Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble
There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.
Last month, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a report highlighting the proliferation of genetically modified crops. According to ISAAA, biotech crop area grew 12 percent, or 12. 3 million hectares, to reach 114. 3 million hectares in 2007, the second highest area increase in the past five years.
For the biotech backers, this is cause to celebrate. They claim that biotech helps farmers. They say it promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries.”If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015,” says Clive James, ISAAA founder and the author the just-released report, “biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next decade.”
In fact, existing genetically modified crops are hurting small farmers and failing to deliver increased food supply — and posing enormous, largely unknown risks to people and the planet.
For all of the industry hype around biotech products, virtually all planted genetically modified seed is for only four products — soy, corn, cotton and canola — with just two engineered traits. Most of the crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold by Monsanto under the brand-name Round-up (these biotech seeds are known as RoundUp-Ready). Others are engineered to include a naturally occurring pesticide, Bt.
Most of the genetically modified crops in developing countries are soy, says Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and co-author of “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” a report issued at the same time as ISAAA’s release. These crops are exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed. They do absolutely nothing to supply food to the hungry.
As used in developing countries, biotech crops are shifting power away from small, poor farmers desperately trying to eke out livelihoods and maintain their land tenure.
Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but, concludes “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” these biotech seeds “allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop.” This requires expenditures beyond the means of small farmers — but reduces labor costs, a major benefit for industrial farms.
ISAAA contends that Bt planting in India and China has substantially reduced insecticide spraying, which it advances as the primary benefit of biotech crops.
Bt crops may offer initial reductions in required spraying, says Freese, but Bt is only effective against some pests, meaning farmers may have to use pesticides to prevent other insects from eating their crops. Focusing on a district in Punjab, “Who Benefits from GM Crops” shows how secondary pest problems have offset whatever gains Bt crops might offer.
Freese also notes that evidence is starting to come in to support longstanding fears that genetically engineering the Bt trait into crops would give rise to Bt-resistant pests.
The biotech seeds are themselves expensive, and must be purchased anew every year. Industry leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers for the age-old practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal for farmers even to save genetically engineered seeds that have blown onto their fields from neighboring farms.”That has nothing to do with feeding the hungry,” or helping the poorest of the poor, says Hope Shand, research director for the ETC Group, an ardent biotech opponent. It is, to say the least, not exactly a farmer-friendly approach.
Although the industry and its allies tout the benefits that biotech may yield someday for the poor, “we have yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better,” says Shand. “Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or socially useful,” although they have been useful for the profit-driven interests of Monsanto, she says.
Freese notes that the industry has been promising gains for the poor for a decade and a half — but hasn’t delivered. Products in the pipeline won’t change that, he says, with the industry focused on introducing new herbicide resistant seeds.
The evidence on yields for the biotech crops is ambiguous, but there is good reason to believe yields have actually dropped. ISAAA’s Clive James says that Bt crops in India and China have improved yields somewhat. “Who Benefits from GM Crops” carefully reviews this claim, and offers a convincing rebuttal. The report emphasizes the multiple factors that affect yield, and notes that Bt and Roundup-Ready seeds alike are not engineered to improve yield per se, just to protect against certain predators or for resistance to herbicide spraying.
Beyond the social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of small farmers, a range of serious ecological and sustainability problems with biotech crops is already emerging — even though the biotech crop experiment remains quite new.
Strong evidence of pesticide resistance is rapidly accumulating, details “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” meaning that farmers will have to spray more and more chemicals to less and less effect. Pesticide use is rising rapidly in biotech-heavy countries. In the heaviest user of biotech seeds — the United States, which has half of all biotech seed planting — glyphosate-resistant weeds are proliferating. Glyphosate use in the United States rose by 15 times from 1994 to 2005, according to “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” and use of other and more toxic herbicides is rapidly rising. The U.S. experience likely foreshadows what is to come for other countries more recently adopting biotech crops.
Seed diversity is dropping, as Monsanto and its allies aim to eliminate seed saving, and development of new crop varieties is slowing. Contamination from neighboring fields using genetically modified seeds can destroy farmers’ ability to maintain biotech-free crops. Reliance on a narrow range of seed varieties makes the food system very vulnerable, especially because of the visible problems with the biotech seeds now in such widespread use.
For all the uncertainties about the long-term effects of biotech crops and food, one might imagine that there were huge, identifiable short-term benefits. But one would be wrong.
Instead, a narrowly based industry has managed to impose a risky technology with short-term negatives and potentially dramatic downsides.
But while it is true, as ISAAA happily reports, that biotech planting is rapidly growing, it remains heavily concentrated in just a few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.
Europe and most of the developing world continue to resist Monsanto’s seed imperialism. The industry and its allies decry this stand as a senseless response to fear-mongering. It actually reflects a rational assessment of demonstrated costs and benefits — and an appreciation for real but incalculable risks of toying with the very nature of nature.
Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, and director of Essential Action.
ezeflyer talks of population control. Well, here’s the ticket, we’ll just poison ourselves. Done any sperm counts recently?
kathyodat
Weissman sez: “For all the uncertainties about the long-term effects of biotech crops and food, one might imagine that there were [huge, identifiable short-term benefits]. But one would be wrong.”
