US GMO Rice Caused $1.2 Billion In Damages - Greenpeace
CHICAGO - Trace amounts of genetically modified varieties of rice that were found commingled in the U.S. rice supply in 2006 caused more than $1.2 billion in damages and additional costs, the environmental group Greenpeace International said on Monday.
U.S. rice exports fell sharply after Bayer CropScience, a division of Bayer, reported in 2006 that trace amounts of its biotech LibertyLink rice variety LLRICE601 were found in a widely grown variety of U.S. rice called Cheniere. Later, a second variety called Clearfield 131 was found to be contaminated with LLRICE604.
“Until we’ve seen the report, we really can’t comment,” said Bayer spokesman Greg Coffey.
The discovery of GMO-tainted rice triggered the largest financial and marketing disaster in the history of the U.S. rice industry, according to Greenpeace. At least 30 countries were affected by the contamination and many closed their markets to U.S. rice, including major importers such as the European Union and the Philippines.
The overall cost to the industry, estimated at $1.2 billion, included losses of up to $253 million from food-product recalls in Europe, U.S. export losses of $254 million in the 2006/07 crop year and future export losses of $445 million, Greenpeace said.
“It’s impossible to know what the cost is,” said David Coia of trade group USA Rice Federation. “It’s certainly the most significant event in the history of the U.S. rice industry. The current rice crop is in pretty good shape. We’ve been able to eliminate most of the genetically engineered material.”
Hundreds of U.S. farmers and European businesses have filed lawsuits against Bayer in attempts to recoup their losses, said the environmental group.
Greenpeace is urging India not to go ahead with field trials of GMO varieties because it could risk suffering a similar contamination and loss of exports.
A lengthy U.S. investigation failed to pinpoint how the biotech rice entered the U.S. supply. However, all three varieties of rice were grown at a research station in Louisiana from 1999 to 2001.
© 2007 Reuters
what kind of capitalist switcheroo causes the phillipines to import rice from the u.s.? has shrub threatened to invade if they grow their own?
Dear hasmat, go here:
http://www.irri.org/irrc/aboutirrc/organization.asp
Plenty of material for origami paper peace cranes
The “GMO” rice did not cause any damages or any disaster.
The “damages” were caused by utterly baseless fear and in some cases laws which barred the “contaminated” rice from being marketed despite the absence of any, repeat, any evidence whatsoever that this rice was in any way unwholesome or unhealthy to eat or would cause harm to any person or any living thing.
The headline for this article should be “Greenpeace and its friends cause $1.2 Billion worth of waste.”
The notion of genetic “contamination” is nonsense. It might make sense if the genes involved were known to cause harm in some way, but that is not the case here. In many cases, people are talking now about “genetic contamination” involving not even entire genes, but mere fragments, which have no effect at all.
Nature chops up, modifies and recombines genes in every possible way all the time, sometimes even crossing species lines. In nature, no two rice plants or any other sexually reproducing organism are exactly alike. They all contain random mutations which have not been subjected to any sort of testing to determine what, if any, health effects they might have on people who eat them. And nearly always, there are none.
This story shows the destructive effects of badly informed, knee-jerk political orthodoxy and the work of people who make a living by selling fear to the public regardless of reason or evidence.
It should be noted also that in many cases the exclusion of American “GMO” crops from foreign markets is a masked form of protectionism, which may or may not be good economic policy on the part of the countries doing the exclusion, but has nothing to do with the actual safety of the foods labeled as “GMO.”
re Spike 1:39 pm:
thanks for the link. a quick scan shows that some big money is driving this group (no surprise), especially the ag-chem companies. but i still don’t see how it’s economically viable to ship a commodity across an ocean to a place which should in theory be a net exporter of the same commodity.
re Mark Abram 2:12 pm:
nature doesn’t put fish genes into tomatoes, money-crazed corporations do, and they fight like furies to prevent us from knowing about it. why?
