"Jungleboy, tell me how a thousand years of altering corn to improve yields, resist drought, and resist disease is 'not' modifying genes?"

I'm not Jungleboy, but I'll tell you.

Traditional plant breeding shares next to nothing with genetic modification. Both involve plants, that's about it.

The conventional creation of new cultivars is familiar to most (excluding technique tissue culture, known to cause genome-wide mutations, used in the creation of hybrids and in GM crops). Traditional breeding crosses plants within the same species to try to result in a new cultivar with desired traits.

Genetic modification involves the imprecise insertion of transgenes (whole or nearly whole) along with unintended fragments of transgenes (I'm including fragments of transgenes along with fragments of vector plasmids here) from entirely different species, perhaps event different kingdoms, with the aid of gutted out viruses or microscopic DNA-coated tungsten or gold BBs (the latter inspired by a scientist who was wastin' squirrels - not making that up).

Implying genetic manipulation is the same as traditional breeding doesn't fly.

Does anyone here think that the possability exist that when we people consume these monsanto products that it will eventually change our own protien or genetic stucture. I saw in the film "The World According to Monsanto" the mutated cornstalks; sci-fi I know, but still? Any input would be great....

We could greatly increase our food supply by simply eating less meat. If we all go vegan, we would have at least 5 times the food we have now, and if we really cared about other people, everyone would get enough. When you eat a steak, at least 5 other people are not eating at all that day so you can have it. Do you ever thank them? Probably not. Meat is the food of the elite, and the elitists.
As usual, the answer is not in technology, but in simply changing the way we do things. Simple, but not easy, I am afraid, or we would have already done it. The solution to an alcoholic's problem is simple and obvious, but he probably won't do it until he is dead, or nearly so.

minitru,

As a botanist--one who has in fact done GE (just in the lab, to study a hormone uptake pathway)--I want to thank you for the effort you expended in explaining things in clear language. There is, of course, a lot of detail behind the statements you've made that address the doubts some readers may have of the verity of your claims, but having been down that rabbit-hole myself, I'd like to offer to the suspicious that the data are there, and Monsanto won't tell you the truth. They simply won't. Ever.

GM is about the unbounded intellectual arrogance of Man thinking he can play G-d. Add to it the lure of the almighty dollar and it is a pretty dangerous combination.

We need to appreciate the limits of our cognitive faculties. We are simply incapable of understanding the myriad of factors that are at work in the world, we simply can not predict the effects of our meddling with nature. We can not prepare for the unintended consequences that always arise.

linkalpha -
I don't think Monsanto are to blame for the food crisis - but you can certainly expect them to promote GM as a solution.

http://rebelconservative.blogspot.com

minitru, good job; I agree! I think first: that the international bankers should be round-up(lol)and hung for crimes agianst all states great, and small. Second: that the families of the international bankers be sterilized with Roundup to prevent further mistakes...Anyway does anyone know if there are any ties that would link monsanto to the current food crises in the world?

My apologies for the epic length of this comment... it just seems to me that as long as (most) people do not understand that genetic engineering is based on false premises (a convenient, mechanistic view of biology)the discussion will go on forever and the likes of Monsanto will always claim that opposition to GE is based on ignorance....

Myth No. 1: Genetic engineering (GE) is not new. It is just the same as speeded-up selective breeding.

FACT: Genetic engineering (GE) and conventional breeding are worlds apart. Breeding does not manipulate genes; it involves crossing of selected parents of the same or closely related species. In contrast, GE involves extracting selected genes from one organism (e.g. animals, plants, insects, bacteria) and/or viruses, or synthesising copies, and artificially inserting them into another organism (eg. food crops). GE usually employs virus genes to smuggle in and promote the inserted genes, and antibiotic resistance genes to act as markers. All these inserted genes are present in EVERY cell of the plant. (e.g. the bt-toxin is produced in ALL cells ALL the time, e.g. endangering non-target insects feeding on the pollen (bees, butterflies) and also the millions of microorganisms living in the soil (since the bt-toxin is also exuded from the roots - wheras in natural insect-repellents the plant only produces the poison when the pest is actually attacking the plant. Besides, the promoter that keeps foreign genes switched on all the time, may also affect expression of native genes, even genes on a different chromosome, this can create new proteins / enzyms with unpredictable consequences....

Myth (Lie) No. 2: The Genome is static >> Genetic engineering (GE) is precise.

FACT: Genes are NOT independent carriers/ processors of information, they do NOT operate in isolation: On the contrary, they are part of a huge communication network that includes the whole cell, the whole organism and the environment. They interact in a complicated way, changing their behaviour in response to influences from other genes. This "fluid genome" is controlled by a highly sophisticated regulatory system which can provide hyper-variability (i.e. when bacteria are more and more attacked with anti-biotics their genes hyper-mutate and sooner or later anti-biotic resistance will occur) or stability for genes or genomes as required. There are also numerous biochemical mechanisms for changing an reorganizing DNA through natural "GE", like cutting and splicing of DNA molecules into new sequence arrangements. This also involves mobile genetic elements which can move from one position to another, enabling organisms to respond to environmental challenges. (Mutations are therefore not at all "random" but directed) N.B. If you change one gene, you change the relationship of all genes to each other.
The function of only a small proportion of the DNA in a higher organism is known. Although a gene can be cut out precisely from the DNA of an organism, its insertion into the DNA of another organism is ENTIRELY RANDOM. This results in the DISRUPTION of the ORDER of the genes on the chromosome and may result in random and unexpected changes in the functioning of the cells. (Inserting foreign genes can damage the structure and function of the host´s DNA, switch genes on / off, create new sequences and render the genome unstable. Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics at Harvard University, has said of GE: "We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another."

