"There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that "genetic modification" (meaning, by certain methods, whereas other methods such as selective breeding and hybridization, no more natural than transgenic techniques, are somehow excluded from the definition of "genetic modification") is in any way harmful..."

The above assertion has already been shown otherwise on this thread. Where is the mea culpa?

And why totally ignore the point that GMOs have no material need but are rather designed to satiate greed?

Hello beyondempire,

Thanks for the kind words. It seems that what is missing in so much of the discussions about GM and biotechnology is the fact that we are dealing with living organisms that have their own defenses against unwanted invasion/aggression and they can be very creative when they deploy their defenses. We tend to forget that the soil itself is a living organism, actually many living organism. Nothing happens in a vacumn (sp?) in the real world.

I like your attitude and observations about what may ultimately be the only game in town (and we had better relearn the rules). We need the planet more than the planet needs us and the planet is way more patient than we are. When I was active in the business I routinely encountered Nature's reminders that I was testing the limits and needed to lighten up or get thumped!

Here's an article I think you would enjoy and appreciate..Wendell Berry in Orion Magazine

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/160/

pacplyer:

I don't know if you're right on this one or not but it is plausible. Both Mark Abram and Kernel defend GM food technology as if there can be no other future.

I've posted on this issue before and have been characterized as someone who has no attachment or experience in farming. That would be inaccurate.

The only thing I have tried to point out is that just because GM foods have made serious inroads into the business of agriculture does not mean "farmers" are bound to accept it.

I know many farmers have been taught to revere the whole GM program as the future of "farming" but another world is possible. Growing fruits and vegetables while currently a niche market could with the right support become the answer to our seriously flawed farm policy, and the dangerously pervasive health problems in our population.

The people who call themselves farmers and yet practice the types of "farming" associated with large scale agriculture or factory farming give themselves undeserved credit in applying the term farmer to themselves. They ceased being farmers and began to be businessmen when they signed up for these programs.

Change is now in the wind, but we will not see that change if there is no vision for a future without these concessions. This is not an attack on science. This is a call for science to explore not conquering nature but using its example to increase productivity, biodiversity and nutrition.

I believe grannyt understands that it is nature that provides the rules of farming in much the same way the study of physics draws on observable physical reality to explain and define what can be accomplished in engineering. Bioscience should not be attempting to change the rules of nature which can only lead to ultimate failure in the same way engineers cannot ignore the rules of the physical world in building structures lest they ultimately fail and come crashing down around them.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I experienced this intransigence before as big pharma tried to spam our stem cell boards. They start with a reasonable sounding poster like Mark Abram who relentlessly defends high profit industries under the guise that he is an impartial observer, a consumer just like you.

But that is not what's going on here. I told you guys these mo-fo's would show up here soon; and they're here. Mark is a paid operative, who will change his name as he becomes unpopular and continue to post daily that "there's religious hysteria" against: nukes, frankenfood, big pharma pills etc, because That Is His Job. He's gets 50cents/post to defend the unspeakable actions of a list of Fortune 500 companies. Very cheap propaganda from a corporate point of view.

"Mark Abrams", and likely "Kernal", are FORTUNE 500 poison-pen Journalists. Billions are at stake. You're being experimented on for GM food profit. CD is becoming a popular dissent site. Hiring a couple of corporate hacks at minimum wage is what you would expect wall street to do.

Sorry to let the cat out of the bag on you boys.....

Mark

What specifically about the post is inaccurate? I know that you are talking about an even greater extreme than the use of promotor genes but hey...DNA is DNA right?

Mae-Wan Ho is about as credible as a scientist as Deepak Chopra. She is a purveyor of pseudoscientific nonsense and a political poseur pretending to be a scientist. She plays up the prejudices of a false New-Age politics to make a living, and dresses herself as a scientist when in fact her role is as some kind of weird priestess of a flaky movement. To put it another way, from what I have read on her website, she is either a flake or a fake (or both).

You can quote me on that. If you do, please get the quote straight. I DID NOT say "What we're getting is plants that need more specific inputs..." I RESPONDED to that comment. So, it is apparent that my words are wasted, since those who disagree don't want to reconsider their position and therefore can't even be bothered to track the discussion.

Fascinating discussion, bravo!

MARK ABRAHMS says, "What we're getting is plants that need more specific inputs.." and I think for me this quote sums up what I take for your mindset. It is in seeing nature as a thing, that all the intricately woven species of nature exist for MAN'S dominion.

This brings me to what RUTH K mentioned about Monsanto. Let us also remember that the company that sees no oxymoron in "industrial food" is also the company that has made enormous blood profits from its design of chemical weapons. Makes you wonder what's in your cereal.

Great comments: EZEFLYER, PETER W, GRANNYT, DEANDER

BUGS BUNNY: As per "to bee a bee..." I recently finished a children's book that utilizes insects to portray the 12 Zodiac signs. The LEO Queen bee pontificates, "To bee a bee, or not to be a bee, that is the question." And when a little girl seeks to correct her according to Shakespeare, the Queen retorts back, "Alas, that is the edited version, my dear."

JBPM: Your points are eloquent and spiritual, and echo my sentiments. Right on!

Hi grannyt

I've read quite a few things from Mae Wan Ho, (I think she) writes in a way that many people can understand if they take the time. It takes me awhile also. There is also room here for common sense. GE/GM is designed to allow the continued misuse of nature, to correct the mistakes brought about by science (things like cleaning up introduced toxins) and to make a lot of money in the process. Notice the price of food is going up. Biotechnology does not address inequality or social justice but makes that paradigm more difficult. It seperates people from thier food source. Most processed foods have health consequences and while it may meet some scientific marker, it is bad for living things. Science is part of the problem and it is long past the time that we should be asking some serious questions instead of being invalidated. Such as what are you doing to the food we eat and the environment that we evolved with over thousands of years because science is not telling the truth and hasn't for a long time.

I am encouraged by all the good points brought to this discussion. I like your posts and appreciate your recommendation for the book. I will check it out?

Hi Treefrog,

Thanks for the link to the Mae-Wan Ho piece. I made a copy to reread later, the technical terms require a bit more thought for me, but he(she?) makes good points. From what I have read other places one of the biggest problems the modification people have is getting the plant or animal not to reject the modification. Apparantly the soy people used one of the e-coli strains to fool the plant when they introduced some of their modifications. Things like this would seem to be some of what Mae-Wan Ho is pointing out..the disease potential when test tube modification is used.

Sterilization is not reliable in the sense that it is not always permanent. While it is working it is effective. The Texans and Mexicans redo the procedure every so often for that reason. From a cattleman's point of view it is magic and more effective than anything else that had been tried before or since.

Have you read the book "The World Without Us"? It is fascinating. I can remember telling people 25 years ago that the planet was not going to be destroyed (unless we made pieces out of it) by our bumbling. Nature could and would fix the mess. What we may do is make it impossible for us to live here--fouling our own nest so to speak. An old rancher told me years ago that "Nature would do all our thinking and most of our work if we would just let Her". I found that to be more true than not. He created one of the most efficient, fertile, predictable cattle breeds I have ever seen using observation of Nature's selection criteria. He formulated his requirements and let Nature decide which animals (and plants in some cases) would work for him. It was a pleasure to listen to him.

Here's an interesting thought I can't answer at this time...when you cross a donkey with a horse you get a mule which is to all intents sterile...wonder why. There have been 3 documented cases of a fertile female mule in I think 150 years. It is probably not a sterile gene but something quite similar.

