Saturday, March 22, 2008
TRUTH
and LOVE WILL
Set Us FREE!
Published on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose;
The Genetically Modified Food Gamble
by Robert Weissman
There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and
with as little potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically
modified crops.
Last month, the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA),
a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a report highlighting the
proliferation of genetically modified crops. According to
ISAAA, biotech crop area grew 12 percent, or 12. 3 million
hectares, to reach 114. 3 million hectares in 2007, the second
highest area increase in the past five years.
For the biotech backers, this
is cause to celebrate. They claim that biotech helps farmers.
They say it promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing
countries.”If we are to achieve the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015,”
says Clive James, ISAAA founder and the author the just-released
report, “biotech crops must play an even bigger role
in the next decade.”
In fact, existing genetically
modified crops are hurting small farmers and failing to deliver
increased food supply — and posing enormous, largely
unknown risks to people and the planet.
For all of the industry hype
around biotech products, virtually all planted genetically
modified seed is for only four products — soy, corn,
cotton and canola — with just two engineered traits.
Most of the crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate,
an herbicide sold by Monsanto under the brand-name Round-up
(these biotech seeds are known as RoundUp-Ready). Others are
engineered to include a naturally occurring pesticide, Bt.
Most of the genetically modified
crops in developing countries are soy, says Bill Freese, science
policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and co-author
of “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” a report issued
at the same time as ISAAA’s release. These crops are
exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed. They
do absolutely nothing to supply food to the hungry.
As used in developing countries,
biotech crops are shifting power away from small, poor farmers
desperately trying to eke out livelihoods and maintain their
land tenure.
Glyphosate-resistance is supposed
to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but, concludes
“Who Benefits from GM Crops,” these biotech seeds
“allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more
frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the
crop.” This requires expenditures beyond the means of
small farmers — but reduces labor costs, a major benefit
for industrial farms.
ISAAA contends that Bt planting
in India and China has substantially reduced insecticide spraying,
which it advances as the primary benefit of biotech crops.
Bt crops may offer initial reductions
in required spraying, says Freese, but Bt is only effective
against some pests, meaning farmers may have to use pesticides
to prevent other insects from eating their crops. Focusing
on a district in Punjab, “Who Benefits from GM Crops”
shows how secondary pest problems have offset whatever gains
Bt crops might offer.
Freese also notes that evidence
is starting to come in to support longstanding fears that
genetically engineering the Bt trait into crops would give
rise to Bt-resistant pests.
The biotech seeds are themselves
expensive, and must be purchased anew every year. Industry
leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers for the age-old
practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal for
farmers even to save genetically engineered seeds that have
blown onto their fields from neighboring farms.”That
has nothing to do with feeding the hungry,” or helping
the poorest of the poor, says Hope Shand, research director
for the ETC Group, an ardent biotech opponent. It is, to say
the least, not exactly a farmer-friendly approach.
Although the industry and its
allies tout the benefits that biotech may yield someday for
the poor, “we have yet to see genetically modified food
that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better,”
says Shand. “Biotech seeds have not been shown to be
scientifically or socially useful,” although they have
been useful for the profit-driven interests of Monsanto, she
says.
Freese notes that the industry
has been promising gains for the poor for a decade and a half
— but hasn’t delivered. Products in the pipeline
won’t change that, he says, with the industry focused
on introducing new herbicide resistant seeds.
The evidence on yields for the
biotech crops is ambiguous, but there is good reason to believe
yields have actually dropped. ISAAA’s Clive James says
that Bt crops in India and China have improved yields somewhat.
“Who Benefits from GM Crops” carefully reviews
this claim, and offers a convincing rebuttal. The report emphasizes
the multiple factors that affect yield, and notes that Bt
and Roundup-Ready seeds alike are not engineered to improve
yield per se, just to protect against certain predators or
for resistance to herbicide spraying.
Beyond the social disaster of
contributing to land concentration and displacement of small
farmers, a range of serious ecological and sustainability
problems with biotech crops is already emerging — even
though the biotech crop experiment remains quite new.
Strong evidence of pesticide
resistance is rapidly accumulating, details “Who Benefits
from GM Crops,” meaning that farmers will have to spray
more and more chemicals to less and less effect. Pesticide
use is rising rapidly in biotech-heavy countries. In the heaviest
user of biotech seeds — the United States, which has
half of all biotech seed planting — glyphosate-resistant
weeds are proliferating. Glyphosate use in the United States
rose by 15 times from 1994 to 2005, according to “Who
Benefits from GM Crops,” and use of other and more toxic
herbicides is rapidly rising. The U.S. experience likely foreshadows
what is to come for other countries more recently adopting
biotech crops.
