Slashdot Mirror
Dodging the Negative Reaction To GE Crops
BINC writes "Wired has an article up today entitled 'Selective Breeding Gets Modern.'" From the article: "Genetically modified food has gotten a chilly reception from consumers, especially in Europe and Asia. Just last week, Japan suspended imports of American long-grain rice after authorities discovered that a genetically modified variety had accidentally mixed with conventional rice. To skirt such problems altogether, biotech companies are creating superior plants using genetics technology that is advanced but which falls short of grafting genes from one organism into another."
...what the problem is with technology that can produce vast amounts of nutritious food that can feed people who may otherwise not have access to such a resoruce?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
A process which takes the best of the natural world and the best of our scientific processes and gives natural selection a helping hand.
Because the desirable features all come from varieties of natural crops, the chances of three headed luminous offspring appear unlikely.
When they were first talking about skin colour of wild plants I thought it was a waste (because you can see the fruit colour), but they are sequencing the saplings of these plants before they have grown enough to bear fruit. It allows them to tell within days which of the crop has the desired features.
I just wonder how many samples it take to identify a marker though - you can't use a single sample and must really DNA test an entire range of pre-categorised samples.
I wonder if any of the seed banks will allow their stock to be tested?
This is in effect similar to the genetic testing of embryos for certain high risk hereditary diseases, but goes to show just how cheap and "normal" DNA testing has become.
liqbase
Europeans and Asians get their knickers in a knot over the nebulous dangers of GE foods, but they smoke like fiends. I don't get people who ignore the real hazards in life to focus on the unproven ones.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Thank you.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Why do we keep hearing the myth that we need GE for more food?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
We're talking about farming practices in Japan. What are you talking about?
At some point this highlights the rather unscientific anti-GM stance I see too much of. If nature can survive MAS tagging putting almond genes into peaches, I bet nature can survive plasmids and other forms for the gene transfer and potentially more varied species targets.
A:How far can the wind blow?
There hasnt been enough testing to allow these types of crops out in the wild
maybe in a self contained lab, sure.
They are screwing around with the only biosphere we have, oh well.
back in the day we didnt have no old school
It's all about variety. I for one wouldn't like the world to become an average-tasting bulb of engineered soja. Or not even a great-tasting one. Although TFA is not about DNA-modified veggies, but about better, DNA-supported selection, it still decreases variety, because variety (and random genetic drift) decreases predictability and thus quality and profit.
I would think the world would be at a loss if only my good qualities would be cloned or selected, doing away with the balance nature shows again and again, over and over and over and over...
How much genetic variance is there in a GM crop to it's counterpart as compared to different races of the same species?
Is a GM crop really that radically different than their natural sibling?
I would venture to guess that even the glowing white mice are much more genetically close to their lab family than to a wild brown mouse.
What is the big problem? even if GM crops were to interbreed wouldn't their unique properties eventually be completely (for all intents and purposes) diluted. And if their unique genetics manages to survive and thrive in the "wild", is that not a simple example of natural selection and an indication of their hardiness?
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
I'm not sure I'm being misanthropic here, but I always wonder just what is the point of making ever-increasing amounts of food. I seem to remember from my high school biology class that any group of organisms will invariably grow until it outstrips its food supply. From that standpoint, increasing the food supply does NOT decrease the number of people that will go hungry. If the ratio of hungry to not-hungry populations stays constant, you're increasing the number of hungry people, aren't you? Whenever a topic like this comes up, I just can't help but feel like we're trying to help, but we're making things worse.
GE foods available for purchace (sic) are never harmful to humans. They are tested extensivly (sic) before release.
Um, a big part of the problem people have with GM foods is specifically BECAUSE no testing is required. The FDA offers a "consultation" process but the process is voluntary. I don't see why I'm supposed to trust entirely to the good will of the companies that they are performing adequate testing on the product that they themselves want to sell?
Why on Earth would you call these things GE crops? General Electric is far more well known as the proper name associated with the acronym GE.
GE crops are patented and trademarked. You can't independently grow these foods, prices are completely insulated from traditional agricultural pricing mechanisms and the danger of these corporations dumping vast amounts of GE crops at a loss only to make it up by raising prices and exploiting the monopoly they just gained later on is obvious, and very real.
Not to mention the terrible weakness and loss of variety that will result from basing entire food chains only on the single strain that provides the biggest profits for the corporation who holds the patent on the crop.
Basically, it comes down to an issue of trust. And no, i don't trust Monsanto to act ethically, fairly or honestly, and I have no trust in the governments that supposedly provide the checks and balances on these companies either.
GE food would probably be fine under the following conditions:
No patents on genetic sequences.
No forced sterilisation of seeds.
If these GE foods really are that good, why can't they compete on their merits with other foodstuffs instead of having all these additional 'GRM' - genetic rights management mechanisms added.
Thats my big beef with GE foods, its got nothing to do with productivity or efficiency. People have been growing their own food for thousands of years - widespread GE foods would essentially criminalize that activity.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
And if their unique genetics manages to survive and thrive in the "wild", is that not a simple example of natural selection and an indication of their hardiness?
I think the part you're missing is that certain plants thrive in certain conditions to the detriment of other vitally important plants. Take kudzu in the southeast USA. It's not necessarily hardier than an oak tree, but it doesn't have any naturally-occuring limiting factor, so it grows rampant. It kills other trees and shrubs. All of a sudden, there isn't enough food to support wildlife in the area. Animals that relied on those trees and shrubs have to move elsewhere to live.
It's called an invasive species. In their natural environment, there's nothing wrong with them, but move them elsewhere and you have all sorts of trouble. So what's the natural environment for patently-unnatural plants?
Sadly, there are many things that the public at large believes without any kind of scientific backing. If you get enough people to believe you, it doesn't matter that you can't prove it.