Just wondering aloud here, but how do you suppose the income flow is going for Monsanto’s board members and execs?
Weissman also sez: “… Glyphosate use in the United States rose by 15 times from 1994 to 2005, according to “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” and use of other and more toxic herbicides is rapidly rising.”
And this stuff is handed out for free by the monopoly which controls both the seed and the poison?
There is too little criticism of the Church of Science and Material progress. It isnt strictly about money, it is about scientists who believe they are smarter than Nature.
This article is interesting, although it makes the mistake of regarding secularism as a non religious system, when it is very much a religious system like Theism and Mysticism.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html
It correctly points out that Secularism has inherited things from Christianity, such as Anthropocentrism, and the belief in progress leading to Paradise.
If you criticize science, you are called a Luddite.
Not far removed from christian nuts.
For the most part I believe this article is factual. However, there are definite short-term benefits for me. My crops are 100% GM. My use of dangerous pesticides is much reduced. My GM corn kills the corn-borers and rootworms. I don’t have to worry about weather conditions that might wash or leach away applied insecticides or wind that may blow too much poisonous mist that ends up in my lungs or someone else’s.
Science must dance in the arms of psychopathic capitalism. A world ruled by science would make a reasoned cost/benefit analysis including society and the environment in the equation. I don’t think that’s how they do things at Monsanto.
Why are farmers buying more and more GM seeds even though they must sign an agreement not to save seed?
1. Higher profits and yields
2. Less insecticides
3. Less toxic and persistant herbicides
4. Greater ability to use conservation tillage and conserve soil
What is the downside?
1. Those resistant to new technology creating fear amongst ignorant people by lying about health and environmental risks.
Why are these traits only in major crops intead of also being in minor crops raised in developing countries?
1. Because fear mongering has created a tremendous regulatory burden and delays so no one can afford to register Gm traits in crops without a huge return on investment.
Alternative theory: There is a conspiracy to sell useless and dangerous GM crops and farmers don’t realize that they are losing money and spraying more chemicals.
Are you brain-dead?
It was illogical from the get-go - Monsanto is creating mutant organisms to resist their top selling product? And Phillip Morris wants to help us stop smoking.
Here’s the part “biotech” must deliberately ignore - all life forms evolve in unpredictable ways, even mutant life forms that never existed in nature. It’s just a matter of time before the mutants mutate and either wipe themselves - or us - out.
But, meanwhile, lets feed our cloned, rBGH-injected cows mutant life forms then irradiate the meat and call it a Happy Meal. Chow down, kiddies!
frank1569 - Thank you for answering my last question.
The Ralph Nader Doublecrosser, phony liberal,
“Toby Moffett”, was or is a vice President of the Poison
Company called Monsanto. Before the press gives Moffett free time in the newspapers, TV, Radio,attacking Ralph Nader, they should ask
Moffett a full disclosure of all the money he has made
and the sources since he has become a corporate Shill.
Maplefudge sez:
Science must dance in the arms of psychopathic capitalism. A world ruled by science would make a reasoned cost/benefit analysis including society and the environment in the equation. I don’t think that’s how they do things at Monsanto.
***************
A world ruled by science would invoke the percautionary principle which requires that new chemicals, modified life forms, and methods of processing prove that neither they, nor the by-products of their creation will cause harm to the capacity of the environment to sustain life.
By this standard, all GMO research faciilties and their products ought to be incinerated into fine ash which should then be disposed of with the kind of care we might take with radioactive waste.
The Organic Consumers Association has a lot of info and Monsanto and the problems of bovine growth hormone and genetically-modified crops.
http://organicconsumers.org
RuthK - You should embrace diversity and consult the kosher web site and the muslim eating preferences. Neo-pagans should not be the only religion consulted on what everyone should eat.
Scientist should base decisions on evidence not opinion. When evidence strongly support safety, as it does with current GM crops, and when demonstrated benefits are overwelming, the decision is clear.
Greg M___I have had the same good results using GM corn as you mentioned, much less spraying of pesticides and better crop health and yields. I wonder, though, about the 100% usage of it, as I believe every planting of GM needs to be accompanied by 20% of ordinary or non-GM seed to prevent the development of resistance. All or most farmers I know are following that rule.
Kernel-By 100%, I meant RR. I do follow the 20% refuge guidlines and I hope most others do also.
Mr. Obvious: “When evidence strongly support safety, as it does with current GM crops”
Some evidence you have cherry-picked, perhaps. The evidence I see: expanding, corporatized monocultures, which is not a sustainable process.
sensato - What I mean is all the evidence and none of the hype. Scientific evidence, not your religious beliefs. Organic with its intensive use of animal waste is not sustainable.
Does BT corn hurt humans? What studies have been done?
Also, hacking into the program of life (DNA) doesn’t seem like it should be allowed unless we have really important reasons. Sorry farmers, 10-20% more profit doesn’t qualify.
Humanity had better use extreme caution when changing the code of life. It will eventually work out against us, isn’t that obvious? Humans share 50% of our genetic machinery with plants! Stuff happens.
