Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBONN - The food crisis has prompted some looks towards genetically modified food production as a solution. That in turn has led to stronger warnings over the consequences of such food for health and the environment.
These concerns have been raised in Bonn again as more than 3,000 delegates from 147 countries met for the UN conference on biosafety. The conference has sought to ensure safe use of modern biotechnology.
Feeding the debate, scientists, farmers and environmental activists in many countries continue to warn that genetically modified agriculture presents a risk, and not a contribution, to food production.
In France, organic farmers are complaining that genetically modified (GM) plants are poisoning their plantations. Julien and Christian Veillat, two farmers who grow organic maize in the Breton locality of Villiers-en-Plaine some 400 kilometres west of Paris, say their fields have been contaminated with GM maize, even though the nearest GM crops field is 35 kilometres away.
The contamination was established during a routine analysis late in April by an organic agriculture cooperative near the Veillats' village. Following the detection, the organic maize was diverted for use as cattle fodder.
The Veillats have now filed a legal complaint against the central government in Paris. "The contamination could only have come from the GM maize," spokesperson for the local association against GM agriculture Georges Castiel told IPS. "At the organic cooperative, they control the seeds very carefully."
Jean-Pierre Margan, producer of organic wine in the Provence in the south told IPS that contamination of organic farms is a constant problem. "Particles of GMOs are transported by wind and water, and can be carried very far away, and contaminate your plantation even if you have worked hard to protect it from every risk," he said.
Serge Morin, deputy president of the local government in the province of Poitou Charentes said it is necessary that "the French state revises all procedures concerning GMOs, including the immediate stop of all open air GM plantations. In addition, all organic farmers whose plantations are contaminated should be paid indemnities."
Such instances have led renowned chefs and wine producers in France to launch a public campaign to prevent the spread of GMOs in food and beverages.
"We don't have the scientific competence to intervene in the debate on the health consequences of GMOs," they wrote in a public letter addressed to the French parliament. "But we consider that, in accordance with the precautionary principle in questions of food and health, GMOs must simply remain banned from our tables." Similar campaigns are under way in other European countries.
Several scientists and environmental activists say that apart from the health concerns, GMOs are not a solution for food scarcity either.
"Most of the genetic modifications introduced in crops aim at making them resistant to pests or weed killing, but not to increase yields," says Hans-Joerg Jacobsen, biologist at the University of Hanover in Germany.
Jacobsen told IPS that "modern cultures, free of any genetic modification, have higher yields than genetically modified seeds."
"The idea that GM agriculture could help feed the world is part of the propaganda that the biochemical industry has used for years, but it is false," Arnaud Apoteker, who heads the campaign against GMOs for the French branch of the environmental organisation Greenpeace, said in an interview.
Some representatives of the biochemical industry acknowledge this. "Genetically modified agriculture will not solve the world's hunger problem," Hans Kast, managing director of the plant science branch of the chemical giant BASF told the German newspaper Die Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
Take Africa, the only continent that does not produce enough food to feed its own population, even though some 70 percent of African people work in agriculture.
"By applying conventional agricultural methods, free of any genetic modification, you can substantially increase agricultural productivity in Africa," Hans Joachim Preuss, managing director of the German non-governmental food organisation Welthungerhilfe told IPS. "What African agriculture mostly needs is better, more efficient irrigation systems, and not genetically modified seeds."
According to figures released in Bonn by CropLife International, a global federation representing the biochemical corporations, last year "biotech crops were grown on 114.3 million hectares in 23 countries by over 12 million farmers."
© 2008 Inter Press Service
38 Comments so far
Show AllHm, it is generally the custom that when someone proves you made a false accusation against them, you apologise. Mark, I know you have since been back to the site - you made a post on May 26th on another thread. A little decency, please.
Thank you, Andrew.
I would just like to readdress the charge of dishonesty against me as it is a rather serious one:
The study I cited was Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The study speaks of the scope of the problem when it says, "Stream insects are important prey for aquatic and riparian predators, and widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences." On the magnitude, i.e. whether the effect is "extremely small, localized, and may not exist at all," the study says not one word. Large, small or non-existent, one cannot make a statement regarding the magnitude of the problem based on that study. To do so would be an act of dishonesty.
Thanks Douglas Barnes for the informed and detailed argument.
GMO's should not be let out of the laboratory until the relevant science has been done by independent scientists we can trust.
It might just be worth recalling Hippocrates ---and his oath for doctors---- a snippet of which, (paraphrased) says "first, do no harm."
This is true conservatism. But that word opens another subject where a name has been stolen and misapplied.
This does not mean "do not study, do not experiment, do not try new improvements in a controlled environment. It does, however, Mr. Abram, mean do not unleash upon the environment and your fellow humans and the ecosystem that sustains us all, potentially damaging elements be it GM crops, DU, or any other for profit or for pshchopathic reasons of your own. Your knowledge is finite, and if you are intellectually honest, you will admit small compared to the "Body of knowledge that is knowable" even in any one area.
"Rather, the point which I'm afraid I missed in my previous response to you is that for all your arguments about how crude current genetic modification technology is, you fail to explain why its outcomes should be feared, or its use opposed."
