If GM crops actually delivered a fraction of their alleged "promise" why would the government need to force them on countries and people that do not want them? Paul Bremmer did it in Iraq with Order 81, now Bush wants force them on the rest of the world. If such amazingly beneficial crops existed and performed as promised, wouldn't farmers in food deficient countries be buying them?

Rice talks about drought resistant GM crops, which crops? If such crops exist how much will the seed and fertilizer needed to grow them cost? In countries where people live on less than $2/day how could they afford it?

Failed promises to farmers, more money for Monsanto.

One world under Monsanto and BP oil.

Although i will concede that GMO's are not fully tested and long-term studies have not yet even begun to show results... I have no problem that American corporations or the American economy in general is benefiting from forced donations (aka wealth redistribution) throughout the world.

If we have to give them our tax dollars... we should at least mandate they spend those credits with us.

-James
www.thepoliticus.org

While no one wants to look ungrateful to those providing assistance, the problem with dumping GMO's on unsuspcting victims is you can contaminate their existing crops. If they had GM free status and they planted some of the GMO seeds it would destroy their opportunity of selling GM free produce at a higher price when they do get a good crop.

Very often neighboring countries to famine ravaged countries do have surplus produce. If GM food from the US is dumped on the famine country it means the neighboring country cannot sell their non-GM produce, this in turn pushes their farmers off the land, making them the next candidate for famine.

It is best to dontate/lend aid money to the famine ravaged country to let them buy food from unsubsidised farmers in neighboring counries and so build up the agriculture in the region.

The US already mandates that US aid be spent to help US business. Generally Europe have a different policy, they will dontate/lend money to be spent where the victim chooses, which is far less selfish and can be more beneficial to agriculture in the famine ravaged region.

Only the bush White House would use world hunger to realize a profit. Have they no common decency of any kind? Everything they do has a profit margin. Everything.

This GMO feud is ridiculous. GMO foods grow more efficiently than 'organic' products, resulting in more food for less effort. The difference in biomass should not be ignored, as these foods can use the same amount of land and feed twice as many people.

Furthermore, it is relatively impossible to determine whether something has been genetically modified. Since there is limited legality surrounding disclosure, these neighbouring nations should not experience problems selling their produce, since what people don't know won't hurt them.

As for the unforeseen medical problems.... GMOs have been unknowingly used by most of North America since their birth, and none of these unforeseen medical problems have come up. The worst case scenario is a foreign protein elliciting an allergic reaction, but even that has not been observed. The process of digestion makes the changes relatively safe unless a prion protein is genetically added to the crop, which doesn't need explaining, since it is a ludicrous idea.

The donating of GMOs to third world nations which are short of food is not only giving these people a technology that they could not otherwise obtain, but it gives them more food to put in their mouths, and possibly a source of economy in the current food short markets. All this debate does is further prevent aid from being delivered to these people

Ever think of how a definition of Satan could look like the present admin?....certainly has a lot of people fooled....and doesn't even use smoke and mirrors

F*** him - he belongs in prison

nplaa- please disclose any ties/investments with GMO seed companies.

Hahahah no ties to GMO seed companies. I am a biotechnology student, and we learn a lot about the ethics of different biotech products, and GMO foods/stem cells etc are common topics. In my classes, when GMO products are discussed, the naivity of the non scientific community is often described as the only problem with the idea.

Understanding the science of GMO foods helps understand that what these scientists are doing is applying an improvement (taste/nutrition/biomass) much faster than natural selection could accomplish, and faster even than artificial selection could accomplish. Just because people don't understand the process doesn't mean the idea isn't great.

An almost infinite amount of 'extra' DNA can be added to plant cells. These people aren't adding in genes that are completely unknown, the function of many plant genes are known. What scientists are doing is adding genes that code for a desired trait (ie apples that grow bigger all have Gene A . therefore Gene A is added to GM products to investigate if it will cause other crops to grow bigger).

This is harmless to us because these are not small molecules (chemical pesticides, synthetic hormones etc) that are being added, they are natural proteins, which are degraded to amino acids during digestion.

This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The rampant proliferation of GM seeds, stuffed down the throat of vulnerable farmers in the third world by our very own super-corporations is one of the causes of the current food crisis.