Seed diversity is dropping,
as Monsanto and its allies aim to eliminate seed saving, and
development of new crop varieties is slowing. Contamination
from neighboring fields using genetically modified seeds can
destroy farmers’ ability to maintain biotech-free crops.
Reliance on a narrow range of seed varieties makes the food
system very vulnerable, especially because of the visible
problems with the biotech seeds now in such widespread use.
For all the uncertainties about
the long-term effects of biotech crops and food, one might
imagine that there were huge, identifiable short-term benefits.
But one would be wrong.
Instead, a narrowly based industry
has managed to impose a risky technology with short-term negatives
and potentially dramatic downsides.
But while it is true, as ISAAA
happily reports, that biotech planting is rapidly growing,
it remains heavily concentrated in just a few countries: the
United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.
Europe and most of the developing
world continue to resist Monsanto’s seed imperialism.
The industry and its allies decry this stand as a senseless
response to fear-mongering. It actually reflects a rational
assessment of demonstrated costs and benefits — and
an appreciation for real but incalculable risks of toying
with the very nature of nature.
Robert Weissman is editor of
the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, and director
of Essential Action.
These icons link to social bookmarking
sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Discuss this story Print This Post E-Mail This Article
48 Comments so far
BeForKids March 19th, 2008 12:03 pm
ezeflyer talks of population control. Well, here’s the
ticket, we’ll just poison ourselves. Done any sperm
counts recently?
kathyodat
Goebbels sez March 19th, 2008
12:18 pm
Weissman sez: “For all the uncertainties about the long-term
effects of biotech crops and food, one might imagine that
there were [huge, identifiable short-term benefits]. But one
would be wrong.”
Just wondering aloud here, but
how do you suppose the income flow is going for Monsanto’s
board members and execs?
Weissman also sez: “…
Glyphosate use in the United States rose by 15 times from
1994 to 2005, according to “Who Benefits from GM Crops,”
and use of other and more toxic herbicides is rapidly rising.”
And this stuff is handed out
for free by the monopoly which controls both the seed and
the poison?
kelmer March 19th, 2008 12:36
pm
There is too little criticism of the Church of Science and
Material progress. It isnt strictly about money, it is about
scientists who believe they are smarter than Nature.
This article is interesting,
although it makes the mistake of regarding secularism as a
non religious system, when it is very much a religious system
like Theism and Mysticism.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html
It correctly points out that
Secularism has inherited things from Christianity, such as
Anthropocentrism, and the belief in progress leading to Paradise.
If you criticize science, you
are called a Luddite.
Not far removed from christian nuts.
Greg R March 19th, 2008 1:02
pm
For the most part I believe this article is factual. However,
there are definite short-term benefits for me. My crops are
100% GM. My use of dangerous pesticides is much reduced. My
GM corn kills the corn-borers and rootworms. I don’t
have to worry about weather conditions that might wash or
leach away applied insecticides or wind that may blow too
much poisonous mist that ends up in my lungs or someone else’s.
Maplefudge March 19th, 2008
1:02 pm
Science must dance in the arms of psychopathic capitalism.
A world ruled by science would make a reasoned cost/benefit
analysis including society and the environment in the equation.
I don’t think that’s how they do things at Monsanto.
Mr. Obvious March 19th, 2008
1:06 pm
Why are farmers buying more and more GM seeds even though
they must sign an agreement not to save seed?
1. Higher profits and yields
2. Less insecticides
3. Less toxic and persistant herbicides
4. Greater ability to use conservation tillage and conserve
soil
What is the downside?
1. Those resistant to new technology
creating fear amongst ignorant people by lying about health
and environmental risks.
Why are these traits only in
major crops intead of also being in minor crops raised in
developing countries?
1. Because fear mongering has
created a tremendous regulatory burden and delays so no one
can afford to register Gm traits in crops without a huge return
on investment.
Alternative theory: There is
a conspiracy to sell useless and dangerous GM crops and farmers
don’t realize that they are losing money and spraying
more chemicals.
Are you brain-dead?
frank1569 March 19th, 2008 1:12
pm
It was illogical from the get-go - Monsanto is creating mutant
organisms to resist their top selling product? And Phillip
Morris wants to help us stop smoking.
Here’s the part “biotech”
must deliberately ignore - all life forms evolve in unpredictable
ways, even mutant life forms that never existed in nature.
It’s just a matter of time before the mutants mutate
and either wipe themselves - or us - out.
But, meanwhile, lets feed our
cloned, rBGH-injected cows mutant life forms then irradiate
the meat and call it a Happy Meal. Chow down, kiddies!