I have explained one reason for opposing it: the tremendous waste of financial resources to create partial solutions to problems that already have solutions. No one has ever presented me with a valid reason for creating GM crops.
Another reason I have mentioned here are total lack of long-term health testing. Are certain GM events healthier than their conventional counterparts? Are all of them? Do any of them carry health risks? A total lack of independent, long-term testing makes these currently unanswerable. In a number of them, their genome has been found to shift significantly over just a few generations. Is this change creating any traits detrimental to human or environmental health in any of the GM crops? What other GM crops are nutritionally impaired, apart from the squash I mentioned? None? All? Are all equal? Are any or all others nutritionally superior?
I've mentioned unwanted environmental effects that have been found in Bt crops; and the advent of glyphosate-tolerant GM crops has led to increased usage of and thereby contamination from glyphosate (namely Roundup, which among other things is deadly to amphibians).
I have also mentioned elsewhere the hazards of creating not just a region-wide genetically monochrome agriculture, but a global one.
"Sure, genes fragment, cross over etc., and there are unexpected interactions, and in general it takes many trials to get the desired result, and the process may be poorly understood."
I could ask very reasonable questions about very specific fragments in a number of different commercially available GM crops - many of them under the influence of a promoter gene. What are they coding for? What effects do each fragment have? These are unknown and I feel it irresponsible to advocate creating and promoting this if one can't even answer what its consequences are.
"Which of these statements does not also apply to "traditional" selective breeding and hybridization, to say nothing of the haphazard way nature creates new genes, by random mutation?"
"Conventional" hybridization has led to a few instances of harmful crops. That said, I'm not keen on hybridization, either. It propagates from plant tissue samples (this is part of the process for all GM crops as well), which is a practice known to case genome-wide mutations.
"Where is the basis for concern that laboratory biotech methods are particularly likely to produce disastrous results as compared with what happens in the natural world every day?"
The last I heard, there was no moral outrage over tectonic plates during the resent earthquakes in China. The issue is responsibility by human beings for the actions they commit. If a plant undergoes a natural change that results in toxicity to whatever, that's life. If a human does it, that is moral and legal responsibility for harm.
"When it comes to biotech, where is the huge pile of extremely dangerous stuff?"
Whilst radioactive isotopes can cause a host of known and horrible effects, many deadly, this does not mean that people want to consume an untested product (that often turns out to have unintended environmental consequences) because the risk from something else may be far greater.
"Like other anti-biotechers, you are typically dishonest about the lack of evidence showing any harm from genetically modified crops to date. The Rosi-Marshall paper on caddisflies is an example."
Projection, plain and simple. You are the one who made a claim regarding the magnitude of the finding - something that was completely absent in the paper. Whether your claim is factually correct or not, you are the one making a dishonest claim. You get nothing from the paper to back up your statement.
"As for your demand for an "independent, peer-reviewed, long-term human health study", the question is, study of what? The effects on human health of "genetically modified" food? Is that what you are calling for? Seriously?"
Yes, seriously. To be more specific, I am borrowing the call from one of the world's leading researchers in plant lectins for long-term, independent, peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled, double-blind human trials with a focus on sensitive populations including the young, elderly. That you cannot comprehend this (or are afraid of it?) is neither here nor there.
"The fact is that health effects from *particular* GM foods, such as Starlink corn, have been sought, and have not been found."
Then could you please site the title of the long-term study and the journal it was published in and tell us who paid for the research? And noticing the phase "such as" implies additional studies you could point to as well. Yes, the heat is on... for evidence as opposed to rhetoric.
Douglas Barnes, I will agree that the relevant issue is not which of us is the worse dilettante.
Rather, the point which I'm afraid I missed in my previous response to you is that for all your arguments about how crude current genetic modification technology is, you fail to explain why its outcomes should be feared, or its use opposed. Sure, genes fragment, cross over etc., and there are unexpected interactions, and in general it takes many trials to get the desired result, and the process may be poorly understood. Which of these statements does not also apply to "traditional" selective breeding and hybridization, to say nothing of the haphazard way nature creates new genes, by random mutation? Where is the basis for concern that laboratory biotech methods are particularly likely to produce disastrous results as compared with what happens in the natural world every day?
This is what is missing from the whole anti-biotech campaign - a compelling danger, a reason to be afraid.
Compare this with nuclear power. People can disagree about the likelihood of catastrophic accidents like Chernobyl and TMI happening in the future, but no one can deny that a nuclear power plant contains a huge pile of extremely dangerous stuff that will wreak havoc if it gets out into the environment. When it comes to biotech, where is the huge pile of extremely dangerous stuff?
Like other anti-biotechers, you are typically dishonest about the lack of evidence showing any harm from genetically modified crops to date. The Rosi-Marshall paper on caddisflies is an example. The sentence you quote from it is a typical kind of "more research is needed" statement, and may also reveal the authors' anti-biotech biases, since if one actually reads the paper, their *data* shows exactly the opposite; it shows that at the levels they estimated for runoff from Bt crops, there was NO detectable effect on the flies. So, either you did not actually read the paper, or else you are being dishonest about what it says. In either case, I am persuaded that it is not worth my going on further snark hunts under your direction.
