Slashdot Mirror

The latest vile deed to surface is in Wales. Monsanto is just unbelievable. From their glory days of Chemistry to their explosive growth into a biopirate Life Sciences behemoth, to the *IAA-like abuse of the intellectual property system, they've always leveraged their close relationship with US Federal agencies, especially the FDA. Executives and bureaucrats have often worked for both, and maintain ties. That's why they won't kill that company until there's a consumer revolt of enormous proportions.

They've been snapping up seed companies around the world. They know, to paraphrase a Cargill newsletter, that if you control the seed you control the farmer, and if you control the farmers, you control the nation. Look at their mad rush of a patenting campaign over the last two decades: they would patent you, if they could. They're hollywood evil.

I do think the GMO theory deserves a very serious look. GMO have been known to cause problems for butterflys: http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000919.html .

GMO organisms are artificial. These are DNA sequences and protiens that have been created in a way they never would have been in nature. Perhaps nature has a way of coding DNA in certain manners, and perhaps there are complex interdependancies between genes we dont know about, where if one gene is altered, it may have implications throughout the organism. Scientists claim to know what genes do, but they only know the tip of the iceberg, a gene may have numerous additional functions that they have no idea about.

It could be that GMOs are fundamentally different in someway from natural food that makes them difficult to digest. Perhaps it causes a weakening of bee colonies.

bees, humans, and so on have evolved for millions of years eating natural foods with DNA produces through natural processes. The further we get from those natural nutrition sources that are body is equipped to handle, the less efficiently your body may be able to use those foods. GMO food is unnatural food that has an unacceptably high risk. Usually i say it should be the choice of the consumer. This is so with food colours and additives. However, GMOs by their nature can contaminate non GMO crops where they are not wanted, endangering consumer choice and our right to whole, natural, and healthy foods. I do think GMOs should be banned for this reason, and the fact that non-GMO foods are natural and what we have been eating for millions of years.

Someone from Bristol UK called Donna already did this.

Didn't read the article, did you? Go find the paragraph about flouridation.

I read the MIT article twice and did a search of it and didn't come across "flouridation". I may of missed it and the search function may be broke, so can you show me where it is?

Let me explain by analogy. I'm not a farmer -- but I do raise roses as a hobby. As you no doubt know, rose bushes are fundamentally unhealthy organisms which only thrive with massive doses of fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide, so those of us who raise them know all about this.

Like you I'm not a farmer though I do garden. I don't grow roses, mostly herbs and fruits and vegetables, but there are people who do grow them, garden like I do, organically.

Let me lay this out in short sentences. Herbicide resistant crops need less herbicide. That's not good for the chemical companies, but bad. Simultaneously, it has a net positive impact on farmers, food, and the environment.

First, why do herbicide resistant crops need less herbicides? The reason to make them resistant is so more herbicide can be used, which is the case. Because a farmer's crop is resistant the farmer can use more herbicide. Maybe you're thinking of pesticides? Here's an article about herbicides use for herbicide resistant crops:

Genetically engineered soybeans will increase herbicide residues in food by up to 200 times

Auckland, 25 February 1997 The US-based manufacturers of a genetically engineered soybean have applied to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) for a two hundred fold increase in Roundup residues in Soybeans. The application calls for allowable residues in dry soybeans to rise from 0.1mg/Kg to 20mg/Kg.

The dramatic increase in residues results from the Roundup Ready Soybean, a genetically engineered soybean produced by Monsanto, which is resistant to Monsanto's own brand of herbicide - Roundup.