I notice there are several article on Common Dreams the past few days dealing with food safety issues. I guess we aren't the only people who have concerns about this.

Mark,
The harm is to the product, read income, not necessarily to the consumers of the product. The validity of claims of safety may not stand but the damage to brand identity should and has for some major corporations. That was the point I made and you know it.
You are conducting this discussion the same way the right wingers have been reacting over the past 7 years...ignore the points and attack the person. Its not personal I know, you have bad mouthed everyone you responded to on this thread. (I checked to be sure before I said this.) I won't bother you anymore with my observations and knowledge. It is of no value to you anyway.

From what I understand this has already happened that sterlization is not a reliable process. Nature is always going to be one step ahead of science because science is linear and nature is not.

"Mae-Wan Ho response to: How nature itself uses genetic modification"
http://www.biotech-info.net/MWH_response.html

> "Mark,
"..genes that cause fertility cannot spread into wild populations.." I request your source for this statement."

Lu,

I request YOUR source. What I wrote was the opposite; genes that cause STERILITY cannot spread into wild populations. I don't think I need to explain why.

The anti-screwworm campaign involved releasing enough sterilized flies that their numbers overwhelmed the population of virile males. If you're talking about some pollen blowing over from one field to the next, the pollen that blows over is going to be overwhelmed by pollen from the same field. It is not going to have a huge effect.

As you point out, the screwworm campaign was not "GM" but it did have some unintended ecological consequences. One of the points I made is that all kinds of things we do, such as plant crops, build roads and subdivisions and release greenhouse gases, have huge ecological consequences, which we ought to compare with effects from "GM" crops before we go denouncing the latter as a terrible threat due to some possible ecological consequences of planting them on a large scale.

> "Why should the GM farmer be liable? Well, at least the organic guy is not contaminating a crop that won't produce anyway. The GM guy is messing with organic guy's livelihood. There are people who want his product and will pay for it so long as it is what he says it is. GM contamination ruins the organic farmer's market."

The point is, you are liable if you cause actual harm, not just because you do something that some people out there believe to be harmful, but can't produce any evidence showing that it is. If you have a phobia of my breath, for example, I don't have to stop breathing just because you're afraid some molecules of my breath will end up in your lungs. I'm sure you think that's not a fair analogy, because of your prejudice that there is some good reason for the obsession with genetic purity, and something contaminating about those dirty "GM" crops.

Mark,
"..genes that cause fertility cannot spread into wild populations.." I request your source for this statement.

From personal experience I know that fertility or lack thereof is highly heritable, it is one criteria any stock breeder monitors closely. The issue of fertility is huge and my botanist friends tell me that certain plants are more fertile than others. In fact a large part of the very early work done in selective plant breeding was designed to increase seed production in desireable species. The source I offered last night is a man who is concentrating on redeveloping perennial wheat and doing a pretty good job. At least National Geographic thought so when they honored his work several years ago. In our infinite wisdom we plowed all that under and replaced it with 'improved' varieties only to discover that the new plants require many more inputs than we had anticipated and were susceptible to environmental and pest problems that the wild plants had evolved to survive. We may not know as much as we think we do...in fact we may not know the right questions to ask ourselves about what we are doing.

Terminator plants still make the trappings of reproduction but by definition they are blanks. In the cattle business some years ago screw worm infestation was a huge problem, ranchers were losing incredible numbers of calves to essentially gangrene caused by the screw worms which developed when a particular type of fly laid its eggs in the newborn's navel. Working with the northern Mexican states millions of flies were bombarded with radiation to sterilize them, then they were dumped into the areas where fly infestation was the heaviest. It took about 10 years to completely eliminate this particular fly. Were the flies genetically sterile? No. Was the result the same as if they had been? Yes. Can you do the same thing with pollen? Very likely, and probably it would take a while to realize what was happening. Once its done, if you have made an error, it is difficult or impossible to reverse course.

And as an unintended consequence the screw worms were also one of the ways Nature kept the deer population under control. Once the flies were gone the deer population took off like a rocket and the end result of that was undersized deer due to inadequate food supply. Of course we had also removed the big cats so there were few predators to pick up the slack.

Why should the GM farmer be liable? Well, at least the organic guy is not contaminating a crop that won't produce anyway. The GM guy is messing with organic guy's livelihood. There are people who want his product and will pay for it so long as it is what he says it is. GM contamination ruins the organic farmer's market. We are not supposed to be allowed to do that.

I offer another quote from one of the best books I have seen on the subject of the grain business.
"..plant geneticists worry that the standardization of crops through the 'genetic engineering' that produces the new varieties is not only breeding out undesirable qualities and weaknesses but also breeding incertain new vulnerabilities." from 'Mercants of Grain' by Dan Morgan, 1979. This is the most comprehensive history of the grain industry, the players and their effects on foreign policy I have ever found.

Later in the book the author says something quite similar to the warning issued by Tom Ridge, formerly of Homeland Security---they both speculate on the risk of biological terrorism which is much easier to accomplish when you know the weaknesses of plants and your victim has made it easy for you by making all the plants the same. These are just two people out of many who are concerned about this potential. There are hard scientific reasons why they make the statements they do. There is a 28 year spread between the two warnings, so this is not a new thing. In that 28 years there have been insect and weather events that have done tremendous damage to crops here and in other countries. When you have monocultures that is always a risk.

It was a farmer neighbor who told about his cows, it happened several times because he didn't really believe it anymore than you do. You are like the 'pure' scientists, if a person doesn't have all that alphabet soup after his name he is full of it and has no credibility. Even the applied science guys have to put up with some of that attitude. The university/extension guys didn't value any of the work I did, even after I did a funded research project. The problem was not the quality of the research, it was the fact that I was showing farmers how to do without agribusiness and still produce a quality product consistently. The university types don't like people throwing rocks at their funders!

Enough just for Mark.

For those who have an interest in more details about all the hurdles being placed in front of independent producers go to the National Family Farm Coalition and check out their newsletters. There is also a link there to take you to the Agriculture Policy Analysis Center at the University of Tennessee, Dr. Daryll E Ray writing articles titled 'Policy Pennings'. He covers a wide range of issues and I find his work to be thought provoking.

The Weston A Price Foundation was mentioned. Locate the article by Sally Fallon, "Its the Beef". She documents some of the potential problems with GM soy in particular.

Have a good day, I look forward to seeing what else gets brought up.

Lu

The supreme court said that the affected farmer had to destroy his crops because he had not taken sufficient precautions to avoid fertilizations from the GM crop. He wasn't an organic farmer. Perhaps you could tell me what precautions he should have taken, since the contamination was found to come from trucks carrying seed from the GM crops travelling on highways adjacent to the farmer's fields.
I agree that many of the anti-GM hysterics have little to do with realities. That does not mean that there is not a danger that has to be addressed however.

Craig, you are describing a very marginal possibility of slight negative impact if the presence of pollen-producing but sterile GM crops has some depressing effect on fertile seed yields of crops grown in neighboring fields. How large is this effect going to be, in the worst case? A few percent? Does this justify all the anti-GM hysteria and unsupported claims of health effects or disastrous ecological impacts? How do the kinds of impacts you are talking about compare with the effects of other kinds of agricultural or other projects? Is this really a specific consequence of genetic engineering per se, or just something that might happen with certain modifications in certain situations?

One thing for sure, I hope you understand, is that genes that cause sterility cannot spread into wild populations and hence cannot have widespread, catastrophic impacts of any kind. I hope you understand this, because, incredibly enough, some people who think they know something about this subject don't even understand that much.