I mean, I believe farmers should be able to make a living, but not if it requires hacking into the precious code of life on earth and meddling with it. Life on earth seems sacred to me. Does any one else see it this way?
andrew.herman - Humans have been “hacking into the program of life (DNA)” ever since we selected and bred plants and animals (over 10,000 years). Our domestic plants, “crops”, and livestock animals and pets cannot survive without human intervention. This relationship has allowed humans to be successful. If you think you can do better, walk into the woods like our distant ancestors. Your success will likely be similar: a short life and a difficult life. We need to avoid exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth for our species, but technology is not the enemy. We cannot be stupid about polluting our environment and over-populating, but we must also strive to produce our food on as few acres as possible. GM crops help us produce more food on fewer acres with less pesticides. You need to get by your prejustice and evaluate the evidence objectively.
Mr. Obvious, I will agree that humans have been INFLUENCING genetics for a long time, but they weren’t able to actually change it, like adding fish genes to tomatoes wasn’t on the list of things humans could do, and I can agree with andrew.herman that it seems like it could have some grave repercussions.
From Grist..
For one thing, genetic engineering makes it possible to transfer allergenic properties of one food, like nuts, to another food product, like soybeans..
Another concern is that genetic engineering could inadvertently increase natural toxins or decrease nutrient levels in some foods. The exact role of different genes in a chromosome and the importance of the relationship of one gene to another are not well understood. The location on a chromosome where genetic material is inserted may affect the expression of other genes that control other functions, turning on a process that otherwise wouldn’t occur, or turning off a process critical to the health of the organism. This, coupled with the fact that modern genetic engineering techniques are fairly imprecise in terms of where the genes get placed within a chromosome, makes it difficult, and in many cases impossible, to fully predict the impact of inserting new genetic material…
Findings from Cornell University show that, in the laboratory, pollen from corn engineered to contain a natural pesticide from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium is toxic to the monarch butterfly. Because every grain of pollen produced by the engineered corn contains the Bt toxin, the risk to the monarch and other beneficial insects is dispersed into the environment as the pollen blows in the wind…
Vegetarians might want to avoid tomatoes engineered to resist cold with flounder genes, for example. The potential for inserting human genes into animals, as has been accomplished in laboratory experiments, raises even more serious ethical questions for many people…
In 1999, just three years after the first large-scale harvest of genetically engineered crops, Consumers Union found transplanted genetic material cropping up in a wide variety of products from infant formula to nacho chips.
http://www.grist.org/advice/possessions/2000/04/21/possessions-genetic/
Mr. Obvious sez:
We need to avoid exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth for our species, but technology is not the enemy. We cannot be stupid about polluting our environment and over-populating, but we must also strive to produce our food on as few acres as possible. GM crops help us produce more food on fewer acres with less pesticides. You need to get by your prejustice and evaluate the evidence objectively.
***********************
here are two overriding clonice3rns for MOnsanto (or Cargill, ADM, or any other multi-national ag business doing GM research:
First of all they are out to make as much money as they can.
Second they are interstedc in maintaining thier mopnopoly control of their new “life forms” by use of patent enforcement.
Any possible depletion of the available genetic varieties of whatever particular crop they choose to genetically modify? Not their problem.
Any ill effects on animals or humans 10 or 20 years down through time? Not their problem.
Any toxic contamination of air soil, or water through their manufacturing process? Not their problem.
Genetic varieties exist becasue through time various disease, pestilence, and severe weather conditions wipe out some varieties while others survive.
GM tinkering under the almost non-existant controls that now exist threatens the very survival of any and all food crop varieties on which it is performed.
You are right in your assertion that technology is not the enemy–but the GM seed industry as now presently constituted is not about the responsible use of technology–it is about the amoral pursuit of material accumulation at any price–the planet and all its life forms be damned.
Checkout Deborah Koons Garcia’s film, “The Future of Food”.
Farmers don’t make profits without subsidies.
Mr. Obvious, yes it’s a wonder how nature got us this far (at least to 1920) without our trusted friend mr. monsanto, who it seems would like to put his price tag on anything his lawyers say might hold up in a corporate kangaroo court. Soon you will have to take out a permit and go to the mansanto sperm bank just to knock your wife up with a premier #1AAA George Bush clone seed…. oh, and it will cost you your precious sub-prime mortgage.
Mr. Obvious do you actually take all that crap they peddle on the nightly news where every other add is for some crazy tangerine flavored tech-no shamanistic poison that can cause boils on your soul while pre-porting to rid you of an occasional itch? Or do you eat real whole food, exercise and tell these circling pill pushing vultures to F Off as your not quite totally zombified yet.
Is it any wonder why where not called human beings any more? Not even citizens. Just consumers. Yes, take it in and push it out as fast as you can…. until eventually your knees will buckle, you won’t be able to get up and a guy with a electric taser will shock your ass up to standing so they can legally sell you for soap.
Now lets all chant the corporate mantra: “PROGRESS IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT PRODUCT” a hundred times - that is after “PROFIT.”
Mankind isn’t Roundup Ready. Perhaps some of us can evolve enough to eat bugs.
Forget the bugs, the bt will have killed them all…
“Because every grain of pollen produced by the engineered corn contains the Bt toxin, the risk to the monarch and OTHER BENEFICIAL INSECTS is dispersed into the environment as the pollen blows in the wind…”
so then what…?