I mean, there's no proof that 'Global Warming' is making the Earth hotter than ever - but people believe it. There's no proof that a "god" created the universe - but people believe it. There's no proof that recycling is beneficial to the environment - but people believe it. There's no proof that second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer - but people believe it. There's no proof that genetically engineered food is dangerous to people - but it's becoming more and more common a belief.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
I as an European and as an Finn have never understood why we don't have GE foods in Europe too. In my view and opinion common people are not against nor supporting GE-food, they just don't care. The real reason why we don't have GE-foods in stores is more todo with alarmist greens and politicians afraid of changing anything, which can be easily be translated into anti-technology and anti-change...
I think we should allow GE-food, of course it should be labeled to it, and let the markets, that is consumers , to decide... atleast the markets usually get end in to a rational conclusion versus the politicians. If I remember correctly, a few years ago there was an African country which had hunger-epidemic going on and the US offered to help them, the help was refused because american help was GE-food. I just can't understand their rational, is it really better to let people die in hunger, than to accept GE-food that most likely would not cause no health problems? Or if it would, if it would cause few or hundres to die, it still would have been better than not to accept it...
Oh well... people are stupid... can't help it, can't fight it, just have to accept it.
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
I see you have watched the same episodes of "Bullshit!" as I have.
The problem is that natural selection doesn't necessarily do us any favours. Our success rate for introducing new species (which is what GM crops are comparable to) in the hope of improving things isn't very good.
And yes, it's just like natural selection, except that one species is changing faster than the natural process of selection is likely to achieve. If one species gets a big lead in the evolutionary arms race, it tends to wipe out the competition.
Humans have been doing genetic engineering for many thousands of years. 15,000 years ago, humans started genetically engineering wolves. In those years of genetic engineering, they made a Chihuahua and Shih-Tzu from wolves. Later, humans started genetically engineering grasses, and the result was eventually civilization.
Does the fact that DNA can now be manipulated directly really make a difference as to what we're doing? In both cases, we are artificially selecting genes.
Also, keep in mind that genetic engineering of humans will eventually become necessary. Medical technology is allowing people with severe genetic defects to live and reproduce that would have died without it. Eventually this will result in a polluted gene pool. Considering the only ways to stop this are removing medical technology, eugenics, and genetic engineering, which one would you rather have?
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
And apparently took them as gospel truth without any questioning.
Interesting, that.
Am I the only one wondering exactly when General Electric started growing crops?
I remember there was this outcry against Monsanto in India quite a few years (4-5) ago. The plan was to release designer seeds with much better characteristics than natural varieties but these seeds would feature a "Terminator" gene (no I promise it was called that I don't have a very large tin foil hat). The gene would prevent future seeds produced by the crop to be viable. Their buisness model was thus that you bought the seeds from Monsanto every year.
Most farmers in India are poorer than most of you can imagine and save some of the seeds from one years crop to reuse the next. There was also some concern that the Terminator gene would find its way into the natural crop varieties and render them useless. This in particular reeks of a company creating something principally to safeguard its profits without there being any actual value added to the farmer.
I think the result of the mess was Monsanto stopped testing it and I think later stopped developing it. That a company would try to develop something like this makes me actively distrust them and its no wonder that a lot of people are scared of genetic engineering. A lot of these groups also tend to be very secretive treating some of their research as trade secret. This is definetly what I'm used to in physics and its definetly not how science should be done. Perhaps its just me but I'm much more skeptical of research done by groups that seem primarily motivated by profit.
I'd worry that a lab environment is just too controlled and the nature has a lot of unplanned for scenarios which may end up producing unintended consequences. I've some respect for their ability to identify what a particular gene as they are doing in the present articles research - I'm more skeptical of their ability to predict what that gene will do if it is suddenly found in another species say. And no matter how extensive your lab trials become they do not address very slow processes which may well occur with GE crops. This selective breeding is less controversial but I'm no biologist and I can already see that there might be a risk with a lack of genetic diversity and that leading to an increased susceptability to disease.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Which has more vitamin A than normal corn. I'm more afraid of the government and corporations getting together and adding antibiotics and antidepressants into things like corn, whey, and rice and seeding them in farms next to the real deal.
That's why I dislike anything that's synthetically engineered.
What is wrong with kudzu
There is a real world out there, and it is hard to control growth of anything anywhere. We have damaged so many ecosystems willingly or unwittingly. Many GE plants are done by megacorps for the profit of megacorps. Anyone can duplicate Monsato's weed killer, but no one can duplicate Monsato's GE seeds.
My opposition to GE does not stem from fear for the environment, but from fear of corporate greed.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
However, experience tells us messing with Nature's balance usually ends poorly. Most of these issues are very often taken too lightly by western countries, especially in the American Continent.
It really didn't sound so bad to get a few rabbits over Australia or to cultivate Amazonia. It also took us many years to prove smoking causes cancer, an look how easy that one is.
Every other generation we seem to think we're wise and powerful enough that we know what we are doing, but it's wrong to think Science has all the answers, ignoring all our history.
Your comment applies equally well to any field which becomes dominated by a few large players. The music industry is one, the movie industry another, and operating systems ... well. All of them have suffered from a lack of diversity.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And if their unique genetics manages to survive and thrive in the "wild", is that not a simple example of natural selection and an indication of their hardiness?
Yes, of course - good for them. However that would only be relevant if our main concern were e.g. the rabbits in Australia - they are doing fine. Typically our concern is on us, though... ;-) So sticking to the example: knowing what we know now, would we rather not have a rabbit pest in Australia?
(Depends whether you like Australians, of course.)
Gee, I remember that DDT is completely safe, nuclear energy is completely safe, cigarette smoking is completely safe, Thalidomide is completely safe. So why would anyone doubt GMOs are completely safe??
World hunger is largely a consequence of poor family planning, migration, unsustainable practices, and poverty. None of those problems are solved by making "better crops".
