Sorry KEM,

Moderator's the wrong word. How about Host? Host of the world renowned CD show. Soon to overtake cable and network television! (I noticed we've got some star power going on with Sean Penn's post next door.)

The solar stove is very interesting. If I could convince this island to give up charcoal and propane for cooking, the air quality would improve tremendously (at least during daylight w/o clouds.)

And I suppose lastly, to get back at Mo-fo-co.... I mean Monsanto, we should all become underground seed dealers! (and refuse to eat any staples like corn or popcorn [my weakness] since the supply is tainted.

Never Surrender!

pac

I wish more of the blogs on here had opponents to the article in point. This has been the most fascinating post I have read on this site. I am a bit of a luddite (No mobile phone) and lapsed hippy who is angry at the corporate pillage of the planet, especially the Military Industrial Complex. It just makes you so damn lazy when you don't have to think about and justify your opinions to others. When there is a Bush bashing going on in here my slobber nearly shorts out my keyboard. Thank you for those in favour of GM crops for agitating the brain cells for a change.

Looked it up, it is also spelled HABANERO and in Mexico with a J instead of an H.

It makes for a very good potted plant, two or three gallon size and will produce fruit all year long. The leaves are poisonous, a Nightshade specie. Acidic soil with a Ph of around 5.8. Don't over water. Likes sun half of the day. In Texas they are producing a much milder version.

Actually there is one that is four times as hot, a NAGA JOLOKIA. I will try those next year for the bug juice or in our gas tank.

I always wondered where seedless grapes, watermellons and tomatoes originated? If we keep eating food derived from genetically altered seeds, I wonder if we might end up with seedless people? ___ Actually, for the rest of the world's wildlife, that may be a blessing.

One has to be suspicious of the end product of a technology when the producer keeps it's R&D a secret "just trust us". We trusted the tobacco companies for years until their claims were laughable and millions had died or been physically impaired forever (a shorter "forever" for them) than had they not used the "safe" product. Former Senator and Presidential candidate Bob Dole was paid hansomely to hide the tobacco industry's lies. Our current crop of Senators and Representative are probably doing the same now for the likes of Monsanto. The FDA headed by Bush cronies has become a rubber-stamp for corporate greed and the Bush ideology. Europe used to be a bastion of resistance to GM foods but with WTO enforcement have been blackmailed into being more accepting, again scientific investigation takes a back seat to Corporate greed. Countries who produce their own HIV drugs are sued by the Bush administration to protect the profits of the large Pharmacy companies.
Good luck France.

It comes down to which do we prefer--crops that have grown in soil treated heavily with poison to control pests and then sprayed with more poison up to 3 times or GM seed crops that do not need any treatments used. Many people have been sickened by the use of dangerous sprays that are required with the use of ordinary seed. Soil treatments carry over for various times and can also cause problems. It seems this is not a black or white argument unless one does not fully understand the problems involved in production agriculture. It could be like boycotting all XRAY equipment because there is a remote chance someone may be overexposed, so lets not permit CT scans and dental shots any more. If we are not concerned by over 300 million guns in this country, then why worry about something like this?

KERMEL, I don't use any unnatural pesticides and I'd MUCH prefer natural seeds as nature intended. That's what it comes down to, a sensible and safe balance.

Kernel, X-ray overexposure is a known hazard. What is known about GMOs' potential to sterilize all DNA-bearing life? Can we get your personal guarantee that this can't and won't happen? Not even Monsanto has enough to "personally" cover the consequences of being wrong, especially since they seem determined to become the Microsoft of Agriculture.

KEM__I don`t know if you have ever grown GM crops or not, but the difference is quite astonishing. The plants are so much healthier with no pests working on them and they stand well until harvest. It would be very hard to convince farmers to stop using the GM seed as it adds so much to the value of the crop and requires less labor and equipment. I am more concerned with sprays than these GM seeds as my wife became very sick due to a neighbor spraying his field close by. I guess people have always had to be concerned about something since the beginning of time and as I have posted before, our cattle have pastured GM cornfields for several years with no bad effects of any kind including reproduction.

Americans are TOTALLY uninformed about what GMO's are and what the potential health and environmental impacts are. Monsanto and our government have supressed or distorted what little research has been done. We have bought the propaganda of the HUGE corporate interests lock, stock, and barrel. When was the last time you believed that corporations or your government was looking out for the best interests of the people or the environment?

At least the European public has been following the "precautionary principal". They want to see the science that can prove the effects of GMOs BEFORE it is approved for human consumption. Not AFTER a bunch of people die, get sick, or the environment is irreversably damaged. They have been fighting the WTO for YEARS about this. But of course, the US backs Monsanto and it looks like they may win - AGAIN.

If you REALLY want to get informed about GMOs, go here:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/

Then come back and talk to me.

Kernel - It's not good to be feeding your cattle corn of any kind. It's not what they were meant to eat. And, by the way, cattle if given a choice between GMO corn fodder and non-GMO will not even go near the GMO stuff. And, you should look at the few studies that have been done on cattle that eat GMO crap and the effect it has on their reproduction and vital organs.

