MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W304403705

Pollen Drift and Potential Causes of Action

2003· article· en· W304403705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carie-Megan Flood

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œJournal of corporation law · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBushelOrganic certificationAgricultural economicsLivelihoodGenetically modified maizeAgricultureEconomicsOrganic farmingBusinessAgricultural scienceAcreGeographyGenetically modified cropsBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION The Krafts1 have farmed for generations in the black soil of America's heartland. Matthew Kraft and his father and grandfather before him have grown organic corn on their 300-acre family farm in LaPorte City, Iowa. Farming has been their livelihood, producing a respectable income allowing them to live a modest lifestyle. During the last decade, the Krafts received premium prices for their organically certified corn.2 Organic foods have become increasingly popular among consumers who prefer natural ingredients and are concerned about the impurity of genetically modified crops.3 In fact, the organic food sector has been growing an incredible twenty percent per year since 1990.4 These staggering statistics are a result of fierce consumer resistance to genetically modified foods in the United States, Europe, and Asia.5 The Krafts have reaped the economic benefits of selling organic corn for approximately $4.00 a bushel as opposed to the open market price of $1.67.6 Life and business had been good for the Krafts until this year when harvest came and they tested their corn for organic certification. To their utter dismay, the Krafts' organic corn tested positive for genetic contamination. The Krafts found themselves victims of drift,7 a recent villain in the agricultural world that has devastated many organic farms and nongenetically modified (non-GM) farms.8 What is the profile of this agricultural villain that is rampaging across America's heartland? Genetically Modified (GM) pollen can attack at morning, noon, and night, often unbeknownst to its victims. It can come by wind, insects, birds, and trucks.9 The villain might come from the neighboring farm or a remote farm miles away.10 Regardless of the origin of the GM pollen, it is indiscriminate in where it lands, having particularly devastating effects upon organic farms and non-GM farms. Cross pollination of GM pollen with non-GM or organic crops the crops with genetic material, and may result in loss of organic certification or render the crops unsuitable for trade with countries that have zero tolerance for unapproved varieties of GM crops.11 Potential victims try to safeguard their farms, but no security system is guaranteed to keep the perpetrator out. The Krafts set up barriers of bushes, shrubs, and trees; created buffer zones; and bought corn seed guaranteed to be free of genetic engineering. Nonetheless, the GM pollen found its way in. Once GM pollen breaks into these organic or non-GM farms, it wreaks havoc and leaves behind evidence of genetic material.12 The masterminds of genetically modified crops, biotechnology giants such as Monsanto, DuPont, Pioneer Hi-Bred, and Novartis Ag, fund the research and development of GM crops.13 These huge biotechnology firms sell genetically modified seed in the agricultural market.14 In fact, GM crops are more pervasive than ever in American agriculture, accounting for more than twenty-six percent of all corn, sixty-eight percent of all soybeans, and almost sixty-nine percent of all cotton in the United States.15 However, these biotech companies are more elusive and difficult to catch than the GM seed that does the actual crime because one company's seed is often indistinguishable from another company's seed.16 Several GM farms that buy their seed from various biotech companies surround the Kraft farm. It can be difficult to prove from exactly which farm the pollen came and thereby which biotech company produced that particular GM seed.17 Not only are biotech corporations responsible for manufacturing the GM seed that contaminates organic crops, but they are also initiating lawsuits against organic farmers. In fact, there are cases in which seed companies are suing farmers for unintentionally producing GM crops.18 On March 29, 2001, a Canadian judge ruled in favor of Monsanto Co., the St. Louis based producer of biotech seeds, in its demand that a Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser, pay for the company's genetically engineered Roundup Ready Canola found growing on his field. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œJournal of corporation lawSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207