> “nature doesn’t put fish genes into tomatoes”
This is a perfect example of the nonsense typical of anti-biotech arguments. What, exactly, are “fish genes”? Do they smell fishy? Does putting a “fish gene” into a tomato make it want to swim upstream and spawn?
Genes are DNA. Cells translate DNA into protein. Actually, tomatoes and fish naturally share quite a few basic genes.
Bioengineers a few years ago identified a particular protein which fish use as an antifreeze. They put a gene that codes for that protein into a tomato. The tomato then expresses the protein and is protected from freezing. What is so fishy about that?
Maybe you don’t like the way the tomato tastes, maybe you think this antifreeze just makes it easier for tomatoes to be grown by corporate farms and shipped to corporate supermarkets. Then again, maybe these tomatoes can be picked a bit riper and shipped at lower temperatures so that they arrive on shelves fresh and vine-ripe. Maybe some people think these are better tomatoes than the ones that were available to them before. If you don’t like the tomatoes, don’t buy them. But don’t tell me this technology is somehow a crime against nature.
I think Mark Abram is missing Hazmat’s point. We in the United States of Amnesia, due to some bizarre court rulings, are not allowed to know what we’re consuming. In other words, corporations who calculate that they’ll make more profit by slipping a little antifreeze into our diets don’t have to label their products truthfully. If we’re kept unaware of these details, we can’t make informed decisions.
Or maybe that’s the object of the exercise?
>”If you don’t like the tomatoes, don’t buy them”
The problem is that once those fish genes are out there, they are going to spread. And if that gene (or the next spliced gene, or the one after that…) turn out to be harmful, there is no way to take it back.
Remember Africanized bees? Beekeepers bring in 26 queens from Africa to try to increase honey production and end up spreading highly aggressive bees across a huge chunk of South America + some of North America.
It’s not about some “crime against nature”, it’s about letting loose something you can’t control.
> “corporations who calculate that they’ll make more profit by slipping a little antifreeze into our diets don’t have to label their products”
The “antifreeze” is a PROTEIN. You eat it, the enzymes in your stomach digest it into amino acids just like any other protein, and your body absorbs the amino acids and uses them to make more protein.
> “The problem is that once those fish genes are out there, they are going to spread. And if that gene (or the next spliced gene, or the one after that…) turn out to be harmful, there is no way to take it back.”
The problem with this argument is that there is no reason to think the “fish genes” are particularly harmful, any more than any other random mutation that nature might come up with; in fact, under present regulations, the “fish genes” will have been thoroughly tested and any evidence that suggests possible harm will have been examined, unlike the case of the random mutations that occur all the time in nature. And like the natural mutations, the artificial ones will only propagate in the wild if they confer some net survival advantage to the wild organism, which is usually not the case.
> Africanized bees?
Yes, Africanized bees. This was a non-bioengineered, fully natural variety that was imported across the ocean, the kind of thing an organic farmer would do, and you’d read in an organic farming magazine what a great idea it was. It’s the hardy wild types that become invasive species, not the often deliberately weakened, bioengineered varieties.
It’s not greenpeaces fault they miss-labeled their rice.
And wasn’t it Bayer that was selling AIDS contaminated drugs all over the world last week.
its not a scientific argument.
As far as genetic pollution, you can rationalize it all you want,(”theres no reason to think that the genes are harmful”) But the “just throw it in the ocean” mentality… and then one day…oops the pollution is still here.
Mark Abram;
Your posts/arguments contain slander, spin, and misleading inflammatory statements. Typical of people who know ’some science’ and use it to support their myopic beliefs/agendas, your attitude and words are both cavalier and dangerous.
The complexities of nature are not ’simply’ complex, they are ‘infinitely’ complex. Scientists have not yet demonstrated omniscience and until they do, they cannot DEFINITIVELY predict the ultimate outcomes of genetic modification. Until they can, they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be fucking with the food supply/nature.
The industrialization of food was something done to make money and it’s effects have been disastrous for the world’s health, in terms of both people and the environment.
