Slashdot Mirror
Drug Making Genes Added To Corn Jump To Soya
Anonymous Cowdog writes "Google News turned up a scary item today: Apparently, genetically altered corn, designed not to repel pests or withstand bad weather, but rather to grow pharmecuticals (for diabetes and diarrhea) has been accidentally mixed with soy plants in the field, resulting in 500,000 bushels of contaminated soybeans being quarantined by the US FDA. Ooops. Here's the story, and here's another story about the same case. The company who brought us this nice event is called ProdiGene. Looks like they're also working on an edible AIDS vaccine (kinda makes sense, eat Tofu, enjoy free love!) Now, I was thinking, will our government protect us from doom-by-hand-me-down-genes? and on a hunch (honest!) I did this google search for keywords ProdiGene and "george w bush". Result? A not so reassuring article."
See, this is why a lot of people are cautious about genetically altered foods.
The potential hazards combined with the legal tanglements of a company being
able to hold a patent on seeds, so far, hasn't been worth it. Perhaps now, the
na-sayers who derided the decision of the leader of that African country to
refuse genetically altered foodstuffs have some "food for thought". Sorry, pun
intended.
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
The headline on this story seems misleading - the genes did not jump to soybeans from the corn, the genetically-modified corn was accidentally added to some unmodified soybeans.
AFAIK, genes don't have the ability to do an inter-species jump like that...
0x0D 0x0A
It sounds like there are whole corn plants in the soybean fields (which presumably the automatic harvesting grabs together), rather than cross-species gene jumping. Still worrying but not unexpected when the US has such a cavalier attitude to segregation of GM/non-GM crops. It might also be worrying if you were allergic to normal corn (if they still grow that in the USA) (and found it in your soy food).
How is it practically possible to completely isolate these new genetically "enhanced" strains anyway? Surely as long a they're being grown in the big wide world, the genetic changes will crep into the food chain anyway...?
Of course, I speak as a complete idjit when it comes to all things biological...
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
Off course I didn't RTFA, but I guess it says that Bush ate a lot of genetically altered corn. That sure explains a lot
"Son, in a sporting event, it's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get" - Homer J. Simpson
The bio-corn - which is grown to produce trypsin and another compound to treat diarrhea - has not been approved for human or livestock feed.
Trypsin is a primary digestive enzyme in stomachs. I wonder what could possible go wrong with ingesting more trypsin, even if it was from another species. This other compound used to treat diarrhea couldn't be that bad either. I don't see what the real problem here is besides the small potential that someone might be allergic to this protein. I know that the FDA has to be conservative but there is no real need for a scare.
Those Fritos! They may grow you a second head.
interview with Anthony G. Laos
Anthony G. Laos, president and chief executive of ProdiGene, Inc. was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as a member of the Board for International Food and Agriculture Development (BIFAD). Mr. Laos will serve a four-year term, expiring on July 28, 2005.
BIFAD, which consists of seven members all appointed by the President, provides advice to the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on international food issues such as agriculture and food security. BIFAD also assists and advises the U.S. Government Inter-Agency Working Group on Food Security in carrying out commitments made in the U.S. Country Paper for the November 1996 World Food Summit and on the Plan of Action agreed to at the summit.
"I am honored to be appointed to this position by President Bush," Laos says. " I welcome the opportunity to work with my fellow colleagues in promoting USAID policy and increasing world food production." ProdiGene, headquartered in College Station, TX, is a private biotechnology company that is developing and manufacturing industrial and pharmaceutical proteins from a transgenic plant system.
The bio-corn - which is grown to produce trypsin and another compound to treat diarrhea - has not been approved for human or livestock feed.
Trypsin is a primary digestive enzyme in stomachs. I wonder what could possible go wrong with ingesting more trypsin, even if it was from another species. This other compound used to treat diarrhea couldn't be that bad either. I don't see what the real problem here is besides the small potential that someone might be allergic to this protein. I know that the FDA has to be conservative but there is no real need for a scare.
Sorry for replying as an Anonymous Coward
-- "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." -A. Lincoln
lighten up. just because somebody posts what was probably intended as an innocent joke, doesn't mean that he is "incredibly insensitive and ignorant".
Don't you watch South Park? It's been 22 years, AIDS is funny now!
Sorry for replying as an Anonymous Coward
:)
That's perfectly alright, no need to apologise Ann Coulter, Slashdot user #614889
See, this is getting ridiculous. Posting process on slashdot:
1. Slashdotter finds distuirbing article.
2. Slashdotter doesn't read it closely.
3. Slashdotter makes gross oversimplifications, including specifically some sort of doomsday scenario.
4. Slashdotter assumes there must be some GW Bush conspiracy going on.
The sad thing is that there is potential for harm here, but the overstated claims and conspiracy theories really hurt the credibility of the posted story, which itself was good.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I think the big question which isn't being answered is this: as a vegetarian who eats plenty of tofu, where can I sign up for the free love? The nntp server access is getting expensive...
anything genetically modified should be enough to scare anyone.. and should make someone think twice before consuming it
btw.. if you want to eat healthy and live a productive life, i suggest reading any book written by Dr. Andrew Weil
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
Nobody is really going to care about this issue until contaminated foods leak into the market and people start dying. When the lawsuits start flying, and when the connection between Bush and ProdiGene is covered by Dan, Peter and Tom (or perhaps Brian by then), THEN we'll start seeing some real action.
Until then, pass that Cap'n Crunch/flu vaccine this way.
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
As this comes as any surpise?!?! Although I am all for science, any genetic engineer/scientist should know better than to be putting these things out in the wild. This could result in an aggregious mistake suffered because of poorly executed trial and error! Admittedly, I'm far from a genetic engineering expert, but is it really that wise to be essentially cutting some SEEMINGLY unimportant part of the plant's gene out
[ READ: We don't understand the gene's function ] and replacing it with some other gene that we want it to use? This is complete foolishness.
What, if this were practiced in the software industry, we would have something like M$? Oops.
Okay now everybody, remember: DUCK AND COVER!!!
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt. (When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will
Gene swapping is common among strains of bacteria (and several other microscopic buggers that undergo asexual reproduction), but not in eukaryotic or multicellular critters. Here's a brief discussion of the process
I'm not usually one to side with the anti-bush puppet-protesting Stankoists commies; but I'll give the Devil its due on this one. A similar Google search for Prodigene + "Bill Clinton" turned up nothing similar.
Politics aside, this business of releasing geneticly altered crops into the wild smacks of the kind of overconfidence and "put on your manager hat" thinking that lead to the sinking of the Titanic and the Challenger disaster. It's only a matter of time before we do something really silly like kill all the corn or turn our wheat into poison.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Monsanto has a known history of misplacing toxic waste. If someone firebombs the wrong facility, they could irreversible contaminate the environment for hundreds of thousands of people. It is a good idea to first know what you are firebombing before the actual commision of the act.
Whatever happened to 'amber mutations' for this sort of genetically engineered 'drugs factory'? An amber mutation is one which will not kill the plant/animal with it, provided it gets some substance not commonly available in the environment. But if the susbtance is not provided then the organism simply dies.
It was originally used with lab and sealed-vat based organisms to protect against accidental releases, but it could easilly be applied to farm based plants. Since the kind of farming that uses genetically modified organisms also tends to use a significant quantity of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers it would be simple to add one more non-toxic chemical to the mix, without which the plants would simply die (or fail to reproduce). You could then deal with any problems by withdrawing the supplement, and any escapees would quickly die. There would still be a slight risk of genetic 'contamination' of nearby crops, but it would be much lower than at present.
If I were a cynical type I would suspect that biotechnology companies are counting on accidental contamination to make it impossible to ever go back to a 'GMO free' state, thus safeguarding their business. Another (cynical) alternative is that to build in a safeguard is tantamount to admitting that you *need* a safeguard, which would adversly affect their sales.
Sometimes it's hard not to be a cynic.
This is EXACTLY what the anti-GM lobby loves to scream and yell about that the sky is falling, so this submitter has obviously spun the story to become anti-GM.
To quote E. Ripley: "Nuke them from the orbit. It's the only way to be sure".
That's what should be done about terrorists and all those who support them directly (money, weapons) or indirectly (blocking US motions in UN).
This is not the first time that there have been mix-ups with genetically engineered crops. Such mix-ups are becoming entirely too frequent. Although no injuries have happened to date, that we know of, this is a dangerous situation.
The frightening thing is that this is very likely to become far more common as more and more genetically engineered crops are developed and their use becomes more widespread. So far, the mix-ups have been caught, or so we hope. But, the likelyhood of such crops escaping into the consumer market and the wild is rapidly increasing and the unknown dangers that go with them are frightening.
Man has always tampered with nature with many disaterous results to show for it. The transplanting of non-native species has almost always resulted in a proliferation of the species which then becomes a niusance. Think killer bees, cane toads, rabies, lethal yellowing, dutch elm disease, citrus canker etc...
No one knows what negative effects these genetically altered crops will present in the future. All that we do know is that the opportunity for disaster is enormous.
Gene hacking is not the same as the gradual breeding proceses that have gone on for millenia. In the latter, each step is relatively stable, in the former, large potentially disruptive leaps can be made more or less overnight. Unfortunately, unlike with computers you don't have the comfort of chroot and/or virtual machines.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
See, all of you people were over-reacting! Genetically modifying crops is perfectly safe and we understand all of the ramifications of everything we are doing. I mean sure there was a leap from corn to soy beans, but that's well within tolerances. Now, if the gentic modifications had jumped to say, badgers, then that would be something to have concern about. As it now stands this just demonstrates that all precautions are being taken and that we are perfectly safe.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I'm very split over this end of biotech. On the one hand, using gen-tech plants (and possibly animals) to produce drugs and vaccines is one of the most exciting and potentially revolutionary applications of genetic engineering technology. It's much more efficient to produce big organic molecules in suitable organic systems than it is in test tubes... It seems to me to be a much more worthy application of the technology than using it to increase profit margins and control farmers behaviour.
On the other hand, producing biologically active compounds - which, one would hope, drugs and vaccines are - raises the stakes on control of seeds and pollen, and the need for safety assurance,sky high.
So what do we do? Cover acres with air-conditionned glass-houses? Give up on the huge potential benefits just in case something goes wrong? Can we trust the biotech companies given how snuggly in bed they seem to be with most of the governments of the Western world...?
Does anyone know the vector that allowed the genes to transfer?