In fact, genetically engineered crops make the problem of world hunger worse because they make third world agriculture even less competitive.
No, there isn't. However that assumption is the scientific main stream. So to claim there was no scientific backing for it seems a little far-fetched.
Farmers who NEVER purchased G.M. seeds were sued when DNA tests proved they had 'STOLEN' I.P. of nearby G.M. crops.
Turns out, of course, that the G.M. plants' pollen blew onto the fields of nearby farmers, contaminating their G.M. free soybeans with patented DNA. The innocent farmers -Lost- their case in court, and had to pay up.
What's next? Exploding ears of Sony Corn, via DRM-DNA Spontaneous Combustion genes?
How do you do a Recall on Bad DNA foodstuffs *after* they have been eaten?
The most dangerous DRM gene is the Terminal Gene which produces plants that can not reproduce,
requiring you to purchase new plants from the selling corporation.
It has been theorized that if Terminal Genes spread, surrounding populations of plants could be wiped out permanently.
Why is it that the same people who want to embrace the wholesale slaughter of embryos to drive stem cell research - which is genetically engineering drugs - get up in arms about GE food?
Seems to me that these folks just value their dinner more than their humanity
The notion that concerns over GM food are not scientific and promotion of GM food is are false. The GM foods are not individually tested for safety. The mixing of species genes can cause problems for allergy sufferers especially when the GM varieties mix with the general population. Science requires a ratiional hypothesis subject to logical scrutiny. That hypothesis must then be compared to empirical data that has been replicated and the hypothesis must be the best explanation to fit the data. This process has not ocurred with GM food.
The "unscientific" smear was applied to critics that pointed out the possibility of migration of genes. Corporations insisted that migration couldn't happen. If you listened through all the noise, the crircs were insisting on scientific evaluation of crop separation standards while corporations would have none of it. Well, migration is now a proven thing.
The ones against scientific evaluation of GM foods are the ones producing the GM foods and the gullible youth that seem to love "Hate anyone that disagrees with the Unscrupulous" message.
Concerns over GM foods include: migration of genes to non GM genepools(proven by experience), tranfer of traits such as resistance to herbicides (proven by experience), inability to farm without legal peril should carryover infect your seedstock(proven by experience), attempts to reduce competition by introduction of seedstocks that result in infertile plants(proven and intentional), reduction of present biodiversity by infecting wild plants(infection of wild plants proven, reduction of biodiversity probable).
There is no scientific evidence, hypothesis, or body of study that would disprove these concerns. The studies where they have been done have shown that these concerns are real.
To argue for GM food is unscientific though the industry can buy lab coats and scientific sounding titles.
I'm surprise the tobaco companies hasnt graft tobaco plnat and hemp together
as the rest of the crap going on with our food supply. My personal favorite is Cambell's Soup, which has ingredients added to it soley to assit in the formation of Monosodium Glutamate, that way they can truthfully say "No MSG Added", because, hey, they didn't add any. All they did was wait till the other stuff they added created MSG on it's own.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Well, by your definition of "proof", there is no proof for anything. If countless studies showing dramatically increased cancer rates in people with high secondhand smoke exposure aren't sufficient, then you are either in denial about your addiction or you don't understand the scientific method.
Explain why studies have shown that non-smoking spouses of smokers (with no genetic predisposition to smoking) are 30% more likely to die of lung cancer. Waitresses? Four times as likely. People clearly don't have a genetic predisposition to work as a waitress, which means the cause must be environmental. Since this effect has NOT been seen in waitresses who work in non-smoking restaurants, we have a control group and a test group. It may not be a completely controlled experiment, but over a sufficiently large number of people, the probability of anything else causing false positives is vanishingly small.
No, there is plenty of proof that secondhand smoke causes an increased rate of cancer. Okay, technically, it may not be the actual cause of the cancer--it may reduce the body's ability to fight it or make it more susceptible to some secondary cause--but in terms of whether you live or die, that distinction is purely academic.
My question about GM crops is this. Tobacco companies knew that smoking resulted in increased rates of disease decades before the public became aware of the risks, and continued to claim that it was harmless for decades after that. If we do not have mandatory independent testing of GM crops, what's to prevent the same thing from happening again? I don't expect people to assume that it is harmful, but history has shown that people won't believe something is harmful even AFTER it is proven to be harmful. Without improved regulation, GM corn could be the next tobacco and there wouldn't be anything we could do to stop it.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
This is a common misconception. GE foods are simply plants that have been engineered for the most desireable traits of it's own species. Anything that's grown outside of lab conditions is not going to have squid genes or horse genes or anything other than plant DNA in it.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
For detailed explanation, from Oxford, a new issue of the International Journal of Law and Information Technology features scholarly articles putting into perspective the latest cr[o|a]p of patents in the fields of both biotechnology and software.
The real problem is Intellectual Property. The stuff is patented. It's entirely possible to contaminate a crop with patented seeds. You are then guilty of patent infringement unless you buy a license to grow the stuff.
As for the grandparent post "technology that can produce vast amounts of nutritious food that can feed people who may otherwise not have access to such a resoruce"
Naive bollocks. The current GM crops which are around are designed to sell extra weed killer. They are designed to marginally reduce the costs of producing the crop.
There is no problem growing conventional crops, we can grow the stuff easily. The problem is stopping western farmers dumping their products on third world markets at far below cost. Destroying the local market for locally produced food, thereby driving local farmers out of business and off the land. The famines, are caused by US and EU farming subsidies.
Deleted
Canadian farmers are getting royally screwed by these gene patents.
Example: Corporate farm plants GM canola.
Neighboring farms have their crops pollinated by pollen from the GM crops next door.
The neighboring farms may save some seed for next year - some of this seed carries the "patented" genes from the GM canola.
