Slashdot Mirror
Bayer Petitions For Approval of Biotech Rice
br_sjrpreto_sp writes to clue us to an article on Foodnavigator.
Agro giant Bayer Crop Sciences has petitioned the US Department of Agriculture to approve a genetically modified rice variety that has been at the heart of a recent contamination scandal. From the article: "Marketed under the brand name LibertyLink, these [varieties] were engineered to tolerate the toxic herbicide glufosinate ammonium. The company in July notified the US regulatory body that it had discovered trace amounts of an unapproved GM rice in samples of commercial rice seed." After the contamination scare, the market for US rice tanked as European countries imposed import limitations. When rice producers sued Bayer, the company responded with this request to the USDA. The petition is open to public comment until October 10. Comments may be submitted via the Internet at www.regulations.gov — search keyword APHIS-2006-0140."
GM food gives me such a headache...
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
So the USDA approve's Bayer's application, and Bayer's rice starts contaminating fields all over the coutry. Europe and Japan ban US rice exports permanently. Why is this better please?
It would be of great comfort to me if the Teeming Millions could learn to think rationally about such things.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I really enjoy this rice...especially since I have several tongues to taste it with now! Mmmm!
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
Genetically modified.
I hate acronyms that are not defined.
Genetically modified food/crops/animals once released into nature are like an environmental pollution.
Only this pollution will never vanish, because these organisms are "genetically engineered" with a dominat special (=patented) gen that will be reproduced and breed with other species.
Monsanto vs. Farmers
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Is there any evidence to suggest that GM crops are bad for humans? I don't know, please somebody enlighten me. But knowing what little I know about genetics (undergraduate class on genetics) I don't see it being a big problem. What I see is the biggest problem is that they are using this GM crop so they can use a more deadly herbacide. Herbacides have been proven to be harmfull for humans and bad for the ecosystem in general.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
If the product is found safe, their bans would be unscientific and they would potentially be in violation of various treaties.
Japan in particular is bad about banning foods at the slightest hint that there could possibly be an astronomically-unlikely problem, in order to protect their domestic markers (ie, their Social Security system). Never mind that a Japanese is a million times more likely to be killed by a stingray on the way to the store to buy the rice than they are to be killed BY the rice.
GM foods are to Europe what creationism is to America - an affront to reason, science, and honesty. At least creationism makes an interesting allegory, though. All the anti-GM food movement does is get people killed (by driving up the costs of food and reducing yields).
I always wanted to eat food that would make me glow green!
No matter what we will eventually start consuming more GM food because of nature simply cannot keep up with the growing population. The people who will actually be affected by food shortage if such a food shortage where to happen are those in emerging nations.
There is good intentions behind GM foods but then there are companies who really don't know how to handle this type of food and are just in it so that they control most of the market share by the time demand rises.
Funny how some of the organizations against GM foods do not donate to charities that give food to starving countries in Africa, whereas there are many of other 'industrial' food corporations that do.
GM food will ultimately replace natural foods. Which would you choose? Starve or food that provides you with the nutrients you need to stay alive?
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Sounds like a crossbreed between Freedom Fries and Franks. Must be unhealthy.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
And other people think 9/11 was planned and executed by the U.S. government.
Meanwhile people fight to make creationism part of the high school science curriculum.
And many consider homeopathic medicines, also known as "water", as effective treatments.
Gives me a migraine. Where did I put my "head-on"?
GM food gives both my heads an ache.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
F you Bayer. F you and the patented over priced MF'ing self-terminating rice you rode in on.
No. "I've had it with these MFing gene mods on this MFing rice!"
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Choose one: a.I for one welcome our new rice overlords. b.Wont somebody think of the children. c.How about a Beowulf Cluster of these d.None of the above
I mean really, you all talk about glowing green, getting two tounges etc.
I caught my first episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit the other night, and it just so happened to have a piece on GM food.
Some clips:
A short clip outline
The entire segment
It painted a pretty good argument FOR GM food... to feed the millions who are otherwise dying because it's hard to get crops to grow in their parts of the world.
Aren't the 'GM' crops really just an extension of grafting and selective breeding that has been going on for thousands of years?
Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but in their piece they/those they interviewed stated that two of the things I thought were true about GM foods aren't:
* GM foods contain genes spliced from frogs/fish/other animals: Apparently bullshit
* GM foods don't require any testing/checks before being used: Also apparently bullshit, that they are more heavily regulated than any other food.