You also raise the issue of "contamination from nearby GM crops!" I agree with the Supreme Court here: Why should a farmer who grows "GM" crops be liable for such "contamination" when the farmer who grows "organic" crops is not? Why? Is the "contamination" from the "GM" crops harmful, while "contamination" from the "organic" crops would not be? Where is the evidence of this? What you have is again just a purity fetish, almost racist in character, although I don't mean to trivialize racism. I don't see why I should have to pay for somebody else's genetic purity fetish. Particularly when it is nonsensical, as the "organic" crops will contain all sorts of random, uncontrolled mutations, any one of which is a priori just as likely to prove harmful as any artificial modification - or more so, since the artificial modifications will at least have been examined and probably tested ad nauseam before being released for human consumption.

Mark,

I wrote "What we're getting is plants ... that can't reproduce but can spread their modifications to native plants, ..."

and you responded "... you do not explain how plants that can't reproduce can spread their modifications to native plants, or what harm would be caused if this were to occur."

My apologies; it has been a fairly major news article in my part of the world in the past and I assumed that it was more common knowledge. Plants can be rendered sterile by GM technology in a number of ways. Some are to include the "terminator" gene that blocks part of seed germination, or to engineer a dependence on a nutrient that is higher than the ambient soil level, but not higher than what might be expected in a fertilized field, or by providing material to change the limiting factor of growth. Each has some merit and value to a GM crop, and can lead to more productivity.
The problem is that in some crops, we harvest the seeds, so we need these crops to produce pollen. This pollen has a way of spreading out of the fields that it started in. Lawsuits have been brought to the Supreme Court and concluded that it is the farmer's responsibility to protect his fields from contamination from nearby GM crops! (I doubt the judges have a grasp of biology extending to the "birds and the bees", but that's another discussion.) So, Gm crops can and have pollinated with other crops.
Where this could be harmful ... depends on the modification but there are many possibilities. It can render natural plants harmless. It can contaminate the germ line of other crops, in the same way that any monoculture crop tends to pass some of its characteristics to nearby crops. It can lead to other crops depending on certain nutrients and increasing soil depletion. Any ecology text can provide you with countless comments.

I hope this explains why crops that may not be able to create viable offspring can cause a potential hazard to other plants living nearby. Similar methods are used in some types of biological pest controls, such as releasing sterile males to compete with normal ones for mating opportunities, limiting next year's "crop" of insects.

Craig

DeAnander

Quite excellent comments!

There is no scientific basis the GE/GM practices by introduction of novel species harm the environment. (NOT TRUE) Non-scientific observations have no basis to determine the truth about GE/GM affects on populations and the environment.
Hummm, there is a thing called empirical information (data) and if disregard how something functions in the environment, including objections then you have a FLAWED paradigm.

grannyt:

I call the examples false or trivial because that's what they are. It's like UFO sightings: there are so many, you can't possibly debunk them all, and if you could there would be a thousand new ones by the time you were finished.

Frankly, I do not recognize all of the claims that have been cited in this thread, but the ones I do recognize are either the work of incompetents or cranks, or are much-inflated findings of no real significance. I suspect that some of the others, such as cows turning away from "GM" food are just folklore and urban legend.

An excellent example of irrelevance the claim that wild or non-"GM" plants have been "contaminated" with genes from "GM" varieties. This ignores the fact that Mother Nature is busy "contaminating" the genomes of unengineered plants with all kinds of random mutations, recombinations and cross-pollinations all the time. This genetic noise just does not matter.

Another example of the kind of bizarrely illogical thinking that turns up in the anti-biotech camp is the concern that "terminator" genes will spread into wild or cultivated populations and cause massive die-offs or crop failures. Anybody ever heard of natural selection? Hello? Yet you hear this one over and over, and I think someone has it in the thread above.

Once again, the problem is the assumption that there has to be something wrong, harmful or dangerous about this technology. Although this has become a very widespread assumption, there is simply no scientific basis for it.

No matter whether plants cross-pollinate wild, are bred by cultivators using Mendelian methods, or are modified by laboratory techniques, the basic biology is the same. DNA is DNA, and it is used to make proteins, which in turn catalyze the creation of other substances.

Some plants produce toxic substances, and you could use genetic engineering techniques to make toxic corn if you wanted to, or if you were really stupid. The thing is, we haven't really taken a careful look at the possible long-term health effects of substances present NATURALLY in the foods we eat, but we do look carefully at the possible health consequences of anything we put in deliberately. We don't worry about the possible ecological consequences of mutations and cross-pollination in the wild, but we do worry about the possible ecological consequences of genetic engineering. There is no reason to think the artificial changes are any more likely to prove harmful than natural changes or than the harms we may already be suffering from natural substances in the foods we eat; and in fact, genetic engineering is LESS likely to cause such harms because we do actually pay some attention to what we do with it.

A good comparison is with nuclear power. I think the risks of nuclear power can be managed and I don't think we can afford not to use it given the climate crisis. But I will certainly agree that there is reason for concern here. A nuclear power plant is a huge pile of extremely dangerous stuff. No question if the stuff should escape it would cause a lot of harm. We can talk about various scenarios in which that happens, and estimate how likely they are. I think the risks can be kept low enough, but I will never say there is nothing to worry about.

In the case of genetic engineering, where is the huge pile of extremely dangerous stuff? It's DNA, proteins, the same stuff all life is made of. You'd have to work really hard to make it dangerous. Really, it's the naturally-evolved critters we have to worry about; they're the ones that are good at surviving in the wild and invading new territory, damaging ecosystems when humans give them a lift across geographical barriers.

Anyway, that's enough of this argument for this thread.

Dr. Weston Price demonstrated in the 1930s that ANY kind of tampering with food is harmful. Read his classic book, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration." The burden of proof is on the tampering fools who think they can improve on nature.

Boy, things have gotten interesting since I was here last night.

I will start this post with quotes
from a scientist, Wes Jackson from the Land Institute in Salinas, KS...
"But as a consequence of scientific and technological tampering, we have created ignorance of things we now do need to know. This is part of what led to a conference we held in 2004 called "Toward an Ignorance-based Worldview."

"To get ready for this conference, I sent out sort of an invitation. Here's what it said: 'Imagine an ignorance-based science and technology in which practitioners would be ever conscious that we are billions of times more ignorant than knowledgeable and always will be.'"

"I have spent a fair amount of my life studying exits, starting with classrooms. How are we going to get out of here in case something goes wrong? Such students of exits would want to know not only how to exit, but also how to not leave irrevocable damage."

"Knowledge seeking would not stop, but would, as Wendell Berry has said, 'force us to remember things, cause us to hope for second chances and provide an incentive to keep the scale small.' Acknowledging ignorance might be the secular mind's only way to humility."

The entire article can be found here... http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/03/42c0db19e37f4
It is worth your time to read it.

Now that I have that said lets proceed.

Mark..
I think I would like to hear why you are so sold on the GM/GE concept that you will call any examples or proofs offered so far 'false or trivial'. By your own admission current ag practices are destructive but you seem unwilling to pursue alternatives that might correct the problem. The link to the Monbiot article provided by DeAnander is as concise a description as I have seen about the potential to feed the world using the real traditional, conventional methods...they were quite successful long before we started eating oil.

What I think is really happening here is that farmers know that messing with the system is foolhardy and non-farmers tend to think technology will fix everything. We farmers know we aren't God and take instruction from the most successful teacher we can find...the natural order.

Out of time, will be back sometime tomorrow and share some other readings you might want to pursue.

This is a very important conversation and I am glad to be part of it.