Corporate lawyers sue the hapless farmers, claiming patent infringement - when in fact, the farmers are the victims of GM contamination.
Four years ago, Monsanto was the recipient of a class action lawsuit - alleging GM contamination of organic farms.
The same "business model" seems to be the plan for the third world. 1) Contaminate existing crop genetic base with "patented" genes. 2)Extort cash from farmers under guise of patent lawsuits made possible by "free" trade treaties. 3)Pay self huge bonus for pulling the scam off.
Not quite. At least outside the US, the main fears I've seen have been the sort of vendor lock in and interoperability issues that most F/OSS advocates raise against Microsoft. The damage that they worry about isn't vague, general, and environmental (which is mostly US and, from what I can tell, misplaced) it's much more direct, specific, and personal.
For example, the common practice is to set aside some seed from your crop (and often, from the best of your crop) to plant next year. This isn't possible with most GMO; once you switch, you'll have to keep buying seeds from the multinational vendor forever more, or starve. On the other hand, if you don't switch, and your neighbors do, they'll out produce you and you'll starve. Thus GMOs are seen as an aggressive move on the part of the US (mostly) and resented.
There are other concerns, but they all follow this same basic pattern.
Interestingly, the US-centric "oh, but what if it gets loose?" arguments are being used as cover (along with the US's draconian IP assumptions) for the real issue, which is that GMOs may represent an attempt to hold the world hostage by making food proprietary.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I'd bet if there were a GNU or even BSD equivalent GMO, it would be wildly popular. You'd start seeing the lone-farmer equivalent of IRCs like this:
"What'yew plant'n this year?"
"I got me a custom build rice without the pesticides and that there hand tuned drout resistant we gen'd up yar 'afore last."
"You may be right. But I still sware by that new corn patch."
"You can't just keep patching forever. Clean build! Clean build!"
Why should people have to prove that those activities are unsafe? Given the potentially devastating consequences for all of humanity, the people who want to engage in those activities should have to prove that they are safe before we permit them.
Of course, in real life, no such proof exists. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that carbon emissions at current levels are not safe, and that GM foods are negative consequences for the environment and for third world economies.
They create superweeds and are hard to kill. Do you understand that? Super+weeds. Hard to kill. You want to grow A, b that is resistant to herbicides invades your fields, so you..what? Go hand pull them, all 800 acres? Mostly they are altered so that farmers can spray *more* herbicide on the food. Real good deal for the chemical company! It's also proving to be not cost effective. Not even close to being cost effective. Now that it has been out for awhile, farmers are finding out that all that has happened is they have more herbicide resistant weeds, the cost of the herbicide goes up, you have to spray more and more heavily (gee, who makes the sprays? Same guys who make the seeds? No conflict of interest there, is there?), there's very little difference in yield per acre,it is in no way some huge improvement, and especially in third world developing nations the extra cost of the seed -up to THREE TIMES HIGHER than "normal" seed, combined with the extra cost of more herbicides makes it less cost effective all the way to the point of bankruptcy. And even if joe poor farmer there wants to just save his normal regular seed, he CAN'T because the damn shit cross pollinates and contaminates HIS seed, and we already have had cases where farmers were sued for "stealing" seed when all that happened is that it blew over into their fields. Score another one for lame intellectual "property" laws totally skewed in favor of megacorps.
Then you have the terminator gene, and we got *that close* to them guys sticking that in eveything. That freaking close. And they haven't given up yet either, they are bound and determined to create their planet wide food monopolies. You really can't see this, where it is headed?? Now think on that for awhile-they have already proven they CAN'T restrict air pollination from cross contamination, DESPITE all their soothing "scientific" words from their tame on the payroll scientists or academic professors who rely on grants from those guys, all to the contrary. Imagine if you will what would happen to the world's food supply should both a terminator gene "enhanced" crop cross contaminate a lot of the conventional food, plus be highly resistant to herbicides, and gets loose? Go ahead, extrapolate a little.
This isn't luddism, it's looking at the REAL science and not industry maximum profits astroturfing pseudo science.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't follow that in all cases you SHOULD do something.
Why yes, I AM a farmer, I keep up with this stuff and have for a long time, and YOU AREN'T and YOU DON'T.
Dead wrong. GM foods can be grown in new places (where there is hunger) so it does indeed solve the distribution system.
Considering you have a '911 truth' sig, I doubt you let facts stand in the way of your opinions however.
Trolling are we? What is causing famine are problems like corruption, conflict and the resultant lack of effective government, unfair trade practices, agricultural dumping by the EU and the USA..... the list goes on. GM crops won't help your average third world farmer very much if his farming is continually disrupted by armies of AK-47 toting thugs regularly trekking through his particular patch of the planet raping looting and pillaging as they go. GM crops won't do squat to solve that problem, the only way you will get it out of the way is by strictly controlling the global small arms trade (Good luck on that one by the way, the USA can't even get it's own domestic small arms trade under control). In those places where conflict isn't the problem you could probably do more to solve famine problems right now with low tech development projects aimed simply at improving agricultural efficiency with traditional crop strains, teaching people to dig proper wells, make simple wind driven water pumps that any third-world blacksmith can understand and create in his workshop, construct simple aqueducts and irrigation systems and loaning poor farmers miniscule amounts of money to buy simple farming tools rather than locking them into a cycle of growing patented GM seeds spiked with GRM code.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
It is only a matter of time before one ear of corn contains all of your vitamins/anti-depresants/etc. Then companies start trying to make their brand of corn look better, tastier, more extreme (I think I can live without nacho flavored corn). And one day an ad-exec. comes up with the ideal of making their corn glow in the dark thus bringin in the era driving past glowing crops during the night.
Insanity is nothing more than a difference in perspective.
You're either a libertarian or you get your information from libertarians (ie. Penn and Teller).