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the
technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't
good because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed
the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been
invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid.
There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you
were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on
some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that
everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches." US
Secretary of Ag, Dan Glickman, under the Clinton Administration,
post-departure.

'Like I said before, I would rather be fishing with my grandkids than
fighting this but, by golly, somebody, somewhere, sometime has to take a
stand.' - Percy Schmeiser speaking in Norfolk at the 2020 'Feeding or
Fooling the World?' debate.

'For any scientist who wants a good job and a nice home with mortgage
payments, he's not going to choose the Union of Concerned Scientists.' Hugh
Gusterson, MIT, quoted in Science Good, Nature Bad: The Biotech Dogma.

'When we spliced the profit gene into academic culture, we created a new
organism - the recombinant university. We reprogrammed the incentives that
guide science. The rule in academe used to be "publish or perish." Now
bioscientists have an alternative - "patent and profit." ' - Paul Berg,
Stanford University.

July 2001 "...... in Genoa many fools have received their due." Andrew
Apel, editor of the biotech industry's Agbionews, referring to the death and
injury meted out by the brutal Italian police during the anti-globalisation
demonstrations.

It is poverty that denies people access to food; gene technology makes food
even dearer and thus even less available to the poor. Political and
financial will combined with safe, sustainable agricultural systems and a
move towards vegetarianism realistically promise lasting solutions to world
hunger and environmental conservation. ' Jim O'Connor, Hungry Hill, Cork,
Ireland. Letter published in Time, Aug 28th '00, in reply to a pro-GM
article by Bill Gates.

FDA (US, Food and Drug Administration) estimate that 20% of chickens and 50%
of turkeys contain toxins and that 80 million people "may get sick from
factory-contaminated food", costing the nation $5 ­ $10 billion annually.

'If Monsanto can collect fees from farmers who find their fields
contaminated with GM crops, should computer users pay licence fees to the
writers of computer viruses ?' New Scientist , April 28, 2001, Letters, p.
53, Paying the polluter,Thomas Ward, University of East Anglia.

'The challenge for western scientists is to develop a holistic science to
help revitalise all kinds of non-corporate sustainable agriculture and
holistic medicine that can truly bring food security and health to the
world.' - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, in a paper delivered to a US academy 16th April
'01.

'Health issues are the killing fields for the biotech industry'. ­ PR firm
quoted in NGIN, Newsletter, 18th March ¹01.

'Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more
migration of the dirty industries to the less developed countries?. The
economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage
country is impeccable. Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly
under-polluted'. Internal memo, Lawrence Summers, chief economist, World
Bank, 1991.

'We consider the use of the South's rural poverty to justify the monopoly
control and global use of genetically modified food production by the
North's transnational corporations, not only an obstructive lie, but a way
of derailing the solutions to our Southern rural poverty. It is the height
of cynical abuse of the corporations' position of advantage.' Joint
statement signed by over 40 developing country NGOs.

Stressing that the suspension was temporary, Monsanto slammed France's action.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - T. Jefferson

Kem--

Seedless grapes (along with nectarines, tangelos, and seedless watermelons) are examples of hybridization and not genetic modification.

Hybridization combines various existing species to produce a new species of plant. Hybrids cannot reproduce and hence are dependant on the original species from which they are derived for their continued existence.

Genetically modified crops on the other hand are species where the dna has been modified, patented, and once let loose in the agricultural world at large take over and pollute all existing vatieties thus making them the property of the company which patented the GMO variety and entitling them to royalty payments for their use.

For a good and quick overview google Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto--it should make your blood run cold for the future of our food supply.

They said that the genes put into the bacteria which are used in order to transfer those genes into the plants would NEVER transfer from the plant into other bacteria, but they were WRONG!

The Ecoli in your gut will produce the same herbicides that GMO plants create if you eat those plants!

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Apr-May06Geneticallyengineeredcrop/index.cfm

You can have your GMO plants and pesticide laden conventional plants, I will keep eating ORGANIC food!

Kernel-you are deeply misinformed
GMO seeds have been proven in multiple studies to produce the same or less crops per acre than natural seeds. They are less sturdy and less drought resistant because their root systems are shallow. Farmers have lost their livelyhoods because gmo's couldn't stand up to high winds, and streatches of dry weather. Not to mention Monsantos prosecution of small farmers for growing their seeds, even though those farmers never planted them before just because they blew in from neighboring farms.

Many people don't understand that anything genetically modified also contains ANTI-BIOTICS. The antibiotics are bred into the gene so the scientists can determine weather the other genetic modifications have taken. That means we are increasing the likelyhood of human death from simple things like pneumonia, or small lascerations.

These GMO seeds never would have gotten past the FDA if employees of Monsanto weren't occupying high positions in the FDA. Look that up.

And how on earth, if pesticides make people sick, is it somehow better to grow the pesticide in the plant instead of spraying it?

On top of that, if BT corn makes kids sick, but you feed it to cows that in turn are fed to humans, don't you think there is some toxic crosstalk there.