Myth No. 3: GE foods vary from non-GE foods only in the characteristic that has been modified.

FACT: The random insertion of foreign genes into the genetic material may cause unexpected changes in the functioning of other genes. Existing molecules may be manufactured in incorrect quantities, at the wrong times, or new molecules may be produced. GE foods and food products may therefore contain unexpected toxins or allergenic molecules that could harm our health or that of our offspring.

Myth No.4: GE food is extensively tested (try googling for "substantial equivalence"...) and the GE food at present on our supermarket shelves is perfectly safe to eat.

FACT: We rely almost entirely on the testing carried out by the GE biotechnology companies that have spent billions of dollars developing the food and intend to make a profit selling it to us. There are serious doubts about the adequacy of the testing and the validity of the conclusions drawn from the results. Independent long-term testing is required before we can be sure that GE food is safe to eat. Another health concern is the possible acceleration of the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics due to the use of antibiotic resistance genes in the production of GE foods. (Foreign genes were found to be able to jump to human gut bacteria; transgenic DNA was also discovered in muscle tissue and other organs of poultry (University of Jena in Germany) .. .

Myth No. 5: Genetically engineered food has improved nutritional value.

FACT: No GE food produced to date has been shown to be more nutritious than non-GE food. Most GE crops are only designed to be resistant to specific herbicides, to produce their own insecticides or to have an increased shelf life. (BUT there is mounting evidence that organic food contains more nutrients than conventional food, e.g. a study in Wales (IGER) has shown that milk from organic farms contains two thirds more Omega 3 essential fatty acids than conventional milk. (The main reason is that these cows eat lots of fresh herbs, especially glover)

Myth No.6: One can always choose not to eat GE food. People in the US have eaten it for years and no adverse health effects have surfaced.

FACT: In the US GE ingredients are not labelled, so there is no way of knowing whether we are eating them and if there are any health problems no-one could trace them back to GE food. In Europe meat and other animal products (from animals fed with GE corn or soy) are also not labelled.

Myth No. 7: Farmers will benefit from growing GE crops.

FACT: Seeds of genetically engineered crops are MORE EXPENSIVE (patented) than those of conventional crops. Farmers in the UK and USA report that yields are generally no better, the crops are less reliable and overall have not improved profitability. Non-GE crops now receive a premium and as more countries reject GE foods, the opportunities to sell GE produce overseas are diminishing. Because of risks associated with GE crops insurance companies in the USA and UK are reluctant to insure them. Farmers growing GE crops have to sign binding contracts with the biotechnology producers. These commit them to using only the herbicides produced by that company and prohibit them from the traditional practice of saving seed for the next season. Most third world farmers certainly will not benefit.

Myth No.8: GE crops will reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides.

FACT: Crops engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides may encourage more liberal use of those herbicides. This has been anticipated by one manufacturer, who has applied to ANZFA (Australia & New Zealand Food Authority) to have the allowable RESIDUE of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup®) in foods sold in New Zealand increased by 200 TIMES. In areas of the USA where crops engineered to produce their own insecticide are grown, pesticide use has not decreased. And why should it? Most crops have a diversity of insect pests, so repelling just one pest (at the expense of other beneficial insects, e.g. natural enemies of the pest might be starved) will not protect the plant and in the long run resistance to the endotoxin will emerge as it always does....

Myth No. 9: There is no evidence that GE crops are harmful to the environment.

FACT: Insects, birds and the wind carry genetically altered pollen and seeds into neighbouring fields and far beyond. Cross-pollination occurs between GE crops and non-GE crops and their wild relatives. In this way resistance to weed killer, for example, might be transmitted to weeds making them more difficult to control. (This has happened in Canada) There is evidence that crops engineered to produce their own insecticide can kill beneficial insects.

Myth No. 10: GE crops will save the world from famine. What are the REAL reasons for malnutrition and starvation?

FACT: A major cause of famine is the organization of global production and distribution of food . Food mountains exist in much of the western world and food is regularly dumped. Poor people have limited ability to buy either GE or non-GE food. There is no evidence that GE crops produce higher yields than conventional crops. Global trade is controlled by a handful of food multinationals (Nestlé, Kraft, Unilever, etc.) whose interests are very low production prices so they can make big profits by processing these cheap raw materials into unhealthy "convenience food". Under the command of the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO (AoA), developing countries are forced to grow "cash-crops" (to generate money for paying the high interest for their loans) for export not the grains and vegetables their own population needs and local markets and small farmers are destroyed by the heavily subsidized agricultural imports from Europe and the US.

Myth No. 11: You can trust the scientists that GE food is good for you and the world.

FACT: The money for scientific research on GE here and overseas comes from either the biotechnology companies or the government. Both are committed to the promises of biotechnology. This means that even when scientists have concerns about the safety or commercial application of the technology, it is often hard for them to risk their careers by being openly critical. One respected scientist in the UK who spoke up about his experimental results showing damaging effects of feeding rats on a type of genetically engineered potato was immediately fired from his job. (Dr. Arpad Pusztai)

Myth No. 12: You can't stop progress.