Lu

It's the rich who are forcing GMO on the world, as a strategy for making themselves richer. The whole organic foods are the fetish of the effete upper class snobogentsia thang is a propaganda meme that flies right alongside latte liberals. It is peasant farmers who are tearing up GM crops in India, peasant farmers whose maize is being contaminated in Mexico, small farmers like Schmeiser who are falling prey to Monsanto's extortion tactics. The people pushing GMO (literally) down our throats are the rich: CEOs, finance capitalists, Wall Street, patent-holders dreaming of becoming billionaires by extorting royalties from every last farmer on Earth.

The other durable lie is that organic farming is less productive per hectare than industrial chemical ag. While chem-intensive ag may beat ploughland monocrop over a short period (a generation or so), it does so by bankrupting the soil and polluting (and exhausting) the water table. Like many industrial/extractive processes it achieves a brief blip of "productivity" followed by severe and accelerating deterioration. And it does not produce more food per hectare; it produces more money profit per hectare, by employing fewer humans and burning more fossil fuel to replace their labour, by creating grotesquely large and dangerously fragile monoculture plantations. Organic poly/permaculture reliably produces more food per hectare than industrial ag, uses less water, is more pest-resistant, and improves the soil over time rather than destroying it.

Just one summary article about the research

We need to demolish for once and for all these shameless lies peddled by apologists for Enclosure and Factory Ag. They deliberately endorse ruination of the soil and reduction of productivity -- a sin in a hungry world -- in order to ensure higher profits for a ever-shrinking class of huge landowners and processors. Their objective is not to feed the world, or any of us, but to get and keep total, centralised control of the food chain.

They lied about "golden rice", they lied about Bt cotton and corn and soy; they lied to farmers, they lied to consumers, they lie every damn time they open their mouths.

Vit A and beta carotene deficiencies in India and Asia are mostly a byproduct of two things -- two related things -- poverty and industrial ag. Industrial ag sprays the leafy green weeds in the croplands with herbicides to eradicate them; in former times the poor and farmers would gather and eat them -- much as we in the West would eat lanbs-quarters, which industrial farmers regard as a "useless" weed -- and these leafy greens formed an important nutritional component of the peasant diet. It was the so-called "green revolution" with its factory ag, abolition of polyculture in the name of "efficiency", cash cropping for foreign markets, and heavy herbicide applications that disrupted the nutritional patterns of the peasant diet *and* evicted millions from their land, thus intensifying both malnutrition and poverty -- V Shiva among others documents this, and P Sainath documents the horrendous corporate loan sharking game that is causing hundreds of farmer suicides in India each year.

Sir Albert Howard documented the efficacy and wisdom of traditional Asian peasant farming practise over 60 years ago. Asian peasant farmers had farmed the same land for 4000 years without exhausting its fertility; Western/industrial methods have severely damaged or ruined much of the farmland in all of N America in a mere 200 years. Whose methods should we be studying? It is time for the technomacho (and nationalist/racist/colonialist) posturing to stop. Industrialism is not compatible with sustainability in agriculture, any more than it is compatible with humane animal husbandry or kind and caring childrearing.

War=Peace:

> "Don't rush untested products to the grocery, keep testing..."

It is impossible to prove a negative. We don't endlessly test everything when there is no indication of harm or danger.

> "It's the business element that forces unsafe elements into the marketplace."

In the case of genetic engineering, this has not happened. Despite the litany recited here of false or trivial findings, there is no case on record of harm caused by any genetically modified food, to anybody, ever.

PhysicsTeacherGuy:

> "What we're getting is plants that need more specific inputs, like patented fertilizer and herbicides, that can't reproduce but can spread their modifications to native plants, that deplete soil resources, and are barely competitive with holistic organic agriculture."

There is some truth to some of this critique, but not much, and in any case it has NOTHING to do with the outrageously hyped claims of Mr. Smith concerning health risks that simply do not exist. As for what you write, actually glyphosate tolerant crops "depend" on the use of glyphosate herbicide but the result is less need for herbicides overall and the use of a relatively benign one. And you do not explain how plants that can't reproduce can spread their modifications to native plants, or what harm would be caused if this were to occur. Ordinary mass farming techniques deplete soil, which is why fertilizers are used, and there is no reason to say that genetically engineered crops make this tendency worse. "Holistic organic agriculture" requires more labor input and therefore costs more. I often buy "organic" crops because they've been grown locally and with more care, but that's why they're better, not because they aren't "GM."

JBPM:

> "Where are the long-term studies that demonstrate the lack of negative side effects for GM foods?"

Where is the reason to expect such effects, specifically from genetic modification? Some foods may have health effects. Many of the "natural" foods we eat contain "natural" substances that have some known toxicity or carcinogenic potential. Where are the long-term studies on these hazards? Actually the genetic modification issue has been studied to death. There is no generic hazard stemming from genetic modification per se.

> "I take umbrage at this comment: "You should start with a scientifically credible reason why you think something poses a danger, and then you should evaluate whether that concern is really well-founded." If I understand this correctly, what you are saying is that any and all scientific research SHOULD be pursued until and unless a citizen can provide a scientifically credible reason for not pursuing it."

What I am saying is you don't avoid trying anything unless it can be proven that no harm can possibly result; rather, you take precautions in cases where you have reason to suspect a danger or possible harm. A good reason, not just some vague prejudice, not just a pseudo-political poseur's rhetoric, or a sloppy, self-promoting journalist's output of distortions and hype, nor some ad hoc argument that sounds like it might make sense - you can always come up with another one of those. I mean a sound, scientifically based expectation that something could cause some specific kind of harm in some specific way.

That's the proper precautionary principle: that you don't march off and try something that you know is dangerous without taking precautions to control the danger or limit the damage that could be caused. Not that you don't do something just because some wacko says it's Mad Science, but that you don't be a mad scientist who recklessly plays with dangerous things.

In this case, there is no great danger. You really would have to go out of your way to cause harm with genetic engineering of crops. So, as long as you don't do things that we know would be dangerous, like transferring mushroom toxins into corn, say, then you ought to be able to do things that there is good reason to think may be beneficial and no good reason to think may be dangerous without being harassed by "organic" puritans.

Mark Abram, you lost all credibility by supporting that nut bag Andrew Bolt. I only hope that you don't create a flood of more of the morons that infest his little hate filled blog.

DeAnander, Also on thalidomide you might give a little thanks to an Australian, Dr William McBride although he did end his career under a cloud.

http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/thalid.html

"Any hints on how to have humility win, other than having those who place money at #1 lose humiliatingly?"

Craig, I wish I knew. The only thing that the history of religions has taught me is that we seem to learn the same lessons again and again and again...

Hopefully opening up discussions like this is a place to start, instead of browbeating one another over our disagreements. Like someone above said, we don't need this to become the next abortion "he said, she said" non-debate.

Hope the holiday season (or Christmas, if you prefer) finds you and yours well!

J

JPBM, no arguements here about the need for humility.
My example was to pick a benign use for genetically modified technology - reducing the need for fertilizer, and adding nutrients to soils. The law of unintended consequences is always a possibility - as you have said, humility around nature is a good thing.
BTW, the reason why this hasn't garnered much research is that no company will fund it - why would they, you can't make too much money off people who can't even afford fertilizer. Those who might benefit can't pay, leaving only a few interested academics to work at it.
Humility vs. the profit motive. As a professor of comparative religion and philosophy, you know more than I'll likely ever know about the various incarnations of that struggle. Any hints on how to have humility win, other than having those who place money at #1 lose humiliatingly?
Craig

Craig,

You pose an interesting challenge: "explain how modifying a corn plant to produce nitrifying nodules on its roots (as legumes do) would be harmful."