The fact is, humans have lived here on this planet well and fine for a long time with what was given to us. Its time-tested and works. To me, this is a clear cut case of human wannabe gods, and damn the scourge that gets in their way. I save my seed.(DO YOU HEAR THAT MONSANTO!) I use heirloom seeds, tried and true. No, I don’t get rich, but I do make a reasonable living, and the gratification of helping feed a few hungry folks in my town with clean, nutritious, real food is a far richer experience for me then the God almighty buck, or some deviant need to control. Please support your local farmers markets. The food is “homegrown” on small farms and is far superior to mass production foods. I cater to many fine resteraunts who demand the “best”. My tomatoes taste like tomatoes, not cardboard. And the smiles and thanks I get from my customers, money just can’t buy….eat your heart out Mansanto!
The fact is, humans have lived here on this planet well and fine for a long time with what was given to us. Its time-tested and works. To me, this is a clear cut case of human wannabe gods, and damn the scourge that gets in their way. I save my seed.(DO YOU HEAR THAT MONSANTO!) I use heirloom seeds, tried and true. No, I don’t get rich, but I do make a reasonable living, and the gratification of helping feed a few hungry folks in my town with clean, nutritious, real food is a far richer experience for me then the God almighty buck, or some deviant need to control. Please support your local farmers markets, the food is far superior, more nutritious, and it helps out us “ordinary folks” who still have peoples well-being at heart. And besides all that….I love the food I grow, and all my customers smiles and thanks, money just can’t buy (eat your heart out Monsanto!!!;P)
organicfarmwe__Yes you are right, we were given a planet to live on and brains to think with. Ever since, people have used their brains to tinker with what we were given.
It gets a little difficult to determine which things and processes that people have developed over centuries are acceptable. Were we to have electricity, telephone, computers, modern medicine, airplanes, hybrids of all kinds, refrigeration, and other life-enhancing improvements?
I believe it is disingenuous to pick one company and one method of change as if it is the only thing we have to be concerned with. We need to be alert for many things that may not be a real improvement in the long run instead of getting paranoid about GM seeds. Time has eliminated many things that looked good when they did not prove beneficial in the long run.
Making Corporations financially responsible for damages to the environment is a responsible policy. Currently Corporations take great risks with the understanding that if things go south that the public will bail them out. This kind of thinking needs to stop now.
Kernel, some things require balance and luxury/convenience are some of those things, so there’s an optimum limit for those and such ideas should be in the K-12 civics curricula today. You have to embrace those only when you see a real benefit, when the oil lamps are becoming a real problem then you upgrade to electric lights, but not before. People natually know when to upgrade. The problem starts when the capitalist bowls over the fundamentals taught in his bible by Adam Smith and starts manipulating demand in the markets and talks people into consuming never ending streams of luxury/convenience for stupid reasons, and people get addicted, and the planet is plundered, and everyone knows the story but nobody is doing anything about it. This public paralysis is decades old and now extends along with the capitalist’s military misadventures, privatization of everything, etc. The solution is to cage the capitalist like it suggests in his bible. Stop doing business with him.
These mega corportions should be required to genetically isolate their proprietary strains so that they cannot fertilize anything else but themselves, to prevent them from contaminating other varieties of the same species. They can do it, they just have to be pushed.
bobbity - Yes allergens can be moved using genetic engineering. That is why this property is tested in the registration process. Allergens can also be higher in some varieties of apple, and in new foods like kiwi. Up-regulation of toxins and down regulation of nutrients is also tested, but this is silly since these things have been shown to be far more likely to be changed by traditional breeding. When the USDA released a new corn variety where insect resistance was increased based on breeding to a wild Andian relative, no safety testing was done at all! They do not even know why the corn is resistant to insects; but its natural so its ok. The monarch fiasco is a great example of junk science and was even critisized by Losey’s peers at Cornell. Subsiquent work by a number of acedemic researchers showed that monarch’s are not effected in the field as already determined by the EPA. The bugs aren’t exposed at high enough levels or frequency. If you force feed caterpillars Bt proteins then they die. Bt is a specific insect toxin. This is not an unexpected effect and is why it is beneficial to control pests of crops. However, for those that want to avoid certain foods that have been determined to be safe then they can choose specialty foods like organic of kosher. Every hot-dog does not need to be labeled as containing meat. If you want a soy dog then buy this specialty product.
Poet - Of course Monsanto is out to make a buck and of course they will patent their inventions. Patents encourage research and rewards the inventor with 17 years of monopoly. This system is why there is investment in long term research. Even universities patent their inventions. However Monsanto is very concerned about adverse effects just like every other big company with deep pockets. In our litigation-happy society, they cannot afford to market a product having a hint of adverse effects unless it is labeled with a warning. The tinkering theory is silly. None of our crops look anything like their wild precursers. They cannot even survive without human intervention. We have been tinkering with them for 10,000 years. This is why humans have been so successful.