Is this true, or have Penn & Teller hoodwinked me?
"Uh yeah, I'll have the braised SuperLambBanana with a side of Bayer self-terminating rice and a bowl of fish-antifreeze tomato soup."
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
If this particular genetic modification become prevalant in our nations rice stocks, doesnt that mean that Bayer technically owns the rice because it contains their genetic modification. What would this mean for farmers whos rice has become contaminated with Bayers strain, would their rice stock then become property of Bayer?
Um, this rice is genetically modified so that it can be sprayed with smaller quantities of herbacides (not pesticides). Therefore, less herbicides enter the environment.
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
How long before one of these clever corporations develops plants resistant to a specific disease, then a super virulent strain of that disease? Gee China, looks like your rice crop was wiped out. Good thing we have this disease resistant variety to sell you...
In other words, Bayer can't keep the unapproved and approved strains separate when they sell their GM products to the general public. **shudder**
Is there any evidence to suggest that GM crops are bad for humans?
This isn't just about these GM crops being harmful to humans. There is a whole slew of other issues with GM crop chief among whom is genetic contamination aka. cross pollination. This has all sorts of implications ranging from the economic through the social to biological. If your export customer is sensitive about GM crops and your neighbor's GM crops cross pollinate with your non GM crops you can possibly wake up one day and find that Bayer, Monsanto or some other biotech firm just ruined your life by making your crop worthless which is what those American rice farmers found out the hard way. There are also Biological implications with GM crops. Take for example the infamous terminator gene that prevents seeds from germinating after a certain number of generations forcing the farmer to buy new patented GM seed every of year rather than save a portion of the crop for sowing next year as farmers have done for millennia. Now you might argue that this is perfectly acceptable since this sort of genetic rights management technology enables biotech firms to make good their development costs and prevents farmers from 'pirating' patented GM seed. But what if the termination gene enabled crop, say rice for example, starts to cross pollenate with wild or traditional crop strains of rice? Where does that end? The terminator gene isn't supposed to be much of a problem in the wild but scientists have been catastrophically wrong before about the way nature works. Another concern is that cross pollination might actually ruin you if you are a poor traditional farmer and your traditional rice is heavily cross pollinated with terminator gene enabled rice from the fields of the factory farm next door. The result might include reduction in agroecological biodiversity, the extinction of genetically valuable traditional crop strains and even famine among rural populations in third world countries.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
That's the Republican corporate government: when a corporation breaks a law, like GM contamination or AT&T/NSA spying, just change the law.
--
make install -not war
...this rice will leave the pleasant aftertaste of fake oranges.
There is already an incredible amount of genetically engineered/modified food and crops out there. This is not a big new thing.
Pat
patrick@faenus.com
This means yes, the crop will succeed better due to natural selection in areas where the pesticide is applied.
However, the associated fitness cost means that it is to the organism's advantage to lose that genitic modification whenever it grows in the absense of pesticide. So that natural selection would often select for the original strain.
"Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."
n/t
... to clean it.
Wonderful move by bayer - contaminating first then producing genetically engineered crops resistent to contamination.
I suggest u.s. populace give shit back to its originator - bayer. Refuse them flat outright so no other company would get the courage to fuck with people in united states.
Read radical news here
Sure if we have good reason to believe the company was at fault in this situation then they are certainly morally culpable. However, it is quite reasonable, likely even, that someone stole/walked out with some of this rice and started making use of it.
Holding this company responsible when someone else may have just taken their product farmed it and sold it is completely ridiculous. It is kinda like holding a drug company responsible because someone diverted some of their product and it was used in a food tampering case.
The reaction of the europeans to GM food is just totally irrational. While there are some good reasons to be critical of growing GM food there is no justification to think eating minor quantities is dangerous. Sure the opponents are going to say it's untested and we shouldn't risk it but any time you breed a new type of agricultural product naturally the same reasoning should apply. Moreover, it seems like they treat a small amount of GM contamination of imported food more seriously than they would treat some minor chemical contamination.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
GM crops/foods that include genes spliced from fish (and probably other animals, too) do exist. You can read more about it, and other GM issues, here (notable for it's extensive bibliography).