One of the points to be understood is that, unless it can be absolutely 100% proven, leaving no doubt whatsoever, that GMO’s pose no threat of any sort, either now or in the distant future, to anything, their introduction into the environment/food supply is foolhardy and a dangerous experiment.
The primary purpose of GMOs is to increase corporate profits. Corporations are not so altruistic or prudent, cautious or circumspect as to give a shit about world health and hunger, or insuring safety. They care about profits.
Basically, by pretending to have knowledge that allows you to speak with authority about the complexities of genetics and the full repercussions in nature, both now and in the future, you show how LITTLE you actually do know.
Make no mistake. As a biologist and student of the GMO world since its inception, allow me a word :
Increasingly, the people of the world are learning something which is only “common sense” if one has a scientific education and cares enough about overall planetary survival to actually take a stand on the difficult issues of our time. We are beginning to insist that all new technologies be reviewed exhaustively before said methodologies are allowed to significantly impact the biosphere. This is called the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. If we had been utilizing this principle during the entire 20th century, would we be in our present quandary? GMO is one of the most dangerous technological “fixes” in all of history, precisely because of the virtual absence of long-range assurances that such science can be always contained, and benign. The list of potential problems is almost endless and growing, and the potential damage is catastrophic, period. I wonder respectfully if Mr. Mark Abram is willing to take personal financial and moral responsibility for any and all future disasters which said GMO tech creates??? Could any human or corporation do so?
At a loss to make an intelligent reply to a direct challenge, members of the anti-biotech cult resort to angry shouting and extreme assertions:
> “slander, spin, and misleading inflammatory statements…. myopic beliefs/agendas…. cavalier and dangerous.”
> “Scientists have not yet demonstrated omniscience…. Until they can, they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be fucking with the food…”
> “unless it can be absolutely 100% proven, leaving no doubt whatsoever, that GMO’s pose no threat of any sort, either now or in the distant future, to anything, their introduction into the environment/food supply is foolhardy….”
Well, I respectfully disagree. This certainly defines a new kind of safety standard - one that is in principle impossible to meet. Has any human activity in history ever been subjected to such a requirement? Obviously, none that has ever been undertaken. It’s tempting to say that if we’d had to have “absolutely 100% proven” assurance of no risk whatsoever before trying anything new, we’d still be living in caves, but actually, we would even have been able to live in caves that way.
My understanding of a reasonable version of
> “the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE”
is that you don’t just bravely go and do things THAT YOU HAVE GOOD REASON TO THINK MAY BE DANGEROUS, without being very cautious, studying the issue to determine whether there is a real danger, how bad it would be if that danger were realized, how likely that is, and whether it could be managed in some way or whether there are steps you could take to lessen the risk. In the case of biotech, this has been done and is being done ad nauseam, and no convincing case has been made for any particular harm that is specific to what the anti-biotech crowd labels “GMO”.
The first question to be asked is whether there is a REASON TO THINK THERE MAY BE A DANGER, and not just any ad-hoc argument you can put together, but a real, scientifically valid reason.
That is what is lacking in the case of most of what has been labeled “GMO tech,” despite the loud claims like,
> “GMO is one of the most dangerous technological “fixes” in all of history, precisely because of the virtual absence of long-range assurances that such science can be always contained, and benign.”
What, precisely, is the danger? Again, this appeal to the lack of total assurance. But again, you never have that in anything you do. What exactly are you afraid will happen in this case? That is what the biotech opponents are never able to give a convincing answer to.
That is a misuse and distortion of the precautionary principle. Unless you have a scientifically plausible model of how something may cause actual harm, it is unreasonable to demand precaution against - what? - just because no one can prove with 100% certainty that no harm can possibly result.
The real reasons for opposition to biotechnology are, first of all, religious - I’m referring to the New Age religion of unspoiled Nature, “organic” food and so on - and political - hostility to science and to corporate agriculture. Some of the criticism of agribusiness and its effects on the world are valid, but they have nothing to do with the safety or wholesomeness of genetically engineered crops. The result is a kind of food fetish only the rich can afford. China, Cuba, and other developing countries have strong biotechnology sectors and are putting the technology to good use.