As for your demand for an "independent, peer-reviewed, long-term human health study", the question is, study of what? The effects on human health of "genetically modified" food? Is that what you are calling for? Seriously? What actual scientist is going to undertake a such a study premised on the hypothesis that such effects might exist merely because the food contained DNA and proteins that were added intentionally instead of by happenstance? What group of scientists would not laugh you out of the room for such a ridiculous suggestion?
The fact is that health effects from *particular* GM foods, such as Starlink corn, have been sought, and have not been found. For all the heat on this issue, at its bottom there is nothing there.
In light of the recent comment directed at me, I realise something overlooked. I seem to recall saying, "I have asked repeatedly for proponents such as yourself to show me any independent, peer-reviewed, long-term human health study, and at best I get ignored."
Ignored I was again.
Unfortunately "The World According to Monsanto" is no longer avaiable on Youtube. It can be viewed at dandelionsalad@worldpress.com
PLEASE take the time to watch this film. Through this link you can also watch "Patent for a Pig."
If anyone is interested in what is happening here in Hawai'i (ground zero for gmo field trials), please visit
www.hawaiiseed.org
www.kahea.org
"you refused to acknowledge that the Rosi-Marshall paper on caddisflies that you cited as proof that Bt corn has adverse ecological effects actually demonstrated that any such effects are extremely small, localized, and may not exist at all."
You are right. I refused to accept you made-up assessment of their findings. Rather I chose to quote what the authors themselves said, which was "widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences." As I said in January, the paper makes no mention of magnitude, so any statement regarding the magnitude of the affect on caddisflies is purely speculative.
"Coupled with an ideological and stylistic predisposition to be anti-biotech, that certainly does qualify you as a dilettante I would say."
Then prove me wrong because the charge looks like it fits you from where I am sitting. When someone more qualified shows up, thewonderingyou, specifically (who has hands-on experience with genetic engineering), you use your favourite "oh pishah" technique to just ignore counter-arguments. Funny, that.
As for biotech, or being anti-biotech, I have said before there is no point. There have been no GM crops introduced that have been necessary for anything other than boosting the bottom line of a few companies. Someday perhaps, we will know enough about genetics and develop precise techniques that will allow us to do what the propaganda claims we already can, but that day looks like a long way off.
"You have enough knowledge of biology to enable you to befuddle with sophisticated-sounding technical points, but your basic approach to the issue is tendentious and dishonest."
Ahem, then prove me wrong.
"Who are "we" dude?"
This will get very tedious if I have to explain basic English. We. Mankind, obviously.
"Yes, it is a complicated subject, and the technology is cruder than we might wish for. But it works. We can, for example, "put a gene that codes for that protein into a tomato….the tomato then expresses the protein and is protected from freezing" as I wrote, accurately. That's been done. It works. So I think all your snarky caveats miss the point, which is, it works. Maybe not all the time, (and whoever claimed they were able to insert genes into specific locations 100% of the time, and why does that matter?) but with patience and trials and testing, we have a technology that works and has achieved some impressive results."
Cruder than we'd (dude? we - seems you understand just fine) wish for is an understatement. There is nothing snarky about objecting to your "oh pishah" arguments when you are asked basic questions like what are all the fragments of transgenes that always show up in GMOs doing? Nothing? Something? If so, what? Or what is happening to the overall organism when transgenes are inserted interrupting the gene order (of which we do know enough about genetics to know is important), or bisecting host genes? You can test to see if the GMO exhibits desired trait X, but what of unpredicted traits Y, Z, P, L, and G? That is what is at issue.
"Now, I don't know about the CZW-3 squash you talk about, and I'm not going to bother to look it up, because I've already found that when one takes the time to look into one of your claims and it turns out to be bogus, you simply refuse to acknowledge that and you move on."
Well there is a fine piece of dishonesty. Obviously your earlier claim of dishonesty was psychological projection. You are referring to my not accepting your made-up assessment of the magnitude of the problem of toxicity in caddissflies? That's not dishonesty.
Clever out, anyway. Just say: "you are dishonest, so I won't examine the counter-evidence." Nice. Anyway, CZW-3 squash was listed as having 67.6 times less beta-carotene in the USDA application # 95-352-01p, so cited in EcoNexus's Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications among other places.
Now, since you lament the fact that people at Common Dreams should talk about this and not war crimes and peak oil, I invite to examine how and why you spend your energies and go and talk about peak oil and war crimes. You're likely to get a lot farther than you would by trying to sell people unnecessary technologies that they don't want.
Douglas Barnes, we have sparred in this forum before; for example, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/27/6011/
in which after an extensive exchange you refused to acknowledge that the Rosi-Marshall paper on caddisflies that you cited as proof that Bt corn has adverse ecological effects actually demonstrated that any such effects are extremely small, localized, and may not exist at all.