Why aren't GM crops grown in greenhouses?
Wouldn't this avoid this sort of thing in the future?
Maybe you are right, but the study on cross polinisation make a lot of people kinda warry in EU, and a lot of people there says that definitly 3 or 4 years was not enough to study the complete "life" cycle and possible jump a gene might make between plants, and the possible bad results of , say, a gene resisting desherbant into a wild specy.
And when such SLOPYNESS comes to light, I can certainly give reason to people asking for more study of impact.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Perhaps the moderator was unaware that it wasn't George W. Bush that said that, but his father.
In any event, that's more of a blatant troll than interesting or insightful.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I grew up farming corn and beans. Soybeans are a broadleaf plant. Corn is a grass. Grass killer sprayed on soybeans will kill the corn plants that come up.
Also, corn grows about four feet taller than soybeans. Picking out the corn should be no problem.
Really though, GM stuff should be grown in totally separate fields and the fields kept separate.
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand the huge fear about genetically altered food. Sure it would be bad if say, a large number of plants were altered to take in oxygen and release CO2, but why can't I eat such a plant? It's not like my body is going to absorb their DNA, actually my enzymes and acids will break the food down and absorb the nutrients, then get rid of the waste. As long as a company can show that any genetic alterations do not make the plant produce poisons, what's the big deal? I've been wondering this for a while, and help would be appreciated.
So he appointed somebody that knows all about agriculture to a board of agriculture. Would you rather he appoint someone that knows nothing of agriculture?
Like they get on bush for having all these oil guys in the energy meetings. Better them than people who know nothing of energy production... but I digress
Really, how could you possibly lay blame on Bush for this?!
seems like just another case of typical conservative bashing... no objective independant thought shown on the part of the article submitter
I'm much more worried about other genetically modified food stuffs...
"Oh, Daddy, this tastes like grandma."
--Ralph Wiggum
Last I checked Corn and Soybean plants can't cross-pollinate. Nor do they have any other means to transfer their genes from one species to another.
I highly doubt that the Corn stalks were 'gettin it on' with the Soybean plants, spreading free love and pollen accross the species barrier. This would be like a pig mating with an elephant, and is thus merely the stuff of dreams and fantasies in a biologist's world.
It's highly likely that what actually happened was wrongly interpreted, and a totally misinformed journalist created a hyped up headline that didn't even begin to convey what actually happened. Most likely the farmers that grew the genetically altered corn used harvesting equipment (combines) which like nearly all combines are unable to be 100% effecient in gathering the crops, and as such allow some of the corn to fall back to the earth and become seed. Next year the farmer goes back in, tills up the land, plants his soybean crops in the same field, and soon enough a couple of corn stalks crop up. You'll see this in many soybean fields in the midwest, a couple of stalks of corn standing up in a vast field of what is otherwise soybeans. Even if there are few to no weeds, you'll still usually see some corn, because the herbicides are designed not to kill corn and soybeans, but everything else. When the soybeans were harvested, a couple of corn stalks were harvested along with it, even though a bean head on a combine is not designed to harvest corn, it usually is able to pull a few kernels off the cobb when plowing through the beans. Low and behold, some genetically altered 2nd generation corn gets into the soybeans. Big deal.
Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
Another example...
There is a lot of study on cross pollinisation and inter specy gene jumping. This is also why EU has some "fear" of GMO :/ con8en_en.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/civil/pdf
Sorry I don't know HTML to transform an URL into link. PS: you will find a lot of such link in google, just go past the first few page.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Militant nasty people who hate change in general declare a ban on natural mutations and new hybrids, contending that not enough is known about the "new mutants" and "half breeds" long-term safety for humans. One of them was reported as saying "We know enough about the half breeds that have been with us for some time, but these new guys, we're just not sure."
[says something about many eyes.]
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Read farther down in the posts. Some leftover GM corn kernels were allowed to mature in fields which had been replanted with non-GM soybeans. The resulting harvest had soybean seeds mixed with a tiny amount of GM corn kernels.
The soybeans did not acquire genetic material from the corn.
It is my (possibly flawed) understanding that such a transfer might, might, conceivably (we're talking one in several million odds or so) happen with a viral vector, but such a virus would be considerably more likely to glom onto a completely different corn gene and transpose it. Even if the modified gene did jump, the virus carying the gene would have to infect one of the soybean's sex cells to be present in the end food product, or to be passed on.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
The "Not so reassuring article", doesn't look so bad to me.
He was appointed to the USAID, note the "I", as in International Development. This is an obscure trade board with little or no policy making power that is likely to do little more that waste some more money. It's not as if he was appointed to head the USDA. Also, the fact the you'd go looking for GWB connections with this rather screams your conspiracy theorist paranoia, eh?
Now, if I was in Russia I might be concerned that this guy is going to push a bunch of mutant corn down my throat but, in Niceville, USA he's not going to have much impact.
Of course, if genetically engineered food escapes into the wild, even on another continent, it will eventually come back to haunt us.
eat Tofu, enjoy free love
:)
I guess it will be called Bufu
1. Mass Starvation 2. A major plague (>2 billion dead) 3. GM Crops We don't have much of a choice. In the long run, natural systems will not be efficient enough to supply humanity. Until we begin to colonize space, we need GM crops to eat.
Homer:this corn looks normal to me
Marge:That's baby corn
Homer: WHAAAAT?!?!!
Lisa: Mom...my potato is eating my carrot
$cat
The article says that an inspector first became suspicious because he noticed corn plants among the harvested soybeans. IANAF (I am not a farmer), but I would imagine that it doesn't take too much intelligence to discern corn from soybeans and any mixing of the plants can be quickly dealt with at a processing plant.
Also, given that only a few corn plants were present among tons of soybeans, what is the real danger of poisoning someone? Since soybeans are processed into edible and non-edible products, is there a REAL, measurable danger?
Vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs generally help a lot more people than they hurt. Are we going to ban GE foods because a few people might have a problem with them? Why not ban the peanut plant, since peanuts DO cause allergic reactions in some people?
5. Slashdotter submits oversimplified misinterpretation of would-be conspiracy for publishing.
6. Slashdot editor press "Publish" button without even thinking twice.
You know, when I search for stuff on Google, I don't append "george w bush" to it - not ever.
WTF? Why would you do that?!
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
But the dems want to see an energy council dominated by environmental activists and the anti-globalisation crowd. People who think the solution to our energy problem is that everybody should just use less energy and live like Quakers.
Just send a couple swarms of these grasshoppers to eat up all the mutant crops. Of course, getting rid of the grasshoppers would become a problem. But, those biotech companies can always just make some mutant lizards.
way cool, man, and i'm sure any survivor will love the USA, and will be very eager to learn to "fly" a 747.
i had a sig, once..
Well, it's a well known fact that eating meat throws a human body out of whack. Ever heard of the correlation between heart and kidney diseases, diabetes and cancer and meat eating?
Yes. Humans are omnivores but the body has adapted to a small and infrequent intake of meat. Not the friggin' piles of barbecued meat every day.
Maybe the corn got zapped by some Noocoolar waste and then bit the soybean, thereby transfering it's super-powers to the soybean. Watch out for soybeans that pop spectacularly when heated in oil!
Of, course, this is only possible because of what G.W. Bush did as governor of Texas.
And that's OK!
..."
Plants and animals have been hybridized for thousands of years. Hybridized plants keep us from having famines and so forth. This is a good thing!
I'm a little confused:
In the good old days, plant genes were altered by humans using many relatively random processes, for example by putting different crops together in a field, by exposing seeds to radiation, and so forth -- the hope was that some of the random mutations would result in a beneficial outcome, even though most mutations were bad. (The "bad" plants eiter never germinated, or otherwise didn't make the cut). Seed stock was improved over time, and humans ate better. This was considered a good thing.
In the bad new days, we make very, very selective changes to genes. This freaks everyone out.
Go figger.
Andrew Weil is a an interesting fellow. From Weil's answer to a question asked on the front page of his website:
"I'm unaware of evidence showing that any commercially available combination of supplements provides effective control of blood sugar. However, I do recommend several individual supplements:
Read as: That's right, damn the evidence! I'm making stuff up so that you'll think that I'm smart and buy my books!
Has he ever heard of the scientific method? Sticking to TESTED hypotheses is why blood letting and phrenology are history. (Until Weil brings 'em back to make a buck off of a new book...)
A very dangerous person.
how about option #4, showing some fucking self-restraint and not breeding like rabbits!
Being a farmer, there is nothing to worry about in this case, or really any other crops. Corn and soybeans have been genetically modified for a long time, mostly to result in larger harvests, and lately to resist some herbicides that would normally kill it(RoundUp). The tiny bit of corn that grew in this soybean field is 2nd generation, known to farmers as volunteer corn. Any volunteer corn is far from the original in its chemical makeup. It will never grow to what its parent was due to the treatment the original seed corn gets at the seed corn plant. (Seed corn being the corn you buy in bags to plant in the spring.) So, if you think you're going to be harmed by this genetically altered corn, it's too late, corn has been altered for years. Although, this corn was altered for a different reason, but a tiny bit of this mixed in with thousands of bushels of soybeans isn't anything anyone should give a shit about.
Why not roses or birch trees or poison ivy? Heck, why not kudzu, which we already know will grow just fine without much human intervention? I mean, if we grant that sticking funky genes in plants is a good idea, and we further grant that growing them anywhere but in sealed greenhouses is acceptable, why put them in crops where gene transfer is potentially catastrophic? Imagine if the price of wheat suddenly tripled or quintupled because huge swaths of crops had been contaminated by pollen that made them produce tumor necrosis factor?
Looks like they're also working on an edible AIDS vaccine (kinda makes sense, eat Tofu, enjoy free love!)
/.ers attention?
I wonder why they even mention this. Does it really hold
Must be something to make GM food more popular... it'd sound like some viagra
I wonder how much $$ Anthony G. Laos or ProdiGene Inc spent on political campaign contributions??
From the sounds of the article, they left enough corn in the feed that it took seed, then planted soybeans with it, so next year they had soybeans and corn and were harvested together. Though I could be wrong.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Wake up. Most plants and animals associated with agriculture are
- not native to the region in which they are grown
- heavily inbred and hardly recognizable
- displacing the "natural" biota
- a huge source of pesticides, fertilizers, and waste products
- heavily dependent on fossil fuel
Modified crops can and will turn sunlight into complex molecules for industry and medicine. There is already an addressed need to monitor our food supply for chemicals and pathogens. So new tests and controls are now necessary. So what?First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
It makes total sense that this would happen. In order to keep fields fertile, it's best to rotate which crops get grown each year -- often soy,soy,corn. So it stands to reason that you're going to have some corn "volunteers" the years you grow soy.