The other reason for rejection of “GMO” crops is old-fashioned protectionism, principally of subsidized European farmers. Because this results in anti-”GMO” laws for the European market, developing countries that grow food for that market are forced to exclude American biotech products from “contaminating” their agriculture. The result is a waste of perfectly good food and rejection of useful technology which in many cases could benefit poorer countries and help reduce hunger.
If I’m myopic so be I guess but I don’t want GMO food. And, I just have this one question which is why should we trust Bayer with rice after the mess Monsanto made with Star-Link Corn? And, we should just take it on good-neighbor faith that these advances represent some sort of corporate altruism? The preponderance seems rather to be aimed at muti-national agri-conglomerate hegemony. Ask that poor guy in Canada whose fields were contaminated by wind-drift & now is expected to pay for the privelege of growing what he doesn’t even want to grow how good GMO is - it’s a soybean case I think. In Mexico there is a major effort to ward off the contamination of the 300 or so varieties of corn they enjoyed even now. It’s a reduction in biodiversity. This homogeneity actually puts out food security at much greater risk. It is an unnecessary risk - hubristic and cavalier.
At a loss to mount a coherent defense for their evasion of truthful labeling, shills for Big Ag/Pharma continue to flood cyberspace with torrents of vaguely connected words.
> “the mess Monsanto made with Star-Link Corn?”
It wasn’t Monsanto; I think the company was called Aventis Crop Science; in any case, this is another great example. ~$200 million worth of perfectly good corn had to be destroyed, for absolutely no reason except to make an example. There was no indication, none whatsoever, of any threat to human health or any ill effect from this “unapproved for human consumption” version of BT corn. It simply hadn’t been approved.
The only plausible theory of how this stuff could even possibly have caused any harm was that it might, just might, prove to be allergenic (it didn’t). That’s true, but so might any other random mutation, such as those nature produces in wild and cultivated plants all the time.
There is absolutely no particular reason why a genetically engineered change is more likely to prove allergenic than a random natural change. In fact, since approval for human consumption normally requires extensive testing, especially in the case where any known allergens are involved, we can say that “GMO” crops are safer than those bred by other methods, less likely to produce an unexpected reaction in allergy-prone people.
OK - Aventis it is - my regrets to Monsanto. I’m probably out of my depth and I’ll shutup, but going at this as ‘no worries mate’ like you do is in my mind is disingenuous since there is are legitimate opposing scientific views on this whole topic. When these GMO crops can be produced without invasive cross polination and without threatening existing biodiversity, then perhaps we can consider science at it pinnacle of precision.
Mark Abram, here are some examples,taken from your posts, illustrating how your posts contain “slander, spin, and misleading inflammatory statements…. myopic beliefs/agendas…. cavalier and dangerous.” (my words there in quotes)
You say; (capitalizations used by me for focus)
“The “GMO” rice did not cause ANY damages”. ANY is a very big word Mark and “damages” are defined by who, Monsanto (and no, Monsanto’s hands are not clean in these issues, regardless of the Aventis confusion above.) the FDA, or those whose crops have been damaged.
Your stating that the mere “notion” of GMO danger is “nonsense” is arrogant, misleading and slanderous, as it also implies a lack of intelligence among critics.
“Nature chops up, modifies and recombines genes IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY ALL THE TIME.” Wow, big words again. If that were true … flying pigs perhaps?
“knee-jerk political orthodoxy and the work of people who MAKE A LIVING by selling fear”, more Slander, spin, and VERY misleading.
“tomatoes and fish naturally share quite a few basic genes”. Yeah, all life does. I hear they are opening a primate sperm bank, for women who want their children to become good gymnasts.
“RANDOM MUTATION that nature MIGHT come up with”. Misleading spin.