Mr. Obvious March 19th, 2008
1:15 pm
frank1569 - Thank you for answering my last question.
joseph paquette March 19th,
2008 1:46 pm
The Ralph Nader Doublecrosser, phony liberal,
“Toby Moffett”, was or is a vice President of
the Poison
Company called Monsanto. Before the press gives Moffett free
time in the newspapers, TV, Radio,attacking Ralph Nader, they
should ask
Moffett a full disclosure of all the money he has made
and the sources since he has become a corporate Shill.
Poet March 19th, 2008 2:18 pm
Maplefudge sez:
Science must dance in the arms
of psychopathic capitalism. A world ruled by science would
make a reasoned cost/benefit analysis including society and
the environment in the equation. I don’t think that’s
how they do things at Monsanto.
***************
A world ruled by science would
invoke the percautionary principle which requires that new
chemicals, modified life forms, and methods of processing
prove that neither they, nor the by-products of their creation
will cause harm to the capacity of the environment to sustain
life.
By this standard, all GMO research
faciilties and their products ought to be incinerated into
fine ash which should then be disposed of with the kind of
care we might take with radioactive waste.
RuthK March 19th, 2008 2:22
pm
The Organic Consumers Association has a lot of info and Monsanto
and the problems of bovine growth hormone and genetically-modified
crops.
http://organicconsumers.org
Mr. Obvious March 19th, 2008
2:31 pm
RuthK - You should embrace diversity and consult the kosher
web site and the muslim eating preferences. Neo-pagans should
not be the only religion consulted on what everyone should
eat.
Scientist should base decisions
on evidence not opinion. When evidence strongly support safety,
as it does with current GM crops, and when demonstrated benefits
are overwelming, the decision is clear.
Kernel March 19th, 2008 3:30
pm
Greg M___I have had the same good results using GM corn as
you mentioned, much less spraying of pesticides and better
crop health and yields. I wonder, though, about the 100% usage
of it, as I believe every planting of GM needs to be accompanied
by 20% of ordinary or non-GM seed to prevent the development
of resistance. All or most farmers I know are following that
rule.
Greg R March 19th, 2008 3:46
pm
Kernel-By 100%, I meant RR. I do follow the 20% refuge guidlines
and I hope most others do also.
sensato March 19th, 2008 3:56
pm
Mr. Obvious: “When evidence strongly support safety,
as it does with current GM crops”
Some evidence you have cherry-picked,
perhaps. The evidence I see: expanding, corporatized monocultures,
which is not a sustainable process.
Mr. Obvious March 19th, 2008
5:11 pm
sensato - What I mean is all the evidence and none of the
hype. Scientific evidence, not your religious beliefs. Organic
with its intensive use of animal waste is not sustainable.
andrew.herman March 19th, 2008
5:18 pm
Does BT corn hurt humans? What studies have been done?
Also, hacking into the program
of life (DNA) doesn’t seem like it should be allowed
unless we have really important reasons. Sorry farmers, 10-20%
more profit doesn’t qualify.
Humanity had better use extreme
caution when changing the code of life. It will eventually
work out against us, isn’t that obvious? Humans share
50% of our genetic machinery with plants! Stuff happens.
I mean, I believe farmers should
be able to make a living, but not if it requires hacking into
the precious code of life on earth and meddling with it. Life
on earth seems sacred to me. Does any one else see it this
way?
Mr. Obvious March 19th, 2008
5:32 pm
andrew.herman - Humans have been “hacking into the program
of life (DNA)” ever since we selected and bred plants
and animals (over 10,000 years). Our domestic plants, “crops”,
and livestock animals and pets cannot survive without human
intervention. This relationship has allowed humans to be successful.
If you think you can do better, walk into the woods like our
distant ancestors. Your success will likely be similar: a
short life and a difficult life. We need to avoid exceeding
the carrying capacity of the earth for our species, but technology
is not the enemy. We cannot be stupid about polluting our
environment and over-populating, but we must also strive to
produce our food on as few acres as possible. GM crops help
us produce more food on fewer acres with less pesticides.
You need to get by your prejustice and evaluate the evidence
objectively.
Bobbity March 19th, 2008 6:28
pm
Mr. Obvious, I will agree that humans have been INFLUENCING
genetics for a long time, but they weren’t able to actually
change it, like adding fish genes to tomatoes wasn’t
on the list of things humans could do, and I can agree with
andrew.herman that it seems like it could have some grave
repercussions.
From Grist..
For one thing, genetic engineering makes it possible to transfer
allergenic properties of one food, like nuts, to another food
product, like soybeans..
Another concern is that genetic
engineering could inadvertently increase natural toxins or
decrease nutrient levels in some foods. The exact role of
different genes in a chromosome and the importance of the
relationship of one gene to another are not well understood.