organicfrmr - My wife and I produce high-intensity vegetables and sell them at local farmers markets. The line at our stand is always long while the organic farmers get mad as they watch. Why? Because we produce quantities of high quality vegetables at a reasonable cost. If people want organic, they have a choice. I have even seen our customers scold organic buyers when they fill a bag with tomatoes, have my wife weigh them, and then put them down and say “oh your not organic”. One of our customers told the rude organic customer to get with the program and then picked up the discarded bag of tomatoes and said “I’ll take them”. We use the best and safest growing methods available and never put manure on our food crops. This is why we outsell every other tomatoe grower at the market many times over; a consistent high-quality product.
rtdrury - Do you want me to prevent you from raising gourds because they may cross-pollinate my cucumbers and ruin the crop. How about not letting you raise indian corn because it might make the kernals on my sweetcorn colored and less marketable. There are many specialty crops that require isolation to maintain quality. However worrying about my soy getting contaminated with soy is nutty. The only way to identify RR soy is to spray it with roundup, test it for the RR protein, or to do DNA testing. It can not be differenciated by any nutritional or safety test. Like kosher food, organic is a philosophy-based choice - a religion.
GM is environmentally beneficial and the longer it takes to become more widespread, the more environmental damage will be done. Anti-GM activists are damaging the environment with their do-gooder attitude and ignorance of the science.
ORGANIC FARMER/BOBBITY: Great posts! Mr. OBVIOUS is one who can only see what appears obvious at a surface level. He cannot see the big picture. Those who trust science are basically saying that human intelligence, which is limited at best, is superior to what NATURE has come up with over eons of trial and error in her love-based laboratories.
It must be said that MONSANTO is also a company quite willing and able to profit from KILLER chemicals. They were one of the producers of Agent Orange (Mother Jones did an important story on this years ago), and they CURRENTLY are involved in the “war on drugs” in Columbia where their latest model of a dangerous chemical polymer is killing indigenous plants of all sorts. ANY company willing to take $ for rendering food supply toxic to local indigenous persons should be PUT OUT OF BUSINESS.
As BOBBITY and others stated, this meddling with actual GENETICS between species is NOT what Mother Nature included in HER program. You boys, there’s a reason why life issues from the FEMININE… your egos want to control it all, and the bottom line is, you do not, cannot know the full ramifications of all that you so dangeorously play fast and loose with.
With all the calamitous predictions for aberrant weather events, the loss of seed variety is a death sentence. Monsanto is doing one thing right–making WEEDS resistant to its increasingly toxic derivatives. And guess what soy eaters, we get to eat all the chemicals now melded TO the plants. What fun for vegetarians!
Biogenetics, ain’t they grand
you think you’re eating broccoli, but it’s rhinocerous gland.
It would do Jeffrey Dahmer proud
to know that everyone is now lunching in his crowd!
Siouxrose-love your poetry, thanks…disagree with some of your ideas though.
Siouxrose - If someone bought your tomatoes and threw them at someones house, should you be held accountable for the damage to the house? If the government buys Monsanto’s herbicides and sprays them on drug plants or uses them to defoliate forests in a war, is this Monsanto’s fault? The rest of your rant is neo-pagan rubish. If you don’t want food that has been meddled with, you better forage in the forest because our food plants have been manipulated by man for 10,000 years. That is one reason our population is so high, and that you have free time to wax philosophically.
I can’t believe thier are farmenrs here that actually think Monsanto GM poison is a good thing. Please show us long term data that says it is. Fact is their isn’t any. Did you people ever wonder why food allergies are becoming more common? Of course thier are billions to be made off of a cure for that…not to worry.
Dear Mr. Obvious — quite frankly you are full of Sh#t. Man has not manipulated nature at the moleculer level for 10,000 years. Unless they had electron microscopes in caves give to the caveman by aliens. It sounds like something you would believe.
These are seed dependent on synthetic chemicals for reproduction. For human intervention to sexually reproduce or sterlization of parts of the natural world. They are controlled by patents and purposefull science that demonstrates ownship of what is basicly already free. Mr. Obvious your ideas are vile scum.
jxh261 - Your comments demonstrate your deep knowledge of molecular biology. What do you think mutations are? What makes you think allergies are caused by GM? Maybe it is global warming? Maybe, just maybe, it is that fewer people have worms and our immune systems are misbehaving because they do not have these worms to attack (look it up). People with worms don’t get allergies. This is the difference between science and religion; the former requires evidence.
Treefrog - Where do you come up with this stuff? What chemicals are you talking about?
Mr Obvious
Google umbilical cord blood contaminates, there are 200 identified chemicals. This is all within the realm of science if you care to take it into consideration. If you don’t understand the water you drink why should I trust anything else you have to say?
http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php
Treefrog - you wrote “These are seed dependent on synthetic chemicals for reproduction.”
I wrote “Where do you come up with this stuff? What chemicals are you talking about?”
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with G crops?
I’m talking about chemical dependency, and the effects of chemical dependency.
http://www.organicfoodsandcafe.com/genetic.htm
treefrog - sorry, I only speak english. What does this have to do with GM crops? Maybe you should sober up before answering?
Mr. Obvious
The answer to your question is in the first paragraph of the link I posted. Use your finger, press the button on your mouse and have someone read it to you.
Treefrog - Sorry I read it don’t understand how GM crops relate to GM crops. These crops use less and safer chemicals, so they reduce chemical usage.