Now, you tell us you "spent 5 hours a day for 3 months over the winter studying genetic technologies (without once reading any Jeremy Rifkin, mind you) and found that our understanding of what we are doing in genetics is woefully lacking." Coupled with an ideological and stylistic predisposition to be anti-biotech, that certainly does qualify you as a dilettante I would say. You have enough knowledge of biology to enable you to befuddle with sophisticated-sounding technical points, but your basic approach to the issue is tendentious and dishonest.
You say, "We are coming to a point now in genetics where we are starting to realise that we don't really know what a gene is let alone understand how to isolate them from one organism and precisely insert them in another (the "precisely insert" part is something that our current methods make absolutely 100% impossible to do)."
Who are "we" dude? Are you a geneticist? From what I see on your website, you're a kind of organic landscape planner. That may be fine work, but it probably prejudices more than it informs your opinions on biotechnology.
Yes, it is a complicated subject, and the technology is cruder than we might wish for. But it works. We can, for example, "put a gene that codes for that protein into a tomato....the tomato then expresses the protein and is protected from freezing" as I wrote, accurately. That's been done. It works. So I think all your snarky caveats miss the point, which is, it works. Maybe not all the time, (and whoever claimed they were able to insert genes into specific locations 100% of the time, and why does that matter?) but with patience and trials and testing, we have a technology that works and has achieved some impressive results.
Now, I don't know about the CZW-3 squash you talk about, and I'm not going to bother to look it up, because I've already found that when one takes the time to look into one of your claims and it turns out to be bogus, you simply refuse to acknowledge that and you move on.
But if a particular variety of genetically engineered squash turns out to be deficient in carotene compared with other varieties, does that indict genetic engineering, or does it simply mean the developer may not have been paying enough attention to every aspect of nutritional value when selecting a precursor to be bred for whatever characteristic the squash was engineered for? No, don't bother answering that, Doug.
Nikki:
"Will someone please tell me exactly what the danger is in GM foods?"
There are a few case of unintended effects. One example is the toxicity of Event 176 Bt corn to monarch butterflies (a little more on this below). Another is the toxicity of all Bt varieties to caddisflies. Another is Event CZW-3 GM squash, which has significant reductions in nutritional value (again, more below), despite not being engineered to exhibit this trait (belying the lack of understanding of how genetics works on behalf of the designers). Other than that and a few other things, we don't know if they are better for us or the environment or the same as the long-term testing is not there. I have asked repeatedly for proponents such as yourself to show me any independent, peer-reviewed, long-term human health study, and at best I get ignored. Often I get the proponent trying to weasel out of this by hook or by crook.
"Plants have been genetically modifying themselves since they first appeared on the earth. That is why they continue to exist. That is why humans continue to exist."
No, wrong. You are trying to trot out a very old, very debunked linguistic fallacy. Plants have not been isolating gene fragments from other species (sometimes other kingdoms) and inserting them into other species via various vectors (Agrobacterium or biolistic methods) since they first appeared on Earth. Nice try.
"Human manipulation of plant genes has allowed developing countries to store grain without it being attacked by worms and insects, thus ensuring them a food supply for a longer time and reducing the threat of famine."
And which specific GM crop is this one? With proper storage, grains can be kept without losses to worms and insects. This is nothing new. Consult Bill Mollison's Ferment and Human Nutrition and see for yourself.
"Who has died or become ill because of GM foods? No one, as far as I know."
No one as far as anyone knows because, as I implied, the testing simply has not been done. No one has died or become ill from eating Bulgaria inquinans that I know of, but that doesn't mean to me that it is healthy to eat it. But at least with that particular species, I know that it does not have a genome that is shifting significantly from generation to generation because of inserted fragments of transgenes, nor does it has the standard genome-wide mutations from being grown from tissue samples. Ignorance does not equal safety.
Mark:
What is the risk?
The risk is "contamination."
Pining for a straw man, are we? The risks are unknown effects to human health, including nutritional effects as in Event CZW-3 squash, and to environmental health, as in Event 176 Bt corn to monarchs (or other Bt crops to other non-target organisms).
"Haven't nearly all foods we eat been genetically modified from their wild ancestors, producing, for example, brussels sprouts and cauliflower from ancestral cabbages?"
No, this is a old, tired and debunked linguistic fallacy, as I said.
"A lot of people just don't trust science, don't understand basic biology, and associate genetic engineering with dangerous mad science, or at least were ready to do so when a bunch of self-serving demagogues, following the lead of Jeremy Rifkin, started denouncing biotechnology and "frankenfoods.""
And what of us who do trust science and would like to see it actually applied in this case? I spent 5 hours a day for 3 months over the winter studying genetic technologies (without once reading any Jeremy Rifkin, mind you) and found that our understanding of what we are doing in genetics is woefully lacking. We are coming to a point now in genetics where we are starting to realise that we don't really know what a gene is let alone understand how to isolate them from one organism and precisely insert them in another (the "precisely insert" part is something that our current methods make absolutely 100% impossible to do).
"Agricultural biotechnology is neither a threat nor a panacea. It is a tool that can be used to produce more, higher-quality foods at lower cost, and with lower inputs of energy and chemicals, for a hungry world."