“will have been THOROUGHLY TESTED and ANY evidence that suggests possible harm will have been EXAMINED”. I see. There’s that word “any” again and “thoroughly tested” and “examined” by who? Monsanto, Bayer? It is a known and documented fact that corporations keep “evidence” secret and do NOT disclose it to the public or the FDA. Further, “examined” is not the same thing as REMEDIED. Again, more misleading spin.
“the kind of thing an organic farmer would do” is purely inflammatory slander.
“anti-biotech CULT” Uh,..slander, misleading, spin, inflammatory….
“resort to angry shouting and extreme assertions”. No shouting and I am not angry. In fact, I would counter with the hypothesis that it is, in fact, your assertions and those of the corporations advocating GMOs that are “extreme”. Further, to use the word “resort” implies desperation in the absence of substance and indirectly asserts your AUTHORITy, a fundamental SPIN TACTIC. It is misleading and slanderous as well.
“no risk whatsoever before trying anything new, we’d still be living in caves”. PURE spin and misleading. You erroneously CONNECT “no risk”, in terms of genetic modification, with housing. Sorry, nice try but no cigar.
“any ad-hoc argument you can put together”… and the wheels just keep SPINNING.
By beginning your post with; “At a loss to make an intelligent reply to a direct challenge”, you slander and mislead, implying, again, your superior position. I would counter that your position is disingenuous, not superior, although you try to assert a position of superiority. As well, what is the “direct challenge” you speak of? Your own “response” was itself, misleading, and anything but “direct”. One of the things we have all witnessed time and time again is the TECHNIQUE of derailing an opposing view by simply accusing another of the very thing they are criticizing and adding SPIN to make it tricky.
I believe estebandido asked you very directly; “I wonder respectfully if Mr. Mark Abram is willing to take personal financial and moral responsibility for any and all future disasters which said GMO tech creates???” To me, THAT sounds like a “direct challenge”. Well, how about it?
Mark Abram, I won’t repeat what others have already said but you come over as a very arrogant person; your posts are reminiscent of the unsinkable Titanic syndrome in a GM shill. Because you don’t and can’t (since no one does) understand the interrelated complexity of biodiversity of flora and fauna in this world you cannot say that GM is safe and will always be safe, in any sense of the word except your definition of it. GM has also previously been shown as bad science; good for corporate profit but bad science never the less. Your entire credibility also sinks with the statement “If you don’t like the tomatoes, don’t buy them”. This assumes we will always know what has GM content and also that we will always have a choice. You can’t possibly know that.
cromerovich, good points.
On the topic of tomatoes, let me add this; my grandmother grew the best tomatoes and they were something she was very proud of. It was, however, possible to get very good tomatoes in the stores as well, just not quite as good as hers
Then, in the early 70s, good tomatoes became a thing of the past, for the most part. It was the time when hydroponic tomatoes appeared in stores everywhere and that was because of the increased profits to be had. Vegetable industrialization, you might call it. I haven’t eaten a GREAT tomato in 35 years, thanks to good business.
Additionally, there have actually been oranges from Florida found to have ZERO vitamin C, when tested. But I don’t imagine that would have anything to do with scientists ‘improving’ things, would it?
So, simple loss of price reflected in labeling our product reached $12bill. You cant have organic jasmine rice in the bin if it isn’t Organic Jasmin, Mister Mark Abrams. That is a loss. I have been watching your posts and I don’t think you should should be given the floor. You have blown your credibility here.
P.S. All GMO products have proven to be “More” allergy producing.
Go back to your box Mr. Abrams.
Mark Abram:
The basic problem is that we know from experience that scientists are unable to foresee the consequences of their inventions upon the environment. They focus on the problem at hand and try to solve it, which is good, but they fail to see the unintended effects, which is normal but bad.
GM foods may have no ill effect, or they may become a major problem. Noone knows, but experience tells us to be cautious, suspicious of corporations who tell us that smoking is good for us and global warming is a joke.
You do remember the experimetial method, don’t you?