U.S. farm subsidies funded by our taxes allow U.S. farmers (actually mega agro-corporations) to undercut rice and staple prices of just about any rice farmer in any country. As a result a lot of farmers turn to growing any crop that helps them pay the bills or just commit suicide.

Dupont, Monsanto and the U.S. Govt are responsible for the global food crisis, as sweeping as this statement is and ofcourse our gross consumption patterns help in this quest.

bear --- Avarice has no legitimate children. Its parents are Greed and Cupidity.

"GMO foods grow more efficiently than 'organic' products, resulting in more food for less effort. The difference in biomass should not be ignored, as these foods can use the same amount of land and feed twice as many people."

Absolutely invented figures. Your just making this up. Show even one yield study verifying this. It has long been known by farmers (and now research verifies this) that GM soy yields are lower than IP soy. So, right there we can wipe the "s" off your "GM foods" claim.

"Understanding the science of GMO foods helps understand that what these scientists are doing is applying an improvement (taste/nutrition/biomass)..."

Oh really? So they improved the nutrition of squash by creating Event CZW-3 squash, did they? According to the producer's own USDA application (# 95-352-01p) it has 67.6 times less beta carotene than the control squash.

"they are natural proteins, which are degraded to amino acids during digestion."

You totally ignore the fact that some proteins are toxic, and the phenomenon of glycosylation and its possible harmful outcomes as well.

"As for the unforeseen medical problems…. GMOs have been unknowingly used by most of North America since their birth, and none of these unforeseen medical problems have come up. The worst case scenario is a foreign protein elliciting an allergic reaction, but even that has not been observed."

And you know this based on which peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled, double blind human trial?

NPLAA, I understand the process and it's NOT great. There are factors, outside of the chemistry lab, that need consideration.

While it's good that you understand the scientific principles, it is such myopic thinking that is decreasing the available food supplies in the world. Our land is being left full of pesticides and herbicides and nearly useless. Natural processes are being destroyed. The primary objective, lest anyone be deceived, is the bottom line. Find out if any major biotech companies are subsidizing bioengineering at your university.

The health of the people who are the main eaters of GM grains, Americans, are the least healthy. Twenty-seventh in the world at last check, and slipping. Farmers who succumb to the advertising and production myths find that once they turn their fields into GM production they are forever sucklings to the GM/fertilizer/herbicide producers. Look at the recent cost increases of chemical fertilizers and herbicides recently. And, the production is fossil fuel intensive. And, those seeds don't volunteer but require repurchase every season, along with the fertilizers and herbicides. Farmers and their families are put at financial and physical risk.

Emerging countries cannot afford to jeopardize their future by buying into the GM seed-fertilizer-herbicide process and, rightfully, are resisting with all their resources. It is unfortunate that the money available from mega agri-businesses and the pay-to-play response of our political leaders is jeopardizing our nation's health and the health of our soil.

I sincerely hope you seek a well rounded education and not just succumb to brain washing. Get out of the class and into the field to round out your education in the real world.

Most genes are involved with more than 1 set of other genes to produce more than one chemical thus when you select a gene for one chemical there often are other unknown chemical changes in the organism. Those supporting genetic engineered food never mention this fact. Independent tests have shown that genetic engineered potatoes feed to animals produced a large increase in cancerous tumors. Just as the pharmaceutical companies very often hide evidence of harm from their toxic drugs just so Monsanto and allied companies are covering up the toxicity of genetic engineered food. We are still at the crude level of understanding of the complexities of our genetic structure; we need to wait until we know all of the proteins produced by the which genes.

a number of bio-engineered crops have shown themselves to increase yields through their drought resistance and pest resistance

The predator is inviting you to feed him some of your fingers for afternoon snacks. The relevant facts are: a.) The full potential of the traditional seed-saving method has yet to be realized. b.) Local food self-sufficiency is non-negotiable. c.) Deep rooted perennial bushes and trees have far more drought resistance than annuals. d.) Intercropping is an effective pathogen deterrent.

Thanks DouglasBarnes and rtdury for articulating it so well. Im not sure where to find the article but i did read recently about how GM plants actually yield less than their traditional counterparts ...
ok found it .. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10651.cfm

While the promoters of GMO's regularly overstate their potential benefits and live in total denial of their major problems we are seldom informed about useful non-GM scientific advances. For example a U.S. scientist has developed a non-GM process for allergen-free peanuts while another a non-GM approach for Striga-weed-resistant cowpeas in Africa. Australian scientists have developed non-GM salt-resistant wheat while the Gates Foundation supports a non-GM b-carotine rich sweet potato in Africa.