If you think that scientists are just randomly changing genes in foods intended to be sold, you've lost your grip on reality. Experimentation happens, but no sane food/drug company would risk the impact of such a level of carelessness/unconcern.
While I tend to agree with that assessment, I am still troubled by the amount of resources these same food/drug companies spent in order to defeat bills that would have required mandatory labelling of any products containing GM products.
If GM foods are *so* safe, why do they not want us to know when they are being consumed? It's sad that the last line of defense is the threat of massive class-action lawsuits in the event that GM foods are not quite as safe as their purveyors would have us believe!
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Is the same reason people in the States refuse to plant the genetically altered stuff. If the patented stuff happens to mix with the non-patented stuff, then the company can sue and demand all the crop be destroyed. It is the contamination issue that caused them to refuse the crop.
I'm not saying that the food was not used as a weapon. Just that it is not the only reason.
You think this is bad? Is the thought of a few modified genes leaping into another crop scarry to you? How about the hundreds of thousands of experiments where people modified hundreds, even thousands of genes at once, with no idea of the outcome or its impact on other species?
Well, that's called traditional cross-breeding, and it's been practiced by humans intentionally and unintentionally pretty much since the day when we started building mud huts and stopped following animals around.
The reaction to genetically altered foods in this country (and Europe), espcially the reaction of people of reason, is baffling to me.
When these "big bad" bio companies modify plant genes in an effort to create products, they're doing it with a kind of specificity that was unthinkable 10 years ago. They modify a handful of genes, and they know the exact outcome of that modification.
Is it possible some of these modified genes will "jump" to another plant species? Yes. In fact, it's likely, especially if the plants are grown outdoors rather than in a greenhouse. Is that bad? Maybe. But probably not, and it most cases, it's no more dangerous than the situation created when plants are cross-bred in the "traditional" (read: random) way to produce desireable traits.
Bioengineering faces a lot of hurdles, but one hurdle it should not have to face is educated people rising up in terror against the benefits it could provide.
I don't get this accusation of "forcing farmers to use" transgenic crops. Farmers want these things...and there are options. They just aren't as attractive.
The headline isn't just misleading, it's just plain wrong. The story is less than an hour old and there are already a fistful of comments pointing this out.
If any of the editors are reading this thread, the headline needs to be corrected!
BTW, I reread the summary a few times, and it seems that the person who submitted the story got it right. The poster makes no mention of any sort of horizontal gene transfer between the corn and soy, but only claims the crops were "accidentally mixed", which is what happened. It's Hemos who fscked this one up.
"Although unwanted corn often sprouts in soybean fields, ProdiGene failed to pull out its bio-corn in Nebraska and removed it too late in Iowa, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. ... As a result, ProdiGene was ordered to destroy 155 acres of corn in Iowa and may have to buy 500,000 bushels of soybeans quarantined in Nebraska because of possible contamination."
And the other one,
"The USDA quarantined the soybeans in Nebraska after discovering the possible contamination during harvest last month. Investigators suspect the contamination occurred when a small amount of ProdiGene's corn plants mixed in with soybeans subsequently grown on the same field and adjacent fields. In Iowa, the company was ordered to destroy 155 acres (63 hectares) of corn in September because windborne pollen from its bio-corn may have contaminated nearby fields."
No gene transfer, no mutations, no animated Frankencorn coming for your children. Just some self-catch corn plants in a soyabean field which were either not removed before harvest (unlikely) or were removed at a time later decided by some dickhead bureaucrat to be the wrong time (very likely).
In Iowa we have a case of definite burocratitis, where one guy officially blessed the planting and another guy said "NONONO!!!" later on, after the corn was in the ground. No evidence of actual contamination in Iowa was found in the articles, just potential for it.
So what we actually have here is the politically motivated attempt by the agriculture bureaucrats to bankrupt a perfectly reasonable company, one which is following all the rules.
So all you Greenie boys and girls need to read the friggin article, and possibly go read up on gene transfer technology.
The genes did not jump from corn to soybeans.
Genetically-modified corn was planted in a small field. Soybeans were planted in that field the next growing cycle. Volunteer corn from the previous crop sprung up with the soybeans. The company did not weed out the volunteer corn, and at harvest time a small amount of corn was gathered with the soybeans and eventually mixed with 500 tons of soybeans in a silo.
The modified genes being detected are in the corn kernels, not the soybeans.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
I grew up on a farm and I know how hard it is to make a profit nowadays. With the price of a new John Deere Combine running around half a million dollars (NOT KIDDING!!), farmers will embrace any new technology that could improve profits (the price of wheat per bushel 3 years ago was less that its worth in the 1950's, NOT KIDDING EITHER!). When Monsanto, among others, started releasing GMO corn and soybeans, those product significantly lowered the cost required to spray and maintain fields for insects and weeds. Instead of spray costing around $75 an acre, it now costs around $20 an acre. Unfortunately, no one wants to buy these anymore because they are "dangerous" or, whatever.
Additionally, for those people who are horrified by the idea of eating GMO's, I'd like to tell you a little secret that has been withheld from you. VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING YOU EAT TODAY HAS BEEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED BY HUMANS. For example, give me one example of a wild cabbage plant, (if you can find this, then you will realize what else was created from its ancestor). Or, since we are on the subject, has anyone seen a real wild corn plant or Soybean plant? The reason we have them today, is because long ago selective breeding made them what they are. The only difference with Genetically Modifying an organism is that it can accomplish a variety of plant in a much smaller amount of time. Additionally, while GMO's synthetically splice new DNA, which in turn creates new organic compounds, selective breeding HAS THE SAME EFFECT ON PLANTS.
anyways, I'm stepping off the soapbox now
My point was that we injest proteins everyday.
Even vegetarians and vegans need proteins. There are 20 amino acids and the human body can synthesize only 12. So we need to injest proteins to supplement the remaining 8.
Our bodies are designed to digest proteins. We don't just absorb them, we break them down into their component amino acids before they are absorbed. This way, they are "deactivated" and can do no harm.
Don't worry, Operation Dandelion is coming along nicely.
Pretty soon, we'll own everything. Granted, most of it will be radioactive, but it'll be ours.
Tech Support: Prodigene Tech Support, can I have your ticket number?
Farmer: Uh ah need to open me a new one.
T.S.: What is the nature of the issue?
Farmer: Ah'm getting some strange plants in mah soybean field.
T.S.: What do they look like?
Farmer: They're big-uns. About as high as a elephent's eye.
T.S.: So your soybeans are growing exceptionally tall?
Farmer: No, mah soybeans are normal, but ever few yards ah'm gettin one o these big-uns. It's got long leaves and long hairy things growing out of the top.
T.S.: Hmm. We've never had this problem before. Could you tell me the lot numbers from the seed you bought?
Farmer: Yeah, wait a sec...
Farmer: They're PGS-00023 through PGS-00041
T.S.: Please hold one moment while I look those up...
LONG PAUSE
Farmer: Uh, hello?
T.S.: I'm afraid there's a bit of a problem. We're going to have to do a complete reinstall. Do you have a plow?
Farmer: Ah got me a plow. But I think Ah need to come down to your office.
T.S.: My office? That shouldn't be necessary.
Farmer: Oh it's necessary. How big a boy are you?
Corn plants were found mixed with soybean plants. The article says nothing about genes jumping from the GM corn to the non-GM soybeans.
The headline is wrong.
You can definitely tell who clicked through to read the links, can't you?
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
I'll trust humanity's design capabilities when I no longer need to patch software against security or bug fixes.
Humans aren't as smart as they think they are.
NOOOOOOO!!!!
Monsanto -- making things "Greener than You Think"
(HINT: Moderators, if you're not familiar with the book in question, DO NOT MODERATE!)
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Regarding the risks to the world's food supply due to genetically mod. crops let loose in the wild go here: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021028&s=sc hapiro
The public at large (through PR campaigns) is getting flim-flammed into thinking technical 'progress' like this is good for them. I can't think too many scenarios scarier than the worlds food supply being controlled by a few corporations. And where are the regulators to protect us? It's amazing how regulatory agency key positions are being stacked with industry shills.
They used to have to lobby government, now they ARE the government.
http://www.purefood.org/Monsanto/revolvedoor.cfm
And I forget where I read it, but I recall an author with a very interesting observation:
These companies claim that these products (not refering to the Pharm. Foods, just GM foods like round-up ready canola) are not substaintially different from natural foods thus avoiding FDA problems, but then turn around and proclaim their distinctiveness to the US patent office.
First there weren't any genes jumping. The farmer raised the pharmaceutical corn last year for Prodigene. This year he planted soybeans into the field. Some of the corn seed from last year grew in the field this year as a weed. The farmers call it volunteer corn. The farmer received warnings from Prodigene's representative and the government that the volunteer corn must be eradicated. The last warning was less than a week before harvest. By the time the government checked back and learned the farmer wasn't in compliance the soybeans were at the elevator. The 500 bushels (3000 lbs) of soybeans were contaminated with 60 grams of corn stalks. Unfortunately they got mixed into a 500,000 bushel bin at the elevator. What we learned is that the government (believe it or not) actually did a good job of protecting our interests. Prodigene will buy the soybeans and they will be destroyed. Current use of biotech corn has reduced farmers use of insecticides by million of pounds. Pharmaceutical corn has the potential to greatly lower drug costs for seniors. Here's a URL from the Omaha Herald Here and another from the BIO organization Here Man Holmes
-
Lab experiments are allowed with strict containment procedures.
-
Field experiments and production are allowed provided the modified organism is easily distinguished without any special technology.
For instance, the Spider Goats experiment meets these requirements. If the spider goats become wild, a third world farmer can easily notice and not breed goats that excrete stringly stuff with their milk (if I understand the results correctly). He might even find that after rinsing and drying, that stringy stuff can be woven into really strong cloth - and breed more of them.Bt Corn does not meet this test. Bt Corn looks just like normal corn, but can kill you or make you sick if you eat it and do not tolerate the Bt toxin. It has a survival advantage in the wild to boot. While North American farmers plant from high tech hybrid seeds, South American farmers may soon find their major food crop contaminated. Eventually, a Bt tolerant human population will emerge via natural selection, but only after much human suffering.