This is worth a view - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2108022965800005689&hl=en
The replies to my comments here have devolved to venom-spitting personal attacks, which is what generally happens when you overwhelm people with facts and logic at odds with beliefs to which they have committed themselves. I get the same thing from right-wingers when I argue against war.
I stand by all my arguments, and their implications, such as that the anti-biotechnology crowd are mostly ignorant and in nearly all cases not motivated by any well-considered and scientifically based concern about possible harm. The entire three-decades long anti-biotech crusade by people posturing as “left” has been one enormous and costly fraud, in my view.
Everybody thinks there may be, or must be, or definitely is something evil or dangerous about genetic engineering, but nobody seems to be able to explain what that is. So the standard refrain is “Nobody knows what harm may ensue.” Right.
My position is that you ought to be concerned about things that you have a REASON to think may be harmful or dangerous. In this case there are no well-founded reasons, only prejudices.
I am not claiming that it is impossible to cause harm using biotechnology, but there is no case that biotechnology in itself is harmful or more likely to have unintended harmful consequences than other agricultural and breeding methods. The rejection of “GMO” per se, as if it represents harm in itself, is without scientific foundation. It has become a commonplace prejudice among privileged classes in the US and Europe, with enormous costs as this article documents. To the extent that this is a matter of political stance, it is a case where what is popularly perceived as “left” is wrong.
I don’t see any rebuttals here that merit further response. If the best you can come up is to accuse me of being somebody’s “shill” just because I challenge what to you is the belief system of a community you imagine yourself comfortably ensconced within, well, I won’t bother answering.
One of the problems with GMO/GE plants and animals is the lack of regulation. If you say something is intended to be use in a particular way and it ends up in everyones cereal that is a problem. If you intentionally put it in cereal without telling anyone that is another problem. These are just the ethical problems there are other very real problems identified and genetic pollution is just one.
Bayer as a company has quite a history of unethical behavior, as a company that made the gas that was used in the nazi concentration camps to exterminate people. Easy to see why we have sheep that have been genetically altered to pass less methane.
Mark you are not just a shill and if you look at some of applications for genetic engineering and see no harm you are not just ignorant.
Mark,
You have not yet responded to a SINGLE point that any of the posters here have made with regard to your comments. You accuse others of venomous attacks and hyperbole, yet that is, in fact, what YOU are doing.
Wake up.
How about you respond to MANY of the points people have made and how about you respond SPECIFICALLY to what has been said. For starters, why don’t you respond to estebandido’s direct question to you?
In your posts, you repeatedly accuse others (or their points) as saying/being nonsense, ignorant, posturing, etc and it is YOU who are attacking people with insults, inflamed rhetoric, and misinformation/spin.
I don’t think anyone has called you a name other than shill, yet you are calling everyone else name after name.
Anyway, I’m outta here, better things to do than waste any more time with you if you can’t respond to anyone substantively but prefer instead to slander people and then accuse them of slander (what you are doing yourself and they are not).
> You have not yet responded to a SINGLE point that any of the posters here have made with regard to your comments.
I think my posts contain answers to all actual points, weak as they are, that I can discern having been made by my debating opponents here.
If you will make an itemized list of points that I can respond to, I will be happy to give it one last try.
like another prolific poster on this site (the energizer bunny of political brand loyalty), this person will not address a specific question if it strikes anywhere near the heart of his case. instead he will, squidlike, squeeze out an opaque cloud of verbiage and scuttle away.
my wife went through the master gardener program run by our state university. her group project was to give a presentation on the current status of GM technology, and she and her classmates put together quite an impressive body of material. the day before they were to give their talk, the university advisor cancelled it without notice, on the ostensible grounds that it wasn’t “objective.” (she hadn’t seen it yet.) the class concluded that corporate pressure was behind the decision, as the school receives significant funding from Big Ag companies.
the obvious conclusion is that the biotech giants are afraid that if we knew what was in their boxes, we wouldn’t buy them. that’s why monsanto sued the hell out of the dairy co-ops who labeled their milk “rBGH-free.”