FACT: No of course we can't; and why would we want to? Progress implies change for the better. Change for the worse is regression. Transgenic plants are like "foreign invaders" attacking balanced ecosystems and they are the latest product of a school of thought (that nature must be "improved" to prioritize commercial interests - faster growth, bigger yields, etc. and not biological "minor" goals like survival of ecosystems...) that has already caused so much damage to the environment: "Industrial farming" (vast monocultures, synthetic fertilizer, toxic and mutagenic agrochemicals and their residues ending up in our bodies...), is no progress, if we look at all the costs and destruction it has caused: decrease of soil fertility, loss of biodiversity, decrease in mineral content (in the crop), heavy dependence on fossil fuels (energy balance output / input 1:10), negative impact on climate stability, to name but a few. We must not commit ourselves to a dubious technology that cannot be reversed. Besides, who decides what constitutes progress? The word "innovation" simply means something new, it does not say anything about a possible improvement.

Words of Wisdom:
"Without respect for (all forms of) life, humankind has no future."
Albert Schweizer

"Science is organized knowledge. Nature is organized wisdom."
Immanuel Kant

To bobpomeroy, corporations did indeed exist well before the constitution was written. The East-India Trade company is just one example.

The founders of this nation new all too well the dangers of corporations. The first time corporations were allowed to form in the USA, there were very stringent rules which had to be followed for a corporation's charter to be renewed by the state it operated in.

It was towards the end of the 1800's that a certain judge beholden to corporate interests made a ruling in favor of corporations that brought about the "Guilded Age" and coporations were given the same rights as living, breathing humans.

It's been pretty much downhill since then for the average person.

Come on folks. This sounds like the best scenario possible for all the chemical companies. By growing roundup resistent crops monsanto will be able to sell more roundup. But they are not so terribly selfish as to keep all the profits for themselves. They produced GM seeds that will require furthur chemicals to get the same yield. Wow!! Time to buy stock in those fertilizer companies as well.

Lots more on our friends at Monsanto at:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

" Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems but once again a cover-up was the order of the day.... Operation Hades, later changed to Operation Ranch Hand, sprayed 6 million acres of forest in Vietnam, 19 million gallons of defoliant. The intention was to turn Vietnam into desert, to cause such destruction that Vietnam would never recover.... The most gruesome legacy caused by spraying Vietnam with dioxin contaminated Agent Orange was that born by the Vietnamese themselves. In a locked room of Tu Du Obstetrical and Gynaecological Hospital in Saigon are rows of formaldehyde-filled jars containing deformed foetuses, a grotesque illustration of Man's inhumanity to Man. The level of poverty in Vietnam prevents the preservation of further examples. Many of the living have fared little better, limb deformities, cancers. "

And it's comforting to know that Clarence Thomas was once a Monsanto lawyer and now graces the Supreme Court with his compassion, wisdom, and corporate mindset!

Do you want to eat something that even a lowly bug won't eat? And maybe we would be better off, nutritionally, eating the weeds that grow so relentlessly that it takes a deadly chemical mix to kill them.... One "weed" immediately comes to mind....

The biogenetic take on "You are what you eat," and a good discussion in this forum.

My personal kudos to: GOOD MAN, IKE KAY, DOOM & GLOOM, COLD WAR BABY, LOACHDUKE.

DOUGLAS BARNES: Thanks for arguing the SCIENCE side of this lopsided pro-capitalism/manmade control of MOTHER NATURE protocol called genetic modification.

MiMiCcs: You sound like LUCKY LEFTY today!

FRANK: Thanks for reminding readers that Monsanto has been heavily invested in the business of KILLER chemicals like Agent Orange and whatever its latest spray over the so-called "drug" crops of Columbia. The karmic record of this company is abysmal for the cancers and maiming of entire populations that it's been responsible for. Few companies (apart from the direct bomb makers) so directly profit from human PAIN. Even after the phenomenal increase in cancer rates in Vietnam (Agent Orange related), this company never stopped in its tracks to reconsider. Nope. It went on to invest in and use yet more lethal chemicals on food crops destined to destroy other villages. Why would anyone trust such as these for their own food crops? It's like hiring the Mafia to babysit for your kids!

CSchnack-You don't have to spend a lot to eat healthy. For instance, every now and then I make my own tortillas and frioles (sp). It's easy, cheap, healthy, and they taste great. Do a little research. Avoid fast-food joints and processed packaged crap. It takes a little more time, but with a bit of practice it is oh so worth it.

If anyone wants to read what the National Family Farm Coalition (USA) say about GMO's go to:
http://www.nffc.net/issues/geissues.html
and concerned farmers in Australia see:
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com
and Canadian family farmers see:
http://www.nfu.ca/gmfood-ban.htm

These 3 organisations are not as gung-ho as our pro-GM farming friends futher up in these comments boxes.

The above writer is correct. processed food is likely t give you cancer. There is no wonder why cancer has doubled since 1960. The drug companies are in league with the food companies in bilking the public of billions for your 401ks to be able to grow on wall street. The entire system is sick and will no doubt continue. It is destroying the environment as well and with climate change and its advance the circle is complete.

Yes, there are a few farmers above who have huge tracts of land and who buy in to this food technology scandal and are well subsidized by government to keep this disaster going and the food business suits who continue to market the American ideas of making money at the world's expense and the future of life on this planet.

I laugh at the gullible nature of it all who don't get it, and remember my 20 years of farming and how impossible it was to make a living based on the agribusiness method of destroying the family farm so that they were able to take over huge tracts of land. The poor farmers sold toxicity on a grand scale, surrounded by agent orange, a known carcinogen, used particularly in growing corn as well as cancer.

Now with the energy problems and ethanol they have discovered ways of removing large amounts of food from the market and profitably selling it with government collusion and than spiking the food prices kept down for many years. But the 401ks kept growing until they figured a way to destroy the mortgage market as well and the very place you can live. You can no longer drive, no longer eat and no longer can you afford a roof over your head ot the hospital bills for dealing with the above and how big business has poisoned the population. Hows that for continual growth? There have been people writing about this for the last twenty five years but no one would believe us.