Using corn to grow drugs does not meet this test either.
You're right to be cynical, unfortunately you're being cynical about the wrong side in this debate. The truth is that Monsanto wanted to put in a "terminator" gene to control the spread of GMOs, but the luddite/green left screamed bloody murder. They claimed that Monsanto was using this as a cynical ploy to make third-world farmers dependent on GMOs, and then starve them to death unless they paid Monsanto. Fortunately they seem to be finally coming around to the realization that a Terminator gene is actually a good idea as a result of stories like this one.
For example:
A farm plants transgenic crops, the neighbouring farm doesn't. The seeds cross-polinate. The farmer who didn't plant transgenic crops is sued by the patent holder for 'growing' patented crops without a licence. This actually happens.
While it's becoming clear that the headline is misleading and that we're actually talking about harvested crop mixing and not gene jumping, jumping is still a problem. I don't know about intra-species jumping, but two corn fields seperated by miles of Illinois flatland can definetly cross polinate. There are supposed to be "buffer zones" of soybeans or other plants around "special" corn, but those only work about 90% of the time. There is a definte chance for long distance cross-polination.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
A quick search on opensecrets.org shows that Anthony Laos has made numerous contributions to George Bush's political campaigns since 1994, and to other Republican campaign funds. Anyone who thinks Bush appointed him to BIFAD solely on the basis of agricultural expertise is simply naive.
Now why would he want to serve on such a board? To help consumers understand the issues? For the opportunity to push his company's products more widely into a market reluctant to embrace GM foods? For the opportunity to advise on the kinds of safeguards and constraints that should be imposed on companies developing such products?
Is it Bush-bashing or leftist psychobabble to raise such questions?
If it isn't true, don't say it. If it isn't helpful, don't say it. If it's true and helpful, wait for the right time.
Yes, I am shouting ...
Could someone out there PLEASE explain to me how using genetic manipulation to produce an edible AIDS vaccine 'kinda makes sense' while using the same techniques to produce food that is resistant to disease and insects certain to lead to the end of life as we know it?
Really - is it too much to expect a little consistency from the leftists out there?
...and it's meaningless. What does BIFAD do? You might have checked that out first, while we're following links...
t er.htm
http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/freeman/board/char
As can be clearly seen, BIFAD is NOT an oversight board. They have NO power. All they do is advise the head of some other group on international food aid. I can think of no greater waste of time. And I'd rather have this organization be used for paybacks than something that isn't a figurehead position. Bush deserves credit for getting this Laos idiot out of the way, if anything.
This is obviously a political payback, where some irrelevant organization is created or filled with the intent of making contributors feel important while not having them actually do anything. This goes on all the time.
And if you want to talk wrong person for the job, I have a Jocelyn Elders for you...and that WASN'T a Bush appointee.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Is this corn that has contaminated the soybeans the same frankenfood that Zimbabwe rejected for fear it would be planted? I suspect so. I would reject it, too.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Is that after you get sick eating their contaminated food, they SUE you for appropriating their technology....
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
This is just plain false, unless you know how to selectively breed a fish with a corn plant. It's ISN'T the same, and common sense should tell you so.
Using GM foods is a mistake for the simple reason that it narrows the gene pool of our food supply. When(not if) a blight attacks a weakness of the GM plants, if they are a majority of our supply, we're screwed, because the crop is homogenous. See: This article for a comprehensive article on the danger of GM crops being released in to the environment.
...I could modify cereal in such a way, that it had the potential to get me stoned?
:)
LSoyaD
I will start studying genetics and looking for a farm to buy immediately.
Caution is right. The genes didn't jump anywhere.
Both "news" stories are from an agenda-driven web site and read more like propaganda press releases than real news stores. Hemos was either asleep at the switch or has an axe to grind. Regardless, this is just nonsense.
I don't really understand the "I did this google search..." part of the post. Who was Bush supposed to appoint, some retard that can't read, spell, or understand simple plant cultivation? If there's a job with those requirements, "Anonymous Cowdog" should submit his resume & you could be his travelling secretary.
What part of 'science' includes a title like 'Drug Making Genes Added To Corn Jump To Soya' when referring to a story about a logistical mistake?
Here we have one crop, untested and whose long-term effects have never been fully studied, growing accidentially side-by-side with seed currently undergoing testing of the crop's potential long term effects.
It's these kinds of tactics that hide the weak underpinnings of the anti-GM rabble-rousing, which is not to be confused with informed debate. Posting this story in this fashion is as ethically valid as fighting corporatism by smashing a row of small shops. Such attempts to raise people's awareness of the problems undermines the very attempt to educate by clouding the issue with baseless accusations.
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
SIX MILLION people are in danger of dying from lack of food there! All the have to do is allow the corn to be processed before it is shipped over.
I listed 4 different news sources located all over the world. Those sources came from the 1st page of google results. I doubt that they are all working together to spread lies about Zimbabwe.
The country that refused food aid wasn't Zimbabwe, it was Zambia.
See here.
OK, Just to clear this up a little bit.
/. editors put in a little addendum correcting the article submission a bit on that score. Its not that there's not legitimate cause for concern, but lets make sure that we've got the right concerns before we go off half-cocked. /.ers rightly complain about FUD coming from Wintel supporters. We should be equally careful not to spread unwarranted FUD regarding other subjects.
Cross-pollenation occurs between plants of the same species. Cross-pollentation is where the pollen of two different corn plants of two different lineages are intentionally introduced to each other. This is the same idea as people marrying somebody from the next town over, rather than their cousin.
The pollen of a corn plant, cannot, under any circumstances, land on a soybean flower and create a seed. Two different species cannot create viable offspring unless they are very closely related (where they produce a cross-species hybrid, such as a mule), and even then these offspring are always infertile.
Genetic Modification still has to follow the laws of biology. No matter what the source of the genes, you can't just put two species in close proximity and have genes cross from one to the other. You really do have to have all that spiffy lab equipment and clever people with test-tubes and droppers and microscopes and so forth.
The genes of the corn plants did not contaminate the soy.
So what's the fuss about? Well, those corn plants were producing diabetes and diahorrea drugs. These drugs are probably not something that you really want healthy people taking, as it could possibly have adverse effects. The soy was planted in feilds that contained the GM corn previously. A few of the seeds left over from the previous planting sprouted when the soy was planted. Now it is entirely possible that these corn plants could still be producing these drugs. This is relatively harmless in the wild where they won't be coming into contact with people, but when they're growing in the middle of food-plants, its possible the soy could absorb some of the drugs, simply due to their proximity. This is a legitimate concern, not becuase of some possible 'genetic contamination', but the more mundane but infinitely more plausible pharmecuetical contamination. You won't get soybeans that produce the chemicals themselves, but they might pick up the chemicals from the nearby corn.
The reason that the food manufacturers are upset about using food-plants for pharmaceuticals is that you don't want people eating corn that's been producing diabetes drugs. Eating a tortilla which messes with your insulin levels would be a Bad Thing. There's no reason these drugs couldn't be produced in, say, millet, which nobody on this continent eats as a food. Therefore, nobody accidentally takes drug-millet and makes cornbread from it, becuase nobody eats it anyway. You still wouldn't want to grow soy in that field the next season, though, for the reasons put forth above.
I'd kinda like to see the
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Sorry for the poor formatting and broken link... it was my first post and I accidentally clicked submit instead of preview... The first link should be this
... definitely have to start growing my own food in my environmentally-sealed biosphere, real soon now. even getting "genetics-engineering-free" crops is no guarantee that pollen from one of these "genetics-engineering-full" fields has not been brought in by wind or carrier pigeon.
shouldn't the ante be on those producing this kind of crop to grow them in contained areas? or is it my responsibility to contain my crops to protect them?
MORTAR COMBAT!
ProdiGene is based in College Station.
If you are not familiar with the term "Aggie" this is a student or alumnus of Texas A&M University. For reference.
Now I understand! Its like not expecting the ./ editors to have actual editing and research skills or like expecting the story submitters to actually read the story they are submitting. I bet that Anonymous Cowdog spent more time researching how he could blame Prez Bush with something than he did reading the story. His title and submission really suggest he didn't read much of the story.
If you want people that could have no possible conflict of interest involved in making the core decisions about how things are done, ( energy, agriculture, health and environmental policies), then they won't really be familiar with the subject. By familiar, I mean an intimate understanding of implementation from beginning to end ( delivery of service/product). Giving me the task of defining health care policy would be disasterous. It is very easy for someone to proclaim their understanding of a better way, but the decisions usually get handed to people that have proven they can follow through while the people that are mostly talk get left behind.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Genes do inter-species jumps. Here is one example:
S tory/0,276 3,756666,00.html>
"British scientific researchers have demonstrated for the first time that genetically modified DNA material from crops is finding its way into human gut bacteria, raising potentially serious health questions.
Although the genetically modified material in most GM foods poses no health problems, many of the controversial crops have antibiotic-resistant marker genes inserted into them at an early stage in development.
If genetic material from these marker genes can also find its way into the human stomach, as experiments at Newcastle university suggest is likely, then people's resistance to widely used antibiotics could be compromised. "
Full article:
%lt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/
Do a Google search and you'll find many more examples.
A) This only happnes if people save seeds. In this day of hybrid seeds, no one save seeds in most crops (certainly not corn and soy) except subsistence farmers and organic farmers.
B) This happened before transgenics, too. If I was growing variety X, and you were growing variety Y, and pollen from X pollinated your variety Y, I'm still not forcing you to plant X, or even the seeds contaminated with X DNA.
C) To my knowledge, none of these lawsuits have been successfully prosecuted.
D) Even if they were, they wouldn't be forcing the farmer to use transgenic crops, they'd be forcing them to pay for technology they didn't intend to use. Pretty lame, but not the same thing.
Unfortunately, cross polination is still an issue with Bt corn, or the strain used to defeat corn-borer. You have to be careful as to where in the field rotations to place it, and you can't have too much of your crop as Bt corn, or the resistance develops inside the corn-borers, and it's endgame.
At any rate, when I see this kind of news, I can't help but think that the community, as a whole, is over-reacting, and actively blaming the farmers too often for something that is just a slip. It takes a helluva lot of work just to get the grain in and dried, let alone seperated, and even then you can't be 100% sure you've done it right. By all means, do the studies, and whatnot, but don't persecute the farmers anymore than you have to.
I dunno. It's hard, man. Just like everything else. Only they're feeding America, and the world.