According to the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria a non-GM virus-resistant cassava has been developed for East and Central Africa, while non-GM technology has been used to reduce aflatoxins in maize in Nigeria and according to SciDev.Net in the UK, iron-fortified non-GM maize cuts anaemia rates in children, while Austro-Indian non-GM research shows cuts of 50% in cotton insecticides while adding 75% to profitability.

In Holland a Dutch researcher has bred a non-GM fungi-resistant tomato while in Italy non-GM tomatoes have been me ade to drink less water. In India a non-GM rice with bacterial leaf blight-resistance genes has been developed and according to New Scientist a non-GM solution has been found for the cassava root-rot devastation in Africa, and in the U.S. a grape researcher has bred non-GM vines resistant to Pierce's Disease.

Keep in mind that demand for organic produce is increasing at 30% per year globally, while GM crops are becoming harder and harder to even give away. Organic produce commands a higher price on supermarket shelves which is good for farmers.

Organic farming is better for human health and the environment because it excludes GM seeds, synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides and can use up to 50% less fossil fuels while providing more jobs.

Research shows that organic farming gives similar yields to conventional farming under normal conditions but higher yields under drought conditions.

Organic farming is about the soil, naturally increase the fertility of the soil and you will farm better. No expensive off farm inputs like GM seeds, synthetic fertilizer and chemical pesticides.

There are also a number of research papers showing that organic agriculture can feed the world better than chemical industrial farming with GMO's.

Andrew, just a wee note. I think that you are thinking of the push-pull strategy for controlling striga affecting corn. Striga has a very specific niche: nitrogen-depleted soils. Cowpeas, being nitrogen-fixing legumes, would be a way of combating striga.

Thanks Douglas. I must say I wondered about that when I read the article I took this information from.

I beleive the 'push pull' organic system has increased yields for Kenyan farmers by up to 100%.

nplaa,

This is harmless to us because these are not small molecules (chemical pesticides, synthetic hormones etc) that are being added, they are natural proteins, which are degraded to amino acids during digestion.

You've completely missed the point. And judging from this: "In my classes, when GMO products are discussed, the naivity of the non scientific community is often described as the only problem with the idea," your professors are missing the point, too.

Take some ecology courses. Some good ones.

So, GWB and Condoleeza Rice agree that: 1)Invading Iraq was a wonderful idea, and 2) GM crops are the way to go.

What more does one need to know?

Representing GMOs as the best way to "save" starving Africans is ridiculous. They often contaminate native crops and throw off the natural balances in traditional farming techniques. Not to mention, they upset agricultural economies in Africa as well. Example: nationally grown maize stockpiles in Malawi aren't being sold (even as people starve) because nobody can afford to buy anything except highly subsidized, cheap American corn. Free trade = agricultural colonialism.

Andrew, yes, it's from Kenya. They use Desmodium and another species that escapes me at the moment. The striga was taken care of my the nitrogen-fixing Desmodium and losses to corn borers we reduced by 80% in one trial by the combined effect of both plants.

Whats often forgotten in the GM or non-GM debate is the devastating effect the mechanics and economics of GM seed has on farmers in the developing world. Their lives are shattered invariably while we fatten the pockets of Dupont-Monsanto and their ilk.

As for you, NPLAA,

I hope you are open to the elaborate and detailed responses to your initial posting.

It is my hope you might venture with more maturity into the GMO experiment other to conclude they are "a great idea". Since you pride yourself of being a member of the scientific community, then would you consider the ethics of unleashing such an experiment, using human beings as guinea pigs? Do those bio-tech classes you take teach ethics?

As for those proteins that break down in the digestive tract, as you say, please consider these tests and studies, independent of the GMO industries. I'd be happy to send the sources and references if this intrigues you:

Part 1: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

Section 1: Evidence of reactions in animals and humans.