The location on a chromosome where genetic material is inserted
may affect the expression of other genes that control other
functions, turning on a process that otherwise wouldn’t
occur, or turning off a process critical to the health of
the organism. This, coupled with the fact that modern genetic
engineering techniques are fairly imprecise in terms of where
the genes get placed within a chromosome, makes it difficult,
and in many cases impossible, to fully predict the impact
of inserting new genetic material…
Findings from Cornell University
show that, in the laboratory, pollen from corn engineered
to contain a natural pesticide from Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt) bacterium is toxic to the monarch butterfly. Because
every grain of pollen produced by the engineered corn contains
the Bt toxin, the risk to the monarch and other beneficial
insects is dispersed into the environment as the pollen blows
in the wind…
Vegetarians might want to avoid
tomatoes engineered to resist cold with flounder genes, for
example. The potential for inserting human genes into animals,
as has been accomplished in laboratory experiments, raises
even more serious ethical questions for many people…
In 1999, just three years after
the first large-scale harvest of genetically engineered crops,
Consumers Union found transplanted genetic material cropping
up in a wide variety of products from infant formula to nacho
chips.
http://www.grist.org/advice/possessions/2000/04/21/possessions-genetic/
Poet March 19th, 2008 6:33 pm
Mr. Obvious sez:
We need to avoid exceeding the
carrying capacity of the earth for our species, but technology
is not the enemy. We cannot be stupid about polluting our
environment and over-populating, but we must also strive to
produce our food on as few acres as possible. GM crops help
us produce more food on fewer acres with less pesticides.
You need to get by your prejustice and evaluate the evidence
objectively.
***********************
here are two overriding clonice3rns
for MOnsanto (or Cargill, ADM, or any other multi-national
ag business doing GM research:
First of all they are out to
make as much money as they can.
Second they are interstedc in
maintaining thier mopnopoly control of their new “life
forms” by use of patent enforcement.
Any possible depletion of the
available genetic varieties of whatever particular crop they
choose to genetically modify? Not their problem.
Any ill effects on animals or
humans 10 or 20 years down through time? Not their problem.
Any toxic contamination of air
soil, or water through their manufacturing process? Not their
problem.
Genetic varieties exist becasue
through time various disease, pestilence, and severe weather
conditions wipe out some varieties while others survive.
GM tinkering under the almost non-existant controls that now
exist threatens the very survival of any and all food crop
varieties on which it is performed.
You are right in your assertion
that technology is not the enemy–but the GM seed industry
as now presently constituted is not about the responsible
use of technology–it is about the amoral pursuit of
material accumulation at any price–the planet and all
its life forms be damned.
Parallax March 19th, 2008 6:55
pm
Checkout Deborah Koons Garcia’s film, “The Future
of Food”.
Farmers don’t make profits
without subsidies.
ralph 442 March 19th, 2008 7:53
pm
Mr. Obvious, yes it’s a wonder how nature got us this
far (at least to 1920) without our trusted friend mr. monsanto,
who it seems would like to put his price tag on anything his
lawyers say might hold up in a corporate kangaroo court. Soon
you will have to take out a permit and go to the mansanto
sperm bank just to knock your wife up with a premier #1AAA
George Bush clone seed…. oh, and it will cost you your
precious sub-prime mortgage.
Mr. Obvious do you actually
take all that crap they peddle on the nightly news where every
other add is for some crazy tangerine flavored tech-no shamanistic
poison that can cause boils on your soul while pre-porting
to rid you of an occasional itch? Or do you eat real whole
food, exercise and tell these circling pill pushing vultures
to F Off as your not quite totally zombified yet.
Is it any wonder why where not
called human beings any more? Not even citizens. Just consumers.
Yes, take it in and push it out as fast as you can….
until eventually your knees will buckle, you won’t be
able to get up and a guy with a electric taser will shock
your ass up to standing so they can legally sell you for soap.
Now lets all chant the corporate
mantra: “PROGRESS IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT PRODUCT”
a hundred times - that is after “PROFIT.”
whatfools March 19th, 2008 7:55
pm
Mankind isn’t Roundup Ready. Perhaps some of us can
evolve enough to eat bugs.