This person writing above Mr. Kernal is probably a plant for Monsanto. I will tell most of you who will look at my thinking with skepticism, as an environmentalist, we have about a ten year window to make radical changes in the way we do business and look at technology. After that time period, with no rapid change the survival of the species is in question.

"Greg R exposed as a myth"

Check out this research data again my friend. It uses the current GM soy varieties.

Research has also shown that GM maize can yield similar or up to 12% less than the same non-GM hybrid. Over 2000 farmers in India have committed suicide after switching to GM cotton failed and they became indebted. GM cotton has pushed many small scale South African farmers into debt and they have stopped growing it, and in China, cotton farmers growing GM cotton are making less money than non-GM cotton.

I can provide the links if you want them.

GM crops are widely grown in the USA because the US taxpayer props up the agricultural sector.

Just because I'm not a farmer, doesn't mean that I should abstain from posting about Monsanto.

Okay so I don't know squat about that end of things, but I sure as hell know a thing or two about corporations like Monsanto!

The first thing:
their food products flunk the taste test-they stink.

Secondly: Monsanto, the large chemical conglomerate, exists to squeeze out as much profit as possible; this includes using Corporate SLAPP suits to destroy individual farmers, activists or
competitors, who may pursue an organic approach, ex: Heirloom seeds, rBGH/rBST(Posilac)

Thirdly:

Monsanto ISN'T in the business to make tasty, nutritious and healthful foods; it's all about PROFIT/slashing losses/cutting corners.

Question: Are higher crop yields per acre really better-health wise-than traditional organic ones? Where's the evidence to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that GM (franken) crops are more nutritious and healthy to ingest than organic crops?

Tree and indigenous multi-level orchard crops from nuts, fruit, greens, berries, herbs, mushrooms etc are 100 times more productive per growing area for food production, water cycle (tree pumping and conservation), root nutrient colonies and mineral mining by roots from the substrate, fiber (bark etc) production, air (oxygen + humidity), solar (photosynthesis production) heat absorption, pollution mitigation and other essential nsture services, than field (agri)culture mono-cropping. I have owned an orchard, worked extensively in organic as well as monocrop orchards and grain farms as well as studied indigenous peoples practices and seen the massive difference over decades. Our mistake was long ago to cut down the highly productive indigenous sylvaculture orchards of indigenous peoples all the way from Mesapotamia, North Africa, China, India, Asia, Europe, Australia and the Americas. Agricultural assumptions were misguided based in ignorance of a very complex life-equations and a confusion of military control with productivity for far too long.

They just want to snuff out 90% of the people, one way or another, justified by those other myths of man made global warming and peak oil. Thye give us a GM food myth, the myth of biofuels to reduce food supplies and create shortages, but justified by the myths of man made global warming and peak oil. Imagine, they got terminator seeds, and seeds that are spermicidal. No wonder they got that doomsday seed vault in the arctic, so they can replant once we are gone.

Then we have manufactured viruses, unnecessary wars, depleted uranium, unsafe food and drugs, sterilizations, vaccines that reduce sterility and spread diseases.

Your dollars well spent.

When you look at the big picture and issues relating to health, food, wars, and economy, you can see the connections and the relationships with Global Government. Those behind it control the money, created and spread Communism and Fascism. They are racists, and hate faith based religion worshipping their god, and believe man is god, and not all men are created equal, and some of you are of inferior races to be dealt with. They also believe in slavery, polygamy, and think women may be owned. What do you think is behind that sect in Texas and it's coverage, the FLDS, the founders of whom receive contracts from the Pentagon. This is just to condition you for what is coming.

Those behind this hide behind a religion, some say they are Christian, others Jewish or Muslim. Thats so you think they are like you. Bush is great for his role. They are the elite, not the simple folk who are believers in their religion. They are using religion to enslave people by divide and rule, as they have done for thousands of years, and believe in their racial superiority, and consider others to be sub-human. There are those on the Christian Right who believe in the coming End Times and who eagerly await it's coming, thinking they will be raptured, are the victims of a great hoax, but they think they are partners with those leading them against the "godless" and the evils of Islam. They are lambs being led to a slaughter, and taking a bunch of us along with them.

To the author of this comment.

"It is not difficult to project to a fairly near future where the idea that a simple disregard to how many children we have caused the entire biosphere to be strained to collapse will be simply unfathomable"

If we would stop stirring up sh*t all over the world with civil wars that we start, and stop destroying local farmers all over the world with our "Globalization" that makes them prey to predators like Monsanto, we would all have more than enough food. And who plays god in determining who has to die and who can have kids. Of course, we already are doing so, read Kissingers NSSM 200, do a search on eugenics in the 20's and 30's, and how it's evolved, with the sterilization of the 3rd world, and reduced fertility in the developed world due to vaccines and chemicals in the water and food. US AID is our tool for population control (funny how AID's and US AID have some common letters, maybe Wright was right).

Do you want to be part of an organization or part of an organism?

I appreciated the response of actual farmers on the list about this subject. How many people on this list have planted and cared for until harvest over 100 acres of a grain? Who has cared for more than 50 head of cattle? I have done both, as I come from a farming family, too, and I would have to say that my perspective and experience creates a world of difference from most other posters on this subject. I agree with an earlier poster, where is the positive reaction? Where is the positive activity? Although I stop by this site every few days, mainly for the food articles, I feel like many of the posters are expressing Common Misperceptions, not Common Dreams.