Well, try talking to actual experts. Penn is a fucking moron who professes to be a skeptic, but really just pushes unfounded ideologies based on his own prejudices.
There IS scientific proof of global warming. There IS scientific proof that recycling can help (though in some situations it doesn't). There IS proof that second-hand smoke is dangerous, up to and including increasing cancer rates.
I am a scientist - a biochemist specifically. In the case of second-hand smoke I have read the papers detailing its effects. I can explain how it has its effects. Penn merely doesn't like to be told not to smoke in restaurants (even if he may not be a regular smoker).
Stop listening to talking points. If you really want to be a scientifically informed, please get the information from scientists and not partisan groups who pick and choose what they want to believe depending on how they think it affects their personal liberties or tax packages.
Capitialism is one of the main reasons there is more than enough food to go around. It is one reason a lot of grains get shipped to third world areas.
You want a government type to blame then blame the dictatorships. The petty dictators of many these countries who accept food shipments, monentary grants, and actual machinery are one of the major reasons many starve. They spend money on their luxurious lifestyles while their people live in squalor. They spend money on their armies while their people die by the use of the same armies to keep them in line. Some nations even go so far and divert money they can now spare to fund terrorism in their neighboring countries. All the best of the foods, medicines, and equipment goes to themselves and relatives of the families running these countries.
Sorry but the push for GM crops is because they can grow where other crops cannot. They can provide nutrients available by no other means. So what if someone profits, the fact the chance at profit existed is why the crop exists. What you say? Oh, all those non-captialist societies were hell bent on solving hunger and engineering crops for the sake of their people - oh, wait a minute they weren't were they.
Got to love the tinfoil hats that like to villianize capitalism. Its easy to find negatives, why not look at the good that comes and put the blame where it belongs.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
We always know of those who die from drugs gone bad. What no one can really put a finger on is the number who are lost while drugs sit trying to get approved or past the FUD of people against the methods used to make the drugs.
No one loses their government job NOT approving a drug, because those who died won't even know that there might have been something that might have saved them. Those who die from reactions to drugs, and some have been pulled after small number of deaths - well publicized granted - yet thousands saved.
So, how many should we allow to starve? Die from lack of nutrients because of the small chance that something MIGHT go wrong? Oh I forgot, thats the safe route because no one will lose their job if we don't approve something otherwise determined to be safe.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
An awesome and very watchable resource about GE crops and Monsanto's role is a movie called "The Future of Food". The trailer can be found here http://www.thefutureoffood.com/. Do you know what a terminator seed is? Find out.
If you believe that a flounder crossed with a virus crossed with a tomato (i.e. the Flavr Savr(tm) tomato) is "natural selection," or anything like it, you've got another think coming. The "crossing" is done across kingdoms, phylums etc. Genes added to new species don't have to (or often) come from the same family.
Natural selection follows the natural branch paths of evolutionary descendency - GM bypasses all that, by shotgunning entirely unrelated genes into a particular species genome. Where natural selection weeded out the bad 'uns, the mutations and variations that weren't fit to survive, or that didn't fit into the ecosystem, here we don't get that natural balancing effect.
The likelihood is that it will take thousands to millions of years for the effects of our GM work to be sorted out in nature.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
All the apples you eat came from the same tree. One tree. That's right 7,500 different kinds of apple trees all came from the same one tree. So how come they look and taste different?
We modified their DNA.
Ok, so we did it the slow way. We would mate two trees and then see what that tasted like. If it was good, we would mate two more trees and so on and so on.
Why are people freaking out about skipping the mating step and getting right to the changed DNA step? Are you really scared that DNA is like a programming language and you're going to have a syntax error that results in "apple bombs"?
Come on guys. This technology needs to exist and will only help us create sustainable food sources for our growing population.
we almost lost the Monarch butterfly because of GE wheat a few years ago (I can't remember what exactly it was, something missing in the wheat... I dunno).
The wheat had a gene responsible for making bt, which is deadly for many wildlife forms including monarchs which is why it's used in farming. Organic farmers use bt but they are concerned that pest will become immune to it when the gene is widely used in crops.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Louis le 15 recommended that French peasants, who were suffering a long drought and crop disease, to adopt the potato as a staple food. Peasants were dying left and right because of lack of food. To help the situation, the King was said to eat potatoes at dinner, yet the peasantry declined to use the potato even though it would have saved many lives. They saw a plant growing underground as dirty/unclean.
Now for a modern example. If you go to Paris and live in a French home during the summer, you know it gets HOT. And there is no air conditioning... why? Ask many French people what air conditioning will do to you. They will tell you turning on the AC makes you sick and that it is bad for you. Many people die in Paris (especially old ones) who live alone in an apartment building with no air conditioning. With air conditioning, they would survive the hot summer rather than get heat stroke. However, nearly all French citizens refuse to use AC and dismiss it as an American comfort.
GE modified foods will not be accepted by the masses until there are enough deaths or suffering as a result of hunger/malnutrition to make people aware of an alternative. History does this time and again, you just have to look.
Give your explanation to the farmers that get sued by Monsanto for unintentional crossbreeding.
Meh.
I hate to break it to you, but there's GENES in pretty much every single thing you eat. What makes you think that none of those millions or billions of genes is in any way dangerous, but those few that we have made from cut-and-pasting together natural ones suddenly would be?
Ah but there are genes that are deadly for some:
A study by scientists at the University of Nebraska found that soybeans genetically engineered to contain Brazil-nut proteins caused reactions in individuals allergic to Brazil nuts. Blood serum from people known to be allergic to brazil nuts was tested for the appropriate anti-body response to the gene transferred to the soya bean. When seven out of nine volunteers responded to the genetically engineered soybean the researchers concluded that the allergenicity had been transferred with the transferred gene.