Is event CZW-3 squash higher quality? If so, "higher quality" means 67.6 times (not %, but times) less beta carotene than its conventional counterpart - this according to the manufacturer in their USDA application, at least.
And how is it cheaper to ignore very effective methods that already exist in favour of spending millions of dollars in research to develop an organism with an unstable genome and unknown qualities? And add licensing fees for the farmers on top of that. That's not cheap, that's poor money-management skills.
"Pushing the anti-biotechnology line has become a major occupation of a dilettante sector of the Left that simply does not know what it is talking about and in a quarter century has failed to make a coherent case."
Dilettante, eh? A dilettante would say something like scientists (lab-techs, really) "put a gene that codes for that protein into a tomato.... the tomato then expresses the protein and is protected from freezing."
First off, alternate-splicing genes are the norm, not the exception, so "a gene that codes for" x is a pretty rare find. A gene that sometimes codes for x, maybe. Then you assume that you can insert it into a specific part of the genome, which is currently impossible with today's technology. Then you assume that you understand enough about gene order to know that you won't have a problem when it is inserted, which our current understanding of genetics can't tell us. Then you assume that you can get the transgenes in cleanly with no superfluous fragments of the transgenes (or vector backbone DNA in the tomato's case, which uses Agrobacterium as the vector) in the genome or without bisecting an existing gene in the host genome - something that is absolutely impossible with current technologies. Then let's hope you are not using the lovely CaMV 35s promoter, complete with its recombination hotspot. It's turning genes on full-tilt for the entire life of the organism; and with superfluous fragments being a problem, you'd better hope it's not turning on something that will cause you problems. Then there is the shifting genome problem. Some companies released info on the genome around the main transgene site. When these were examined by European regulators a few years later, it was found that these sections of genome underwent significant change. Theories are out as to whether the plant is trying to repair itself, or something else (the CaMV 35S hotspot, perhaps) is happening. In any event, the genomes are changing rapidly over time because of the transgene insertion.
DKM:
"So far, all the objections I have seen to GM foods per se have been variations on religious arguments, the same things that were used to argue against grafting plants like the technique that was used to rescue the French wine industry by using American root stock resistant to the pests that were destroying the roots of the French wine grapes."
I guess you've missed all the threads where I have made my objections clear. Hard to do, but possible, I suppose.
"To get upset because a gene came from some unrelated organism is ridiculous because the DNA code is the same in all living organisms."
I immediately think of Mark Abram's charge or "dilettante." Scroll up. You are making some major assumptions. You assume that you first have found a gene with no alternative splicing (or understand alternate splicing enough to know it won't occur). Then you assume that you isolate the whole gene, and just than gene (something not often done, sometimes for proprietary reasons). Then you assume that you can pick a precise point in the host genome where the transgene can be placed without causing harm to the host, the environment around the GMO, or the intended consumers of the GMO, wherever they are in the food chain (which assumes an very good understanding of ecology). Then you assume you can place just the intended transgenes in the intended place without duplicates and without fragments of the transgene (or fragments of the vector backbone in the case of Agrobacterium insertion) occurring. If you make any one of these assumptions with today's understanding of genetics and the current techniques of manipulations, you are making an error. I'll risk plagiarism here and say that your statement above is a good example of the aphorism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
"And as yet, no one has ever shown that GM manipulation is in any way intrinsically more hazardous than other forms of genetic manipulation that have traditionally been used."
Again the linguistic fallacy. At any rate, scroll up to save me from copying and pasting.
"His "little knowledge" misses the boat because no one has yet shown that the theoretical problem of toxic pollen really exists in nature. People who have actually looked to see what happens find that the answer is nothing, there isn't enough "contamination" to make any difference."
Not true as the case of Event 176 corn showed. Thankfully, the stuff was phased out. New research on effects to mycorrhizal fungi, however, is disturbing. That is an area where it pays to heed the theoretical.
What has to happen, how long is it going to take, before man stops fiddling around with nature? Nature made but one mistake: it created man!
AWARD WINNERS!!!
Mark Abram and dkm
You two get "Today's Award" for "Obfusication and Talking Junk".
Well done, I hope it paid well.
If you object to this award being bestowed upon you by me I am happy to debate any aspect of the spin and biotech industry nonsense regularly trotted out at any time you want to.
For more information visit:
Seeds of Deception: www.seedsofdeception.com
Responsible Scientists: www.psrast.org
Conscerned Farmers: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/
Besides GM foods, you should never eat anything that takes you longer to read the ingredients than it does to eat the actual "food."
Nikki asked
"Will someone please tell me exactly what the danger is in GM foods?"
Aside from the possible physical dangers, the idea that several corporations can control staple foods; soy, corn, rice, wheat, and now sugar is frightening. The industrial seeds sold to farmers are "terminator seeds". They cannot be saved and used for the next year's crop. Moveover, Roundup Ready must be used on the crops. This gives a few corporations complete control over basic foods.
Moreover, if we have some widespread disaster, it is possible that areas will be totally left without food and without the possibility of growing it.