In adition, these GMO seeds are dependant on petro-chemical fertalizers. That means they need oil to grow, and guess what! There is no more oil! You got 40 years tops, and those numbers are based on mid 70's reserve statistics which are likely now defunct, so probably less time. So why would we want to invest in crops that we wont be able to grow in 40 years.

REBELFARMER and FLASHPOINT__I am not relying on any information about GM crops except what I have observed on my own farm for about 5 years. There is no comparison in the results obtained and that is why farmers are now planting the large majority of their acres to GM seeds. Possibly some do not realize that cattle are turned out after the corn is picked to glean what is left, and let me tell you they do very well on what they find. I do agree that they seem to find it less palatable, but some lettuce is less palatable also and that does not mean it is not good food. I have some experience with organic farming as when I started, we did not even have hybrid seed to plant and shelled off our own seed to use. We did not use any fertilizers as they were not developed yet and pest control was unheard of. We picked our corn with a team and wagon by hand--100 bushels a day if you could take it. Now with irrigated GM corn it takes about 3 minutes to pick and shell that 100 bushels using modern machinery. Guess which scenario makes more sense to me after just about going broke the old way?

re: Kernel

Short term gain does not cancel out long term consequences, and the information in the following link should be a wake up call for us all!

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Apr-May06Geneticallyengineeredcrop/index.cfm

Do you understand that the foreign genes are put into those plants using LIVING bacteria and viruses?

Just as those bacteria and viruses can transfer those genes in they can transfer them out, and that is the problem!

Do you understand that the GMO plants are transfering those herbicide genes into the Ecoli bacteria in your gut?

Do you understand the ramifications of what this means when all the Ecoli in your gut have such genes?

KERNEL,___ you are not listening to scientific evidence or bothering to read the links good people here provided. You are obviously looking at the short term gains. Take off the rose tinted glasses and climb down off of your high horse and join sensible humanity, who care more for our health and our childrens futures than the money hungry neo-cons do.

I also grew up on a dairy farm, we had 30 Cows and had the highest rated cream in Michigan. We fed our cattle, the best hay, soy beans and a small amount of sileage for a relaxing drink before we stuck their tits in the suction cups.

We had wonderful crops and sold hay, oats, barley and soy beans. We didn't use DDT when the potato bugs invaded, by hand we all picked them off of the leaves and dropped them into a tin can with some kerosene in the bottom. We got rid of the destructive bugs and didn't pollute the soil doing so. Nobody got sick or worried about having our genes altered from eating food from the garden or the fried chicken on Sunday. There are ways of controlling pests that do not forever pollute the land on both large and small farms. You know it, everyone with half a brain knows it. Some just don't do it.

We didn't have to purchse seed from a chemical company, or feed our cattle chemicals like those that caused immense health and enviromental problems and deformed babies in Michigan years later.

Stow it bud, you are just as wrong as the chemical manufactures and the money lovers and you are losing any credibility here you may wish to have or believe you have.

A study shows red trucks sometimes run over people. Therefore red trucks should be banned. Has anybody studied blue or green trucks? What a stupid question! Why should anyone worry about blue or green trucks? It's red trucks we're worried about!

That's the level of reason involved in the "GMO" debate.

There is simply no basis for labeling some crops "GMO" because of techniques that were used to create their particular DNA sequences. All crops that we consume were already heavily genetically modified from their wild ancestors before the advent of modern biotechnology.

There is simply no basis for the fear of "genetic engineering. It is just a fashionable prejudice, an obsession with a false notion of genetic purity.

The real reason for the EU trying to exclude biotech products is to protect their own heavily-subsidized farmers from efficient (and heavily subsidized) American competition. WTO rules do not allow overt protectionism, but do allow protectionism masked as safety concerns. This tends to work, at least temporarily, even when those "0concerns" are unfounded.

I'm not saying it's impossible to create something bad with genetic engineering. It's possible to create something bad, or cause great harm, using conventional, certifiably "organic" methods of agriculture, too. You can surely find ways to breed something poisonous or damage the environment. However, there is no reason to fear that this is more likely to occur with "GMO" seeds.

There is nothing "progressive" about the obsession with genetic purity. It is just another consumerist food fetish, dressed up in "Green" clothing. In reality, genetic engineering has great potential as a Green technology, and as a boon to the world's poor, a potential only partially realized and greatly impeded by the anti-biotech fetishes of the rich and comfortable.

Kernel, the organic foods market is booming now. Demand for organics was low back then.

MARK ABRAMS AND KERMEL, a suggestion. Read those links and then if you disagree, which is your perfect right, come back and offer decent scientific arguments against the highly qualified scientists who wrote them.

That's called,__ put up, or shut up.

Just as the Amish and Mennonites have done, it may now be important for persons who wish to live sustainable lives through the use of appropriate technologies to ban together in communities of like minded people. Predatory capitalism shows no signs of retreat and the federal government is enabling their economic aggression through the passage of laws limiting corporate liability. Living a new sustainable balance will require a community of people living in close proximity. It is still possible to live in America without buying into the dominant culture. The particulars of this new balance are fluid and developing. This should not be seen as a separatist belief but instead a survival methodology in a world of rapid change and few answers.