Lucitanian, 2:26pm, thank you for linking The World of Monsanto. It was a captivating watch for an hour and 49 minutes! I will try to spread awareness of this site as widely as I can! It would be nice to see this as a special report on ABC. They owe us reparations.

The Monsanto plants (no pun intended) posting on this are rather obvious.

The Monsanto plan is designed to prevent hunger and poverty in only two groups -
The Monsanto shareholders and management.

Destroying the environment and polluting the gene pool of plants - that's a bonus!

Greg R, obviously you have a vested interest in GM products since you depend upon them for your livelihood, so I don't think you are exactly an unbiased observer of their safety or their potential ecological significance.

One thing is for certain: the EU and other countries are sending back barges filled with crops that are contaminated with GM genes. So if you have neighbors who are trying to sell into these markets, and your pollen contaminates their crops, you are a direct threat to their livelihood. Seems to me that is a rather significant matter, at least to them.

No doubt there are too many people on this planet, but that is hardly a legitimate justification for using GM crops, particularly since the very point of this article was that despite all the propaganda, GM crop yields are lower than non-GM crops.

I would say that this type of forum where people post anonymously is especially prone to the efforts of corporate boosters and shills. Not saying you are one, but I certainly have suspicions that many corporations are paying people to post on forums such as this one. I don't know of many progressives who are big boosters of GM or who have spent hundreds of hours spraying nasty chemicals on crops.

Generally though, I'm with Bobbi, in that I feel that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The small marginal cost increase for organic foods is well worth the health improvements and reduced risks of illness.

Monsanto. Sounds like Bill Gates to me. What an innocuous and religiously contrived name. But further, it seems like the patent laws have proceeded directly from feudalism by way of Thomas Edison, his successors and heirs, etc. Yet again with the fact that corporations didn't exist at the time the constitution was written. If you are a strict constructionist, how can you see any federal law pertaining to corporations as constitutional? I digress. The problem seems much more clear and present to begin with the philosphical. Excessive profiteering and related evils, are as big a reason the bubble is bursting as anything else. It's just another form of "cut flowers" (I almost referred to it as a form of "reverse logic", but wish to draw no ire from whence no humor has ever sprung) .

Someone please show me 1) independent, peer-reviewed animal testing showing that each individual GM event for each GM crop is safe - and several repeat studies seeing as how the genome of GMOs tends to be rather fluid; and more importantly 2) please show me independent, peer-reviewed research showing that each individual event for each GM crop is safe for humans, focusing on sensitive populations like the elderly, the young, and those suffering chronic illnesses. Regarding those two requests, beware any GM defender who tries to reverse the burden of proof; and beware any GM defender who posts any red herring claim that there is a dire threat of E. coli from organic foods (which is not true: see Preharvest Evaluation of Coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Organic and Conventional Produce Grown by Minnesota Farmers in Journal of Food Protection, Volume 67, Number 5, 1 May 2004 , pp. 894-900(7)).

And since we are talking about corn, someone please tell me why, if mainstream genetic theory is correct, Bt corn has higher amounts of lignin than conventional corn when there was no gene added for increased lignin production? Funny that. Guess they need to work on their theory (or at least bother to learn that Watson's version of the Central Dogma is incorrect).

Gee,I thought "progressives" were open-minded folks on a search for truth and reason.Perhaps I got off on the wrong planet??
I farmed for a living all my life.Dairying and breeding good cattle,plus growing their feed.BST taught me to greatly distrust Monsanto.A book I read closed with the line that corporations would sell you the seed,fertilizer,equipement etc to farm with,then at the end they'd sell you the rope to hang yourself with.
That being said,I have to agree with those farmers who've submitted that G.M. crops are great for insect and weed control,thus a plus in those respects.Seems like objectivity would serve us all well???
Can we try to stay positive so we might win hearts,minds,maybe elections??

decreased productivity of GM crops? haha let's see who has the most to gain? this has been fishy all long. Now let's try to cushion this lower supply asap.

Of course the root problem is too many people. In Haiti, those with a bit of money can eat cakes of mud flavored with oil and sugar. Those without money are developing severe hunger pains. A lot of people in the world are going to die of starvation over the coming months. There's a lot of f*cked up shit in the world. From my point of view, potential problems from gm crops seem oh so insignificant.

"Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted - the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development - concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger."

Of course not, and we all know what is. Vegetarianism. The awful, unnatural, oppressive diet whose supporters need to shut up or die. Be that as it may, it is still true. Maybe it wouldn't help, seeing as how they live longer. :)

Oh yeah, and getting rid of Monsanto's GM crops would be a healthy start. And how about just getting rid of Monsanto. Now thats something most of us can agree on, and if not, suck on an udder with rBGH induced mastitis for your milk.

Monsanto is EVIL! One of the TOP 10 EVIL CORPORATIONS..PURE EVIL!
MONSANTO SHOULD BE SUED OUT OF EXISTANCE FOR WHAT THEY DO EVERY DAY IN THIS WORLD!
DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO PATENT FOOD CROPS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED BY SMALL FARMERS IN REMOTE PLACES, WHO'S SEED STOCK HAS WOUND UP IN THE "DOOMSDAY VAULT"? THEY WILL SIMPLY STEAL WHAT THEY CANNOT TAKE BY FORCE OR LEGAL HAIR SPLITTING.
SO, ALL OF YOU BACKYARD DIRT LOVERS, AS I AM, SHOULD GROW AND BREED YOUR OWN SEED-STOCK, KEEP THE SEEDS VIABLE AND USE THEM ANNUALLY...BECAUSE THE END GAME FOR MONSANTO AND THEIR ILK IS TO "OWN" THE WORLDS PLANTS AND ANIMALS..TO "OWN" THEM OUTRIGHT..PICTURE BLACKWATER THUG-RUNTS TRASHING YOUR BACKYARD TOMATO GARDEN BECAUSE AIREAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY A UAV HAVE SHOWN THAT YOU ARE GROWING A "MONSANTO" TOMATO..OR AT LEAST IT LOOKS LIKE ONE...SINCE THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME FROM THE AIR...AND SO...YOU GET A FINE AND HAVE TO PAY EM TO EAT...OR DIE..
GOOD EATEN..