Another problem is that this does away with biodiversity. If something goes wrong with the one type of crop that is grown, there's no fallback.
Stop GM crops in their tracks:
1) GMO Free Europe: See http://genet.iskra.net/ This needs to take off in America.
2) "Grassroots Consumer Action Could Halt Use of GM Crops in US"
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10691.cfm
GM Crops = Economic Disaster
1) It is estimated that the StarLink GM corn contamination debacle (2000 to 2001) caused U.S. producers to lose between $26 and $288 million in revenue, see "The Economic Impact of Starlink Corn"
2) GM rice- "The LLRICE601 controversy has jeopardised the Arkansas farming sector, for which the US$1.55 billion annual rice trade is the main output, generating about 20,000 jobs, including a good number at Riceland Rice, the world's largest miller and marketer of the cereal."Liberty Link Rice: a true story of science fiction"
3) Within a few years of the introduction of GM crops, almost the entire US$300 million annual US maize (corn) exports to the EU and the $300 million annual Canadian rape (canola) exports to the EU had disappeared due to market rejection. "GM CROPS ARE "ECONOMIC DISASTER", NEW REPORT SAYS" http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/service32.htm
Nikki
A more appropriate question is what is right about GM foods? They are totally different to natural breeding that has been taking place for thousands of years. The process in a laboratory is very clumsy with unintended side effects. 80 % of GM crops produce lower yields and use more chemicals. They are also harmful to human health and the environment.
Some excellent books, DVD's and CD's on the subject are avaiable at: http://fsicart.com/seeds/
and subscribe to this newsletter:
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/index.cfm
Nikki-
I find two things revealing in your comments. 1st that you place the burden on someone else, anyone else to explain to you the ample risks associated with genetic modification of plants rather than do the research yourself to figure it out.
Second that you think the only measure of the potential harm from GM foods is human illness or death.
How about you research it yourself and go from there. Maybe google the precautionary principle for good measure.
So far, all the objections I have seen to GM foods per se have been variations on religious arguments, the same things that were used to argue against grafting plants like the technique that was used to rescue the French wine industry by using American root stock resistant to the pests that were destroying the roots of the French wine grapes. Has anyone noticed that the people making the most noise are ignorant of agronomy in general and genetics in particular?
To start off, if the organic corn producers in France were "contaminated," it was not from a corn field 35 kms away. Corn pollen does not travel that far, and bees do not spread corn pollen. All grasses are wind aided, not spread by any pollinator whatsoever.
Second, to argue that a particular technique is being abused and then to blame the technique rather than the particular abuse makes one wonder what some people use for brains. Galileo made some comment about how if God gave us brains, he expected us to use them, not hide in some quasireligious horror without thinking about what we are actually horrified of. To get upset because a gene came from some unrelated organism is ridiculous because the DNA code is the same in all living organisms. The genes all work in the same way, so as far as the genes are concerned, they don't care what organism they are in. They don't come with little labels restricting them to particular organisms.
And as yet, no one has ever shown that GM manipulation is in any way intrinsically more hazardous than other forms of genetic manipulation that have traditionally been used. No one was upset by crossbreeding various species of grass that injected thousands of "foreign" genes into wheat in order to get the few that would protect against fungal infection. Why get bent out of shape when just the ones that do the protection get inserted in the laboratory? And the problem of restriction of genetic variation predates GM techniques by decades, so that argument against GM plants is invalid.
brianct is a good example of the aphorism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. To come out against human insulin as being responsible for all sorts of horrors, and to advocate using cow and swine insulin instead, really boggles the mind, or to advocate not using insulin at all is beyond incredible.
Then jalian gets all bent out of shape because Bt is being used to kill insects that eat plants. His "little knowledge" misses the boat because no one has yet shown that the theoretical problem of toxic pollen really exists in nature. People who have actually looked to see what happens find that the answer is nothing, there isn't enough "contamination" to make any difference. But what makes people who actually know what is going on roll on the floor laughing is that the Bt toxin is one of the very few that have been approved for use by organic farmers as an insecticide. So jalian has no problem with spraying the Bt toxin on a plant (and letting the wind carry the spray everywhere), but he does object to a technique that keeps the toxin in the plant of concern. WTF??
To sum it up, objections to using GM techniques are religious, not scientific. The same mindset that insists that all organisms were created by God about 6000 years ago and denies that evolution based on Darwinian principles is responsible for all living organisms is operating to oppose GM techniques.
We agree, Jallan, that clever is not wisdom. I think many scientists are simply not able to see the forest for the trees.
What protects humanity from horrific experiments? The last entity I would look to for protection is the US Government.
Under the US sponsored experiment, the atom split, and you have the charred remains of the families of Hiroshima.
And now, under yet another US sanctioned experiment, food with distorted DNA is ingested by unwitting human guinea pigs. Lab tests from such ingestion indicate small to large horrors, multiplying daily.
Here we go again.
Once again we are told that "genetically modified agriculture presents a risk, and not a contribution, to food production."
What is the risk?
The risk is "contamination."
Contamination with what?
Genes.
What are genes? Genes are DNA.