KEM__ I will put up and then shut up. I probably have as much distaste for poison and Genetic engineering as you and wish these products did not have to be used. I am only pointing out how immpossible it would be to stop these products use as they have been accepted generally. There are many companies involved in these GM products besides Monsanto so we need to figure out a sensible approach to their use instead of flying off the handle. As for the scientists, remember you can find plenty of them that will tell us global warming is a crock also, so who do you listen to? Most of the corn used by consumers is no doubt sweet corn, which may well not be GM seed and would be no problem. I do not know about that angle, but I expect someone does. Maybe we would rather our kids did not spend half of their time with computers, Ipods, cell phones, etc either, but can we put a stop to that now? Incidently, Kem, I also grew up milking cows and doing all that good old stuff instead of debating problems on a computer. Also had chickens and pigs and everything was great then but it is hard to go back to the good old days. Only problem, we were not vegans so that was wrong too.

Mark: Please become educated on the topic of which you speak. There is NO relation between hybridization and GMO seed production. Me, personally, I'm not interested in eating trangenic food. That means that I don't like the idea of eating corn with a virus like BT built into the genes. That means that I am not willing to eat strawberries that have fish genes built into the DNA to protect against freezing. That means that I am not willing to grow or eat crops that have built in genes to be resistant to MORE spraying of herbicides that produce SUPER weeds.

As far as I can figure out, those that defend the growing of GMO seeds are totally misinformed about the true costs to people and the environment. I'm not interested in humans or the environment being gunea pigs in this worldwide experiment. Lets go back to the idea of figuring out the scientific impacts BEFORE our entire food chain is screwed up.

Jeez, don't you get that todays profits are not worth the long term costs? Get a grip! And stop forcing this nonsense down the throat of those who have no control. GET educated and FIGHT!

Kernel - I don't know why you have to say you have "distaste" for genetic engineering. This only reinforces the prejudice that there is some justification for the opposition to biotechnology. There isn't. The shocking truth is that the anti-biotech camp is a total fraud.

DNA is DNA and it codes for protein, which is protein. DNA is not radioactive and it is not poison and protein is not radioactive and it is not poison. It is food.

We have modified plants in many ways, changing their DNA. What we call "genetic engineering" is just the most modern, best controlled, most carefully monitored method we have ever used. As you have testified here, it can be, and is, used to produces good seed and good crops, with lowered environmental impacts.

KEM PATRICK - I cannot engage with people who cannot engage my arguments or advance coherent arguments of their own, but insist that I must read their web links in order to be educated. The web is a vast sewer streaming with shit. I have followed the genetic engineering story from its earliest days and am familiar with much of the scientific literature. The overwhelming consensus of scientists is that there is no justification for the belief that "genetic engineering" in and of itself is harmful or particularly dangerous or has other consequences which are specific to what are called "GMO" crops. Some of the most famous "findings" of alleged harm are actually either wrong (and since retracted), irrelevant, or of very marginal significance. And a great deal of the "facts" you can find on the web about this topic are just crap, the work of fakers or incompetents, whether posing as scientists or as journalists or as political activists, or some combination.

Rebel Farmer- Please become educated yourself:

> "There is NO relation between hybridization and GMO seed production."

What does this statement even mean? Both are methods which alter the genome of plants (or animals). Is that "no relation"?

> "I don't like the idea of eating corn with a virus like BT built into the genes.

BT is not a virus. It is a protein which is toxic to moths, flies, and beetles, but otherwise biodegradable and harmless to humans. BT transgenic crops are a GREEN technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bt_toxin to jumpstart your learning.

> "I am not willing to eat strawberries that have fish genes built into the DNA to protect against freezing"

The concept of "fish genes" is a typically DISHONEST propaganda construction of the anti-biotech camp. The gene is DNA which codes for a protein which serves as an antifreeze. Tomatoes and strawberries don't naturally have such an antifreeze protein because their ancestors didn't need one. Some fish have such a protein. Transferring the gene to fruit protects them against freezing. There is nothing fishy about this. It has no harmful health consequences and I doubt you would be able to distinguish the protected fruit from the unprotected one in a blind taste test.

> "crops that have built in genes to be resistant to MORE spraying of herbicides that produce SUPER weeds."

Where is the evidence that this has occurred? But let's say it were to occur, i.e. that the use of "Roundup-ready" crops would lead to glyphosate-resistant weeds. What would be the great harm in this? The weeds would not be "SUPER weeds," because the glyphosate resistance would not have increased their ability to survive in fields NOT sprayed with glyphosate; in fact it have imposed some additional burden on the weeds. So they would be SUB-weeds. All that would have happened is that the genetically engineered crops would have lost some of their value relative to other varieties.

That answers all your substantive arguments. There is still NO scientific basis for the anti-biotech crusade.

M Abram:
I would like to see some examples of your "overwhelming consensus of scientists" on the GMO issue. Impassioned pleas don't carry much weight around here.