I don't think this all means that GM crops should not be grown, anymore than non-GM hibrids shouldn't be grown. I think there's a lot to learn from both, and wonder what the real difference is once all the smoke clears. I do think that experimental crops should be subsidized by the seed companies rather than allowing the risks of experimentation to be bourne entirely by the farmers, who are relying on sales pitches by the seed companies. My grandmother used to worry incessantly about massive crop failures resulting from loss of natural resistance to various diseases, the appearance of new problems, etc., but that's why we should be actively experimenting constantly with seed varieties so that problems can be met with knowledge. Faith without works is death.

kman2, I also grew up on a farm. The incidence of cancer in the farming community I grew up in, as well as heart disease, is significantly higher than that in the general population. So is it madness to pay extra money for organic? Or is it spending money on your food now to avoid spending it on healthcare later?

Corporate agriculture kills people and is killing the planet. GM crops destroy the biodiversity that food crops (under the care of smart farmers) have evolved over centuries to deal with local changes in climate and soil. Agriculture that is dependent on petrochemicals depletes the soil and those crops are now significantly less nutritious in terms of protein content than organic ones. Overuse of pesticides has contributed to the rise of "superbugs" that are resistant to all pesticides, and has also contributed to the decimation of pollinator species. If you want to keep eating, you had better be interested in protecting pollinators, because very little food can be grown without them. I could go on, but you get the picture. I hope.

Good discussion, and refreshing to have some people with farming experience to share with. For me this thing has many levels. The highest level is recognizing two critical relationships: 1) the rampant externalization of cost and privatization of profit; and 2) we are so beyond our carrying capacity we keep trying ever more devious and risky things to try and meet a demand that is disconnected from the realities of soil productivity. Rephrasing a comment above, it is insane and suicidal to expect unlimited productivity out of a declining quantity and quality of topsoil.

So we cannot solve these problems in isolation. Monocropping, controlling seed, genetic modification are all methods of trying to accommodate the latter, while exacerbating the former. Like water and healthcare, access to safe food should be a human right... and if we cannot address supply shortages with technology or efficiency, we have a moral responsibility to begin addressing the very immoral concept of uncontrolled population growth.

It is not difficult to project to a fairly near future where the idea that a simple disregard to how many children we have caused the entire biosphere to be strained to collapse will be simply unfathomable.

anovelli@aol.com

If you are going to error, you want to do it on the side of safety. Taking animal DNA and firing it into plant DNA is something that nature has never done. If you can make the plant have natural pesticides, what do these pesticides do to the living organism's inside the human gut.
We have to look at the long term, when it comes to human safety, not whether a farmer can make a profit in a given year.

Does it come as a surprise to the masses that these money hungry suits at Monsanto, backed with a decade or less of research undertaken by a handful of dodgy scientific studies have swindled the population into believing that their mutant seeds are better than the ones born of millions of years of evolution? In a short period of time I guarantee you that these engineered DNA molecules in the mutant seeds will skip to another species and cause untold horrors on the planet. Be happy that there is the presence of seed banks around the world to preserve the sanctity of mother nature, although there not be many of us left in that future to restart the process. The really scary part of this macabre experiment being carried out by this rather evil corporation is that it has been successful with these mutant seeds. Just imagine what other awful genetic modifications will be introduced into the general population with the mastery of genetic modification. Engineered viruses delivering re-sequenced genes into your body perhaps? Super insects immune to all known poisons? Race or trait specific illnesses? Superhuman breeding programs? It's very scary indeed.

This is considered "new" information, is it?

As if anyone with a brain believed Monsanto created transgenic mutant organisms in order to sell LESS of them and LESS of their number one product, Round Up Ready. Or to "solve world hunger," as they proclaim on their site.

Monsanto created Agent Orange and then spent over thirty years insisting it was as safe as Kool Aid. Now they "own" or control over 70% of all mutant soy and corn, the latter of which is suddenly booming thanks to government-subsidized "biofuel" production. (IOW, we don't want to eat it, so they're shoving it down our tanks and making us pay for it twice.)

Don't believe the hype! If you take away the free money, so-called GMOs are a huge money loser. Like nuke plants, or Bear Sterns, or Halliburton.

Saskatchewan is Canada's top grain growing province. A lot of hard working, capable farmers have bought into the 'way things are done' and I suggest it has been a failure. Farms are much larger and required fewer people so the towns have died or are dying. The rural hospitals are full of old farmers dying from cancer. Grain prices are way up but the farmers are in about the same place as their costs for fuel, seed, herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers are way up too. The average farmer is an old guy and his kids don't want to struggle the way he did so the corporations will be buying up the farms and dictating food prices as soon as they have a chunk of production. Industrial agriculture in North America is based on size, chemicals, monoculture, oil, and profit for some. It is not based on family, community, health , protecting the environment, sustainability or happiness. It has been and is a failure but there are options. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/09141233/0
One of the main conclusions of this study, "Generally, Gross margin performance of the organic enterprises was significantly above that of conventional enterprises for the period examined."