Cultivated rice in the wild cannot survive without separation and replanting. It's *all* GM. It's just that the mods were done by specific selection, and has happened by so many farmers over so many years that we've lost the original stock. The only difference for Bayer is that selection was sped up a bit in a labortory setting.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
this rice is engineered to be more resistant to poisons sprayed on the fields to kill off weeds. Do you grok this yet, the word "more"? Now tell me braniac, have you been genetically modified to be more resistant to poisons lately? You know, the food you eat will have more poisons in it and on it, and your water supplies get more heavily contaminated? Are you aware of glycophosphates and what they actually do, how long they last?
You GM proponents are just so dense, it's like you can understand technical concepts perfectly well up to a certain point then get a case of the chronic dumbs. Remind yourself to not bother to play chess, it's a waste of time for you, anything past two steps is too much of an effort. Here's another one, they use genes from different species and even different genus and transplant them around. This is for you other neurons who don't get it and keep hyping that word "hybrid" in every thread about GM crops because you saw that word on your mommy's package of garden seeds. Transplanted genes from different genus's DOES NOT HAPPEN in nature, get it? It is not something plant growers have been "doing for hundreds of years" or anything like that, and it doesn't happen in nature.
This is Island of Dr. Moreau scary stuff and we are barely scratching the surface with it and anyone who states it's all perfectly safe is a LIAR, because we, the collective scientific community we, don't know, it's all too new, just too damn new. They state it might be safe, because they stand to make billions from it and it helps them garner planetary food monopolies, and that's what this is all about, transnationals getting to the point the can monopolize the global food the same way they do with mainstream entertainment, or the MSM news, a handful of large companies ownzoring it. Is that what you really want? Really? Have you looked at the actual economic ramifications of using heavy GM seed, especially for developing nations? First year, slight crop yields, they might break even cost wise. Second year, a loss, because they have to rebuy the seeds, at triple the cost, when before they could save their own year to year, now it is illegal for them to do so.. By the third or fourth year, bankruptcy, ownership changes hands, goes upstream into fewer hands. Get it yet? It's an economic scam!
I'm in ag, I can tell you right now, GM seed is putting more farmers out of business then the strong dollar is, and who knows what it will do long term with the health of the humans on the planet. Mono culture and heavy use of chemicals has contaminated the planet for some short term gains of mostly water puffed food, and GM seeds are a way to apply "vendor lock-in" to that most critical human need, food.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What happens when all of the genetically engineered crops contaminate all of the natural crops and down the road we must rely 100% on big corporations to provide seed.. which of course likely requires a much more hefty fee than natural product? Natural seed being something that you cannot get sued for growing without permission, of course..
What happens when all of the natural species are wiped out by the GE stuff and we end up with a handful of varieties of plant that are only distinguished by their immunity to disease or compatibility with the designers insecticide instead of their taste, or beauty or longevity on the shelf? Only one kind of corn, only one kind of rice, only one kind of pea. Bring on the GE stuff, sounds like a much simpler world!
Thanks for that reply, the issue with companies patenting their crops etc. was one I had read a while back and forgotten about.
It is a big issue, and its sad when things that could be for the good of all are turned into the good of some and the bad of most by the greedy.
Bayer Petitions For Approval of Biotech Rice
Well this is just what we need: field-grown neon lights, 'Type R' stickers, coffee-can mufflers and wing spoilers. Terrific.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
GM food is entirely evil, not for any of the qualities of the food, but for the legal and political sham taking place around them.
Enter Monsanto. They make GM canola, among other things, as well as having patented over 12,000 varieties of seed, most unmodified and taken directly from the goverments own seed stores.
A little bit of their GM seed blew off of trucks and onto the fields of a farmer in Canada. Monsanto found traces of GM plants on the farmers land (without his knowledge or permission, which in the U.S. we call trespassing), sued the farmer, and cost him his life savings, and he had to destroy all of his seed. He was a real farmer who rotated his fields with a variety of seeds to maintain the soil. He lost literally generations worth of seed, a devestating loss.
Much of the upper echelons of the U.S. government, particularly the FDA, are former executives of Monsanto or it's subsidiaries. The goal is nothing short of utter and total control of the worlds food supply.
Watch the documentary The Future of Food. It'll put a bad taste in your mouth.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
GM food doesn't concern me too much if it's managed appropriately. As your comment implies, I've seen a lot of people who are concerned about things glowing green, but I really don't think this is an issue (unless we're really stupid).