.

peterw-

The article you linked from master conman and intellectual medium-weight Jeremy Rifkin, father of the anti-biotech crusade, illustrates the absurdity of the whole crusade. Rifkin attempts to establish "Marker-Assisted Selection" as a politically-correct or really, religiously-approved set of biotech methods, for no apparent reason other than that the high priests of anti-biotech have declared "genetic engineering" to be evil and can't admit they were wrong from the very beginning. What a joke that Rifkin writes that "environmental organizations, like Greenpeace, that have long opposed GM crops, are guardedly supportive of MAS technology." No doubt this support is only "guarded" because Greenpeace does not want other anti-biotechers to denounce them for selling out. There is nothing to this but prejudice and posturing. It is like a debate among rabbis about what is kosher and what is not.

I don't like the patenting of genes much, but genomes created by MAS are going to be just as patentable as any other, and MAS methods can certainly be patented. Once again, the attempt to conflate nonexistent health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering with other political and economic issues fails. There is nothing to prevent you from creating knowledge and seeds using MAS, transgenics, or any other technology, and putting them in the public domain as a service to humankind. If you don't like capitalism, say so. This has nothing to do with the religious demonization of genetic engineering per se.

ezeflyer - You challenge me to provide "examples" of the overwhelming consensus of scientists that genetic engineering in itself is not harmful or particularly dangerous. Well, just ask some, or read review articles on this subject from Science or Nature. Nothing is being suppressed. Every time somebody finds something that suggests a possible basis for the prejudice against genetic engineering, it is big news in the science journals. And then nothing comes of it. Findings are retracted, or seen in perspective as not very significant. Ask any molecular biologist you meet what she thinks about this. Ask a bunch of them, and you will see what the consensus is.

Mark,

Well, I have been a plant scientist. Though I now much prefer other aspects of botany, I have done genetic research: I have put foreign (jellyfish genes, and I promise everyone we were very careful to incinerate modified plants after working with them) genes into plants. But I have also seen the murky underbelly of university and biotech, the pitfalls of publishing, and the harsh reality that research requires funding or it doesn't get done right, doesn't get finished, doesn't get published, or doesn't get done at all. These are people. There are egos involved, ambitions, and yes, even passions for one side or another of an issue.

But the fact is that the natural mixing of DNA over thousands and millions of years sometimes crawls, sometimes leaps, and sometimes falls flat on its face and saws a branch right off the family tree. A novel organism needs time to spread (sure, sometimes it's fast given the right conditions, like HIV) and in that time it may succeed or fail based on how well it "fits" with its environment. I believe what Rebel Farmer was trying to suggest is that mankind's process of picking and choosing the genetic makeup of an organism in a laboratory and then shipping tons of modified seed worldwide thoroughly subverts this natural set of checks, and as such our activities only have the most peripheral relation to natural hybridization ("methods which alter the genome").

We know a great deal about what DNA is and how to mess with it. Gargantuan leaps in understanding have been made in the past 50 years. We are even biting off big chunks of knowledge about how it works, but don't let the thickness of a college genetics textbook or even a stack of Science and Nature magazines fool you into thinking we can safely subvert the natural order of the foundation of life.

Believe me, it was really cool to see a plant glow in the dark, and the whole world of transgenic (that's a word we should all learn to use more often in the debate about GMOs, by the way) engineering is utterly fascinating. MolBios are intellectual rock stars in my opinion. But we need to still keep this in the lab. Transgenic plants aren't going to solve the food problems we create for ourselves, and it's not worth risking creating even more food problems by using them.

Hey Pac, I don't think of myself as any unofficial moderator, more like an official instigator. You can tell I do enjoy this fun and I don't like to watch much TV, except a few news casts and educational and animal channels.

Do you dry food? We do and it works fine, we also use a solar stove to cook most of our meals when at home and when on camping/ fishing jaunts. You can cook anything from a casserole to a 16 pound turkey and it's good slow cooking, or very fast and hot if you like, the good ones are adjustable. No fumes and no cost.

WERE IN THIS TOGETHER, Thank you very much for the proper speling.

thewonderingyou:

> "I have also seen the murky underbelly of university and biotech, the pitfalls of publishing, and the harsh reality that research requires funding or it doesn't get done right, doesn't get finished, doesn't get published, or doesn't get done at all. These are people. There are egos involved, ambitions, and yes, even passions for one side or another of an issue."

Yes, umm, and how does this make the case that genetic engineering per se is harmful or dangerous?

You know, some people get their funding by opposing biotech and pretending they have some scientific basis for their position. In fact, all of the major public figures in the anti-biotech camp get their funding from doing what they do.

> "natural mixing of DNA over thousands and millions of years sometimes crawls, sometimes leaps, and sometimes falls flat on its face... picking and choosing the genetic makeup of an organism in a laboratory and then shipping tons of modified seed worldwide thoroughly subverts this natural set of checks..."

Yes, and I suppose providing penicillin to people with pneumonia thoroughly subverts natural checks on our species, as well. Or, we could wait millions of years for our bodies to evolve better disease resistance, I suppose. I mean, really, what is your point?

> "our activities only have the most peripheral relation to natural hybridization ("methods which alter the genome")"

"Traditional" (or "non-GM") methods of crossbreeding and hybridization, which are entirely OK according to the priests of the anti-biotech movement, are no more natural than transgenic methods, and yes, they do radically alter the genome, so why does that not "subvert this natural set of checks" you speak of?