Last year, Monsanto promised the New Zealand public on Morning Report that such genetically engineered crops would result in reduced use of herbicides. This year the truth is coming out. The New York Times reports that soybean farmers in the USA are dowsing their crops liberally with Roundup. Monsanto is reported as very pleased by the increased sales of Roundup. However, consumers should not be pleased, since soybeans now contain dramatically elevated residues of the herbicide. Soybeans are used in up to 60% of processed foods such as baby foods, chocolate, bread, pasta, sauces, ice cream etc.
GE soybeans will increase herbicide residues in food

• organ damage
• thickening of the small intestine
• poor brain development

Other dangers from this this article come to include:

• New toxins and allergens in foods
• Other damaging effects on health caused by unnatural foods
• Increased use of chemicals on crops, resulting in increased contamination of our water supply and food
• The creation of herbicide-resistant weeds
• The spread of diseases across species barriers
• Loss of bio-diversity in crops
• The disturbance of ecological balance
• Artificially induced characteristics and inevitable side-effects will be passed on to all subsequent generations and to other related organisms. Once released, they can never be recalled or contained. The consequences of this are incalculable.

Here is yet another article that you can read on this topic.

Harriman, Scotts' chief research scientist, counters that numerous studies by the company indicate the grass is unlikely to spread.

Hmmmm... sort of like those Monsanto studies that wrongly claimed their corn couldn't spread?

Don't trust corporately-funded "science"

I wouldn't be so quick to pin resistance to nanotech on those who are religious.

That may be the case in the area where you live, but worldwide, we see that the least religious folk (Europeans, in a somewhat recent worldwide survey) are also the most stringent about genetically modified organisms.

So, the moral of the story is: just because you might happen to know (alright, we might all happen to know) some religious folk who are not willing to listen to a single new idea, don't blame all religious folk (or even the majority) for resisting technology. The evidence shows that religiosity is not at all correlated to technological resistance.

To go a step further in your thinking, don't just assume that all technology is good. Don't assume it's bad either. Rather, think intelligently about the pros and cons, and based on those make a decision.

Tony

All it takes is a Google search, my friend...

Israel has actually been accused of the reverse by some nutcases.

GOD BLESS AMERICA, where NPR is supported by Monsanto while NPR reports about their unethical tactics.

One issue that really stands out is the potential for these super-tough biocapsules to act as safe harbours for a dangerous infectious agent like a virus or prion. The hole diameter in these biocapsules is 7nm. Deadly prion particles capable of causing BSE (mad cow disease) readily slip through 7nm holes. Once a biocapsule is hosting a virus or prion the body's immune system is useless against the invader because it can't reach inside the biocapsule ("It's a challenging tightrope act because if the nanopores are too small, they can't let nutrients in, like sugars and oxygen, to keep the cells alive. But if they're too big, the antibodies can get in and kill the insulin cells", Desai said.)

No sane researcher would risk a bet against virii below the biocapsule's hole size (7nm) being found; years ago the smallest known virus was Hep.B (35nm), a few years ago it was Parvovirus (25nm), now it's Gemini (15nm).

The safety issues need thorough research. Academic research does not have to address safety issues, although most researchers do it as a matter of good practice at the pre-commercial stage which gives more time for potential problems to be identified and debated in the academic community. However Desai does not discuss safety issues in any of her three published papers on biocapsules. This omission is quite surprising because following the gene therapy tragedy at U.Pennsylvania universities have toughened the faculty guidelines and policies on a wide range of safety issues in medical research. Responsible publications have similarly tightened their refereeing policy. Like most referees I'd normally expect authors to address relevant safety issues in submitted papers, otherwise I'd recommend rejection.

Apparently Desai has a patent on biocapsules and is developing it into a therapy with a company called iMEDD in Columbus, Ohio. Obviously the FDA will ensure the technology goes thru safety testing (Phase 2 trials etc) to comply with FDA licensing requirements, but I hope the company actively encourages Desai to follow up and make good her omission of detailed safety research with publications in the academic literature (including safety-related work under NDAs).

France banned hormone-injected American beef that was not labelled.

In fact the EU has banned the use of Bovine Somatatropin (BST) in beef for human consumption on human health and animal welfare grounds. The import of BST raised beef (or milk) is also illegal, regardless of the country of origin or labelling.

The reason the French won't abandon their "medieval" farming practices is that unlike the average American (or Brit) they care far more about the quality of their food than its price. Hence the targetting of McDonalds.