For me (a nonscientist and instructor of comparative philosophy and religion) the problem is not that we can or can't demonstrate the harm in engineering a corn plant to produce nitrifying nodules. Rather, the problem is that, to me, humans tinkering with the DNA of organisms is akin to a toddler coming across a complex mechanism that someone else built over a long period of time and making changes to one part based on his limited understanding of the whole. In other words, it isn't that we can or cannot explain the benefits and harms, it is that explaining benefits and harms is beyond the scope of our limited equipment. We are a part of a greater system and our grasp of the whole is limited, at best. If we can carry our observations out to the 30th decimal place, the effects of that 31st decimal place can still be unpredictable.

It is unfashionable to use teleological language when discussing the sciences, but isn't it possible that there is a "reason" (albeit one not necessarily in the mind of a creator, but at least in the "logic" of natural selection) why corn doesn't have the same kind of nitrifying nodules in its roots as peanuts or clover? And that by making this "minor" modification to the corn plant that we might be producing all sorts of stresses on other aspects of the ecology that are unforeseen (and perhaps, by virtue of our limited minds-senses-technologies, unforeseeable)? The history of science has been nothing if not the history of unintended consequences, and so at the very least, we need to approach genetic engineering (among other technologies) with a sense of humility rather than hubris.

And that is really what my concern boils down to. I don't trust ANYBODY, right or left, scientist or priest, who approaches life with such a sense of surety, because in my experience those are the folks most likely to be bitten on the ass by reality. If we can practice genetic engineering with humility (something that seems almost like a contradiction in terms to me), then I say go for it. As long as we are doing it like we actually know what we are doing, though, I'd rather give whiskey and car keys to my 6-year old daughter.

Mark,

I've got to chime in here. I regularly josh my wife for falling back on the "it's natural" trope by pointing out to her that hemlock and rattlesnake venom are natural too. In other words "natural" and "healthy" are not necessarily synonymous. And one of the reasons my wife is taken in so easily by the "natural = healthy" rhetoric is because she has something of a mistrust of science.

However, when you make claims like this: "There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that "genetic modification"... is in any way harmful," you further the suspicion of science that has infected many on the left. Where are the long-term studies that demonstrate the lack of negative side effects for GM foods? To my knowledge there are none. And, to my knowledge, the population that will *demonstrate* any long-term side effects is US, the American people, who have been made unwitting subjects in what amounts to little more than a long-term experiment in the health consequences of genetic engineering. The European Union provides something of a control group, I guess, in this long-term experiment.

Finding myself an unwitting guinea pig in any experiment gives me pause and makes me wonder if the experiment is worth it. I suspect the motivations of the scientists and industrialists who have made me a test subject against my will. And the rush to write off critics as Luddites, anti-scientific, etc. simply serves to underscore my wife's (and others') suspicion of the whole techno-scientific endeavor in general.

That's why I take umbrage at this comment: "You should start with a scientifically credible reason why you think something poses a danger, and then you should evaluate whether that concern is really well-founded." If I understand this correctly, what you are saying is that any and all scientific research SHOULD be pursued until and unless a citizen can provide a scientifically credible reason for not pursuing it. If that's an accurate assessment of your perspective, then I feel it is horseshit. (If that's not an accurate assessment, forgive the following rant.)

It is not incumbent on me to prove to Monsanto that the genetically engineered crops it is tacitly placing in my diet are harmful; it is incumbent on Monsanto to demonstrate to my satisfaction that their experiment with my food supply is (1) necessary and (2) relatively safe. Alas, they can't provide long-term safety data without first running the experiment, and by that time it seems too late to fix things. "[Y]ou should assess risks in the light of how likely and how serious the consequences are, and you should take precautions to either reduce the likelihood or mitigate the consequences, or else not run the risk." How can you assess the risks of an unprecedented experiment? What are the benefits of running the long-term health experiment called "American agriculture"? The American people were never given the choice as to whether or not this experiment should be run; they were merely told, if anything at all, the typical crap that it "no harm has been demonstrated" and that hi-tech equals better. "None of this applies to genetic engineering for agriculture. There simply is no scientific basis for the concern." This is a baseless assertion. Many ecologists have concerns about genetic contamination of non-GMO organisms, disruption of food chains, spread of "terminator" genes into wild populations, etc. Other folks are justifiably queasy when told "there's no basis for concern"; a quick review of the history of the last century (think heroin as morphine-cure, films of kids eating DDT, thalidomide babies, Oppenheimer testing the A-bomb even though it might've ignited the atmosphere, etc.) should remind all of us that what counts as a "no basis for concern" to a researcher might not end up that way for the rest of us.

I think maybe the reason so many on the Left have an almost religious aversion to genetic engineering is because so many scientists have an equally religious devotion to experimenting with our lives, regardless of the possible consequences.

War=Peace, I can't agree more. Some GM crops and techniques are nothing but beneficial. I challenge anybody, even Rebel_Farmer, to explain how modifying a corn plant to produce nitrifying nodules on its roots (as legumes do) would be harmful.

That being said, this isn't the GM that is actually happening. What we're getting is plants that need more specific inputs, like patented fertilizer and herbicides, that can't reproduce but can spread their modifications to native plants, that deplete soil resources, and are barely competitive with holistic organic agriculture. They are used because they can be monocultured over huge areas, deriving a competitive cost advantage this way, if allowed to discount the soil degradation.

I've noticed this on several threads on CD - the mistaking of science, technology, and commercial applications. Science is just the information on how to do something. As information, it is harmless - and it can't do anything helpful other than showing us a way to solve a problem. Technology is the tools for doing something. It may be harmful to build; using it may create as many or more problems than it solves; and it may generally be used for good or ill. Commercial applications are the ways that we use science and technology to make money, with all the drawbacks and weaknesses of our current economic system built in or excluded.

Craig

GM is a Pandora's Box - just because it's already all over the US and half the world doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it. There is no good reason to use GM crops and lots of reasons to avoid them. Why fix something that isn't broke? Besides, there is no way to know what long-term damage may be done by them, and corporate interests couldn't care less what happens to us or our children. Profit is all that matters - people are only 'consumers' to be used as needed, and easily replaced - fungible.

I don't see the science as the problem at all, what fascinating possibilities Genetic Modification creates.

That said, it's the business side of it that ruins it.

Don't rush untested products to the grocery, keep testing, keep working, strive towards achieving measures of safety etc.

Same goes for pharmaceuticals.

It's the business element that forces unsafe elements into the marketplace.
Science is good, its our friend. But no some act like its witchcraft.

The debate is not about whether we should pursue this field of knowledge or not, is it?

Science is not at fault; business pressures are, as usual.

So recognize what this debate is about. Its about safety measures, and ethical practice and attempting to exercise control over our the same people who wage war, inspire consumerism, and implement a culture of meaninglessness through mass media and other un-researched medication.
It's about corrupt business practice. ….Not science.

P.S. I don't want to eat unsafe GM food, we have a right to eat what we want if we can afford it.
I would just like to see a more nuanced conversation that isn't as emotionally charged as an abortion debate, cause where do those go? Nowhere.

I believe the intent of the article is to show that "there is no scientific evidence" of problems with genetically modified food because there are not many scientists willing to do the studies, and the ones that are arecut short.

It is not just the question of safety of genetically-modified foods, it is also the politics.

Monsanto, along with a few other corporations, want to control the world's food supply.