Bobbity March 19th, 2008 8:03
pm
Forget the bugs, the bt will have killed them all…
“Because every grain of
pollen produced by the engineered corn contains the Bt toxin,
the risk to the monarch and OTHER BENEFICIAL INSECTS is dispersed
into the environment as the pollen blows in the wind…”
so then what…?
organicfrmr March 19th, 2008
8:18 pm
The fact is, humans have lived here on this planet well and
fine for a long time with what was given to us. Its time-tested
and works. To me, this is a clear cut case of human wannabe
gods, and damn the scourge that gets in their way. I save
my seed.(DO YOU HEAR THAT MONSANTO!) I use heirloom seeds,
tried and true. No, I don’t get rich, but I do make
a reasonable living, and the gratification of helping feed
a few hungry folks in my town with clean, nutritious, real
food is a far richer experience for me then the God almighty
buck, or some deviant need to control. Please support your
local farmers markets. The food is “homegrown”
on small farms and is far superior to mass production foods.
I cater to many fine resteraunts who demand the “best”.
My tomatoes taste like tomatoes, not cardboard. And the smiles
and thanks I get from my customers, money just can’t
buy….eat your heart out Mansanto!
organicfrmr March 19th, 2008
8:49 pm
The fact is, humans have lived here on this planet well and
fine for a long time with what was given to us. Its time-tested
and works. To me, this is a clear cut case of human wannabe
gods, and damn the scourge that gets in their way. I save
my seed.(DO YOU HEAR THAT MONSANTO!) I use heirloom seeds,
tried and true. No, I don’t get rich, but I do make
a reasonable living, and the gratification of helping feed
a few hungry folks in my town with clean, nutritious, real
food is a far richer experience for me then the God almighty
buck, or some deviant need to control. Please support your
local farmers markets, the food is far superior, more nutritious,
and it helps out us “ordinary folks” who still
have peoples well-being at heart. And besides all that….I
love the food I grow, and all my customers smiles and thanks,
money just can’t buy (eat your heart out Monsanto!!!;P)
Kernel March 19th, 2008 10:18
pm
organicfarmwe__Yes you are right, we were given a planet to
live on and brains to think with. Ever since, people have
used their brains to tinker with what we were given.
It gets a little difficult to
determine which things and processes that people have developed
over centuries are acceptable. Were we to have electricity,
telephone, computers, modern medicine, airplanes, hybrids
of all kinds, refrigeration, and other life-enhancing improvements?
I believe it is disingenuous
to pick one company and one method of change as if it is the
only thing we have to be concerned with. We need to be alert
for many things that may not be a real improvement in the
long run instead of getting paranoid about GM seeds. Time
has eliminated many things that looked good when they did
not prove beneficial in the long run.
Doom n Gloom March 20th, 2008
12:00 am
Making Corporations financially responsible for damages to
the environment is a responsible policy. Currently Corporations
take great risks with the understanding that if things go
south that the public will bail them out. This kind of thinking
needs to stop now.
rtdrury March 20th, 2008 4:24
am
Kernel, some things require balance and luxury/convenience
are some of those things, so there’s an optimum limit
for those and such ideas should be in the K-12 civics curricula
today. You have to embrace those only when you see a real
benefit, when the oil lamps are becoming a real problem then
you upgrade to electric lights, but not before. People natually
know when to upgrade. The problem starts when the capitalist
bowls over the fundamentals taught in his bible by Adam Smith
and starts manipulating demand in the markets and talks people
into consuming never ending streams of luxury/convenience
for stupid reasons, and people get addicted, and the planet
is plundered, and everyone knows the story but nobody is doing
anything about it. This public paralysis is decades old and
now extends along with the capitalist’s military misadventures,
privatization of everything, etc. The solution is to cage
the capitalist like it suggests in his bible. Stop doing business
with him.
rtdrury March 20th, 2008 4:30
am
These mega corportions should be required to genetically isolate
their proprietary strains so that they cannot fertilize anything
else but themselves, to prevent them from contaminating other
varieties of the same species. They can do it, they just have
to be pushed.
Mr. Obvious March 20th, 2008
6:21 am
bobbity - Yes allergens can be moved using genetic engineering.
That is why this property is tested in the registration process.
Allergens can also be higher in some varieties of apple, and
in new foods like kiwi. Up-regulation of toxins and down regulation
of nutrients is also tested, but this is silly since these
things have been shown to be far more likely to be changed
by traditional breeding. When the USDA released a new corn
variety where insect resistance was increased based on breeding
to a wild Andian relative, no safety testing was done at all!
They do not even know why the corn is resistant to insects;
but its natural so its ok. The monarch fiasco is a great example
of junk science and was even critisized by Losey’s peers
at Cornell. Subsiquent work by a number of acedemic researchers
showed that monarch’s are not effected in the field
as already determined by the EPA. The bugs aren’t exposed
at high enough levels or frequency. If you force feed caterpillars
Bt proteins then they die. Bt is a specific insect toxin.
This is not an unexpected effect and is why it is beneficial
to control pests of crops. However, for those that want to
avoid certain foods that have been determined to be safe then
they can choose specialty foods like organic of kosher. Every
hot-dog does not need to be labeled as containing meat. If
you want a soy dog then buy this specialty product.