What disturbs me are the predominantly US mega-corporations that hold the majority of rights to produce GM food, and appear to be quite happy to do whatever it takes to contaminate non-GM food, and lock any alternatives out of the market (such as this case). To the food world, they're what Microsoft is to the IT world -- except people everywhere require food to live, whereas only a small proportion of people require computers. In the back of my mind, it really does frighten me as to how all of this might turn out.
GM food certainly does have the potential to feed millions or perhaps billions of starving people, but how much of it is actually getting to those people? Compare this with the GM research that's instead being used for anti-competitive behaviour, such as by making seeds that won't reproduce after a single planting, and so on.
Ok... if you patent a GM crop, then, yes, you can own the patent. BUT, you must realize that if your seed becomes intermingled and/or cross pollinates with plants whose seeds you did not engineer or are not GM, then you are out of luck. You should not be able to sue every farmer whose crop your GM patented gene shows up in. Biology is not the same as machinery...it is alive. If you don't like it, then you are in the wrong business, because you will never be able to meep 10 0% control over your crop and its pollination. If you don't want your work to show up in other fields, then YOU MUST bear the entire cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining a fully-closed agricultural system.
P.S.: I would greatly appreciate any of Monsanto's GM seed that was accidentally dropped off of their trucks. If it fell of their trucks, then it can legally be considered abandoned and relinquished of any ownership, and is therefore, fair game as salvaged property. I want only verifiably abandoned seeds, or information where I can pick up some of these seeds, either off of roadsides, or of farmers whose fields have become accidentally populated by these seeds. It would be *MUCH* appreciated!
-----
Sig Sauer
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
While herbicide resistant genes do provide an advantage where that herbicide is used, many genes insterted into transgenic organisms are a disadvantage, particularly those that increase yields. Even herbicide resistance genes can provide a selective disadvantage when the herbicide is absent. This is easiest to see in bacteria - obviously antiobiotic resistance is an advantage when an antibiotic is present, but it frequently slows down reproduction, causing selective disadvantages compared to the non-transgenic versions when the antibiotic is absent. It's difficult to say if plants are the same, given that most commercially availible GM plants are sterile and that few tests for selection in the wild have been run on transgenic plants.
I get to be more than slightly biased about this one. My fiancees father has been the head of Bayer Crop Sciences here in Kansas City for many years now, and if he claims the rice isn't actually contaminated nor will it do a single human harm, I'm fairly willing to believe him. And, do me a favor and don't assume simply because he works for the company that he's pro-Bayer in everything. Hardly. They have a cat and a dog and to keep any potential fleas at bay, they use Frontline not Advantage, because he knows that Advantage doesn't hold a candle to Frontline. (Pssst, if you're confused, Advantage is made by Bayer whereas Frontline is made by Merial).
This sig will self destruct in 5 seconds.
This is why we need to start genetically engineering humans not to have allergies.
I'm more or less serious about this; I have asthma, and I will happily select against asthma when I have children, if the technology is available. I would imagine most reasonable people with wheat or peanut allergies would do the same.
Biotechnology has been around forever. People aren't bystanders in the environment. Natural is slow, arificial is fast. That's the only real difference.
Biotechnology created domesticated animals, beer, cheese, yeast, penicillin, corn, lettuce, potatoes, and almost everything else remotely edible or good for us. Breeding is just another way to do GM, albeit slower.
The only serious threat is, "changing things quickly might cause problems quickly".
Banning a food for the sake of some theoretical worst case scenarios shouldn't be taken seriously. Think of a lawyer convicting somebody with imaginary evidence in court; that shouldn't happen either.
Importing plants and animals from other countries can cause serious environmental damage in some places. (nutria, aussie cats, etc.) But the world hasn't ended. A gm product is more likely to survive poorly or be a pest than global exterminator.
Besides, any life fragile enough to be done in by GM shouldn't still be around (roadkill?). Survival of the fittest, for darwin's sake!
An agro company can already patent their seeds or animals, they just have to prove those things have some unique trait they own (if that). Genetic engineering just makes getting unique traits easier.
Nature could make the equivalent of any "new" creature we make artificially. Whatever gets created, you could find a similar natural counterpart at some point in history. To think we could even create some brand new gene is improbable. Nature's constantly mucking with DNA all the time, and througout the history of all life on earth. How genes are combined in an organism can be unique, but not truely original. Since we're not creating the whole shebang, it's unlikely a dangerous and radically new organism will ever be made by us.
