations with no evidence that animal health and productivity were affected. The safety assessment paradigm for GM crops is robust and well established, and the approach has been confirmed by authoritative regulatory agencies and scientific organizations around the globe."

Still you are asking for 5 year human medical trials for every new plant introduced to market. If no known toxins were introduced in the plant, and all long-term multi-generational animal trials came up negative, what would you be testing for in a human trial?