I remember this being a controversy at the time. These were open air field tests (and they didn't just involve wheat, there were also tests on GM corn.) The concern was that the GM crop could escape or cross-pollenate other nearby non-GM crops. The tests went forward anyway.

They've bought deregulation and ag gag laws. This has formal approval here by our political elite even if it is by shady means...

Don't they sue farmers in whose fields they find their crop inexplicably growing?

I know nothing, so of course, I want to make some observations:

Eighteen billion dollars is not much in the scheme of our international balance-of-trade imbalance, and I'm not clear if that's the amount of exports, or the entire crop, including domestic consumption.

Export bans on wheat would probably result in it being used domestically. That could have the effect of lowering the cost of food, across the board, one potential benefit. It might also have the result of crowding out imports of finished wheat products, such as pasta, noodles, cookies, etc., a possible benefit to our balance of trade.

Plus, once baked, or fed to livestock, detection of the rogue gene will be somewhere between difficult and impossible. So, possibly, exports!

I've always been annoyed that the U.S. is a net exporter of raw materials and an importer of finished goods made from those same materials. That's almost the economic definition of a dependent colony.

Disclaimer: These comments reflect the opinion and ignorance of the commenter. No representation is made as to accuracy or financial acumen. YMMV.

This is pollution at the highest level, as are all mutant plants.

I don't understand all the Monsanto hate that seems to be so prevalent among the libtards. They're not doing anything illegal. I certainly don't think increasing the productivity of crops is in any way unethical, either. But you guys have this strange propensity to get irrational at times, and I never have understood it. Maybe it's all the drugs.

@8 No, no, I get it: all bad things are illegal, and therefore if they're doing legal things, they cannot be bad. Makes perfect, crystalline sense.

Seriously, though, increasing productivity by dumping poison on competing plants, thus leaving poison sloshing around the ecosystem - doesn't that strike you as at least a questionable strategy?

@8 You are basing your comment on a provably false premise: The system of laws is perfect, correctly reflects the state of science at all times, and science is done, over, nothing left to learn here, folks, move right along.

Some examples of bad things that were legal once:

Slavery -- Its supporters thought that science supported the notion that these people were inferior and needed to be enslaved, for their own good.

Thalidomide -- A drug that was approved before we had any idea what effect it would have on fetuses.

Asbestos -- Used to be used for every damned thing, including cigarette filters.

Hmmmm, cannabis is worth 140 billion.... which is the more powerful farm lobby????

Yeah, his point is, well, pointless.

And then there's Doom. Whose only point has ever been the one at the top of his head. What a maroon.

One of the issues with GMO food (plants & animals), is that we have no choice in the matter. The GMO agenda is going forward, and will -eventually- affect everyone on Earth. The science and impacts are still far from settled, and further: they are far too confusing for mere mortals like us to untangle. Are GMOs a net good or net bad? Are there better ways to feed the planet that may be less environmentally destructive? It's nearly impossible to say at this point; there are strong advocates for all sides.

But the bottom line is: This is going forward regardless of the debate. If there are negative impacts --serious negative effects, such as destructive genetic contamination, health problems, knock-on environmental effects, etc.-- we're all going to find out eventually, and the horse will be so far out of the barn there'll be nothing we can do about it. There's no going back.

That strikes me as a moral problem.

@12 - I know you are a bit dense on this topic (given your many posts comparing drenching food crops with pesticides to chem trails or other kooky ideas) but many things once claimed perfectly safe by industry and regulators, despite much evidence to the contrary, have caused public health crises (tobacco, asbestos, PCBs, MTBE, benzene, etc). So, although pushing these products wasn't illegal, it was still at best foolish (more like criminal) to think there wouldn't be consequences for ignoring the precautionary principle.

@15 - "Are there better ways to feed the planet that may be less environmentally destructive? It's nearly impossible to say at this point; there are strong advocates for all sides."

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), the agriculture equivalent of the IPCC for climate, had little qualm about NOT recommending GM agriculture as the way forward.
http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Eco…

Monsanto just won the right to sue everyone with their crop. I look forward to Monsanto claiming their product, all of it.