My point is, if it's not unique genes in a totally unique organism, it could just as well have spawned naturally at any time. At least if we created a monster ourselves, we'll be half prepared for it.
Pakistani rice is cheap and tasty!
This is starting to sound like the "Taco Bell Corn Shell" incident.
In 2000, a GM corn called StarLink (which was not approved for human consumption) was found to have cross-contaminated the Taco Bell brand corn taco shells sold in stores during the manufacturing process.
The shells were recalled, but StarLink's developer Aventis (owned by Bayer AG, gasp) has since submitted that the "accident" should be viewed as an "unintended" large-scale field trial, and since nobody seems to have had a bad allergic reaction, StarLink should be approved.
Now the same "accident" seems to have happened with Bayer's GM rice, and since the cat's out of the bag, why not just go ahead and approve it.
I am not a big fan of GM foods, but the actions of the companies is what terrifies me.
Intentional changes are patented. They'll get you 0wned.
Deleted
I dont want GMOs in my food. I dont trust it because I dont think scientists or anyone really knows what harmful effects their could be, and perhaps, there are things it is doing but we just arent associating it with GMOs.
Every last drop of food you have ever eaten or could eat is GM. There are two basic ways out going about this. The first is the old method, where farmers who had practically zero knowledge of what was going on GM'd food crops into desirable state (Ohhhh! That one looks big and juicy! Let's breed that one!). The second method involves scientists, who at least have half a clue as to what they are doing. I have no idea on earth why you would prefer the former over the latter, and any way you cut it, such an opinion is unscientific and has no role in politics. If you still insist on being ignorant, at least only harm yourself.
They found that the rate of food related illnesses since GMOs were introduced in 1994 in the USA, have increased 10 fold, but in sweden where they are banned, the rates stayed the same. Seems suspicious to me.
Citation, please. That sounds like pure baloney. Btw, I am a scientist. When I ask for a citation, I mean the orginal research paper. Something of that magnitude would surely be in something like Science or Nature.
GMOs are artificial foods
"Artificial" is a non-scientific word with no more meaning than "Kosher".
programmed at the genetic level
Every living thing is programmed at a genetic level.
Who knows, maybe there is a reason why nature programs genes in certian ways, that are so subtle that we do not understand them, but when we interfere, may have very harmful effects on us.
Let's keep religion out of this. I do not care about the opinions or reasonings of your Gaeia goddess. National policies must be based on science.
I think, like other artificial things in food, people should be able to enjoy this GMO foods and the possible risk that it entials. But the mere nature of GMOs is a threat to the very idea of choice, due to their ability to reproduce and cross breed with other plants where they are not wanted.
Why? Your "GM'd by idiot farmers and random chance" crops keep contaminating MY "GM'd by really freaking smart scientist" crops. Where is my right to CHOOSE, dammit?
Technology is fine for computers, but when it comes to what goes into my body, I want nature, not technology. I think we humans have evolved for thousands of years eating certian foods and are bodies are best equipped to process natural foods, and when we get away from this, our bodies find it more difficult to handle these artificial foods we are eating. It could be subtle at first but very harmful and the effects may not be attributed to GMOs. Who knows, maybe modifying the genes directly interferes with natures plan, maybe nature does things in certian ways very carefully, subtle ways we will never understand. Perhaps GMOs foods may have harmful chemical protiens in them that our bodies are not able to handle. Things are done a certian way by nature perhaps on purpose and good reason, and when we interfere at the genetic level, regarding what goes into our bodies and what we depend on for well being, I am concerned great harm can be done
Great harm could also be done by the idiot farmer GM method. Why don't we ban that, too? Why has it never happened before?
And again, please keep your religion out of a policy debate (ie, "natural", "nature's plan", etc)
You seem really confused by this basic concept of international politics. Yes, Japan could tell us to FUCK OFF, in which case we respond by telling them to FUCK OFF, and then the poor Japanese have to pay triple for beef and I have to buy shitty Ford or GM cars.
Avoiding ose-lose situations like this is one of the major reasons we have treaties.