Bayer now owns Aventis (the star-link corn makers) so they are one and the same.
Corporate Watch Bayer family tree
http://archive.corporatewatch.org/genetics/bayer.htm
Do you have any concerns about the ethical practices of the major companies that research, develope and commerialize genetic modification of plants and animals?
So, let’s just look at one possibility. Monsanto has what they call the “terminator gene”, which prevents fertility in the second generation of a crop, allowing Monsanto to make money all over again next year. Farmers in India, who traditionally save some seeds for the next year, refused to allow Monsanto a foothold in their country.
At what point, with this gene in the wild, will all agriculture come to an end because of massive sterilization?
Remember that Nature’s random gene swapping gets selected out (unless it really does create an advantage), rather than selected *in* by being mass-produced in a laboratory.
Mark Abram
Maybe you are right. You eat all teh GMO foods want, it is your right. Maybe I am stupid but I want only organic natural foods - it is my right. So lets all get along together…
Wait a minute, your GMO crops can, will and have been pollinating my organic crops. Just ask Monsanto as they go around suing farmers that had the misfortune of being in close proximity of a Monsanto GMO farm.
Now I am a bit confused. Human DNA is a double helix of 4 things 3 billion long. That is 10E36 combinations or 10 with 36 zeros behind it. Are you telling me that science has tested all those combinations with a particular GMO product and concluded that there is no adverse effect? 3 pounds of human brain is just not up to that task. So is it not like traveling down a road at high speed in a fog? At our current pace in a few years the GMO crops will have contaminated all the world’s food but you can’t get it back out if there is a problem! So you had better hope with all your might the GMO corporations are right. We are betting our lives on it!
Notorious corporate shill answers questions:
> “Do you have any concerns about the ethical practices of the major companies that research, develope and commerialize genetic modification of plants and animals?”
Capitalism and the profit motive produce distortions. In general terms, people working in this system are often motivated to act in ways contrary to the interests of other people or of all humans and their environment. This works the same in biotech as in other sectors. It is not a specific hazard of biotechnology. If biotech were especially dangerous, this might be a general reason for concern about excessive risk-taking. But biotech is not that dangerous, and actually, there is a lot of caution taken in the way this is done now. Biotechnology is hardly under-regulated. Particularly if you compare it to things like “alternative medicine” and “natural remedies.”
> “Monsanto has what they call the “terminator gene”, which prevents fertility in the second generation of a crop, allowing Monsanto to make money all over again next year…. At what point, with this gene in the wild, will all agriculture come to an end because of massive sterilization?”
First, one function of the “terminator gene” is to prevent the spread of the other engineered genes into the wild or non-”GMO” cultivated populations, (not that there is any good reason why this should be necessary). It also forces farmers to buy seed again the next year, but that is what most of them would do anyway. Large growers generally do not use seed from their own crops. If the biotech seed isn’t worth the price, they shouldn’t buy it.
I really can’t understand how you fail to comprehend that the “terminator gene” itself is one that CANNOT POSSIBLY SPREAD (even if it does not necessarily always prevent the spread of other transgenes in the same plant). You made the point yourself:
> “Remember that Nature’s random gene swapping gets selected out (unless it really does create an advantage)”
Yes, and of course this happens if the gene was human-inserted, as well. You can’t beat Darwin.
Free_Don raises another point:
> “Human DNA is a double helix of 4 things 3 billion long…. Are you telling me that science has tested all those combinations with a particular GMO product and concluded that there is no adverse effect?”
No, I am telling you that nobody has tested all the combinations with particular NATURAL or non-”GMO” cultivated crops, either, but Guess what? A lot of the traditional, non-”GMO” foods that we eat turn out to be toxic or carcinogenic to various degrees, much more so than common concerns such as (legally allowed) pesticide residues and industrial chemicals in the human environment. And why should this be surprising? Plants and animals do not have an interest in being eaten by us. We have evolved to digest them and tolerate some, but not all of their poisons. We digest most of the proteins, carbs, fats and nucleic acids well enough, but some proteins can be indigestible, allergenic or toxic and protein enzymes can create other toxic substances.