For example, check:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_8830.cfm

truthforall___ Sure sounds like GM corn beats rat poison by a long shot, and it is easy to use. As long as my cows do ok with what they pick up and continue to breed and produce as they have been, I am not that excited yet. If it is taken off the market and farmers are forced to go back to all kinds of soil treatments, spray jobs, etc, then we will hear again that they are no good either. Organic farming is great on a small scale, but will not produce well enough for commercial use.

What is a fruitcake like this doing on Common Dreams? What's next? Televangelists?

If it does this to rats, why take a chance on humans? It is a warning to try human experiments before using GM. Several recent studies confirm fears that genetically modified (GM) foods damage human health. Research by the Russian Academy of Science released in December 2005 found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed genetically-modified soy died within the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers fed on non-modified soy. Six times as many offspring fed genetically-modified soy were also severely underweight.

In November 2005, a private research institute in Australia put a halt to further development of a genetically-modified pea cultivator when it was found to cause immune response in laboratory mice.

In the summer of 2005, an Italian research team confirmed that absorption of genetically-modified soy by mice causes development of misshapen liver cells, as well as other cellular anomalies.

In May of 2005, a review of the Monsanto report on test results of corn modified with Monsanto MON863 showed significant differences in kidney weights and certain blood parameters in the rats fed by genetically-modified corn as compared to those rats not fed the genetically modified corn. Monsanto genetically-modified soy and corn are widely consumed by Americans at a time when the United Nations has concluded that their safety issues are not clear. Eat at your own risk. But where is the Bush administration's position on this issue?

Mark

What's your problem?

Why in the god's names would you trust anything dealing with food when it comes to transnational corporations?

They are authoritarian institutions who have an overpowering influence over the MSM, higher education, research and design labs, etc.

They gain and expand their unequal control over access to important resources for whose benefit? Ours?

They have always wanted quick profits; they gave always preferred less transparent discussions, less careful and thoughtful intrusion of their commodities
into the live's of others, less regulatory oversight...less economic democracy.

They care about one thing -profits. And profits are expanded by exerting more and more control over people, over what people need, over the environment and over all governments.

If their profit and power agenda bulldozes over millions, ruins their livelihood, or puts the many in danger...why should they care?

You are damn right the economic and political elite make sure they have access to high quality, and healthy produce, vegetables, fruit, grains and other foodstuffs.

They know that the mass-produced foodstuffs produced by their corporations (which they have modified, chemically altered, genetically engineered, technologically manipulated, etc. -in the name of profit, are no damn good.

For example, Reagan had his own herd and farms that were carefully monitored and segregated from the surrounding commercial ranches.

If and when GM foods are overwhelming us (usually without our knowledgeable consent), the wealthy will cull their foodstuffs from "gated" farms and ranches.

It will follow pattern produced by the artifical social environment they have created behind their gated communities.

Mark Abram; when cows walk away from GM food products, what does that tell you?

*Science is NOT better than nature.

Be happy, everyone!

Most of the discussion here only serves to illustrate that this issue has become a Left mirror of the Right's approach to global warming, or really, it has become an article of faith, a kind of quasi-religious/lifestyle/pseudo-political faith. It is the quasi-religion of what is perceived as "natural" with its "organic" prescriptions for food preparation. It is a false politics which has nothing to do with the traditional left-right division on matters of freedom vs. authority, peace vs. militarism and war, equality vs. elitism/racism/wealth; in fact, it is a consumerist lifestyle choice of the rich.

Many commentors here have attacked me personally, accused me of being paid by somebody to post here saying the idol is a false god and the priest has no clothes on. Actually, I'll be happy to take the money, if Monsanto or somebody wants to pay me for saying what I think, but I don't think they care what people who read CD think. I only care because I'm tired of seeing people whose values I share making fools of themselves with this kind of pseudoscientific or unscientific nonsense.

The one comment I will reply to is that of leaperz, who linked a page from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The link doesn't seem to be working, but I've seen the page. It was an attempt by the UCS's resident biotech critics to come up with a list of hypothetical ways genetic engineering could potentially be dangerous. Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon had been out before the public for years with a basically anti-biotech message before they spent a few hours trying to brainstorm up justifications for this stance, in response to the many complaints from scientists who were members of UCS. What they came up with was an ad-hoc list of plausible ways genetic engineering could potentially cause harm. Not that any of these harms was particularly likely, in comparison say with natural or other manmade hazards, just that you could imagine that this might happen or that might happen. No assessment of how likely or how serious any of this was. It was a really embarrassing, incredibly weak justification for what they had been doing all those years. UCS is generally a very good organization but its biotech unit is a huge embarrassment to its credibility among scientists. I was personally told by one high-ranking UCS staffer that part of the reason for this was that the biotech program was a "big part of our fundraising." Yes, the wealthy foundation people love to eat their "pure" foods on white linen cloths.

Basically, the anti-biotech movement started with a prejudice which became fashionable among leftists and among the rich. Food purity is always a fetish of the wealthy. The anti-biotech crowd went looking for justifications after it had already taken their stance.

This is not the way to do public interest science. You should start with a scientifically credible reason why you think something poses a danger, and then you should evaluate whether that concern is really well-founded. If it is, then you should assess risks in the light of how likely and how serious the consequences are, and you should take precautions to either reduce the likelihood or mitigate the consequences, or else not run the risk. None of this applies to genetic engineering for agriculture. There simply is no scientific basis for the concern. There is only the quasi-religious/lifestyle/pseudo-political prejudice, plus ad-hoc arguments concocted to justify the prejudice.

Grannyt You stole my thunder so thanks for your post and its validation by your own farming experience.

Monarchs died because of GM crops (pollen) yet if you notice the GM supporters still say GM crops are safe and have no effect on the envirornment. Whether other such effects are even being searched out is doubtful.

"To BEE or not to BEE." Still remains a question.

afterthought: and the wonderful thing about GMO health effects is that they are likely to be subtle and gradual — a slow increase in mysterious allergies and reactions to mutilated proteins, a ramp-up in digestive and liver troubles, etc — not anything really dramatic like people collapsing blue in the face over their Meatless Soya Cheesy Burger or their Bt Corn Syrup Cola. and a gradual ramp-up in chronic diseases can only mean more profit for the med/pharma nexus, which is pushing hard for more and more wacko GMO trials. win-win.

see also Norman Ellstrand's fairly accessible book Dangerous Liaisons which documents the travel range of pollen and the mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer both pre- and post-GMO. I had the privilege of hearing Dr Ellstrand present some of his findings immediately prior to publication and they substantiated the concerns of farmers and consumers about uncontrollable genetic contamination from GMO "trial" plots.

Vandana Shiva.

see also the good work of E Ann Clark in the US. Download Here

and the work of physicist/microbiologist Mae Wan Ho in the UK.

usually if a study turns up a surprising result, like "GMO potatoes make rats sickly," the response of the science community is to try to reproduce it -- not to fire the researcher and bury the results. the intimidation and heavy handed attacks on scientists who shed doubt on t Great GMO Boondoggle is highly suggestive; such tactics would not be used if the corporadoes were really sure of their ground. recall that Rachel Carson was also attacked and slandered when she published Silent Spring and blew the whistle on DDT. she spoke a truth that Money didn't want to hear.