Altering genes so it would protect against a pesticide isn't the way to go. It would lead to more pesticide usage, bringing eco systems in unbalance. Altough for example fire ants would like it, others wont. In the end you create thug creaters who can deal it. We've seen this before several times. This also increases the risk that your food contains pesticides. Next problem with is that genes can cross over for example by viruses / bacteria. Allready there is funges/plants/grass spieces which have become resistant by accident as they somehow got the genes. next problem what do we know of eating geneticaly altered food, almost nothing. Biggest problem you cannt stop big companies they just go to other countries.
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Anyone have any luck submitting a comment, you have to see how crazy the system they have is for submissions. I know it is a big database, but surely they could make it easier.
Look at iTunes, you can easily post a comment.
All your rices belong to us!
sic transit gloria mundi
It will enslave nations that are having trouble growing food now, do to social and ecological destruction, by creating a dependency on first world agro-corps to supply something as basic as their everyday food needs.
If you want to see where GM is headed don't look at feeding a starving world, look at the "terminator seed". Thats where this is headed.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Apply directly to the forehead.
Apply directly to the forehead.
Apply directly to the forehead.
Apply directly to the forehead.
Apply directly to the forehead.
Apply directly to the forehead.
Apply directly to the forehead.
Apply directly to the forehead.
Apply directly to the forehead.
Watching that commercial once made me stir crazy, forget that other nonsense you mentioned!
Check out Patrick Moore's http://www.greenspirit.com/21st_century.cfm?msid=2 9&page=8 writings on the subject. His page is very interesting for other enviromental issues too.
Note that Patrick Moore was founding member of Greenpeace and is on the side of saving the environment.
Simply the most evil company on the planet.
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/01/27a.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_AG#Controversy
They "bought" concentration camp prisoners and performed tests on them... and killed all of them. They had their own concentration camp during WWII.
They knowingly sold factor (for hemophiliacs) that was not properly screened and infected untold numbers of hemophiliacs with HIV and other bloodborne diseases.
The list of atrocities goes on and on.
The biggest problem with genetically altered anything is that there is no way to truly determine how it affect the environment in which it is introduced until it's too late to do anything about it.
Why is this such an issue any way? Uhh guys, it may not be Bayer's fault that it happened at all. For those of you that know rice is uhhh WIND pollinated and I bet they grew some of their test plots NEAR the places that rice is grown. Then some of the normal grown crops around can get pollinated by the test crop and the rest is history. This happens and i need not be a controversy. Its just a small excuse for a protection racket in japan see below, really this all boils down to the GMO debate
OK, OK, I hate this argument in general but I have Karma to burn and i see so many insightful posts that are well frankly off. They are best described as Ignorant of GMO = Fear of GMO.
I am a Molecular Biologist (IE I can and have made "GMO" plants), So I am biased. However, I am also well versed. in the issue. Here I will quickly debunk a number of common arguments against GMO.
General answerer:
Regardless of what some people want we have a few GMO crops and there will be more to come. Perhaps herbicide resistant that or this is not the best usage of this technology but it is the first. If these simple products cant go to market how will we ever see the true power. Drugs to extend and save lives in plants. MMR or other vaccines in bananas so any person in a 3rd world country can grow and have needed vaccines for the populations with out dependence on 1st world charity. These dreams are here now, personally I find these ideas exciting. When GMO becomes more associated with life saving i think the FUD will lessen. Until then when you hear statistical numbers and emotional arguments just think and learn and remember the TTM (see below) number can be twisted so easily.
Fears:
Genetic modification is unnatural:
We have been doing this for years, the ancestors of corn resembles crab grass, we just modified it by selection the seed from the most fit specimen and selecting that to grow. Over the years we have made truly massive changes, far more than any molecular biologist can do today.
Genetic modification will/may cause unknown allergies:
See MIVF and SPAGETTIE below, most food allergies are caused by a very specific and select group of proteins and chemicals. Yes if you transfered the genes for one of these you may get new food allergies. But 99.99% of geese have virtually zero risk of this effect. Food allergies are VERY rare even among all foods. And there is a concentration issue. The protein (food storage protein) in peanuts that is the source of allergies is present in super high concentrations ( think 5-10% of the dry weight of the peanut). This is because its a energy storage source for the seed. The herbicide resistance protein is going to be many orders of magnitude less ( think 0.001%). However, the is never 0 risk, its just ludicrously small.
genetic modification may lead to "unspecified unknown problems in consumers":
this is pure fear on faith, See MIVF and SPAGETTIE below. Risks are small and that is why there are massive amounts of tests. However just remember in the end we change 1 or 2 genes only, and may be incidentally destroy one or 2 natural ones when we make a GMO. We do not give the plant new powers beyond the target gene. If the purified herbicide resistance protein is safe in massive amounts (ie feed the concentrated extract of it to a rat) it will be safe in the supper tinny amounts in the crop.