> "don't let the thickness of a college genetics textbook or even a stack of Science and Nature magazines fool you into thinking we can safely subvert the natural order of the foundation of life."

You've made my most important point for me. What is this "natural order of the foundation of life" you speak of? Is there any scientific content to this concept? Or is it purely religious in character? I'll say the latter.

This is all the New Age religion of "holism" and "natural" and "organic" and so on.

> "we need to still keep this in the lab"

Sorry, but you have not given any reason to support this contention, other than your religious prejudices.

I mentioned Wendell Berry earlier..please take time to read this piece which does a very good job of explaining the mindset I think will be necessary if we are to be productive survivors after the purchased inputs are priced out of reach or disapear altogether...

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

Wow that was swell POET, I thank you for the reply. I do believe we learned somethng here, even if some of the dissertation was over my head. I am glad that MARK and KERNEL were here, or we would likely not have had such an interesting discussion or debate.

I'll accept what POET and THEWONMDERINGYOU wrote and declare for me at least, they have given the better answers to an ignorant layman on the subject. I thank you all and also for the provided links. Those we have to determine ourselves if they are factual or not and written by credible sources.

KERNAL I have the impression you are not so sure of your first comments after reading your last. MARK, you didn't actually give arguments to any of the scientists who are listed as experts in the links provided. You gave opinions, but no references to back up your statements and opinions. You sound good, but then so did the guys who developed DDT.

One wizard managed to alter the makeup of the American honeybees, by playing God and alterng genes and DNA. The new bees produced more honey, but they were the pit bulls of the tribes. Now for some reason, they decided to fall over dead, not in their hives, they just left home. Maybe they all got on the MTA in Boston and never returned, or perhaps got lost in the Hanesville Woods in Maine?

One critical aspect of the GMO debate has not been touched here. The socio-economic. GMO seeds have been developed alongside a legal strategy of absolute privatization of life, enabled by a 1996 (I believe) Supreme Court ruling that allowed for the patenting of living organisms. This whole struggle is, bottom line, about profit for transnational corporations. It has nothing to do with helping farmers produce more or better crops. The corporations involved in genetic modification are also chemical vendors and the first generation of GMO seeds were designed so that proprietary herbicides could be sprayed over the crop and not kill the crop, but only the weeds.
Ignoring for the moment the threat of known and unknown allergins and pesticides to the soil that have resulted from GMO research and cultivation. What is at stake is the possibility for farmers to survive as autonomous families or withint associations and communities. The patenting of the new seeds goes hand in hand with the last exodus of the remaining family farmers from the land. You know the joke about the farmer who wins the lottery of $1 million and asked how he will spend it replies: I am going to keep on farming until the money runs out.
That sums up the playing field for small-scale sustainable farming at this time. Killer pricing for farmers. Cheap food policy. Get big or get out. Now this last policy framework promoted by corporations through the US Farm Bill, means that in order to make bigger and bigger farms viable, you need technologies that allow for easier management of crops and weeds. Hence the need for pesticide resistant crops, where the poison is engineered into the crop. Or the round up ready crops where you can use heavy amounts of herbicide on the weeds spraying right on the crop. A large proportion of GMO usage is still on the round up ready variety, increasing, and not decreasing herbicide usage.
So farmers must buy their expensive GMO seed every year and due to subsidies, perhaps, just manage to keep the bank and creditors at bay another year. Scales of production of 2,000 acres and bigger spreads, allow for farmers to pay the interest on their giant combines and equipment necessary to plant and harvest. But to weed they rely on round up ready seeds and glyphosate. This is all about enabling the current un-sustainable farming practices to continue unabated, while lining the pockets of the input vendors.

The National Family Farm Coalition, and many other progressive farmers organizations, are fighting for Food Sovereignty, whereby local farmers, and indeed nations, have the right to limit dumping on their markets from the outside, where they have the democratic right to determine what sort of agriculture they may practice, without the predatory patenting, predatory financing and predatory agricultural policy yes-men in government tipping the playing field ever against what is human-scaled and sustainable. Where one can save one's own open-pollinated seed without fear of contamination from cross-species DNA. Nothing less than whether agriculture can come back to being sustainable and truly energy efficient is at stake. Want to help slow global warming? Tip the playing field back in favor of family farming. See www.viacampesina.org or www.nffc.net for more information and links.
The pro-GMO preachers here speak mainly about the technologies per se, make claims about its modernity, efficiency, safety, etc... (unfounded claims), and justify the path they have taken in life (ie having a big farm where you really need the convenience of round up ready or Bt corn to make life manageable).
The precautionary principle is critical. The social justice issues surrounding farm policy and technology are critical. Democratization of society would lead to less predation by transnational corporations feeding on the blood, sweat and tears of both farmers, and consumers sick or dying from unknown diseases. That goes for the pesticides users too. Short term gain only.