Poet - Of course Monsanto is
out to make a buck and of course they will patent their inventions.
Patents encourage research and rewards the inventor with 17
years of monopoly. This system is why there is investment
in long term research. Even universities patent their inventions.
However Monsanto is very concerned about adverse effects just
like every other big company with deep pockets. In our litigation-happy
society, they cannot afford to market a product having a hint
of adverse effects unless it is labeled with a warning. The
tinkering theory is silly. None of our crops look anything
like their wild precursers. They cannot even survive without
human intervention. We have been tinkering with them for 10,000
years. This is why humans have been so successful.
organicfrmr - My wife and I
produce high-intensity vegetables and sell them at local farmers
markets. The line at our stand is always long while the organic
farmers get mad as they watch. Why? Because we produce quantities
of high quality vegetables at a reasonable cost. If people
want organic, they have a choice. I have even seen our customers
scold organic buyers when they fill a bag with tomatoes, have
my wife weigh them, and then put them down and say “oh
your not organic”. One of our customers told the rude
organic customer to get with the program and then picked up
the discarded bag of tomatoes and said “I’ll take
them”. We use the best and safest growing methods available
and never put manure on our food crops. This is why we outsell
every other tomatoe grower at the market many times over;
a consistent high-quality product.
rtdrury - Do you want me to
prevent you from raising gourds because they may cross-pollinate
my cucumbers and ruin the crop. How about not letting you
raise indian corn because it might make the kernals on my
sweetcorn colored and less marketable. There are many specialty
crops that require isolation to maintain quality. However
worrying about my soy getting contaminated with soy is nutty.
The only way to identify RR soy is to spray it with roundup,
test it for the RR protein, or to do DNA testing. It can not
be differenciated by any nutritional or safety test. Like
kosher food, organic is a philosophy-based choice - a religion.
GM is environmentally beneficial
and the longer it takes to become more widespread, the more
environmental damage will be done. Anti-GM activists are damaging
the environment with their do-gooder attitude and ignorance
of the science.
Siouxrose March 20th, 2008 10:12
am
ORGANIC FARMER/BOBBITY: Great posts! Mr. OBVIOUS is one who
can only see what appears obvious at a surface level. He cannot
see the big picture. Those who trust science are basically
saying that human intelligence, which is limited at best,
is superior to what NATURE has come up with over eons of trial
and error in her love-based laboratories.
It must be said that MONSANTO
is also a company quite willing and able to profit from KILLER
chemicals. They were one of the producers of Agent Orange
(Mother Jones did an important story on this years ago), and
they CURRENTLY are involved in the “war on drugs”
in Columbia where their latest model of a dangerous chemical
polymer is killing indigenous plants of all sorts. ANY company
willing to take $ for rendering food supply toxic to local
indigenous persons should be PUT OUT OF BUSINESS.
As BOBBITY and others stated,
this meddling with actual GENETICS between species is NOT
what Mother Nature included in HER program. You boys, there’s
a reason why life issues from the FEMININE… your egos
want to control it all, and the bottom line is, you do not,
cannot know the full ramifications of all that you so dangeorously
play fast and loose with.
With all the calamitous predictions
for aberrant weather events, the loss of seed variety is a
death sentence. Monsanto is doing one thing right–making
WEEDS resistant to its increasingly toxic derivatives. And
guess what soy eaters, we get to eat all the chemicals now
melded TO the plants. What fun for vegetarians!
Biogenetics, ain’t they
grand
you think you’re eating broccoli, but it’s rhinocerous
gland.
It would do Jeffrey Dahmer proud
to know that everyone is now lunching in his crowd!
Greg R March 20th, 2008 10:26
am
Siouxrose-love your poetry, thanks…disagree with some
of your ideas though.
Mr. Obvious March 20th, 2008
11:33 am
Siouxrose - If someone bought your tomatoes and threw them
at someones house, should you be held accountable for the
damage to the house? If the government buys Monsanto’s
herbicides and sprays them on drug plants or uses them to
defoliate forests in a war, is this Monsanto’s fault?
The rest of your rant is neo-pagan rubish. If you don’t
want food that has been meddled with, you better forage in
the forest because our food plants have been manipulated by
man for 10,000 years. That is one reason our population is
so high, and that you have free time to wax philosophically.
jxh261 March 20th, 2008 12:53
pm
I can’t believe thier are farmenrs here that actually
think Monsanto GM poison is a good thing. Please show us long
term data that says it is. Fact is their isn’t any.