Some people are also allergic to peanuts. I definitely am saying some people are allergic to some genes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Think about this... Genetically engineered food is in response to a need to reduce the usage of chemical controls on crops. What do you suppose the LD-50 [wikipedia.org] (or an LC-50 for that matter) is for even a mild insecticide like a modern pyrethroid is on a monarch butterfly? Much, much lower than a GE crop I assure you.
GE is used to reduce chemical on crops? This may be true for pesticides but it's the opposite for herbicides. Crops are made herbicide resistant so more herbicides can be used on the crop. You don't need herbicide resistance if you don't use herbicides.
FalconShould there be a Law?
But I certainly don't care if it's GM or not, because I can't imagine any way that that would make a difference on human physiology. Unless we start splicing genes from blowfish into our cabbage, I can't see how it could possibly matter.
Have yuo ever heard of people's allergies to brazil nuts or peanuts? A University of Nebraska study has shown that people who are allergic to brazil nuts were allergic to soybeans that had a gene from the brazil nut inserted inot the soybean.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Hmmm. Accompanied by beautiful women or just mosquitos and snakes?
Yes, how about that. Get back to me when you are naked, living in the forest, gathering fruits and berries for food.
I used to do that though mostly in the swamps and Everglades of FL. SO it's not really forest. I could tell which plant and plant parts were edible as well as catch fish or trap other animals. Though that was a long tyme ago I miss those days. Then again I get into the SCA, Society for Creative Anachronism. I also was a member of a naturalist club, http://www.naturistsociety.com/ (not this one but another). Next.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Marker-assisted selection and genetic engineering have different uses, both important as new diseases and problems arise. Marker-assisted breeding works fine for a trait that is already present in a species and/or closely related species, but you need genetic-engineering to intergress traits not present. Another catch to genetic engineering is that you can only add a few genes with it. Also, rotating crops cannot prevent every type of pest and disease, and in order to protect against them and maintain certain crops you'll need to resort either genetic engineering or MAS. Of course, landraces are also good for their regions though they don't have the same high yield as most modern cultivated lines.
One of the first things viceroy bremer did was arrange that iraqi farmers had to use GM patented seeds. That was one of the most heinous acts of blatant imperialism outside of the hijacking of their nation. This is just *data*, verified, it happened.
As to 9-11, you have got to be beyond an idiot to not see all the strange "coincidences" and "intelligence failures" for what they are-clear cut evidence of governmental high level involvement with the reichstagg fire-9-11 attack and part of the coup consolidation.
Why don't you just be a man and admit it-you are a fascist supporter. Go ahead, show some courage. It's a legitimate type of political organization, so just go ahead, stop pretending you are for a representative republic or democracy, and openly come out as a transnational corporate/order giver supporter. No sense hiding it. You support large corporations creating monopolies-good for your business. You support a strong dictatorial central government run behind the scenes by those corporations-you see yourself as part of "them" and want to rule over others and profit in it. Blood profits? Who cares, it's just money and money has no conscious-right? The ends justify the means? Hey, what do the serfs need to know about 9-11 besides what they are told to believe, it got you a nice strong police state and your portfolio is doing great! sieg-frikkin-heil!
In your example, these people can already die from eating peanuts. This is not stopping anyone from putting peanuts in food - I have a friend who has a deadly peanut allergy, and I know how careful he has to be with all food he eats already.
True but if the gene responsible for the protein that causes the allergic reation were transfered to other food crops, without labeling how hard would it be for your friend to avoid food with it? Unless he grew his own food it would be impossible and even then cross pollenation could still happen so there really isn't any way he could avoid it. At least now, more than likely if food has peanuts or peanut oil in it it will be labeled.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Similarly, since software patents can be used by large corporations to sue those less well off, we should ban software.
Patents on software yes, software itself no.
FalconShould there be a Law?
> I'm surprise the tobaco companies hasnt graft tobaco plnat and hemp together
Or... tobacco and tomatoes!!!
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/AABF19
Chief Wiggum: Go ahead, Ralphie. The stranger is offering you a treat.
Ralph Wiggum: [takes a bite of a tomacco, but spits it out] Oh, Daddy, this tastes like grandma!
Wiggum: [takes a bite, and likewise spits] Holy Moses, it *does* taste like grandma!
Ralph: I want more.
Wiggum: Yeah, me too. We'll take a bushel or a pack or just -- just give it to me. [takes a bushel basket of tomacco from Homer, and gives him a wad of cash]
[Homer giggles evilly]
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
I am against GMOs, completely. I believe that there may be dangers and things we simply do not understand that could lead to health issues from the consumption of these ideas. That the genes are manipulated at all is a concern for me. This is not natural food, but as artificial as you can get, modified at the genetic level, the basic building blocks. In regards what goes into my body, I dont want high technology and things devised by scientists in lab coats on my plates, frankenfoods, but something natural. The philosophy is our bodies are best able to process natural foods that are programmed by nature, rather than something cooked up in a lab. There is a concern that GMOs may be causing allergic reactions triggered by novel protien stuctures, and that we do not fully understand what we are doing and the complex interdependancies between genes, changing one could set off a dominoe effect with unpredictable results. There have been cases where scientists have noted totally unexpected results by changing a seemingly small gene, far beyond what they expected. They really have little idea what they are doing and what they full effects will be. The real concern as well is since GMOs can self replicate, they may contaminate non GMO crops where they are not wanted. Consumers deserve the right to avoid this tech nology, with the proliferation in almost all commercial food items, it is almost impossible, and the intrinsic nature of GMOs undermines the avialability of choice. GMOs should be made illegal.
I am not against cross breeding, facilitating the natural breeding process by selecting plants with desirable characteristics and mating them, since this leaves nature in control of the coding process, which I do think is safer. It doesnt completely gaurantee safe food (one time they ended up with toxic celery), but, I think it is safer than the GMO crap they are trying to force on us.
And in the meantime we continue to poison existing crops with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. That doesn't make me feel any safer.