Monsanto is part of the problem.
Not one Corporation on Earth, exists for the benefit of mankind!
Not even for the duality of humanity and profit equally.
Corporations will sell anything to anyone and accept responsibility to none other than shareholders.
Stock exchange listing companies must be required to state their responsibility to environmental and human sustainability.
nuff said!

Monsanto is part of the problem.
Monsantos terms of business should alarm authorities concerned about choice and competition.
Not one Corporation on Earth, exists for the benefit of mankind!
Not even for the duality of humanity and profit equally.
GM crops are a genie that can't be put back into the bottle. We should not rush this, and be very sure we really have need of it. Many claims made for GM crops have been refuted after investigation and trial.
Corporations will sell anything to anyone and accept responsibility to none other than shareholders.
Has the recent concern about bees been thoroughly investigated with regard to GM crops? Such a move would seem sensible before moving forward.
I'm totally against using GM foods without an open and free debate with all the info, but Monsanto will never allow that.
Stock exchange listing companies must be required to state their responsibility to environmental and human sustainability.
nuff said!

I'd rather sit back and watch as this article becomes part of history at this point, but I'd like to expound upon Esteban and Mr. Stevens's viewpoints: biotechnology research is invaluable as a way of understanding and exploring the complex and complicated nature of life on this planet. But when that knowledge moves from the laboratory to the corporation (to the farmers' fields) we are in effect saying that we know what we are doing.

We don't. The backing of truth requires much more research, much more testing. Much more knowledge. At some point, it may well be prudent to release transgenic organisms to the open market (if such a thing exists) but until we do a lot more research, commercializing the products of MB labs should be seen as what it really is: a cash-grab, absent of concern for the consequences.

Thank you Esteban.

I love fresh yellow sweet corn. This past summer Monsanto super sweet yellow corn was all you could find in the grocery stores. Guess what it was absolutely tasteless. Probably didn't have any nutritional value either. I ended up finding some good old fashion yellow corn from a local farmer, which is probably the best way to go anyway. Another farmer I know ended up plowing under forty acres of the stuff because nobody would buy it.
Based on my experience I'm not buying any tasteless GMO produce. I don't care for most of the grocery store produce anyway. It just doesn't have the taste of fresh locally grown products.

Support your local farmers.

This is a major worldwide catastrophe waiting to happen.

We all recall the promotion by the Petrol Chemical Industry telling us how safe and beneficial DDT was, which turned out to be a deadly killer and wiped out millions of fish, birds and nearly destroyed forever our national symbol the Bald Eagle.

Now we have a similar profit motivated GMO Industry, predominately Monsanto, that gives us the same reassurances, Genetically Modified Food is perfectly safe and beneficial.

Instead of spraying our crops with harmful pesticides we now have some laboratory genius that figured out how to put the pesticides directly into the plant through the seeds, so we can get a mouthful of poison with every bite.

If you think you enjoyed Corn Flakes before just wait till you get a spoonful of those delicious Flakes once those tasty pesticides are added.

Currently there are no labeling laws to identify GMO ingredients in our food, so you may already be consuming large amounts of engineered plants without knowing it.

Personally, I avoid these GM foods by going completely organic, most if not all the food I consume is grown organically without Genetic Modification, pesticides or harmful antibiotics.

Our own Dennis Kucinich has introduced legislation, "Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act" but it has not been enacted into law yet.

We are opening a Pandora's Box with GMO "Frankenfoods" my only advise would be go organic and go vegetarian and boycott the unlabeled genetic monstrosities Monsanto is trying to push on us.

SEQUOIABISON "Personally, I avoid these GM foods by going completely organic, most if not all the food I consume is grown organically without Genetic Modification, pesticides or harmful antibiotics."

There is nothing wrong with the use of some pesticides on food crops. The problem with pesticides use is most framers don't use them properly. They either use to much or they apply them at the wrong time.

Hey Rickster,
Not sure what you have against Organic Produce but with all due respect I prefer my food to be unadultarated and natural without a sprinkling of arsenic or any other poison.

As far as I am concerned if it can kill insects it is a Poison and potentially dangerous to all living organisims including humans.

There is absolutely no reason why we cannot grow all our food without using harmful poisons, I grow a suggessful vegetable garden every year without the use of any pesticides.

Organic Gardening is a phenomenal scientific discovery and it works, it is just a matter of following simple rules and we can all have a poison free healthy food.

"These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens, forests, and homes — nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the "good" and the "bad," to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams, to coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in soil — all this though the intended target may be only a few weeds or insects. Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called "insecticides," but "biocides."
Rachel Carson

the wondering....

Excellent point:

Consequences maintain behavior and there are serveral problems with GE/GM. First the corporations responsible for oversight have limited thier responsibility for consequences, futher they have limited how consequences are determined and by whom. (propritary information) There are obvious consequences and many of them are listed here
but most specifically is that most people do not want artifically designed foods or the effects these have on unintended species.

Esteban: Thank you!

I would add that the word "monopoly" needs to be thrown into this discussion. What Monsanto is doing by patenting food crops (life) is to gain a monopoly on the ability to control (and profit from) the worlds food supply. When people and farmers can no longer save their own seed for replanting, you effectively have a situation where only the rich can afford food. It is totally unsustainable.