People like to say “We’ve evolved over millions of years with these natural substances but we’re not used to these new things.” However, that just isn’t true. Humans have learned to eat all kinds of “natural” things and evolution has not had time to make us immune to all the unhealthy substances they contain. In the case of biotechnology, we know what we are putting in, and a lot of attention is being paid to possible health effects. So much attention has never been paid to the health effects of what is in “natural” and “organic” foods.
Unless someone deliberately puts a gene that causes a toxic substance to be produced, there is no particular reason to expect that a “GMO” product is more likely to be harmful.
Mark Abram
Thanks for the reply. Its true there are toxic plants however, we do not eat those. Its also true there are “legally” allowed toxic pesticides however, that does not mean the pesticides do not crate long term adverse affects on us. Natural and organic foods is what we are designed to eat.
This example does not involve GM foods directly but the biological processes are the same. According to the British health service Mad Cow disease is caused by feeding cows - vegetarians - cow protein. The poor cow’s stomach does not know how to handle it and a specific prion – a chunk of protein – is changed from a helical shape to a flat shape. That flat prion enters the blood and collects in the brain. The cow’s brain does not know how to deal with it because if the cow eats the correct food it never sees the flat prion. The flat prion combines with a brain cell and destroys it!
Now we want to add a thing, let’s call it X, into a DNA strand of corn. The corn’s RNA will use X along with stuff available in the cell to create a protein called Y (for example). Y keeps bugs away but our bodies have never seen Y or X, so when we eat the corn who knows what will happen.
If you were asked the day before Mad Cow became known you would state confidently that it is impossible to occur for exactly the same reasons you support GM foods. But we know the result of feeding cows animal protein. Why repeat the same experiment on us?
Your confident support of GM foods may make you feel better but science – mathematics, biology, chemistry and history – all prove that this is a disastrous, stupid and horrendous plan, and all just to make more money!
Free_Don:
> “Its true there are toxic plants however, we do not eat those.”
There are toxins also in plants that we eat. The levels are generally not enough to immediately make us sick, but they can have long-term health consequences including cancer. There is no regulation of this because there is no law saying there should be. If this were regulated in any way nearly as strictly as pesticides, industrial chemicals and biotech are, a lot of “organic” foods would be banned. There is a literature on the subject which you can find if you look.
> “Natural and organic foods is what we are designed to eat.”
There is no basis in science for saying we are “designed” at all. Evolution is a slow and imperfect process.
Re mad cow: Most proteins are digested, but some are indigestible and some small amount can pass into the bloodstream and through the blood/brain barrier. Since prions are by definition self-replicating, not many have to get into the brain to start the disease process. There is no particular reason to expect an engineered protein to turn out to be a prion; rather, that is fantastically unlikely to occur.
Mark, thanks for your reply. I apologize for the delay in responding but our daughter just had her baby! Your statements about prions is incomplete and I think missing the point. The prion that causes BSE did not just happen into the cow’s blood, it is not even found naturally but is in fact ‘created‘ by the chemical cauldron of the cow’s four stomachs. This is exactly the same process we humans will have with GM foods and proteins we are not supposed to see. Again, how can you say bad things will not happen or is unlikely to happen?
> “There is no basis in science for saying we are “designed” at all. Evolution is a slow and imperfect process”
With all due respect, you need to get out more. There is a schism in the evolution field the past 10 years or so. After 150 years of looking many, many evolutionists have determined there is no proof of evolution at all! If you have any proof like a transitional species or any proof natural selection causes a new species or any proof a mutation causes a new or improved species as opposed to weakened life please come forward with it. Many evolutionists have abandoned that theory because of the lack of scientific proof. Because of that they came up with the name Intelligent Design.
As I opened with, our daughter had her first baby. It made me realize that life is not created now and we have never seen it created. It is passed down from one life to another. Groups of proteins and other stuff cannot spontaneously form into life!