1.1 GM Potatoes Damages Rats (see full content)

1.2 Rats Fed GMO Tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died

1.3 Rats Fed Bt Corn had multiple health problems

1.4 Mice Fed GM Bt Potatoes had intestinal damage

1.5 Workers exposed to Bt cotton developed allergies

1.6 Sheep died after grazing in Bt cotton fields

1.7 Inhaled Bt corn pollen may have triggered disease in humans

1.8 Farmers report pigs and cows became sterile from GM corn

1.9 Twelve cows in Germany died mysteriously when fed Bt corn

1.10 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had liver cell problems

1.11 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had problems with the pancreas

1.12 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had unexplained changes in testicular cells

1.13 Roundup Ready Soy Changed Cell Metabolism in Rabbit Organs

1.14 Most offspring of rats fed Roundup Ready soy died within three weeks (see full content)

1.15 Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced

1.16 Rats fed Roundup Ready canola had heavier livers

1.17 Twice the number of chickens died when fed Liberty Link corn

1.18 GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice

1.19 Eyewitness reports: Animals avoid GMOs

1.20 A GM food supplement killed about 100 people

Section 2: Gene insertion disrupts the DNA and can create unpredictable health problems.

2.1 Foreign genes disrupt the DNA at the insertion site.

2.2 Growing GM crops using tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations.

2.3 Gene insertion creates genome-wide changes in gene expression.

2.4 The promoter may accidentally switch on harmful genes.

2.5 The promoter might switch on a dormant virus in plants.

2.6 The promoter might create genetic instability and mutations.

2.7 Genetic engineering activates mobile DNA, called transposons, which generate mutations.

2.8 Novel RNA may be harmful to humans and their offspring.

2.9 Roundup Ready soybeans produce unintentional RNA variations.

2.10 Changes in proteins can alter thousands of natural chemicals in plants, increasing toxins or reducing phytonutrients

2.11 GM crops have altered levels of nutrients and toxins.

Section 3: The protein produced by the inserted gene may create problems.

3.1 A gene from a Brazil nut carried allergies into soybeans.

3.2 GM proteins in soy, corn and papaya may be allergens.

3.3 Bt crops may create allergies and illness.

3.4 The Bt in crops is more toxic than the Bt spray.

3.5 StarLink corn's built-in pesticide has a "medium likelihood" of being an allergen.

3.6 Pollen-sterilizing barnase in GM crops may cause kidney damage.

3.7 High lysine corn contains increased toxins and may retard growth.

3.8 Cooking high lysine corn may create disease-promoting toxins.

3.9 Disease-resistant crops may promote human viruses and other diseases.

Section 4: The foreign protein may be different than what is intended.

4.1 GM proteins may be misfolded or have added molecules.

4.2 Transgenes may be altered during insertion.

4.3 Transgenes may be unstable, and rearrange over time.

4.4 Transgenes may create more than one protein.

4.5 Weather, environmental stress and genetic disposition can significantly change gene expression.

4.6 Genetic engineering can disrupt the complex relationships governing gene expression.

Section 5: Transfer of genes to gut bacteria, internal organs, or viruses.

5.1 In spite of industry claims, transgenes survive the digestion system and can wander.

5.2 Transgene design facilitates transfer into gut bacteria.

5.3 Transgenes may proliferate in gut bacteria over the long-term.

5.4 Transgene transfer to human gut bacteria is confirmed.

5.5 GM foods might create antibiotic-resistant diseases.

5.6 The promoter can also transfer, and may switch on random genes or viruses.

5.7 If Bt genes transfer, they could turn our gut bacteria into living pesticide factories.

5.8 Genes may transfer to bacteria in the mouth or throat.

5.9 Transfer of viral genes into gut microorganisms may create toxins and weaken peoples' viral defenses.

Section 6: GM crops may increase environmental toxins and bioaccumulate toxins in the food chain.

6.1 Glufosinate-tolerant crops may produce herbicide "inside" our intestines.

6.2 Herbicide-tolerant crops increase herbicide use and residues in food.

6.3 Tiny amounts of herbicide may act as endocrine disruptors.

6.4 GM crops may accumulate environmental toxins or concentrate toxins in milk and meat of GM-fed animals.

6.5 Disease-resistant crops may promote new plant viruses, which carry risks for humans.

Section 7: Other types of GM foods carry risks.

7.1 Milk from rbGH treated cows may increase risk of cancer and other diseases.

7.2 Milk from rbGH-treated cows likely increases the rate of twin births.

7.3 Food additives created from GM microorganisms pose health risks.

Section 8: Risks are greater for children and newborns.

8.1 Pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger offspring.

8.2 GM foods are more dangerous for children than adults.