Well that made no sense - I was running out the door to get our greenhouse ready for the Spring season. What I meant to say was:
What does chemical dependency have to do with GM crops? They require less chemicals and when they do need to be sprayed, they replace more dangerous chemicals with safer ones.
Mr.Obvious: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH???
Mr. Wise-Guy, you are so ignorant of ecological and genetic imperatives, yet you lecture others about their scientific ignorance? Big mistake.
Do you have any idea how the bt-gene got into the genome of your corn? Do you know, that no-one can control where the foreign gene will be inserted? Do you know that this toxic substance is being produced ALL the time in ALL CELLS of the corn (until the DNA strikes back, more see below), even exuded from the roots? There are plants which have natural built-in insect repellents but they are only released when the pest is actually “biting” or sucking into the plant.
Do you know that the natural bacterial toxin (sprayed) is quickly biodegraded by UV-light but the transgenic toxin stays in the soil for months? All organisms have an evolutionary program for survival in their cells / genes, including pests. Attacking these genes with insecticides (sprayed or built-in) has always the same result: it may work for some time but in the long run the blowback is inevitable: the more you subject the genes to chemical attack the more resilient they will become (through hyper-mutations).The same principle applies for bacterial resistance (in response to antibiotics)
Did you know that transgenic lines are instable? Do you really think the communication network of the cell and the genome will just sit and watch the invasion of a foreign gene? For millions of years nature has protected genetic stability and mutations only occured in response to environmental stress.(which is now caused by the worshippers of biotechnology…)
In a recent study on five commercially approved transgenic lines carried out by two French laboratories all five transgenic inserts were found to have rearranged, not just from the construct used in transformation, but also from the original structure reported by the company. This was clear evidence that all the lines were genetically unstable.
Further evidence has come to light since. The Service of Biosafety and Biotechnology (SBB) of the Scientific Institute of Public Health (IPH) in Brussels has published on its website (http://biosafety.ihe.be/TP/MGC.html) reports on the molecular characterisation of the genetic map of six transgenic lines, four of which overlap with those analysed by the French laboratories: Bt 176 maize (Syngenta), Mon 810 maize (Monsanto), T25 maize (Bayer CropScience) and GTS 40-3-2 soybean (Monsanto).
2)”Humans have been “hacking into the program of life (DNA)” ever since we selected and bred plants and animals (over 10,000 years). Our domestic plants, “crops”, and livestock animals and pets cannot survive without human intervention..”
Again you show your ignorance: Conventinal breeding methods (mimicking natural selection) have not disrupted the “program of life” and never before has the species barrier been broken let alone have viruses been used as “vectors” (to carry the gene insert into the cell nucleus)or “promoters” (to keep the inserted gene “turned on” all the time which as a “small side-effect” can result in turning on other genes or creating DNA “hotspots” (likely to cause a break in the DNA strand) and no-one knows the consequences….
Domestic plants need our intervention (synthetic fertilizer and toxic weed-killers / insecticides)because they are genetically inferior to wild forms (can you believe it?)They have been engineered for higher yields but in many other respects they have been weakened, most of all in their natural resilience (with requires genetic diversity) to environmental stress.
“Modern agriculture” may seem successful to you but the reality is different: Yes, we have increased yields considerably but if we look at the energy balance the “progress” is a scam: for every plant calorie produced in this system you need 10 calories energy input…… To say nothing of the ecological damage of monocultures, fertilizers, toxins, etc.
3)”Your comments demonstrate your deep knowledge of molecular biology. What do you think mutations are? What makes you think allergies are caused by GM?”
Natural mutations occur in response to environmental changes (in the cell, in the whole organism/body or the outside environment). Genetic expression is extremely context-dependent (but genetic engineering is based on the false premise that genes are independent carriers of information which can be cut out here and inserted there with no interruption of the “program”. Dead wrong. Epigenetic research has proved that genes / cells are extremely interconnected, their communication system is complex and efficient and of course massively interrupted when foreign gene-inserts are being “shot” into the host genome… Think of the DNA as a huge biological database, with the operator genes running different, co-ordinated, adaptable programmes(depending on circumstances)while others control the turning on / off, the running time of the operations in cooperation with the whole cell and environmental information; Is it really rational to insert a foreign gene (program, always turned on) and think that the system will not be disrupted?
Obviously, you also have not the slightest clue about allergies. Allergies are severe reactions of your immunesystem to attack a foreign protein (allergen) which might harm your body. To fight these intruders the IS produces armies of powerful antibodies (which bind to antigens, also proteins) on the surface of the foreign cells, alerting certain cells to produce inflammation-inducing substances like histamine (>e.g. itching, running nose, symptoms of hay-fever, skin-rashes, etc.)and if large quantities of these IM mediators are released an anaphylactic shock (life-threatening) may occur).
As genes are coding for all proteins changing the genome will of course affect protein synthesis which may well result in the creation of new, potentially harmful and toxic proteins.
Bt toxins are known to be potential allergens and immunogens; crylAc, in particular, was identified as a potent systemic and mucosal immunogen, as potent as cholera toxin.
Before you hype GE, learn about the immense complexity and awe-inspiring endurance of biological systems and PLEASE show a little respect for it. Contrary to what we are made to believe, science will never outsmart nature as one of the first scientific inventors (Leonardo da Vinci) realized:
“Those who take for their standard anything but nature, the mistress of all masters, weary themselves in vain. Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous.”