The pesticide-resistant GM soya isn't supposed to yield better in a clean field, but rather yield better in a weed infested field sprayed with pesticide. The manganese deficiency is easily compensated by adding manganese to the synthetic fertilizer. But this isn't to argue in favor of the agri-corporation. All of them should be smashed to smithereens. They are diabolical racketeers determined to destroy the food security and economic security of the entire planet. We do need better quality journalism to help we the people inform ourselves and win this grand-daddy of all wars - the class war - against the elite aggressors.

The sole objective of corporations that produce genetically modified food crops is to completely eliminate all the natural ones which provide seeds for the next cycle of growing. Once the self-replicating plants have been eliminated the ONLY source for food crops will be the corporations that own the patents on the GM suicide strains.
Don't imagine for a nanosecond that the psychopaths of the corpratocracy have even a passing, remote concern with solving the problem of feeding the world. Like oil, if the supply of food crops can be kept short of demand, it will allow the corporate murderers to charge more for what only they have.
This is a libertarian wet dream. Own EVERYTHING, especially what is absolutely essential for survival, and then charge the unclean masses obscene amounts of money for the privilege of staying alive.
The capitalist version of natural selection; those who are not wealthy will not survive thereby ensuring a "superior" race of humans.
This demented view of a "better" world has motivated small numbers of individuals throughout history. Attempts to realize this corrupt, irrational and inhuman vision have been and always will be abysmal failures leading only to untold misery, suffering and death.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is not only insane, it's suicidal.
coldwarbaby@hotmail.com

And you have to wonder why that great seed bank in the permafrost was sponsored by Monsanto and other large corporations. Is it so that when the current crops fail because they are GMOs, the corporations will again be able to blackmail, I mean market, the natural seeds to the consumer?

That is why I try to buy as much organic food in local stores (as opposed to chain stores). For them, organic food isn't just a marketing tool, it is a way of life.

The American Dream, eating a mad cow burger on a GMO sesame seed bun.

so it goes...

Dcbeltway has suggested you watch the video "The World According to Monsanto". To start to understand the damage this company is doing to the world you should see this video. If you have not, you are not qualified to discuss the detrimental effects caused by this monster of a company.

Please see the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-842180934463681887

And by the way this company is "known" to use paid people to post on sights that ask serious questions on their activities. So I have a lot of doubt about the "positive" reports even on this forum.

To all the fools who want to keep 'studying' things. Let's see....why don't we study murder to see if there's anything wrong with murder? We could study running over traffic cops. Maybe there are benefits to doing so. Could there be something wrong with robbing banks? I dunno, why don't we study it a little longer and see.

David Blume has multiple patents at the helm ready to send Monsanto back to Hell. We can all agree, local seeds and food - without corporate interference.

The questions is when will communities organize to foster this behavior? People are still hooked into supermarket produce and aren't saving seeds. The problems will need to hurt more in the US before average citizens get their acts together.

Here is the revolution plan

All patents for living organisms must be ended. No one has the right to own any aspect of life.

However, when their patents are declaired null and void, they still must be held liable for the harm they have done.

There are always going to be irresponsible lunkheads who dont think beyond their own selfish interests-and that includes farmers.

Humans are not smarter than nature. They cant even raise children properly and yet they somehow are smarter than Nature?
Its as laughable as that biosphere project where they thought they could replicate a living ecosystem in a glass dome. Humans are so embarrassing.

We dont need studies to show GMOS dont work.
We have all the food we need--but much of it is wasted on livestock production.

RuthK: "Monsanto has also been buying seed companies. I think they are trying to obtain a monopoly on food staples. As I've said, that scares me."

Vandana Shiva was interviewed in that documentary "The World According to Monsanto." She said that Monsanto is seeking to control the world's food supply and that having absolute control over this supply is more dangerous than the threat of a nuclear war. It is not a wonder that you are so concerned, it scares me too when you consider the implication: a few corporate type people in league with certain governments, controlling the earth's population through the withholding of food seed.

Crossing the species barrier is what is occurring with GMO crops! Genes from OTHER organisms are being introduced into the genetic makeup of a different organism. This is NOT at all similar to what farmers and animal breeders have done for centuries, selecting naturally occurring traits present already in the organisms. NEVER have genes been moved from one species to another until now.

The findings of this study come out at a critical time as food shortages worldwide are being experienced.

Many have been protesting, over time, that greater control over the seed for profit is the real issue.

GM gives those who invest in this seed technology an increasing control over the entire food supply itself. This study is exactly what the debate needs at this time.

This is not a game, and this is not over.

Thank you for letting me share and have a nice day.

Michael

Can you tell I grew up on farm?

Jungleboy, tell me how a thousand years of altering corn to improve yields, resist drought, and resist disease is 'not' modifying genes? And go tell a unemployed person to spend their money on organic milk. It's nuts to spend so much money on organic.

Regardless of the safety of GM products, the idea that one corporation can control staple food supplies bothers me.

Monsanto has GM corn. They are trying to get wheat and rice on the market. Some sugar is now GM. Their terminator seeds mean that farmers have to purchase seeds each year, locking them into Monsanto.

Monsanto has also been buying seed companies. I think they are trying to obtain a monopoly on food staples. As I've said, that scares me.

True Jungleboy, this is a lesson in the failure of technological triumphalism. Technology will not save us. Wisdom provides better ways to live that reflect historic sustainability. Technology is not a path to success or a sustainable lifeway. Technology absent wisdom is a disaster.