... but the corruption of our science establishment is well documented, particularly in the bio/pharma nexus where profit taking is so tasty for the corporadoes. falsified results, ghostwritten articles, funding contingent on positive test results, all the usual mafia tactics.

as GrannieT says, the real point is Enclosure: totalitarian Enclosure of the entire food chain and life processes. the story of Percy Schmeiser should be a lesson to us all, and I'm glad someone brought up Iraq, where Viceroy Bremer imposed US patent law by fiat to bring Iraqi agriculture under corporate control. we should also watch the wars over seed oils in India, where some highly suspicious "contamination" incidents led to calls for "public health" laws to prohibit the sale of cooking and seasoning oils from small producers, and mandate the use of GM canola oil from the industrialised nations who are desperate to dump their genetically-mutilated crops on the poor.

the EU is starting to cave in to corporate pressure to accept GMO foodstuffs in its supermarkets. no one wants this stuff; but the patent-holders want everyone to be forced to pay for their ill-advised, hasty, hubristic and largely ineffectual (as in, yielding very little measurable advantage) genetic vandalism. socialise the risk, privatise the profits.

dispersing the genetically damaged material as far and wide as possible as quickly as possible is their strategy; one of their cheerleaders publicly admitted as much several years back -- can anybody retrieve that famous quote for me, the guy who said basically "in a few years all cultivars will be contaminated with GMO and 'organic' will cease to exist, so people will stop making such a fuss." arrogant so&so... unfortunately typical.

and the wonderful thing about GMO health effects is that they are likely to be subtle and gradual -- a slow increase in mysterious allergies and reactions to mutilated proteins, a ramp-up in digestive and liver troubles, etc -- not anything really dramatic like people collapsing blue in the face over their Meatless Soya Cheesy Burger or their Bt Corn Syrup Cola. and a gradual ramp-up in chronic diseases can only mean more profit for the med/pharma nexus, which is pushing hard for more and more wacko GMO trials. win-win.

see also Norman Ellstrand's fairly accessible book Dangerous Liaisons which documents the travel range of pollen and the mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer both pre- and post-GMO.

Treefrog: I would add to your comments that studies have shown that in undeveloped countries where they have "closed" ecosystems that use field waste as fodder for animals that fertilize their farms, fertility and mortality is seriously affected by GMO crops.

This whole thing is a nightmare. Nobody really knows the effects of GMO crops. Yet they are rampant due to corporate pressure for profits.

PS Granniet: RIGHT ON! I'm a farmer who will not even use hybridized seed that I cannot collect because it will not breed "true". GE crap is even further down the line of what is unacceptable for sustainable agriculture.

Wake up folks!!! WE are the the "animals" being used in this experiment! So, do you want to wait until the whole environment is contaminated BEFORE we ask any questions?

I would like to know how many of the posters have ever farmed. I have and I think the most dangerous aspects of GM foods are the destruction of biodiversity (the 'seed corn' for the future) as well as the ownership of life. While there is some danger for diversity loss with hybrids and selective breeding, these techniques do not create geneticly sterile plants which require a farmer to go back to a company to purchase the raw material for his crop. Furthermore, a good number of the genetic markers placed on GM seeds make the plant require certain herbicides and pesticides (products of the oil industry) in order to grow. If there was no other reason to object to GM crops I would be concerned with the potential to control who gets to eat and who does not. Check with Vandiva Shiva for quantified comparisons of the production results from GM rice and 'native' varieties adapted to the area where they are grown. That is another problem with the GM scenario. It assumes that all growing conditions are the same...not. Finally, when the bugs/diseases mutate, which they are already doing, the building blocks, the banned natives, will not be available to start over. Because banning native varieties, usually refered to as saving seeds, is already underway. That was part of the 100 orders that Paul Bremer put in place in Iraq. That order has not been rescinded and the beneficiaries, specified in the order by name, were Monsanto, Cargill and ADM. Efforts are underway in this country to make seed saving illegal.

Yes, we have many critical issues before us but the ability to feed ourselves classifies way up on the list for me and I don't want to have to apply for a permit to get seeds to grow food for myself or my neighbors.

O, and just because 'cows will eat the stuff, even thought it does seem to be less palatable' proves nothing except that when it is the only game in town they will eat it to avoid starvation, just like they can be made to eat poultry litter (chickenshit for those who might not recognize the term) if you put enough molassas and corn with it. This is already being done in some areas. I am told they will walk away from GM feeds if they can.

frontline: modern meat: interviews: michael pollan | PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/pollan.html

Why cows don't eat corn or shouldn't eat corn.

And Kemel

Corn is not a natural diet for cows and distrupts digestion that normally kills bacteria like e-coli. It is why we have new virulent forms of e-coli. Organic cows like all cows before then don't eat corn, or at least very little.

Kemel

I guess you don't know about the trade agreements that were made in Iraq about the uniformity of agriculture requirements for trade. The cradle of civilization has been sustaining it's population since the beginning of time, that is until Paul Wolfowitz entered the picture. This is the issue and it is connected to every other issue.

Gail

Thank you for the link to global research. It is difficult to aline all the dots but this does it pretty well. Your right though it is pretty scary.

This article didn't mention another serious issue: that GMO food is being patented as corporate intellectual property.

For the most part, biotech companies have persuaded the USDA and FDA that genetically altered food is roughly equivalent to unmodified food. On the other hand, they have also persuaded the US patent office that GMO food is a revolutionary innovation, worthy of special protection. This allows the companies to avoid any special labeling requirements (taking advantage of consumer ignorance), while hammering any farmer who dares to save seeds, or to break the other licensing rules.

The governments of the world already have a hard enough time guaranteeing the basic human right to food. In these circumstances, why would we want Monsanto or Syngenta to monopolize the global food market? Only organic foods are truly free, democratic, accessible, and beyond the tendrils of corporate avarice.

I will agree with most of you scared posters that we could have gotten along without GM seeds and would have done ok. However, I believe Mark Abrams may have a few points on his side of the discussion also, in that some folks are getting paranoid about a practice that is probably here to stay. One thing I know is that we have had cattle eating GM corn and also the shucks and leaves as well as the grain for several years with absolutely no bad effects although it does not seem to be as palatable. There are bigger problems than this to worry about in our country.

"The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimates that between 70 percent and 75 percent of all processed foods available in U.S. grocery stores may contain ingredients from genetically engineered plants."

Someone mention hidden truth?

Think there's any possibility of putting the lid back on that Pandora's Box at this point? Think again.

"Soybeans, cotton and corn dominate the 100 million acres of genetically engineered crops that were planted in the United States in 2003."

"...more than 50 other genetically engineered foods have been determined by the agency (FDA) to be as safe as their conventional counterparts."

How can it be that if genetically mutilated foods are necessary as the industry maintains, human civilisation has managed without them just fine for 10,000 years? The only "need" is for big-ag to increase revenues through licensing fees (something already driving farmers in some parts of the world to suicide). Genetic modification is an utter waste of time, and a potentially dangerous one as well - especially when one considers the use of corn to 'grow' pharmaceuticals (producing insulin on a wind-pollinated food plant? how stupid can you get?). Want to increase plant nutrition? Genetic mutilations won't help, but creating healthy, biologically rich soil will. Problems with salinisation (as a result of heeding the advice of agricultural scientists)? Genetic molestation will not help, but good design will. [See http://permaculturetokyo.blogspot.com/2006/12/jordan-kafrin-site-part-1.html ]

Oh and as for the claim that "no evidence, none whatsoever, that 'genetic modification'... is in any way harmful, well, Dr. Arpad Pusztai's research showed otherwise. End of story.

Hey, I don't want any GM junk in my food until I am sure it is safe - and with the current corporate atmosphere of greed, I don't trust what anyone says - so let's just do without - we don't need this crap anyway. There is no shortage of food in the world - just a shortage of distribution. So what's the deal? Why not fix the real problem, instead of trying to manipulate the symptoms?