For this reason alone, I won't even plant hybrid varieties if I have a choice. The reason? Because the seeds I collect will not breed true. The seed will not produce the plant that I originally grew. The other thing about hybrids and GMO crops is that they were not developed for taste or nutrition. The were developed for the commercial market. That means that they are bred for looks, shipping, and shelf life. It has already been proven that the vegtables and fruits, particularly tomatoes, that taste the best happen to have the most nutritional value. And just guess which ones taste the best?

I want to emphasize again that this should not just be a debate about the science. or if GMO's are good or bad. The point is that we all should emphasize the "precautionary principle" in this discussion. This is the basis of what France and the EU is trying to apply when regulating GMO's. The fact that we "can't put the genie back in the bottle" with GMO's is the tip off that GMO crops need to be thoroughly research BEFORE they are released into the environment.

ALL

About a decade ago, SCIENCE (magazine) had a BOLDcover page and full issue devoted to:

_ E A T _
_ D I E _
_ E A T _
_ D I E _
_ E A T _
_ D I E _

The issue most are not aware of is the propensity of nature to create it's own "natural" pesticides and herbicides, as evolutionary advantage is given for those plants that can both protect themselves from bugs AND kill off invading compeating plants.

Organic gardening and pest control makes use of certain combinations of plants for the synergistic benefits, like the native American Indians who combined corn and climbing beans.

Eating 100% Organic food is hardly w/o those naturally occurring poisons that the plants themselves produce.

How many of you cut off the "eyes" on your potatoes, prior to eating? Are you aware that high levels of strychnine are used in the sprouts ("eyes") to protect against fungus and attacks of the very vulnerable small plants? Plant breeders have long known that when creating a new plant with enough naturally occurring strychnine to protect it completely, that it would also be toxic to humans - that experiment never went to market (thankfully).

We must EAT, or we'll die from starvation.

If we EAT, we'll likely DIE (eventually, in part) from damages caused by collateral damage to our bodies use of food that contains these natural protective defenses (also known as poisons). Luckily, much of the naturally occurring pesticides and herbicides are broken down and become mostly harmless within our bodies, as we (plants and animals: synergistic O2 producing and consuming) evolved together on this planet.

This is not so for the artificial poisons (very effective) created in the labs, that are outside of nature's cycles, and can cause lasting neurological damages to humans - in some ways they're just diluted forms of chemical WMDs (that the Army must keep locked up).

Think about the poisoned Selenium concentration in melons grown on irrigated land where the cows got too sick with blind staggering, so they figured out that that area soils (in California) were no longer safe for agriculture or grazing.

Think about that dude who died from his odd prediction and taste for lots of roasted apple seeds, which after awhile, dosed him with enough Arsenic to kill him.

I eat Organic sometimes, but I also realize that one can never obtain perfection in "healthy" food, as literally one man's poison may be the cure for another's disease (and vice versa).

No doubt genetically modified plants and animals have many unexpected (to science as we know it today) consequences, but so do organic ones having nature's diversity built in and constantly changes themselves.

No doubt the controls and testing on the USA's existing food supply are not able to track spinach contamination from deadly salmonella from the co-washing mingling of our salads and meat products in the same factory farm.

We have little faith that they'll (FDA) do a thorough job with GMO, so we must be very vigilant. There will be disasters and consequences for moving too fast, as remember how "good" asbestos used to be compared to the alternatives available then?

Thank you, Esteban Bartlett, for bringing out the socio-economic aspect in the use of GMO seeds. Take a look at what is transpiring to the farmers/peasants in Mexico where the use of these GMO seeds is becoming legally mandatory. A historic heritage and centuries of a way-of-life is being destroyed. Hunger is stalking the land. What is this migration termed as they leave their lands and stream north in search of a livelihood and sustenance. Give it its proper term - BACKLASH..

nspire - Thanks for your refreshing and realistic perspective; as you say, plants have naturally evolved poisons, in some cases evolved to kill, some of which are acutely toxic to us (hence we don't eat those plants) and others of which cause only slight or long-term harms (such as cancer).

It is true that some natural poisons are proteins which act specifically on particular plant predators and are harmless to humans, digested in our gut like other proteins. An example is the Bt toxin which is used in "organic" agriculture as a spray-on pesticide and is genetically engineered into maize and other crops with huge benefits in terms of reducing pesticide use and other environmental impacts, as well as lowering costs and improving yields.

However, other naturally-occurring plant toxins are not proteins and are harmful to humans. As documented by Bruce Ames and other researchers, many of these toxins are present in "natural" and "organic" foods at concentrations which make them BY MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely to cause cancer in humans than comparable risks from allowed levels of manmade pesticides. These toxic hazards in "traditional" and "organic" foods are ENTIRELY UNREGULATED by law and not a subject of interest to the "progressive" activists of the anti-biotech camp. Yet if they were consequences of biotech, it would be headline news and surely cause for destroying a billion dollars worth of crops.

Well, you know the risks I am talking about are actually very small. But huge in terms of the levels to which both biotechnology and chemicals are scrutinized and regulated.