Agree that this is deliberate. Thanks to pollination, the GMO cat was out of the bag long before any substantial regulatory reaction could be mounted. Those genes are out there in the ecosystem whether we like it or not, exactly as Monsanto intended.

What remains to be seen is how successful the strategy of suing people whose crops were inadvertently cross-pollinated with their patented strains will prove to be. But it's definitely on the table.

@19 While I doubt that Monsanto actually intended this, I note that Civil Court is actually available to all. Monsanto is guilty of reckless practice that has potentially contaminated our entire wheat crop, rendering it unmarketable in much of the world. Having won their prior day in court does not carry any weight in their next appearance, as a defendant in a very large class suit by wheat farmers.

How many people are gonna die in the 3rd world because we've convinced them not to use GMOs?

@17 - Your link, it requires some sort of login. The whole site does. :(

@20, almost all, if not completely all, of the wheat that leaves this country is given away as part of foreign aid packages. If they don't want it, I sure don't care.

@22 - Odd. Didn't do that earlier today.

A couple of excerpts from the summary for decision makers:

The health and environmental risks and effects of agrochemicals have been extensively documented in the scientific and medical literature. On the other hand, the impacts of transgenic plants, animals and microorganisms are currently less understood. This situation calls for broad stakeholder participation in decision making as well as more public domain research on potential risks

and,

The ecological footprint of industrial agriculture is already too large to be ignored and projected increases in future global environmental changes could make the footprint even larger. Policies that promote more rapid uptake of proven AKST-based (agricultural knowledge science and technology) mitigation and adaptation solutions can contribute to checking or reversing this trend while maintaining sufficient food production. Policies that promote sustainable agricultural practices (e.g. using market and other types of incentives to reward environmental services) stimulate more technology innovation, such as agroecological approaches and organic farming to alleviate poverty and improve food security. Growing pressure on natural resources requires new investment policies for AKST. Innovative and better targeted AKST investment policies are essential to build natural, human, financial, social and physical capital for social and environmental sustainability

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/webnp/webd…

@21 - The industry would first have to show that current GM technology increases yields, which isn't supported by evidence according to UCSUSA. Failure to yield:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricultu…

@23: not sure what century you're still in, but that's decades out of date. Washington and Oregon export tons of wheat for very good cash dollars to Asia. And Japan announced today that they were banning our wheat due to the GMO issue. So a fuckload of NW wheat growers are now wondering where to sell.

@25 GMOs have already saved millions of lives. A billion according to the UN. Failure to yield my ass.

You can only feed two third of the world's population with organic farming. Well, too bad for all these brown people, time for a genocide because stupid whitey loves his conspiracy theories.

@27 - Conspiracy theories like Monsanto having manufactured and sold DDT, PCBs, and Agent Orange? or is it the conspiracy theories of the scientists who point out that the industrial GM agriculture model isn't sustainable? or is it the conspiracies theories of those pointing out that the patented organism model places control of the food supply in a few private hands. Trying to demonize opponents of industrial agriculture by negating the actions of these corporations is laughable. You should be ashamed of yourself.

In the meantime, on one hand there are your unsubstantiated assertions that basically parrot the biotech sector PR, and on the other, the links to several reports by experts in my posts above that directly contradict what you say.

Let's see. DDT — perfectly legal at the time they were making it. PCBs — perfectly legal, and it's still debatable whether they're harmful or not. Agent Orange — not only legal, but voraciously purchased by your very own government.

I haven't seen anything linking Monsanto to Agent Orange! By the way. If you've got it, post it up.

@29 - Wow, that was easy:

Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.[1] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.[2]

A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical.

Source:Wikipedia

@29 - We have already said that it was legal but there is little doubt the chemical industry knew of the toxicity of these products way before (usually decades) they were banned or seriously regulated. Don't take my word for it, these are textbook cases that have been extensively studied: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/en…

You must not have read anything relevant about Agent Orange because it is well publicized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orang…

I'd expect you to do a little research on the topic before asking me to repeat myself ad-infinitum.