GMOs don't decrease the use of chemicals. Actually some GE crops are made so more chemical input can be used. Such as Roundup Ready seeds Monsanto sales. They made it so farmers will use their use Roundup herbicide. Since the seends are immune to Roundup farners can drown their crops in the herbicide thus increase it's usage.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Some more educated people, yes. But most just fear that their food is going to be poisonous. It drives me mad -- all the things the body can take (e.g. dozens of units of alcohol), but suddenly a few genes changed in some existing plant/animal, and people think they're going to grow a second ass or turn into a shark by consuming the stuff.
A few genes? Such as the gene in brazil nuts that codes for the protein that causes allergic reactions to people allergic to brazil nuts? Or the one that cause allergies in people allergic to peanuts?
I don't see the public saying medicine should be banned due to the evolution of superbugs that can spread out of the hospital environment
The ban on improper use of antimicrobes such as antibiotics yes. There are now strains of TB, as well as other bacteria, microbes, and viruses that are resistant to antibotics that were previously effective drugs. The misuse of antibotics will only accelerate the spread of these.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's rather late to be fearing that. Farmers and gardeners have been messing with genetics and releasing the results of that into the wild for over a thousand years - it's called "selective cross-breeding". Just about everything food product you buy in the supermarket was created by science, not chance, and has been for as long as you've been alive.
True, selective breeding has been going on for a long tyme, but that's not the same as inserting the gene from a fish into the tomato or one from the brazil nut into soybeans. These are totally different genuses never mind species so they don't cross breed. Selective breeding is for increasing benefitual gene expression and decreasing undesired expressions for traits that are already in the plant. Yes, I used to hack, er grow, gardens and had a green thumb. Actually the current issue of "Make: technology on your time" has some good articles on hacking plants.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So, when you make a very specific, limited changes using modern biotechnology, you are dangerously messing with mother nature. But gamma-irradiating the heck out of a grapefruit or treating strawberries with the toxic chemical Colchicine to double the chromosome count with no idea how these mutations and changes in gene dosage and regulation will affect the organism, it's okay. People hollering about GMO organisms need to look back at the last 50, 100 and 5000 years of messing about with nature to get some perspective.
I try to stay away from "conventional" produce as much as I do GMOs. I do most of my grocery shopping at an organic food coop and I don't use any chemical fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides on my garden.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Was the domestication of crops and animals "messing with Nature's balance" enough for you, or is it only when we start to make the changes faster by tinkering with the genome directly that bothers you? Personally, I am not worried about genetically modified corn taking over the planet, because corn is completely incapable of sustaining itself when faced with wild competition. If they breed rice to make more protein, I'm not worried about the protein-producing gene jumping species, because if making more protein conferred some evolutionary benefit to the plant, then evolution would have already increased it's protein production. A herbicide-resistant species taking root is more problematic, but would probably occur with sustained use of herbicides anyway.
In any event, thousands of people starve to death every single day, and the only way to stop that is to improve our domesticated plants. If anything, higher yield crops will dissuade the use of marginal land for agriculture and DECREASE our environmental footprint.
The article mentioned in this post is describing a nice "compromise" of traditional breeding with modern genetics, greatly speeding up the former without getting into the "scary" (to some people) elements of the latter. The potential is an improvement in agriculture on the same order of magnitude as the green revolution of the 60's...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I don't think tobaco and hemp are compatible, however;
there is some evidence that hops can be grafted to hemp.
Now the thc is produced in the roots, IIRC, then you have some
really good stuff to put in your beer.
If I remember correctly, a few years ago there was an African country which had hunger-epidemic going on and the US offered to help them, the help was refused because american help was GE-food.
It was Zimbabwe. President Robert Mugabe refused the aid unless the corn was first milled because he thought people would actually try to grow corn from the seeds. He would of accepted the aid if it had been ground or milled. And people are still starving in Zimbabwe, which is his fault. Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa, they were able to grow enough produce to feed everyone as well as export a lot, agriculture was their main export. But when he came to power Mugabe drove many farmers, most were white, off their farms then he gave his cronies the farms. And most of them didn't know anything about farming.
FalconShould there be a Law?
nothing to see here.. move along...
With the exception of your statements about firearms I agree with your post and have mentioned conflict and corruption a few tymes on this article. It's not the firearms themself it's the people who use them. Sometimes they are used to take something from others at other tymes they are used to protect the bearer. A twist on a saying: "If only the government has weapons only criminals will use them."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Not sure why people keep citing him as an innocent victim. He claimed that seed just cross-pollinated onto his land. But yet, over 90% of his crop was the Monsanto variety.
Most damning, there are receipts which show that Schmeiser was purchasing large amounts of Roundup herbicide that season and not other weed killers. No one would put Roundup on crops they didn't already know were the Monsanto strain because it would kill them within two days.
It is obvious Percy Schmeiser knew he was violating Monsanto's license. The courts ruled against him because of this evidence.
Schmeiser doesn't even pretend his crops were accidentally cross-pollinated anymore.
"I have always campaigned on the right of a farmer to save and re-use his own seed. This is what I have been doing for the last 50 years. I will continue to support any efforts to strengthen the rights of a farmer to save and re-use his own seed."
He's talking about right to re-use now, not problems of accidental cross pollination.
I'm not quite sure why people moan about this stuff. If you don't like it, don't use Monsanto's strain. If you do use it, and you use the major feature of it (that you can hose it down with Roundup with impunity), then you are reaping the rewards of Monsanto's efforts and owe them something for it if they ask (and they do).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Corn used to be a lot harder and an ear was at most 3 inches long.
Do you remember those days? No? That's because they were hundreds of years ago.
Man has modified plants to fit him better ever since he started farming. If he hadn't, then man's population wouldn't be nearly what is is right now, and that means at least 90% of us wouldn't even be here. The rewards so far have been worth the risk, I don't see why we should stop now.