Don't all living organisms have genes, DNA?
Yes, but "genetically modified" crops have genes that have been intentionally altered by people. No, strike that, by mad scientists in white lab coats. No, strike that, by corporations, seeking profit.
Haven't nearly all foods we eat been genetically modified from their wild ancestors, producing, for example, brussels sprouts and cauliflower from ancestral cabbages?
Yes, but those genetic modifications were done by traditional methods not banned by the National Organic Food Standards Act.
Okay, so what is the harm caused by the genes that people in white lab coats working for profitable corporations have put in some foods?
The harm is "contamination."
[lather, rinse, repeat]
*****************************
See, what I don't understand is how this genetic purity fetish became identified as a "progressive" political value.
No, strike that, I do understand how it happened. A lot of people just don't trust science, don't understand basic biology, and associate genetic engineering with dangerous mad science, or at least were ready to do so when a bunch of self-serving demagogues, following the lead of Jeremy Rifkin, started denouncing biotechnology and "frankenfoods."
Plus, a lot of people just don't like corporations, and there is certainly a lot of reason for concern about the American junk food diet and the quality of commercially produced foods.
Plus, we're rich and can afford our purity fetishes and food fetishes, and plus, it's a lot less scary than confronting the real evils and dangers we face today (like war, poverty, nuclear weapons, global warming, the oil crisis...)
But I'll never agree that there is anything "progressive" about this nonsense at all. There is simply no basis for it.
Agricultural biotechnology is neither a threat nor a panacea. It is a tool that can be used to produce more, higher-quality foods at lower cost, and with lower inputs of energy and chemicals, for a hungry world. It can also help us produce fuel, materials, drugs and more. It is related to the biotechnology revolution in medicine that is saving millions of lives. It also creates some new risks, but these have without exception turned out to be very modest in comparison to the benefits.
Pushing the anti-biotechnology line has become a major occupation of a dilettante sector of the Left that simply does not know what it is talking about and in a quarter century has failed to make a coherent case. It has been a fashionable and well-funded cause, in part because it is a purity fetish, a nature fetish and a food fetish, which appeals to wealthy liberals.
At a time when US troops are daily committing horrible war crimes, when we face a terrible global economic crisis due to the oil peak... I won't go on, but frankly, the anti-biotech campaign and it's claim to be "progressive" is disgusting to me.
BECKY B/BRIAN CT: Right on!
Monsanto then sues the farmer down wind of the GM crops because his crops were contaminated and he harvested the seed. Monsanto won't let farmers save back some of the crop for seed for next year. They have investigators that go around spying on farmers. And then sue them.
Why isn't Monsanto being sued for contaminating non-GM crops? Because they own the governments.
The latest data says that yields from GM crops are lower than organic crops. So let me see. Why are GM crops better?
They insert the BT gene into some of their crops for cattle. The BT gene produces a toxin that kills insects. It's not made for humans but fine for cattle. Let's see, then we eat the cattle. And the "insecticide" produced by the GM crops is carried in the wind, killing butterflies and other innocent bystander insects that are part of the food chain.
They are engineering animals and insects and list goes on.
The problem with scientists is that their clever gene is constitutively expressed. It's always on. Clever is not wisdom.
'Will someone please tell me exactly what the danger is in GM foods? Plants have been genetically modifying themselves since they first appeared on the earth.'
Nicky, when did you last see a tomato modifying itself by mating with a fish?
as for the danger of GM, have you forgotten this little episode?
'TGN1412 is different from most drugs, however, and there was even more reason than usual to be cautious about the first human trials. It is not a molecule that has been synthesised by conventional chemical processes but a monoclonal antibody, based on an antibody produced in a mouse. It had to be "humanised", i.e. genetic engineered so that it will be immunologically accepted in humans, which means that the drug given to humans is not the same as the one used in animal testing. '
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/PMOTTD.php
This GM drug caused massive organb collapse in the human volunteers.
Then theres the use of GM insulin:
'The scandal of human insulin
The drugs industry rushed the new 'human insulin' onto the market and forced out animal insulin, leaving many diabetics far more ill and now with no alternative form of insulin.
In nearly all areas of medicine, the advances come so thick and fast that it can be hard to keep up with them. But, in one small corner of the medical world, things are still very much as they were in the 1930s. For the last 70 years, people with type I, or insulin dependent, diabetes (IDDM) have depended on daily injections of insulin to live.
Before the advent of insulin, many died painfully and prematurely. So, over the years, just keeping individuals with this crippling disease alive has been hailed a triumph, and rightly so.
But insulin is not a cure for diabetes, and its use has many downsides, including severe hypoglycaemia, which can result in coma. Even with insulin, many sufferers find that the complications of diabetes, which include nerve damage plus heart, eye and kidney disease, are overwhelming (Diabetes, 1999; 48: 2107-21).
etc
http://www.wddty.com/03363800369952067557/the-scandal-of-human-insulin.h...
Actually any kind of modification is not in the interest of the creature, be it animal or plant, but humans. So we now have cows with huge udders, which easily get diseased. In this sense, GM IS a continuation with this practice of using animals and plants with little regard for them. its nothing to be proud of.