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
What the general public (and obviously many scientists) do not realize is that different classes of organisms have a higher or lower likelyhood of genetic transfer with other organisms. We do not see this much within ourselves but the nitrogen producing bacteria in the roots of clover has been shown to adopt genetic material from the clover. If the bacteria contains this new gene, how easy will it be transferred into a seperate plant species if a colony of that bacteria inhabit another plant? One easily extrapolate that genetic material of certain bacteria and plants is MUCH more transferrable than that of mammals and possible other "higher" organisms.
I read this in an old Scientific American article about 10 years ago so it is not new news.
We fuck with nature in ways we do not understand.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
What about forcing unlabled GM products into the EU???
s id /16509/story.htm
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/new
The problem here is that genes normally don't transfer laterally among species, but the methodology of genetic engineering uses methods that encourage lateral transfer. The materials used to do this horizontal transfer in the lab don't all get dstroyed and can wind up in the wild.
If you haven't read "Mutant" by Peter Clement, do so. Genetic engineering is a nightmare waiting to happen. While "Mutant" is a fictional book, everything in it is quite possible, and I looked up everything in it at both the library in medical journals and online. Scary as hell, and the companies doing all the experimentation don't want you to know how dangerous it really is.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
It's not the Washington Post, it's a right-wing scandal sheet run by the Unification Church, aka The Moonies. Take what they say with a hefty pinch of salt.
Your link didn't work, but unless they're forcing unlabeled transgenic seed into the EU, it's still not the same thing.
"until contaminated foods leak into the market and people start dying
You mean like in the Showa Denko Disaster? 37 people killed, 1500 more permanently disabled. And that happened in the US. So yes, genetic engineering has already caused quite a few casualties for the American people...
High-tech introduces risk in several ways.
First, we may become very dependent upon the technology - like electricity and the combustion engine.
Second, the technology may be intricate enough to make safety procedures so complex that they will be difficult to describe closely enough that they be mandated. Furthermore, technology owners can also obscure the argument, since most people don't posess the knowledge to detect the bullshit being presented to them. Computer security is an example of this.
Third, insufficient oversight of dangerous technology is also a risk. Even though there are regulations, it may be expensive to enforce the rules, or the technology owners are the only ones capable of performing the oversight. I would say GM field trials MIGHT fall into this category - and that security in Microsoft products probably falls into this category.
Stop the brainwash
This sort of thing has gone on for some time. Not just for Bush/GOP either. You Lefties might want to check out your Clinton / Gore / Dems for who they appointed, and why.
I was going to criticize your spelling and grammar, especially when you talked about slopyness (sic), but then I realized that english may not be your mother tongue. So, therefore, I will forgive you for it; because your mother tongue is not mine, and I could not be expected to do any better were I to attempt your language. However, I am not quite sure I understand what the word "desherbant" is supposed to mean.
"ProdiGene also will hire more of its own inspectors to ensure compliance with federal regulations, he said." NO KIDDING?
elakazal, I have to take issue with a lot of what you've said.
A: During the harvesting process, a certain amount of seed will be left behind. Seeds have a tendency to grow naturally, even when it's in violation of the EULA.
B: This happens because nature actually doesn't give a shit what the lawyers say. However, if your crop contaimnates my land, that creates a nuisance and waste of my property for which you are liable. You might be responsible for destroying my crops too.
C: A farmer in Canada was successfully prosecuted by Monsanto for growing their corn. He maintains it blew in from a neighboring farm. He lost. Google will tell you more, or I'm sure you can learn all about it elsewhere in this thread.
D: "Mr. Farmer, we're so sorry we had to sue you for inadvertantly using our technology (also known as corn.) Since you've already paid for it, feel free to begin using our Better Than Nature corn."
As the GMO product becomes more widely dispersed throughout the environment, there will evetually be no non-GMO stuff out there. Then, you will need an EULA for your lawn, and a special Monsanto Happy Tyke brand bowl for your GMO-corn flakes. Farmers will have to suscribe to Corn 6.0, which allows them the license to plant corn, but only for two years. Terms subject to change.
What mechanism exists for those who prefer non-GMO products to stem the tide? Lawyers and patents and evil corporations are co-opting the right to fucking put shit in dirt and make it grow.
We live in a dark age, we just can't see it for all the fluorescent lights in our cubicles.
Please dont sneeze on me, I dont want my children to have blue eyes !!!
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Cross-Pollination, between corn and Soya... Not likely, unless you are inbreeding with chimpanzees soon... Corn and Soya are not the same species, ergo, can't pollinate each other... Cross-pollination studies are corn to corn, or cotton to cotton etc. etc. The title of this post is terrible and inflammatory, particularly since it isn't true
Please go to the following URL for info. And please check your facts before you post next time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2148452.stm
"As many as 12 million people are at risk
Zimbabwe could suffer from a famine by September if the government continues to refuse food aid containing genetically-modified organisms (GMO), according to a senior United States aid official.
Famine and food-related deaths are not pretty
Roger Winter, USAid
In June, the United States gave 8,500 tonnes of maize to Zimbabwe but a further 10,000 tonnes was turned away by the government because it did not have a certificate saying that it was GM-free. "
Sorry, should have read the article instead of making the ignorant assumption that the person who submitted the article actually read it. I am humbled...
But it was a really good excuse to use "badger" in a comment. Haven't done that in far too long. It's no weasel, but badger does well too.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Doesn't it scare anyone that uh, you go to the store, and half the shit is 'organic' and the other half just says like. 'lettuce'. It should be the other way around. Organic Lettuce doesn't ADD anything to the lettuce, but they add a word. Perhaps because GENETICALLY ENGINEERED Lettuce, or SPRAYED WITH CHEMICALS Lettuce sounds bad. Him being appointed to the USAID thing..well, part help your friends on bush's part. he's from TX. I don't know that much about 'ProdiGene' but it sounds like they are looking for ways to deliver drugs without using pills. Its like that idea with the rice, they genetically engineer it to have all these vitamins in it, so when the people get it, they get a lot of value out of it. And while its a good idea, and thats cool, I don't want genetically engineered rice on my table. Sadly, I don't think our country has an off button, where is like, oh, ok we don't need to put engineered food in stores, people like it normal. Its unfortunate that tech seems to invade every part of our lives. and i bet they won't let me post this. oooh, i hit the limit at 4 am didn't I. :/ rofl.
Given the gratuitous Bush-bashing toward the end of the article, the latter is the more likely conclusion.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Look what they did to the planet !!!
The part we eat is the seed. Therefore the seeds you sow have to get to the point of producing another set of seeds. The first seeds will sprout, grow to maturity, and polinate each other. Thus creating another set of seeds. These seeds can be eaten, but if you plant them, they won't sprout.
A plant is infertile if it can't produce other plants. Irrespective of how many seeds it can grow.
If you cross a "terminated" plant with a "normal" plant, they will both produce seeds. The question is "What will grow if you plant those crossed seeds?"
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
My real problem here is with the amazing jumping genes. Something that, if true, would certanly be both Nobel prize and Armagedon material. Imagine a self-adapting, species-neutral gene. Such a criter would quickly mold the whole planetary ecosystem to its image.
As for Bush, he is a faithful servant of the the big capital in general. If he is involved in this particular incident is irrelevant to the picture.
As soon as they discovered Slashdot, things started to deteriorate.
From the art:
--
"Planting in the U.S. Southwest has been part of our business model from the beginning," Miller said.
--
I wish people would stop using this as a justification. This roughly translates to "We've been doing bad stuff from the start. If you didn't want us to do bad stuff, you should have caught us sooner. We have the right to continue doing bas stuff because it would be unfair to make us stop now."
No company has the right to have its business model protected. If we found out tomorrow that (to put a far-fetched scenario out of my butt) toilet brushed caused migrating geese to die in huge numbers, I don't think that we should accept "But selling toilet brushes is our business model." as justification to let it continue to happen.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
Yes, the facts are the Zimbabwe goverenment CLOSED many of its OWN FARMS down due to racial and financial ties. They caused thier own starvation. Of course there will be no revolution, the army gets the food first.
That sounds unbiased. Consider the source before posting alarmist pseudoscience, or is it part of the conspiracy that a mainstream media outlet has yet to follow up on the story? Oh, that's right- it is.
Whoa there! It is classical breeding, specifically hybrid production, that has been narrowing the gene pool. Do you think that those huge mono-culture fields are GMOs? You really need to get your facts straight.
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
Wow, my first slashdot flame war...
The poster to whom you were responding was referring to Zambia, not, as you thought, Zimbabwe. I am well aware of the politics of Zimbabwe, as my boss is from there and we discuss it frequently.
However, it does not change the fact that the country that refused aid specifically because it was GM was Zambia.
Take your own advice and read before you post.
From the BBC link...
"in June, the United States gave 8,500 tonnes of maize to Zimbabwe but a further 10,000 tonnes was turned away by the government because it did not have a certificate saying that it was GM-free."
And the original poster did not state what country he was talking about. Both Zimbabwe and Zambia have refused aid.
Soybean production is Cattle Production.
y beansoilcrops/ background.htm
From the USDA:
"By far, soybean meal is the world's most important protein feed, accounting for nearly 65 percent of world supplies. Livestock feeds account for 98 percent of soybean meal consumption"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/so
From the "Heartland of Missouri."
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Soybeans were contaminated with genetically altered corn and shipped out. It is a SERIOUS problem on the part of QA and SHIPPING but no genetically modified soybean was found.
Typical FDA overreaction, the GA corn husks most likely coded for overexpression of lysozyme. I think you'll be amused when you determine the function of the enzyme.
On the morning of Monday, November 18, 2002, a mixture of processed hybrid corn (marketed under the tradename of 'Corn Flakes') was deliberately mixed with a bowl containing nearly 1 cup of homogonized liquid dairy product (milk).
Before any government oversight committees could intervene, the potentially lethal mix was ingested by an unsuspecting 4th grader in Nashville, TN. Although scientists are poring over the data from this incident, the long term effects of this gene jumping remain to be seen.
In a brief press statement made later in the day by White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, the Bush administration "...sees no cause for alarm and is convinced that this type of behavior has no demeritous consequences."
It should be noted that President Bush has been a long standing supporter of agricultural product consumption and has previously sat on the board of several dairy and corn committees.
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
trypsin NOT lysozyme. My bad.
Maybe it's because people have a history of overhyping 'bad' products so that people have a fear of them out of proportion to the risks.