Greg R__ As another corngrower that has planted GM seed, I can agree that it has been a great developement for all of the reasons you have mentioned.

Galen__You suggest going back to saving our our seed to plant. That may be quite a task on a large acreage. I used to help do that about 65 years ago. It was not an easy job then and that was on small acreage. Also, open-pollinated corn cannot come close to the yields of hybrid corn.

We seem to have quite a few experts on CD that may never have actually had any experience with field crops and that may account for some of the unworkable ideas put forth.

GM crops are not to feed a hungry world, but to feed greedy shareholders. When you can patent the plant and have a monopoly on it, you are in the same position as drug companies. It is a license to print money and that is what all capitalists seek.

I know man is better than God. If God was better, we would have car trees and whiskey rivers, we would be able to fly and never catch a cold!

Ever planted organic? Used bug houses? Read about other farmers yields or peace of mind, after they have gone organic?

jungleboy-All I can say for sure is that I've grown corn for several decades and the gm corn I plant now is the best I've ever planted: best yields, best standing (less need to use propane to dry it), less trips over the field to care for it (saves more fuel), and less chemicals to spray on it. GM corn is used by farmers because it works so well in so many ways.

Can you look at your kid and say that "it wont hurt you", for sure? Ever counted frogs, read local cancer reports, tested the water down stream? Have you tried to find the variety of corn for your local climate? I know its not available....anymore.

I'm all for hybrids, hybridize all you want, but, leave the gene knife alone. You don't know what you are playing with. Can you say you do? NO!

Once again favoritism is being played out here. How can you say that GM crops are better than the local variety (that is held from the public and the studies)? Next I'll hear that the GM tomatoes do better than other varieties if in a green house on the moon than the tomatoes planted on the lunar landscape. Duh!

Barney Gordon is a faculty member at Kansas State University, not the University of Kansas as stated in the article.

It should also be noted that while GM crops had lower yields in this study, other studies (particularly at University of Arizona) have shown that genetically modified crops are more resistant to pests in certain arid environments.

What we are seeing here is the American industry shill game. What the true game is the elimination of all other seed varieties leaving Monsanto the only game in town to buy seeds. Has no one really understood what this corporate nightmare is all about? It's all about money, nothing more than making money for the stockholders any way possible. Using any devious dishonest method that can be devised. The sam is the story with Arthur Midland Daniels, (breadbasket of the con game) and making the public believe their research is valid. The rest of the world is on to this game and are resisting it with all the power they have. Europe has been fighting the introduction of Genome crops and seeds.

Not long ago the biotech industry was trying to patent certain varieties of rice. They took the Indian farmers to the world court and tried to sue them for patent infringement. Fortunately the court found on behalf of the farmers. This is the same game big business is playing with the American people. Wake up people its time for another way to do business that is honest and recognizes people write to live and be healthy.

Well, all the weeds growing around gm foods are beginning to carry the genes as they get used to their neighbors. Genes do amazing things in nature. Its about time us humans notice these things.

To Greg, Out of thousands of varieties of corn that we have lost, you are going to say GM corn ( or any other gm 'product')is the "Best"? A little preposterous don't you think? That is a man vs. God attitude.

GM crops were very successful in achieving what they were intended to do, increase profits for Monsanto and the rest of the gene giants. Their gold edge PR firms plan had always been to make claims of increased yield, lowered pesticide use and higher profits for farmers, (all false) claims that when repleted often enough were taken as fact. Plenty of research money funneled into the land grant universities convinced researchers to become fans of GM and farmers want to believe in anything they are told will increase their bottom line. Let's hope farmers and consumers, the only people who can stop this foolishness, are finally ready to admit that the emperor has no cloths.

I've always considered that the only reason for GM crops is the introduction of terminator seeds.

To engineer a crop that isn't killed by 'Roundup' is amazing, that stuff kills anything. I wonder what would happen if these GM crops decide to mix in with unwanted stuff like Kuzu, you'd have a Kuzu jungle from New York to LA and nothing else would grow.

This article deals with gm soya. Many of the first gm soya varieties were horrible. They have become better and better. They have replaced conventional beans mainly due to the difficulty of killing weeds. I know. I've spent hundreds of hours cultivating and spraying assorted nasty chemicals on beans. GM corn has fabulous yields.

There's a great video on google video called "The World According to Monsanto". Everyone needs to watch that film it resembles a horror movie!

I hope Brontoburger and other GMO champions here on CD read this page.

This is the PROOF that GMO crops are NOT better and more productive, and are in fact exactly the threat that GMO critics have been warning of.

With this EVIDENCE, it is time to break the seed bank monopoly held by Monsanto and Cargill. Go back to local farmer seedkeeping, an ancient practice that Monsanto and Cargill have been doing their best to eliminate as potential organic and healthy rivals for their poisonous products.

It's hard to tell which industry is the most corrupt but big chemical co's are sure right up there with drugs, insurance, finance, housing, etc. Ending corporate control of govt would be a huge step in the right direction. My husband and I buy the "organic" non-gmo humanely farmed stuff as much as possible but let's face it; it's terribly expensive, and I just heard on the news this a.m. that some stores locally are dropping organic products because with the price of everything going up, they have become unaffordable. During leaner financial times my husband and I ate the cheapest food in the store, and we were unhealthy, and each gained weight. We weren't eating more, we were just eating the refined garbage the big food co's put out. When we were able to eat healthy again we lost the weight and generally improved our health. It's no wonder this country has so much obesity and health problems. We produce a lot of food but most of it's crap. And eating better means spending more, something that's getting harder for people to do as prices of food and gas rise.