Did you people ever wonder why food allergies are becoming
more common? Of course thier are billions to be made off of
a cure for that…not to worry.
jxh261 March 20th, 2008 12:56
pm
Dear Mr. Obvious — quite frankly you are full of Sh#t.
Man has not manipulated nature at the moleculer level for
10,000 years. Unless they had electron microscopes in caves
give to the caveman by aliens. It sounds like something you
would believe.
Treefrog March 20th, 2008 1:33
pm
These are seed dependent on synthetic chemicals for reproduction.
For human intervention to sexually reproduce or sterlization
of parts of the natural world. They are controlled by patents
and purposefull science that demonstrates ownship of what
is basicly already free. Mr. Obvious your ideas are vile scum.
Mr. Obvious March 20th, 2008
1:48 pm
jxh261 - Your comments demonstrate your deep knowledge of
molecular biology. What do you think mutations are? What makes
you think allergies are caused by GM? Maybe it is global warming?
Maybe, just maybe, it is that fewer people have worms and
our immune systems are misbehaving because they do not have
these worms to attack (look it up). People with worms don’t
get allergies. This is the difference between science and
religion; the former requires evidence.
Treefrog - Where do you come
up with this stuff? What chemicals are you talking about?
Treefrog March 20th, 2008 4:09
pm
Mr Obvious
Google umbilical cord blood
contaminates, there are 200 identified chemicals. This is
all within the realm of science if you care to take it into
consideration. If you don’t understand the water you
drink why should I trust anything else you have to say?
Treefrog March 20th, 2008 4:24
pm
http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php
Mr. Obvious March 20th, 2008
4:38 pm
Treefrog - you wrote “These are seed dependent on synthetic
chemicals for reproduction.”
I wrote “Where do you
come up with this stuff? What chemicals are you talking about?”
What are you talking about?
What does this have to do with G crops?
Treefrog March 20th, 2008 5:16
pm
I’m talking about chemical dependency, and the effects
of chemical dependency.
http://www.organicfoodsandcafe.com/genetic.htm
Mr. Obvious March 20th, 2008
7:00 pm
treefrog - sorry, I only speak english. What does this have
to do with GM crops? Maybe you should sober up before answering?
Treefrog March 20th, 2008 7:23
pm
Mr. Obvious
The answer to your question
is in the first paragraph of the link I posted. Use your finger,
press the button on your mouse and have someone read it to
you.
Mr. Obvious March 21st, 2008
6:06 am
Treefrog - Sorry I read it don’t understand how GM crops
relate to GM crops. These crops use less and safer chemicals,
so they reduce chemical usage.
Mr. Obvious March 21st, 2008
9:58 am
Well that made no sense - I was running out the door to get
our greenhouse ready for the Spring season. What I meant to
say was:
What does chemical dependency
have to do with GM crops? They require less chemicals and
when they do need to be sprayed, they replace more dangerous
chemicals with safer ones.
minitru March 21st, 2008 2:47
pm
Mr.Obvious: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH???
Mr. Wise-Guy, you are so ignorant
of ecological and genetic imperatives, yet you lecture others
about their scientific ignorance? Big mistake.
Do you have any idea how the
bt-gene got into the genome of your corn? Do you know, that
no-one can control where the foreign gene will be inserted?
Do you know that this toxic substance is being produced ALL
the time in ALL CELLS of the corn (until the DNA strikes back,
more see below), even exuded from the roots? There are plants
which have natural built-in insect repellents but they are
only released when the pest is actually “biting”
or sucking into the plant.
Do you know that the natural
bacterial toxin (sprayed) is quickly biodegraded by UV-light
but the transgenic toxin stays in the soil for months? All
organisms have an evolutionary program for survival in their
cells / genes, including pests. Attacking these genes with
insecticides (sprayed or built-in) has always the same result:
it may work for some time but in the long run the blowback
is inevitable: the more you subject the genes to chemical
attack the more resilient they will become (through hyper-mutations).The
same principle applies for bacterial resistance (in response
to antibiotics)
Did you know that transgenic
lines are instable? Do you really think the communication
network of the cell and the genome will just sit and watch
the invasion of a foreign gene? For millions of years nature
has protected genetic stability and mutations only occured
in response to environmental stress.(which is now caused by
the worshippers of biotechnology…)
In a recent study on five commercially
approved transgenic lines carried out by two French laboratories
all five transgenic inserts were found to have rearranged,
not just from the construct used in transformation, but also
from the original structure reported by the company. This
was clear evidence that all the lines were genetically unstable.