That's a pretty poor excuse for suppressing information.
Why include nutrition information?
Why list ingredients at all?
People have a right to know what they put into their bodies, and then to make up their own minds, whether or not their decisions are based on logic or emotions.
Some people have an extreme allergic reaction to a substance in peanuts.
What happens if the gene that makes this substance is transplanted into corn?
(OK, this particular allergen is well known, so it's unlikely that this would happen in this particular case, but there are many, many allergens out there, in many different plants and animals.)
In addition, some people do not eat various types of plants or animals for ethical or religious reasons.
What happens when a pig gene is transplanted into other plants/animals?
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
finally somebody here actualy read the article
Turns up just a few pages.
Feeling lucky?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
The article reads more like an Opinion piece than a scientific article. The paper contains no "proof", only scary statements and unprovable assertions. For example, the author writes: "...false assurances were made that "humans were not at risk."" Is the author accusing someone of lying? What proof is there? How does the author know? Statements such as "I was not surprised...", are found throughout. the article concludes with "All the risks...far outweigh any potential benefits." I'm glad Dr. Ho took the time to perform a full non-biased cost/benefit analysis. Or perhaps he's just stating an opinion here.
Additionally, more than half of the citations are written by the author of the paper. These citations are ones with obviously biased titles such as: "GM maize approved on bad science in the UK". Let me cite myself, and I could "prove" anything too!
So where's your medical degree from Harvard?
OK, that's a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority." Recognize it?
Here are key phrases to examine for significance:"commercially available combination of supplements" and "several individual supplements." See the difference?
Weil is just being honest with his first sentence. In his second sentence, he's expressing a personal belief, based on anecdotal evidence. Though anecdotal evidence is not conclusive, neither should it be ignored, since most scientific advancements started with anecdotal evidence.
I don't agree with everything Weil says, but his conclusions are more likely to be supported by the evidence than, say, the conclusions of various government propaganda outfits. Remember the food pyramid?
Everytime I speak out against genetically altered foods the majority of the "scientific" community pass me off as a layman who's afraid of scientific advancement.
The bottom line is, there's some things in nature that we shouldn't mess with, because the potential consequences can be huge. We just can't know for sure how something may negatively affect us, and this story is a very small and isolated example of how things can go awry (and may have without us knowing). Decades of additional research and observation need to be completed before we can truely appreciate the complexity of the nature that we are altering.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Looks like they're also working on an edible AIDS vaccine (kinda makes sense, eat Tofu, enjoy free love!)
/. readers would take the safe food.
given the choice I think most
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Actually the FDA has said that the genetically modified crops aren't much different from none-GM crops. I agree that the article is bleak but so far I don't think the battle over GMO has a clear winner.
(The standard HIV test is for HIV antibodies, which would show positive if you've been vaccinated. The PCR test, which costs about $200, tests for the RNA of the HIV virus itself, so it wouldn't show a false positive.)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I noticed a lot of comments both to the effect of "what's so bad about GMOs anyway?" and "here's something wrong!" so I thought I'd try to pull a bunch of them together and clarify it a bit. I used to be headed for a biotechnology job myself, but have gotten rather disillusioned with it.
1) Horizontal gene transfer can happen. We frequently use viruses to insert DNA into an organism. This DNA has flanking sequences, little bits of viral DNA surrounding the actual genes. The viral enzymes that insert this DNA use these sequences to figure out where to make breaks, so the whole thing goes in place, and not just some useless fraction of it. Once the gene is part of the host cell's DNA, the sequences are still there. Other viruses may enter the cell once its out in the wild and accidentally extract the DNA by keying off those viral sequences. Now instead of packaging its own DNA, the virus can end up carrying the artificial sequence, which can then infect other plants.
2) Bacteria are far more prone to slurping up stray DNA than more complex organisms. Many transgenic organisms have antibiotic resistance genes in them, a vestige from back in the lab when it was necessary to harvest the gene-insert in large quantities from bacteria. But now it could be absorbed by free-living bacteria from the GM plant.
3) If the gene you inserted generates a protein from the original donor organisms, people with allergies to that original organism may have them to your new creation. So you move a blight-resistance gene from peanuts to potatos, and someone allergic to peanuts (several friends of mine) keels over after a nice baked potato (thankfully not yet).
4) In the case of natural pest-control toxins (like Bt), does your new Bt-corn produce just as much as the soil bacteria normally would? Probably not, or you'd just use the bacteria. Does this increased level decompose as harmlessly as the low soil dose? Maybe, maybe not. Does the increased dose kill the pollinating or soil-aerating organisms? The Bt trapped inside plant tissues doesn't get exposed to sunlight, and thus doesn't break down. Thus a lot more ends up in final human or animal food.
5) The company that produced the GMO now owns it. Farmers can't save the seed without being charged for it. This is particularly nasty in developing nations where this is standard practice. And if the GMO crops are growing in a field nearby your own traditional crops, but get pollenated by them? You evil thief, using wind and insects to steal from those poor hardworking biotech companies.
6) Pesticide-resistant crops promote the use of pesticide. No longer do you have to be careful to use sub-toxic doses and maybe miss some weeds, just drench the crops, they don't mind! Naturally this leads to more build up on the produce and more runoff.
7) Even a good GMO can be overused. Golden Rice (Monsanto's I think) has vitamin A in it, which would doubtlessly be a good thing in many undernourished parts of the world. This leads to an ever larger monoculture, whose genetically identical plants can be devestated when the right disease comes along. Traditional crops exhibit a larger genetic diversity and better resistance to a single strain of disease. Think of what happens every time a new Outlook virus shows up and tears through the wall-to-wall windows machines out there.
8) They are tough to contain. Even if your transgenic pollen isn't blowing into a neighbor's field, it could easily jump a gap within your own farm. So produce intended for human consumption might end up with genes for producting drugs or even plastic. Yum. This has already happened with Starlink corn.
I've always been an inveterate technophile, but I regard genetic engineering as dubious at best. Too much has been rushed to market with too little study and oversight.
You can do a number if interesting things. Trees that produce more than one kind of fruit. Potato plants that sprout tomatoes. Curious cacti.
The technique has more than novelty value. In the late nineteenth century, a louse (phylloxera) was inadvertantly imported to Europe, and it loved to feast on the roots of the wine grape plant (vitis vinifera). We wouldn't have wines from France, or Germany, or Italy, if the viticulturalists of the day hadn't grafted some of the vinifera stalks on to roots of more phylloxera-resistant species. That's right--your glass of Pinot Noir is Frankenfood.
Grafting can go awry, however. There was an incident in Tennessee a number of years ago involving a farmer who wanted his tomatoes to better cope with early fall frosts. He grafted a tomato vine to a local weed. Voila--tomatoes later in the season. His neighbour thought it was a great idea and performed the same trick. Unfortunately, when he shared the fruits of his labour with his family, they all ended up in the emergency ward with high fevers and hallucinations.
It turns out that the plant to which both farmers had grafted their tomatoes was jimsonweed (datura stramonium) which produces psychoactive chemicals in its leaves. Because of different pruning practices, the second farmer's tomatoes contained a much higher concentration of the active ingredient, leading to the poisoning. For more details, consult The Medical Detectives, Berton Roueche, Plume, 1991).
Despite the risks of unpredicted reactions (even after centuries of use), grafting is an accepted and essential part of modern agriculture. We don't have angry demonstrators storming our grocery stores demanding the removal of foods and wine because grafting has been around so long. There may be small risks associated with GM foods--but because of intense public scrutiny, GM foods will be better characterized and more frequently tested than anything else on your plate.
Manufacturers will shy away from introducing obvious potential allergens (peanut proteins and the like, for example) to products for human consumption. Most GM crops are designed to be infertile anyway, severely limiting their spread.
Tempest in a teapot, people. Move along. The ethical sense of agribusiness can be questioned, but not their greed. Simply put, they're going to be damned careful about doing anything that might expose them to ruinously costly lawsuits.
~Idarubicin
Actually, I don't have a medical degree from Harvard. But I have written peer-reviewed medical journal articles with Harvard Med School Professors as co-authors...
Weill recommends things that are not only not proven to be effective, they have not even been shown to be safe! Very dangerous thing to do.
Anecdotal evidence can harm or kill. That is why thinking people use the scientific method.
My displeasure with quacks like Weill should not be taken as an endorsement of quacks like the USDA. The "food pyramid" was based on just as much evidence as most of Weill's stuff, and has now been shown to be unsafe and uneffective.
Finding someone without a conflict of interest who also happens to be an expert in a field is more difficult than you allow. Scientists work for companies or research facilities. Policy experts generally work for think tanks. Companies, research facilities, and think tanks all eat government dollars, just in different ways.
By the way, your analogy serves this point as well. Are you saying that mechanics NEVER take advantage of clueless clientele? In some situations, the person who wants to sell you a new something versus repairing your old something will wind up costing you less money. Once again, it comes down the analyst, not their trade.
Volunteer GM corn was left to grow in a field which was cultivated the following year with non-GM soybeans. GM corn kernels turned up in the non-GM soybean crop. No modified genes were introduced into the soybean genome by the proximity of the GM corn. Transferring genes between species is difficult, even in labs.
/.'s improperly-worded teaser, transpecies migration of human-modified genes cannot happen in the middle of a bean field in BFE. The basic mechanisms of life, mechisms that we can't change, don't work that way. Daisies and tulips can't croos-polinate. Even if you splice the phosphorescence gene from a jellyfish into that daisy, it only has one mutant gene. Its pollen will still be so daisylike that it will only be able to pollinate other daisies. The tulips around it will be SOL.
Despite the breathless tone of
To put it another way, every human being alive has hundreds of mutations in their somal cells, one or two may even get passed on through sex cells to their offspring. In spite of the mutant genes we all carry and in spite of our drives that sometimes lead us to "pollinate" outside our species, although there are sheeplike people who flock en masse to next big OS there are no people-like sheep who have adopted linux.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
A) However, if seeds aren't saved, these genes will not persist in the environment, nor will they be present in any substantial amount to make a significant impact on the make up of a crop harvested from that land.
B) Maybe in an ideal world. Frankly, farms have been contaminating every ones land and water with things a hell of a lot worse than foreign genes for a long time. Governments have ruled in many cases that these things (pesticides, manure, etc), proven harmful beyond a shadow of a doubt, are not harmful enough in small quantities to justify the disruption of agriculture which would result. Why then, should they judge that genes not proven to have any deliterious effect, which would not be a problem under most agriculture practices, should be restrained?