GM is Frankenstein unbound, and further proof that science has become a deadly liability. The unfortunate discovery of the microscope has opened up the microscopic world to human meddling, with as we known catastrophic results.
Lets keep natural natural.
GMOS are bad because they are direct human manipulation of the building blocks of life and the results cannot be predicted.
Torturing rats to death to investigate the safety of GMOS is not a defense either--since like regular vivisection you cannot justify killing Peter to heal Paul.
And remember that article form last week where Rhesus monkeys were implanted with an alien gene that causes them to develop a brain illness which their species did not have before.
If you open the door on GMOS it cannot be closed.
Unfortunately, in an age of Secular fundies(as well as Spiritual fundies who use science) the idea that progress can be bad is seen as luddite thinking.
Sure heroin and cocaine started out as cough medicine and led to many deaths and misery--we just sweep that under the carpet because darn gone it-progress is great and humans are smarter than nature.
right.
So your you are giving us a reason, not to mess with mother nature. All these chemicals and so on, make me glad I don't have health Insurance, that keeps me away from the doctors, all all those chemical's, drugs that don't work, and side effects. I guess you could say, I am A natural kind of guy.
"Will someone please tell me exactly what the danger is in GM foods? Plants have been genetically modifying themselves since they first appeared on the earth."
The real problem that we are concerned with is not so much that there are 'genetic modifications' but that it is causing widespread loss of plant diversity. (and depends to a 'scorched earth' policy implemented by applications of specific herbicides)
In the West, we have an erroneous concept called, 'survival of the fittest' when in fact; life depends to the interplay of numbers of elements.
In terms of crops, plants generally have numbers of types. We can see this in the numerous types of indigenous corn, potatoes, rice, bananas, etc. This wide pool of genetic variation is an insurance against the loss of the entire family type, e.g. bananas, pineapple, avocado, etc.
GM crops are invading other varieties and turning them into 'monster' expressions and threatening types that are not GM. Please watch video linked above. Also, read the article posted yesterday on CD about the expected loss of bananas due to eradication of this fruit family's natural diverse expressions.
If these policies continue, we could literally be looking upon a blue and brown planet in our lifetimes rather than a blue and greenish brown one (itself a modification of the original blue and green one)
Who will eat whom will then just be a question of who has superior weaponry.
Another thought- public misunderstanding of what the GM corporations are actually doing is why it is so terribly import for students in the United States to have a solid science education free and clear of religious and corporate agendas.
I will say this again- domesticated plants and animals have been "modified" genetically by picking plants/animals with the "best" traits and breeding them in order to produce offspring with these selected traits. We were using the natural genetic variation already present in these organisms. NEVER have genes from entirely different species been introduced into an organism until now. We are taking genes from one species and inserting them into the genetic makeup of a different organism. Current genetic modification using genes from organisms that are not even in the same kingdom is what is being discussed here. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS NATURAL SELECTION OR SELECTIVE BREEDING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will someone please tell me exactly what the danger is in GM foods? Plants have been genetically modifying themselves since they first appeared on the earth. That is why they continue to exist. That is why humans continue to exist. Human manipulation of plant genes has allowed developing countries to store grain without it being attacked by worms and insects, thus ensuring them a food supply for a longer time and reducing the threat of famine. Who has died or become ill because of GM foods? No one, as far as I know.
This is one of the most important videos you will ever watch:
"The World According to Monsanto" http://100777.com/node/1805
GM crops are just another vehicle for corporate control of the food supply. The varieties that have been adapted have all focused on pest resistance, and increasing the amount of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides that can be applied....not for increasing yields.
The arrogance that is displayed in the creation of GM crops is astounding. To think that humans can manipulate the genes of a plant in order to make a better version than nature can produce is shear hubris. Its all a plot to ensure the farmers are beholden to seed companies and chemical companies, the bottom is is all that matters.
Promises made but never kept.
"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to P.T. Barnum (1810 – 1891). How often have we seen that greed kills?
'following the detection, the organic maize was diverted for use as cattle fodder'..........great. so are cattle immune to these contaminated crops? will not meat eaters eventually ingest it? and don't forget insects/bees transferring the g.m. pollen.
excerpt from my local paper discussing this very subject:
'we need to make sure that not only do we seriously consider the implications of widespread g.m. use on health and society but also look at who stands to profit from current policies that seek to bulldoze past sense and foist on us an irrevocable change over which, once realeased, we have no control. it has already started, the usa is now being covered with these crops, and cross-contamination is happening. the power of the maize mafia gains momentum every day'...................
GM worked exactly as it was supposed to for Monsanto and the other gene giants. They made lots of money, that was the only real plan all along.
I watch my neighbors planting their GM crops, watch the fertilizer trucks, the sprayers full of chemicals and the pallets of that GM seed rolling by endlessly. They were promised higher profits, but they never came, we were promised better food, but it never came.
In the end the GM advocates talk of its wonderful promise are just that, talk. In this case however, some farmers and those who understand the environment have realized that the talk is anything but cheap.