Our science may be able to solve some problems but it always creates new, greater ones in the process…
minitru - Wow - you must be using some powerful drugs to twist reality into your own private fantasy.
“Natural mutations occur in response to environmental changes” Say what! Lemark Lives? Are you an evolution critic? Mutations are random. They are selected based on advantage in a particular environment.
I am well aware of the stability of Bt insecticidal crystal proteins and Stotzki’s discredited studies. I am also aware of the details of allergy and your puffing only shows your ignorance. GM proteins are tested for allergenic potential. Do you know how? Epigenetics is a very interesting discipline but your rant does not indicate why/how this suggests risk from GM crops. Your collage of rants is pretty hard to interpret. Maybe you should sober up before posting next time.
Mr Obvious
It appears your religious convictions have meddled with your reason.
While the GM companies contol the regulators and have the ability to get researchers barred or discredited due to monetary/influence bribes, the science of “GM” remains in the realm of unsafe practices.
Hey, what about my comment?
How long will it wait for moderation?
chris2 - When all else fails envoke the “conspiracy theory”. University scientists have been conducting studies on GM crops for a decade. The few that have claimed risks, have been discredited by their peer scientists. I guess everyone is conspiring to hide the aliens.
I wrote a comment but it hasn’t yet being approved. It contains a lot of info about the reality of GM’s.
In case it doesn’t make it through i have to say this:
Mr. Obvious, crawl back to your little hole and eat sh*t (GM corn that is).
anturi86 - You are demonstrating your credibility to all. Even those critical of GM crops must be cringing at you allegence to their cause. Pick just one safety issue that you think is supported by the evidence and post it, but pick carefully because I am not a mindless follower of propaganda and I know the science.
Mr. Obvious
You ignore everything I write and just restate your position which by now should give you pause for thought. Why do you even bother to discuss the issue, maybe you simply cannot think outside the box.
Treefrog - You believe that mother nature is a god has the best interests of humans at heart. This is a religion and is your puragative in a free society. I will not try to argue a faith based belief with evidence. I too believe in God, but I do not believe that God is trying to deceive us with false evidence. I do not deny that pollution is a severe problem. I just do not see GM crops as a cause of pollution. It is just an extention of plant breeding, and enables more environmentally friendly agriculture. It is part of the solution to increasing sustainability in farming.
Mr. Obvious
Go Fu** yourself…
Tree-fog - Sounds like its nap time
Mr. Obvious
Don’t forget to worship at the church of Monsanto tomorrow, they need all the brain dead people they can get.
Tree-fog - I am critical of Monsanto policies like trying to prevent voluntary labelling of milk produced without supplimental hormones. I think that a free market allows people to sell products based on philosophy. However, I do not support manditory labelling of food that have been shown to be as safe as any other food. Monsanto has done some pretty environmentally questionable things, but currently available GM crops are not one of them. I can seperate the facts from the hype. If it were not for all the fear-mongerers, Monsanto would not be the king of GM. All the propaganda has created so many costs that no-one else can compete with Monsanto. Your witch hunt has made a Monsanto monopoly. Folks like you ensure that Monsanto will continue to dominate GM technology. Guess who the losers will be - the poor that need the technology most. You are the best friend on Monsanto - the foolish pawn.
Mr. Obvious
need I say more…
This site sucks. They have censored my comment. I posted four links to documents and other info on the network that exposes the social and political agenda of the cabal (silent war against worlds populace) behind the GM foods.
I post this so everybody knows what they are dealing with here.
anturi86 - I have never been censored here. Are you unable to determine why your posts are getting censored? From your posts that did make it through, I think I can figure this out. Do you need help? Perhaps you need to get back on your lithium.
heyas
Can’t you see you are being baited..
no one will ever change this mans mind (Mr Obvious), as you can see he falls into the same routine as all the others who blindly follow there beliefs and when they can’t ”convert” you.. they say oh you have the choice, buy it or don’t(though you don’t really have a choice when it is put into the environment without the consent of the majority) usually followed shortly with” you f’in stupid lunatic” or ”mentally deranged person”..
I always strive to attack the ideas, not the persons, tho some days it is a real challenge..lol
johnycanuck - I think that I have shown increadible restraint considering the abusive language thrown at me on this site. The vulgar language used here shows the caliber of some of the posters. Before critisizing my verbage, read through the comments just on this page.
Good article, and no surprise that Monsanto employee Mr Obvious March is making sure he confuses the message and keep americans ignorant. Anybody interested in learning more about GM here:
http://www.gmwatch.org/
and Jeffrey Smiths books:
http://www.geneticroulette.com/
‘“The ability to introduce alien genes into a genome is an impressive technological manipulation but we remain too ignorant of how the genome works to anticipate all of the consequences, subtle or obvious, immediate or long-term, of those manipulations. This book validates the concerns of biotech critics who warned that our knowledge is too primitive to avoid unexpected and deleterious consequences.”