Genetic modification will/may increase pesticide/herbicide use:
Actually no, this is pure FUD. Being able to spray in the middle of a crop growth means you can spray less at the start of the season and may be don't have to use several other more toxic products (germination inhibitors) to keep the field extra clean (think virtually sterile). This is because you can knock the weeds back later in the season so the newly germinated ones can't catch up with the now rapidly growing crop.
Genetic modified crops are likely to be more contaminated with herbicides:
See above, if you g
Bayer, the company which brought parts of Europe AIDS... how great.
http://chickencamels.poemofquotes.com/
e. Natalie Portman covered in hot (genetically modified) grits.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
you probably think you know it all, but there is only so much herbicide you can spray on a crop. There is no benefit of killing the crop while killing the weeds. The idea of herbicide resistant crops is to be able to use a more PLANT toxic herbicide that instead of letting 50% escape, kills 99% -100% of all weeds, but leaves the money maker alone. That will make sure you have to spray once or twice, which is less than continiously spraying with a 'mild' herbicide that only kills some percentage of the weeds that eat the fertiliser you intended for your crops.
Remember that modern farming is just a numbers game: you pay a bit more for your feedstock, but have to pay less for herbicides. Farmers that inisit on tradition are growing bio-organic-full-moon-lunacy or are bankrupt. Altough you may think that farming is traditional, that does not make it less technological advanced as it really is. (It's your loss to consider wet science not a technology).
Besides if you haven't noticed yet that the european GM resistance has been hijacked by geopolitcal interests you have not been paying attention. 'Bio-diversity' coming from a politician that only knows the names of 50 (at best!) plants is just hypocritical. Maybe the problem is not the GM, but the fact that Monsanto holds the patent for both Roundup and roundup-resistance genes.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Oh damn, you figured out the bonus answer, million points to you.
Being new doesn't mean it's bad. Being unnatural doesn't mean it's bad.
Until you give up TV, computers, modern medicine, and everything else that is unnatural or hasn't been around for hundreds of years, you are a hypocrite.
There is no difference in the end result, only the process. Indeed, in several cases, the same gene has been inserted by both the scientist and idiot farmer method. In most cases, the former is far more effective, controlled, and understood.
And please quit anthropomorphizing "nature". It does not do things, have feelings, or give a rat's ass about you or anyone else.
Well then, let us cower under our blanket of fear, and let nature run rampant! It seems there are plenty of bodies already huddled to keep folks warm under there.
</flame>
The problems you list above CAN be dealt with. We need not presume doomsday results.
In fact, it may be that if we DON'T use GM to grow rice/corn for ethanol that doomsday descends when the oil runs out.
I for one, support those who use best available knowledge and technology to grow what is needed.
"We think people rightly feel that once they buy something, it stays bought," --Suw Charman, Open Rights Grp
on the matter, and the WTO handles disputes. Banning imports for unscientific reasons would be a violation of the agreements.
Today's bananas really _aren't_ your grandfather's bananas. It was several years before a new variety was bread that came somewhat close to the previous variety in terms of size, texture, taste, etc., although there was never a complete match (it is universally agreed that the former variety was more appealing).
Unfortunately, the current breed is also under attack by a new fungus that likewise threatens to completely wipe out the variety. It is quite possible that we will have to settle for a third generation of bananas that doesn't measure up to the current variety. Drawing a parallel to GMO crops and the evolution of farming to be dominated by a few, non-reproducing varieties shouldn't be that difficult.
science is a religion
Ok, I'm saying it now: I DON'T WANT THE SHIT! You seem to think that the contamination is like a chemical spill or an oil slick. Wrong! Oil slicks don't reproduce themselves. Oil slicks don't turn nearby unoiled water into oil slicks. And there's something more fundamental: Your body runs the same code as what they're fucking with. What happens when you fill your computer's memory with snippets of virus? Probably nothing, but it won't work too well.
Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.