As far as I can tell, people are getting excited about it now because of a generalized fear of the unknown.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Things are changing in France as of AC: more and more poeple buy some AC appliance for their homes. I think that it is because of the two really hot summers we had, including this year. But yes, comparing to the USA, France is very very late & slow to adopt AC.
But for modified crops/food, there is a huge controversy in France. Some french activists (you perhaps know the name of José Bové) 'harvest'(ie: destroy) many experimental GE modified crops.
Some of the activists have jailed for that.
Their arguments is that the science does not know what the consequences of these GE modified culture will be so that, right now, the 'principle of precaution' leads to not produce/eat that kind of GE modiffied things and that the government should not allow experiments on that in the whole country.
le souvenir d'une certaine image n'est que le regret d'un certain instant (M.Proust)
You just praise the little benefits _we_ might get from GE food (opposed to the benefit for the companies) and shrug off the obvious and potential problems that arise.
sigh...
It was more of the american way of growing food, they buying seed for every season thing which led to so much opposition. Similar is case with readymade food. Though not opposed, there was the fear of similar scandals as drug scandals. American companies have a history of collaborating shady Indian small time drug manufacturers who hire humans for trials for pittance, because they know that due to poverty for 1000$ you can get a willing subject.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
If you're unaware of the dangers of GMO foods and the biotech industry that produces them, "The Future of Food" is an excellent documentary to get you up to speed. I would highly recommend it.
http://www.thefutureoffood.com/
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MDSGBTC.php
Well, obviously it should be labelled. It's not like the companies selling the stuff can just ignore that their product kills people. As it is, companies have to cover their asses by including warnings if there's even a chance that there's the smallest trace of peanuts in their food, and this is no different. It's not like the fact that it's a GM food gives them some special get-out-of-jail-free card.
Many companies that deal with GE crops though fight against proposals to require labeling. Many food manufacturers Don't want you to know what is the food you eat. In 2002 an attempt to require labeling was defeated in Oregon.
FalconShould there be a Law?
People die from the nut contamination caused by cheap, shoddy, procedures for packaging and handling every year. I don't see why you expect gene splicing to be any different to what you get in the supermarket today.
I don't and that's in part why I prefer to grow as much of my own fruits and vegetables as I can but for the most part buy organic.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What everyone seems to be missing is that saving seeds is not practical with the most widely grown non-GM corn varieties, either. The vast majority of the corn that is commercially grown in the US comes from hybrid varieties that do not breed true, and are far less productive in the second generation (grown from saved seed). That's been true roughly since the Second World War. So if we shouldn't be giving GM corn to people in the third world, we shouldn't be giving them "conventional" corn, either, for the same reasons.
l
Nearly all the field corn now grown in the United States and most other developed nations is hybrid corn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis
The primary disadvantage of hybrids is the seeds cannot be saved from year to year. Seeds saved from hybrid plants usually will not produce the same plant the following year because most varieties are not self-sustaining. Offspring of hybrids usually show an unpredictable mixture of characteristics from the grandparent plants instead of being similar to the parent.
http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/hortihints/0102a.htm
What everyone seems to be missing is that saving seeds is not practical with the most widely grown non-GM corn varieties, either. The vast majority of the corn that is commercially grown in the US comes from hybrid varieties that do not breed true, and are far less productive in the second generation (grown from saved seed). That's been true roughly since the Second World War. So if we shouldn't be giving GM corn to people in the third world, we shouldn't be giving them "conventional" corn, either, for the same reasons.
This is generally true for hybrids but not everyone uses hybrids. For instance the corn I've grown has mostly been Aztec Black or Inca Rainbow which are naturally occuring strains of corn. Well maybe not really naturally occuring so much as selective breeding was used to make them that way consistantly. When I grow them though I will only one in a season, so they don't cross pollinate. If I had a big place for a garden then I might try growing both at the same tyme or cross pollinating them, if so then I would buy new seeds as well as use any cross pollinated seed I got, but where I live now I don't have the space for what I consider a decent garden. Nor is the gardening season long where I now live, Minneasota. While I love having a real winter I also loved being able to garden 8, 9 or more months a year like I did in Florida. Six months would be alright but I barely have 3 or 4 here.
FalconShould there be a Law?
People seem to have some idea that seeds from crops will germinate.
This was perhaps true in the 1940's. The "Green Revolution" beginning in the 1960's with all-hybrid crops put an end to that. No farmer in the US plants seeds from crops grown - they are all sterile. Perhaps some low-yield farmer in Bangledesh plants crop seeds this way today. Certainly nobody else does.
If you are worried about corporate seed control, we are there already. Do some reading. We have been there since at least 1970. We would all be starving if non-hybrid crops were being grown today.
With so many arguments going back and forth, one important thing is being forgotten...If I don't want to eat GMO food I should have the choice to not eat GMO food.
If, by personal choice, I want to avoid GM crops why is that a problem? Where is it mandated that I must eat genetically modified crap that has been created only to make a huge company obscene profits. By what arrogance do other people question my choice!
One last thing, and this is to all the GMO apologists out there, if these companies are saying that GMO's are safe, they obviously have knowledge of genetics and all possible interactions that is decades beyond the most cutting edge research. They should be nice and share with the scientific community. (yes, that was sarcasm)
And this, folks, is why international economics is an important subject. Ever heard of the law of unintended consequences? This sure looks like a textbook case -- international "aid" is actually screwing Africa. Look around, even Africans are saying it.
Now back to your regularly scheduled ennui...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
To all you people opposing genetically modified food: try to remember what genetic engineering has brought you. Ever had to use antibiotics? Many thanks to the genetically modified moulds and bacteria that produced it... Or is it just the GM food that you are concerned about? Is'n that just a tiny bit hypocrite?