To those who claim that anyone who opposes genetically engineered plants are "unscientific", I recommend this link on the Union of Concerned Scientists site: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/risks-of-genetic-engineering.html.

Can't help but notice that a poster who doesn't seem to understand the science of risk assessment in the nuclear power industry has the same deficit when it comes to contemplating risk assessment in the GE foods industry. One good way to give any study a thorough sniff test is to follow the money: who paid for it?

There's a DVD called "Bad Seed" where you can find leading scientists argue that the methods used to genetically engineer plants are "imprecise" and "dangerous".

You can order the DVD through: http://www.explorations.com

The following link about this topic is disturbing in many ways: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

Saying there is no scientific basis for opinions outside the scientific community is a no-brainer. However, saying that science is the only way to evaluate genetic modification is biased at best and dishonest as well. We can't ask the rats how they feel about it but as part of the experimental base I can object. Your arguement that GM or GE is a functional equivalent of natural species reproduction or selection and therefore we need not look any further is a lie. GM/GE is a functional equivalent of rape.

I could be wrong but my guess would be... not uninformed quack.

paid shill.

they keep them on salary, like viral marketers, to do damage control online: pop up under various names on various fora to ridicule any opinion that runs counter to the profit interest of the employer. kinda like the freeper keyboard army, except the freepers don't even get paid :-)

I have a feeling that these guys are gonna be remembered in the same breath with those who assured pregnant women that Thalidomide was harmless (cf Dark Remedy excellent history of the scandal and the consequences meted out to early whistleblowers): Dark Remedy also highlights the important roles of individual heroes in bringing this tragedy to light. Even though he was subjected to personal attack for his efforts, Widikind Lenz painstakingly reviewed medical records and interviewed patients in order to link thalidomide use during pregnancy with phocomelia, and later spearheaded the effort to have thalidomide withdrawn from the market. Only due to the heroic diligence of Frances Kelsey at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was the application for thalidomide delayed until reports of neuritis and phocomelia associated with thalidomide use, coupled with its withdrawal in Germany, ultimately precluded its approval in the US. footnote

Yeah know, Mark, I think Hazmat is right. It's the only thing that explains your drival. You are the uninformed quack, not Smith. You need a serious education on GM products, proceedures, and impacts. Why don't you go spend some time with Google for a while. See ya when you get back.......

Mark Abram:
Unlike GMO's, selective breeding and hybridization do not combine corn genes with BT bacterial genes that have resulted in GM corn pollinization of milkweed, the food of monarch butterflies and caused massive monarch dieoffs, as one example.

Inherently dangerous experiments such as introducing human genes as well as other animal genes in plants and other organisms have and are being done. And much food in the US contains some GM ingredients. Importation of GM products are prohibited in Europe and other countries but the industry is using the WTO to circumvent these bans.

Some GM experiments have met with limited success in the production of insulin for example. But the purposeful or accidental release of so called frankenfoods into the environment, mostly through the sale of GM seeds, has and is causing the extinction of many native plant varieties and making third world farmers dependent on the likes of Monsanto and DOW for their herbicide and pesticide producing seeds whose plants do not go to seed.

The left may share some small part of the blame in the GM debacle, but it would be the conservative left, not the liberal left. The conservative right is dominant and shares the greater blame.

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that "genetic modification" (meaning, by certain methods, whereas other methods such as selective breeding and hybridization, no more natural than transgenic techniques, are somehow excluded from the definition of "genetic modification") is in any way harmful or should be taken as evidence that food thus produced is more likely to be harmful than other foods.

There is no scientific basis for the widely-held political and religious prejudice that "genetic modification" is some kind of dangerous threat to the environment or to human health, or that "GMO" foods are in some way unwholesome to eat.

Now, Mr. Smith is apparently some kind of extreme quack in the world of the anti-biotech movement. His credibility is unusually low in a field that is already crowded with people of little or no scientific credibility. This article is trash, and it is really sad that in this case science has been so politicized by people on the Left that it has become an article of faith that people like Mr. Smith are somehow courageous muckrakers and anyone speaking for the other side is some kind of corporate shill.

When the Right politicizes science, denying global warming or even evolution, we rightly denounce them for ignoring scientific consensus and promoting iconoclasts and cranks as their scientific spokesmen. Well, see here, the Left does the same thing, and it's pretty hard to tell which side is worse on this.

Consume organic food. A "natural" label is not organic and can be contaminated with GM organisms and toxics.

I agree with the gist--GM is bad, but when animal research--vivisection--is used as a factual support for this view, it suggests that such animal torture is justified to expose the evils of GMOs, when there are very good, common sense arguments against GMOs without needing to torture members of other species who most certainly are not GMO advocates.

GMOs sprout from the same fount as animal research (the scientific industrial exploitation of Nature in the name of human arrogance and delusions of supremacy), and using the practices of such a mindset simply reinforces the dubious notion that scientific progress is our salvation, and the more Nature is disturbed or manipulated the better things will be.

Furthermore, citing animal experiments does nothing to prevent GM producers or scientists from doing even more animal research to counter that view and attempt to muddle public perceptions(which doesnt need animal research to see that GMOs are perverse in an anti-natural Frankensteinian way). Such a debate can endure for decades and in the meantime GMOs could be unleashed "by accident" during one of these experiments.

Mice and rats do not have the quantitative or qualitative physiology of humans(if they did, we would certainly have a myriad of medical cures without the need for human trials) and this alone could be used by GMO producers and their scientists to rebuff any research findings. Attempting to use members of other species as anatomical models for humans makes as much sense as using giraffes to study the medical health of elephants. But animal research continues because a)it keeps researchers and the animal science industry employed, b)it follows a quasi -darwinian myth that animal organisms can be broken down into component parts and measured species by species, with microorganisms at the bottom and humans (conveniently) at the top (a secular version of the Great Chain of Being) and c)it reassures some people that science and progress will be their salvation from a mortal universe.

Animal research follows the same mentality as someone attempting to help a homeless man by kicking a family out of their house, beating them to death, and moving him in--then calling it an act of benevolence. It is a perversion of altruism.

In short--using the unethical practices of science to counter the unethical practices of science has irony to it--but as a public service, it has negative aspects.

Bolt is Australia's version of the neocon pseudo-journalists who serve at corporatism's pleasure (Krauthamer, Kristol, et al.). Just put his name in a search engine and then (step back a couple of feet) watch the crap that pours out.

jj

GM food safety has not been proven.

possibly on the basis of earning a paycheck?

Thanks for the article.

Mark: The problems of GM have not been openly and thoroughly discussed by scientists nor the public.

Huge Transnational Corporations have either introduced their GM seeds without bothering with proper permits nor discussions, or they have used their economic, PR and political power to change laws that might block them.

The major problem with GM seeds (and other forms of bio-technology) is that they are controlled by the economically powerful; the economically powerful have a history of putting profit before the needs of people, the environment and the truth.

Last, these economically powerful actors (and their political partners) have a history of forcing their profit-agenda on whatever population is in the way.

Mark: On what basis are you making such a comment?

This is one of the worst articles to appear in CommonDreams, ever. It is on par with the output of UFO abductees, conspiracy theorists, and sundry oddball wackos that populate the web.

I heartily endorse the Andrew Bolt column that Mr. Smith has helpfully linked in his text above. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about Mr. Smith's credibility. Which applies very broadly to the anti-biotech movement in general.