Further evidence has come to
light since. The Service of Biosafety and Biotechnology (SBB)
of the Scientific Institute of Public Health (IPH) in Brussels
has published on its website (http://biosafety.ihe.be/TP/MGC.html)
reports on the molecular characterisation of the genetic map
of six transgenic lines, four of which overlap with those
analysed by the French laboratories: Bt 176 maize (Syngenta),
Mon 810 maize (Monsanto), T25 maize (Bayer CropScience) and
GTS 40-3-2 soybean (Monsanto).
2)”Humans have been “hacking
into the program of life (DNA)” ever since we selected
and bred plants and animals (over 10,000 years). Our domestic
plants, “crops”, and livestock animals and pets
cannot survive without human intervention..”
Again you show your ignorance:
Conventinal breeding methods (mimicking natural selection)
have not disrupted the “program of life” and never
before has the species barrier been broken let alone have
viruses been used as “vectors” (to carry the gene
insert into the cell nucleus)or “promoters” (to
keep the inserted gene “turned on” all the time
which as a “small side-effect” can result in turning
on other genes or creating DNA “hotspots” (likely
to cause a break in the DNA strand) and no-one knows the consequences….
Domestic plants need our intervention
(synthetic fertilizer and toxic weed-killers / insecticides)because
they are genetically inferior to wild forms (can you believe
it?)They have been engineered for higher yields but in many
other respects they have been weakened, most of all in their
natural resilience (with requires genetic diversity) to environmental
stress.
“Modern agriculture”
may seem successful to you but the reality is different: Yes,
we have increased yields considerably but if we look at the
energy balance the “progress” is a scam: for every
plant calorie produced in this system you need 10 calories
energy input…… To say nothing of the ecological
damage of monocultures, fertilizers, toxins, etc.
3)”Your comments demonstrate
your deep knowledge of molecular biology. What do you think
mutations are? What makes you think allergies are caused by
GM?”
Natural mutations occur in response
to environmental changes (in the cell, in the whole organism/body
or the outside environment). Genetic expression is extremely
context-dependent (but genetic engineering is based on the
false premise that genes are independent carriers of information
which can be cut out here and inserted there with no interruption
of the “program”. Dead wrong. Epigenetic research
has proved that genes / cells are extremely interconnected,
their communication system is complex and efficient and of
course massively interrupted when foreign gene-inserts are
being “shot” into the host genome… Think
of the DNA as a huge biological database, with the operator
genes running different, co-ordinated, adaptable programmes(depending
on circumstances)while others control the turning on / off,
the running time of the operations in cooperation with the
whole cell and environmental information; Is it really rational
to insert a foreign gene (program, always turned on) and think
that the system will not be disrupted?
Obviously, you also have not
the slightest clue about allergies. Allergies are severe reactions
of your immunesystem to attack a foreign protein (allergen)
which might harm your body. To fight these intruders the IS
produces armies of powerful antibodies (which bind to antigens,
also proteins) on the surface of the foreign cells, alerting
certain cells to produce inflammation-inducing substances
like histamine (>e.g. itching, running nose, symptoms of
hay-fever, skin-rashes, etc.)and if large quantities of these
IM mediators are released an anaphylactic shock (life-threatening)
may occur).
As genes are coding for all
proteins changing the genome will of course affect protein
synthesis which may well result in the creation of new, potentially
harmful and toxic proteins.
Bt toxins are known to be potential
allergens and immunogens; crylAc, in particular, was identified
as a potent systemic and mucosal immunogen, as potent as cholera
toxin.
Before you hype GE, learn about
the immense complexity and awe-inspiring endurance of biological
systems and PLEASE show a little respect for it. Contrary
to what we are made to believe, science will never outsmart
nature as one of the first scientific inventors (Leonardo
da Vinci) realized:
“Those who take for their
standard anything but nature, the mistress of all masters,
weary themselves in vain. Human subtlety will never devise
an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than
does nature because in her inventions nothing is lacking,
and nothing is superfluous.”
Our science may be able to solve
some problems but it always creates new, greater ones in the
process…
Mr. Obvious March 21st, 2008
3:18 pm
minitru - Wow - you must be using some powerful drugs to twist
reality into your own private fantasy.
“Natural mutations occur
in response to environmental changes” Say what! Lemark
Lives? Are you an evolution critic? Mutations are random.
They are selected based on advantage in a particular environment.
I am well aware of the stability
of Bt insecticidal crystal proteins and Stotzki’s discredited
studies. I am also aware of the details of allergy and your
puffing only shows your ignorance. GM proteins are tested
for allergenic potential. Do you know how? Epigenetics is
a very interesting discipline but your rant does not indicate
why/how this suggests risk from GM crops. Your collage of
rants is pretty hard to interpret. Maybe you should sober
up before posting next time.
Join the discussion:
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered
yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And
we won't give your email address to anyone.)
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material
on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If
you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.