—David Suzuki, geneticist, author of more than 30 books, awarded UNESCO prize for science’
==================
‘JB: It is really very, very fascinating, isn’t it, how things of this importance, which are discovered by very diligent people, can be held in check and the information not made available to the broader public. I guess we have to really commend what happened in Europe as a consequence of the fall out of this because it seems like it was the catalyst for putting in place regulations about genetically engineered foods that we don’t see in the United States. Why didn’t we see a translation of this from one continent to another?
Many Americans Unaware of Presence of Genetically Modified Foods
JS: Well, when Pusztai was able to speak on February 16, 1999, it touched off a major headline war about GMOs. One commentator said it divided the society into two warring blocks on the GM issue, and within six to eight weeks, Unilever, Britain’s largest food manufacturer, publicly committed to remove GM ingredients from their European brands. Within a week, virtually every other major food manufacturer followed suit. However, in the United States, Project Censure describes that (our Pusztai issue) as one of the most underreported events of the year. And so we don’t really have an open press right now reporting the risks, instead we have press that read like a biotech brochure. This has been the case for many years. If you ask the average American, “Have you ever eaten a GM food in your life?” Sixty percent say no, 15% say I don’t know, and those that don’t want to eat GM don’t know how (they have labeling over here in Europe but not over there in the United States). And so the structure of the way that they have been improved and sort of slipped into our diet without notice has been responsible for the fact that Europe has rejected it and the unknowing US consumers have not.
etc
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10691.cfm
Mr Obvious: ‘andrew.herman - Humans have been “hacking into the program of life (DNA)” ever since we selected and bred plants and animals (over 10,000 years). Our domestic plants, “crops”, and livestock animals and pets cannot survive without human intervention.’
Just want to add what is not so obvious to Mr Obvious : that man has never crossed tomatoes and fish before or created fluorescent pets:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jun/15/science.highereducation1
GM may be apples for Mr Obvious Fool,but for the rest of us, and that includes the farmers, its a disaster.
Mr. Obvious
The provacative nature of posts are intended to obsure the topic and you make far more personal comments that degrade the discussion. So quit being a cry baby.
brianct - Pusztai is an activist fired from the public institution that he worked for because he falsified scientific data. If you want to understand GM please google the topic of your choice and restrict the search to education (.edu) sites or peer-reviewed publications, not tabloid web sites that can write anything with no consiquences. I wish Monsanto would send me money. I certainly seem to keep defending them, but what I am defending is sustainable agriculture, and GM is part of that. Organic agriculture is not sustainable. For example: Animal production is one of the worste contributors to global warming by producing greehouse gases. Organic agriculture requires animal manure for fertilizer. Where is all the animal manure going to come from to replace all the synthetic fertilizer that we currently use? High-intensity agricultural leaves a smaller footprint - less natural habitat turned under.
Are Americans all talk and no action? There are ways to begin the change we want to see. If everyone that is upset over GMO’s would stop placing blame on Monsanto, and take responsibility to change these circumstances, by their actions.
Something no one that I am aware of has started or mentioned is a movement to get congress to rescind ALL of the patents on life. This will take a long time and an enormous effort but it is so important and I believe it can be done. Monsanto and all those who believe they have the right to patent genes are wrong. Our government was wrong. The judiciary was wrong, and Americans are wrong if they continue to complain about the tragedy of GMO’s and patents and do nothing but complain.
The time is NOW. Remember that the masses of American citizens, people who are the average people outnumber the Monsanto Executive Club Set and the people in this industry. I plan to start such a movement because I am ashamed that I did not do it 25 years ago before most of our seeds were patented by this company and GMO organisms became ubiquitous in our world.
This technology is not sustainable and when this agriculture hits an ecological wall, Monsanto will try another scheme to defraud the people once again. Global food security is at stake, but unlike other countries, the people in the United States have not yet began to fight because this material is not on the front pages of our newspapers and on every TV channel all the time. Few Americans are aware of what has happened to our food security in the last 25 years.
These seeds belong to the people, to the commons. They should never have been allowed to be patented. It is time for the people to take back their seeds and other life forms that have been patented for profit and greed. This can be done legally; we just need the will of the people.
Follow the example of Percy Schmeiser and stand up for what you believe in.
yes - Percy Schmeiser sets quite an example. Google his name and restrict your search to education site (.edu). These university sites have accountability that helps prevent lying. See the attached Cornell site or pick the university of your choice. Before following his lead, you might want to see what he really did.
http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/schmeiser.html
Who needs monsanto anyway.There are still places you can get traditional seeds that will grow from year to year.I dont buy any seeds,i usually grow a little more than i need and harvest the extra seeds to plant next season.Monsanto is just another greedy corporation that would shaft thier own parents or children to make a buck.I wonder if any of the top executives are eating any of that genectically modified crap,if they are tells you why thier so screwed up.
Humans might have been breeding plants and animals for thousands of years,but it was simply trial and error.They did,nt have the meens to actually look into the actual dna of these plants and animals.And i dont believe man has been on this planet for 10,000 years.
phil54 - I am not sure that most of the posters really want you on their side?
We’ve been evolving for a long time without the need for round-up. No corporation needs to be patenting foods. This problem is really all about the corporate sector having way too much influence over our government.
nicholas9999 - Monsanto has never patented food. They patented traits/genes that have never previously been in food. Just like microwave ovens, no one is forced to buy them.