C) The Percy Schmeiser case (which I assume your referring to) is actually still being appealled. I was actually thinking of the US. In fact, I really think that the case probably should be thrown out, based on what little I know of Canadian law. But for the most part, in the US, everything I've seen indicates that Monsanto operates within the existing intellectual property laws. Which are horrifyingly bad and really ought to be revised. Don't get the idea that I'm trying to act as an apologist for Monsanto...they use the same sleazy business techniques every other major corporation uses.
D) Well even if your statement was the case, it wouldn't be forcing any one to use anything. To play semantics a bit, there already is no non-GMO stuff out there, nor has there been since Pre-Columbian times. Corn is inherently genetically modified, because the precursor species likely doesn't even exist any more, let alone being grown by any one. I know you mean transgenics (I hate the term GMO because it is almost always used inappropriately), but frankly, a gene is a gene is a gene is a gene. Transformation occurs in nature, through viruses and bacteria, and although these events are rare and random, there have been many years and many opportunties, and it is virtually guaranteed that everything out there has genes from something else in it.
Please understand that I think that the intellectual property laws in the U.S. and probably most other countries are terrible when it comes to gene patenting, and that this is at the root of much of the problem caused by transgenic crops. I'd be all for fixing them, though I don't think it's going to happen.
I saw millet for sale in a so-called "natural foods" store, in bulk, so I bought some. Boiled it up, ate it. Liked it.
Another "nobody eats that stuff" story I remember had to do with the arsenic level in the Wailoa river in Hilo, Hawaii ("the shortest river in the USA"). Techs found high levels of arsenic in the intestines of a certain kind of fish, but disregarded it because "nobody eats fish guts". But guess what? Filipinos call it "baloong".
"Twinkies are considered a delicacy in my country"
The Agro money whores (who you obviously are part of) have no credibility at all. You are on the wrong side of this issue and you know it. Just because over-zeolous loosers do stupid violent things does not make it any less true that the Agro-money-whore gene splicers are wreaklessly playing with our food stocks. There is no way to know that what they do is safe or if it can be contained. It would be very easy for terrorists to use the techniques that the Agro-money-whores use to bastardize our food and make it so that we don't just have to recall a little but a lot. Centralization of genetics is FAILURE long term for society. That is why nature is so diverse because that is what works. Not gene splicing in IOWA by corporate money whores. When science is run by entrenched fuedal money whores it ceases to be science at all. As far as I am concerned DNA is owned by GOD and you can't patent it. This is my religious belief and if you don't agree, I don't care. I will never respect your patent. I will never believe that you can own a DNA pattern. It is like owning a number. The behaviour of the money-agro-whores is engough for me: modifying seeds so that they are sterile in a future generation. It is SICK. You should be ashamed of your self for being their shill. Is the money really that good?
circumstances as you described. The farmer has his own web site now.
Sigh... I guess after reading all of the posts regarding cross-pollination between GM and non-GM corn I had to add my $0.02.
Corn pollen does not travel very far and 90% stays within 25 feet of the parent plant. At 50 feet less than 1% is detected and EU regulations require a buffer zone of 250 feet from GM to non-GM corn which is more than enough to prevent cross-pollination. And before people start getting worked up about bees and so on corn is a GRASS and is wind pollinated only. I don't know of any recorded insect mediated gene transfer between corn plans.
And since I am getting worked up a few facts:
1. People in the US have been eating GM soya for almost a decade with NO confirmed cases of adverse health effects. (if you think Star-link corn is an exception read more about that incident and you will see that the allergen had nothing to do with GM corn.)
2. Gene trandsfer from GM to non-GM plants of the same species does occur and needs to be regulated. Some cultivars such as canola can pollinate at distances of up to 2000m. However non-GM plants with "dangerous" traits such as Roundup resistance have been created using conventional plant breeding techniques (see Pioneer HiBred's glyphosate resistant canola) and can be planted with no regulations such as buffer zones etc. It is the phenotype (characteristics) of the plant that are of concern NOT how the plant was created.
3. There is no EVIDENCE of horizontal gene transfer taking place between a GM plant and another organism. We are not talking about cross-pollination between the same species but corn/soya, corn/human, corn/bacteria etc. The often bandied about fear of antibiotic resistance genes jumping from GM crops to bacteria in the human gut and greating super bugs is a joke. Despite the fact the antibiotic resistance genes are naturally found in ALL of out guts (yes antibiotics were invented by mocroorganism!) and are happily swapped constantly, the fear that this may occur by an as yet unknown mechanism from GM crops to gut bacteria is just silly.
4. The public's fear of GM crops is inflamed by pseudo-science and plain lies from anti-GM lobby groups. Yes there are legitimate issues regarding environmental impact of transgene spread but these are lost in the flood of "They are trying to poison my baby! I got turned into a newt... well I got better" sort of thing. A lot of anti-GM angst is tied up with anti-big business and anti-globalisation issues. People forget that a lot of GM research is carried out by universities (not we don't get $$$ from Monsanto either) and is peer reviewed careful science. Don't dismiss GM as soley the product of US business.
5. The fear of new allergens disregards the fact that all known allergens posess a common structural motif. Transgenes are carefully tested and the transgenic plants similarly tested to prevent potential allergens being released. If you are thinking about the brazil-nut soya please go back and reread the papers. The researchers knew of the brazil nut allergen and specifically tested for it and identified the nut allergen. No modified soya was released from the lab.
6. Why do we not hear about the environmental benefits of GM? GM (Bt) cotton has reduced the use of pesicides on cotton in the southern US by over 40%. That is 40% less pesticide to get into the food chain and waterways. Oh and if you are worried about Bt toxin don't be. It is totally safe for humans and unless you are a moth I think you will be OK. The use of herbicide resistant crops has also reduced the rate of tilling and subsequent soil and water loss and also soil compaction. Oh and Roundup is about as ecologically friendly as you can get. It braks up into harmless breakdown products very quickly is soil and is not toxic. In fact if you drank a litre or two of roundup it would be the the trace detergent added to help it spread that would kill you and not the roundup. Check out the LD50 for glyphosate if you don't believe me!
7. Oh and I almost forget the "save the butterflies" speech. The jury is out and I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that GM corn is BETTER for the monarch butterfly than conventional corn. If you don't believe me check out the PNAS papers dealing with this and the findings that: Firstly only two common cultivars of Bt corn produce the toxin in pollen. The dose larvae are exposed to is tiny (heavy pollen remember) and the timing of pollination and migration are out of sync. Also GM fields are not sprayed with insecticide which DOES affect the monarch. If you want to save the monarch get up in arms about habitat destruction and pesticide use don't whine about GM corn.
8. Sorry I have to mention organics. Organic food is a multi billion dollar industry concerned with making money out helping wealthy people to feel good about themselves. Organics produce at best 50% of the yield of industrial farming (come on now we are talking about intensive year after year farming of the same crop and not "lets leave the fields fallow for a few years" pro-organics studies) so it takes twice as much land to produce the same amount of food. So more land is needed and yep there go national parks etc to make room for more farmland. Surely the best thing for the environment would be to produce more food in smaller areas without the use of pesticides? Oh wait thats GM farming.. what was I thinking.
Organic farming (despite the marketing) is about making money and in the end is worse for the environment than GM farming. Don't even mention the use of "organic" pesticides such as copper sulphate and other delightfully toxic and persistent compounds.
Finally (sorry about the length of this rant) I tnink the public do have a right to choose what they eat and what is in the environment. But it makes me so angry to see the flood of lies, half-truths and disinformation that form the bulk of the anti-GM argument. I think the public is afraid of GM because they believe what they are told by anti-GM groups, because those groups must have the best interests of the environment at heart? Do they?
If you are concerned go out and become informed. Read about the issue and I would advise taking peer-reviewed scientific publications over websites claiming GM food is the tool of alien opressors. Find your own truth.
Because each label costs money and hassle and if they forget one somewhere they are open to lawsuits. It would be useless and make the products cost more.
GM foods are perfectly safe excepting the occassional plant that has been modified to have poison leaves and take over the planet (okay I admit watching Little Shop of Horrors to often). With all the things you live with that you know are dangerous what difference does that little extra risk really matter?
Any time I eat something I risk it could be bad and kill me. It could have came from a plant or animal with a disease, it could have came in contact with something along the way, the guy that handled the food could have got off masturbating in the bins. There are to many variables to be 100% safe.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
The genes did not jump anywhere. The plants were planted in the same field.
Go work for Microsoft you fscking FUD merchant.
I have discovered a wonderful
While I'm not as quite as sanguine about the impossibility of X-pollination between corn and soy, he/she is right on with the basic points on genetics.
Disclaimer: I am not a troll.
From my cozy office chair, scrolling through lines and lines of rendered HTML (sorry, I'm a sell-out -- it's IE 6), it's easy to nod my head in agreement with the passionate debate: this chemical causes needless loss of life in the animal kingdom! We'll never know what species have died off because of our invasive use of DDT!
Then I stumbled across a counterpoint (sorry, the URL escapes me at the moment): Question: at what point does the value of human life outweigh the value of animal life? At what point do they come into balance?
This shocked me so badly I didn't know what to do with myself. Here is an argument that doesn't go into typical smoke-and-mirrors about whether there are ghastly side effects, but admits up front that DDT causes loss of animal life. The counterpoint continues by asserting that DDT is the most effective suppressant of mosquitoes known to man, and that the rampant spread of malaria through equatorial rainforests is epidemic. So I ask you to ponder this with me: when it's all over, do you really care if a bird lives to see another day? Or would you rather see the next generation of leaders thrive in a disease free environment?
Please agree with me that human life is more precious than animal life. Bring back DDT and stop malaria from ruining one more human life!
P.S. If you know of a link to this article about DDT, please post it here. I don't remember where I read it.
No matter what, it is only a matter of time before all this Gene manipulation will lead up to something like THIS!
Hey, I wasn't trying to say you're an apologist for Monsanto or anything. Anyone who's been paying attention knows they are evil bastards. You seem very reasonable and not evil or anything.
Actually I have this idea, to make an "evil" version of my resume, and see if I can get a job at Monsanto with it. In the cover letter, something about taking my career to the next level...
Saying that "a gene is a gene" is kinda like saying tin and plutonium are both metals.
The genetic hybridization which has of course been going on in crops for even, and the deliberate selecting of traits by man, is one form of "GMO." But it's a lot different than actually splicing genes from a salmon into a strawberry. In the "natural world" you just can't do that.
Personally I draw the line at creating hybrids that involve directly manipulating the DNA. If you can't make it happen "in dirt" then I don't like it. And I think it's disingenuous to assert that the creatures in the fly room are no different from flies that just mutated "naturally."
Everyone loves to say how no studies have shown GMO is bad...Well, sometimes studies take a long time. And the results can be massaged. Thimerosal is still being used as a preservative in the medical field even though it contains mercury. And of course there are studies showing it to be safe, and that mercury amalgam filling are safe too. Given a choice, I'll avoid mercury all the same.
As a consumer, I want at the very least the option of knowing what's in my food, what's in my fillings, and what's in my contact lens solution. I don't want to play GMO Roulette, but I am when I shop at the non-hippy grocery store.
And if GMO is so harmless, why not let educated consumers know that those strawberries have some salmon gene in them? Then we could decide for ourselves if we wanted to support such products.
intellectual property laws in the U.S. and probably most other countries are terrible when it comes to gene patenting, and that this is at the root of much of the problem
You are a wise pundit!
If you think that genetically engineered drug-producing crops should be kept out of the food supply, do something about it.
"Unbeknownst, even to its own employees, the company's massive profits are generated by: military research, genetic engineering, viral weaponry."
Anyone seen the Resident Evil movie?? Anyone else worried about ProdiGene being given a presidential sanction for its activities?? Anyone want to take a quick trip to Racoon City??
I will admit, I'm not much of an alarmist when it comes to this sort of thing, I generally believe that no one is organized enough to do things like create a real life version of the T-Virus, but this scares me. A company that specializes in genetic modification for pharmecutical purposes making an "error" like this.
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
Isn't it amusing (or is that irony?) that the same people who will not accept, or even analyze, assurances regarding the safety of Bioengineered products will reverse the terms of the 'benefit-of-the-doubt' equation when someone like Weill makes assertions?? I suspect that the altered perspective comes from one entity being a corporation and having a clear and visible profit-making motive and one being a kindly-looking old fart with a well-concealed profit motive.
What a sucker.
He also posted:
"You don't get to decide. The gummint, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that giving you a choice would simply confuse and frighten you. So they refuse to implement truth-in-labeling laws for GM foods. Aren't you glad they think you're an idiot?"
Is it better to have YUO or some Green freaks deciding for me? Seems to me, whoever wants to make something unavailable is more limiting my choice than someone who merely fails to give me information...
"To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon
Pero, que las hay, las hay.
1. The genes *were* mixed. Mixups happen. Given time and humanity, more and merrier will occur and multiply. Mechanically, chemically, genetically, atomically (lots of folk and countries still irradiate to "stimulate" "improvements"), bioenergetic microwaves.... whatever. Humans are daft, careless, greedy, mendaciosly ignorant, ill-faithed and inconsequent. And then complain to God, about it.
2. There is no more untainted wild corn in the world. Yes. The whole planet earth does not have a single wild corn plant that doesnt carry one or more bioengineered genes. Wonder how those got there ? Suppposed to be absolutely impossible, you know.
3. Technological residue is imensely noxious, persistent in time, geographically and biologically insidious, and has been historically handled (merrily flushed about) in a criminally cavalier manner. It still is.
Please, keep the answers to this topic for another ten or twenty years. And then re-post in memoriam.
Its what I do with my files on global warming.
I was trying to think of how to argue against your assertion when it occured to me that potatoes are a ground crop. I was thinking "I don't believe many food plants flower underground", then it occured to me that food plants like potatoes are often cultivated from roots.
Duh.
Nitrifying bacteria that absorb the GM gene could conceivably remain long after the GM crop had been harvested. Successive *root* crops would have the potential of absorbing the GM gene. The next generation of <insert regional tuber of choice here>, if grown from that root stock, could potentially have flowers that carry the GM gene. When they release their pollen, they could then contaminate seed within their own species.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
The viruses/bacteria/liposomes that are created to be the vectors for the new gene could cause terrible harm if they were to find their way out into the wild. I disagree with the shoddy pseudoscience of /.'s Cliff Notes version of the referenced article, but there are significant, terrible dangers in the technology used to create genetically modified organisms.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
... not between them.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
I'll go ahead and reproduce the e-mail verbatim. Make what you will.
2 &item=228 7
2 m l
Five hundred thousand bushels of soybeans in Nebraska have been
quarantined because the biotech company ProdiGene allowed
pharmaceutical-producing corn to contaminate the soybean harvest.
This incident reinforces the need for a strong regulatory system
overseeing pharm crops. Until a new system is in place, tell the USDA
that it should impose at least a one-year moratorium on field tests
and commercial production of engineered pharmaceutical and industrial
crops and seriously consider banning the use of engineered food crops
to produce drugs and chemicals.
Hit reply to send the letter below. If you'd like to edit this
letter, go to the UCS Action Center,
http://www.ucsaction.org/index.asp?step=
Additional information:
UCS November 13, 2002 press release
http://www.ucsusa.org/news.cfm?newsID=30
UCS Pharmaceutical crop report
http://www.ucsusa.org/pharm/pharm_open.ht
*
William T. Hawks
Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
US Department of Agriculture
Whitten Building, Room 228-W
14th and Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20250
Dear Mr. Hawks:
I strongly urge the USDA to act on behalf of public health and halt
field trials and commercial production of genetically engineered
pharmaceutical and industrial crops for at least a year, until the
federal government has sought advice from the scientific community
and the public and has put in place a strong, transparent regulatory
system for ensuring that the food supply will not be contaminated by
these crops. The USDA should also seriously consider banning
engineered food crops for the production of drugs and industrial chemicals.
The recent revelation that pharm corn contaminated a half-million
bushels of soybeans heightens my concern that this industry is
outpacing the government's ability to control risks. The failure of a
leading biopharm company, Prodigene, to properly confine its
engineered corn confirms the vulnerability of the food supply to
contamination by drugs, vaccines, and industrial chemicals produced
in engineered food crops.
Yes, I am in the union of concerned scientists which is why I get these e-mails.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
>I did this google search for keywords ProdiGene and "george w bush". Result? A not so reassuring article.
:)
The first thing I saw was:
"George W Bush - Find George W Bush here!
www.ebay.com.auAt eBay you'll find a great range of George W Bush".
I'm gathering by 'a great range' that it was from a contaminated crop.
Anthony G. Laos... isn't he the guy who wanted to transfer me 21 MILLION US DOLLARS?
Holy shit, I just blew him off...!
May all those sincere loonies who fear the advent of anything that's "genetically modified" read this and dispair! Nothing's better for a leftie than a big, cold dose of reality.
Tomacco!
They caused thier own starvation
Well, this makes sense if you assume that all people in Zimbabwe are actually one person starving him/herself, but the reality is that that nobody caused "their own" starvation - one group of people (the citizens) are the victims of the actions of another group of people (the corrupt government and the so-called "veterans" which take over the farms). The citizens did NOT "cause their own starvation", they are entirely victims, and we all need to remember this. The situation is precisely akin to that of the people (& especially the women) of Afghanistan. The "people of Afghanistan" did not "cause their own repression", they were victims of the actions of another group, the Taliban.
Comments like yours bother me only because they tend to provide contrived "rationalizations" for people who want to ignore the problem. Its an "easy out" for first-worlders who want to turn their backs, they convince themselves that those very same people brought their situations on themselves, in which case "its their own fault". But the fact is the victims in this did NOT bring the situation on themselves.
This is VERY different to an individual who brought a situation upon himself and now wants help, e.g. some beggar on the street who was lazy and dropped out of school and now can't get a job, or something. He "brought it upon himself". Its not the same, "Zimbabwe" is not an individual.
Note I'm not saying the first world has any obligation to respond, but just don't make oversimplistic BS justifications for why not to respond. Rather, just be honest about it and admit the truth, i.e. say "well we don't want to help because its just plain not our problem, if millions of people die of starvation, well, its not our problem, sorry". And its true, its "not your problem". If you don't want to help, fine. If you do want to help the victims, wonderful.
People often seem to use "it wasn't my/our fault" as a reason/excuse why they're not going to help another person. You hear the same sort of thing all the time here from young white South Africans: "I had nothing to do with apartheid, so why should I lift a finger to help the blacks". This has begun to seem like a silly excuse to me. I had nothing to do with apartheid either, but I don't see why that should somehow *prevent* me from wanting to help uplift these people (by giving up my time to help provide them with better educations etc). If they don't want to help others , fine, but I wish they'd be honest about their reasons: that they just don't give a shit.
The distinction between "natural" hybrids made during traditional breeding and those made through biotech is largely arbitrary. The difference is mostly speed.
And there's certainly no guarantee of safety in traditional breeding. Working in contact with a number of breeding progarms, I've heard of a number of close calls. A particular potato selection, bred entirely by traditional methods, made it all the way to the final round of replicated trials before it was realized that it was dangerously toxic in any substantial amount. A wheat cultivar was found to have allergens unknown to domesticated wheat, introduced by standard cross-breeding with wild relatives. There are many, many stories like this. And yet these problems have virtually all been caught, with testing significantly less rigorous than that transgenic crops are subjected to.
I think I'll avoid repeating myself and simple refer you to my other messages in this thread on labelling and the validity of studies.
The problem isn't the educated consumers...its the uneducated ones. I'll give the same disclaimer I've given elsewhere in this thread, which is that while I do not support mandatory labelling, neither do I support the handling of the issue by both the biotech companies (and, to a lesser extent, the universities) or the activist groups. A more responsible treatment of the issue would have resulted in a lot less screaming and gnashing of teeth, and may be even a public with a clue. The basic issues aren't that hard to grasp (though the details certainly are)...the problem is that people have been so confused by the buckets of half-truths both sides have fed them, that its getting to be nearly impossible to educate anyone.
actually, it has been used in tomatoes. It's called "flavor saver" and causes tomatoes to ripen very quickly and makes them more resistant to damage while shipping (they also supposedly tasted much better than normal conventional tomatoes). They are fortunately no longer being grown due to the fact that nobody wanted fucking pig-tomatoes that still taste worse than organic ones.
is not a word
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
fear is the mind killer
A shoestring relative of mine makes a vegan cheesecake with boiled millet (then baked with some other stuff) Not like real cheesecake but not bad either.