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."
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?
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/
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 crops may or may not be bad for humans, but they may be bad for the crops and they tend to contaiminate natural breeds which we know have long term sustainability.
Add to that the fact that this particular GM crop in question is one which is designed to be sprayed with herbicides. The GM crops might be bad for other crops, and the herbicides might be bad for us.
On the other hand it might all be okay, too. The problem is we can't trust anyone to actually tell the truth about that because there's so much profit involved.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
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?
Is there any evidence to suggest that GM crops are bad for humans?
Yes.
A major problem is allergies.
Much of genetic engineering for crops consists of copying a gene or set of genes from one species to another, in order to confer its advantages on the engineered organism. This results in the engineered plant making a set of protiens (and their fallout products) that were previously lacking in that organism.
Now suppose you're violently allergic to, say, some cell membrane protien in peanuts. Eat a trace of a peanut and you end up in the hospital. Eat a handfull and you might suddenly die. But if you avoid peanuts you're fine, right?
Then suppose somebody discovers that this protien confers a resistance to a quickly-degraded herbicide that gets most of the weeds that currently infest corn, wheat, and soybean fields and rice paddies. So they clone it into corn, wheat, soybeans, and rice. This produces new strains that are easier to grow: Plant 'em, spray once with the herbicide to kill the weeds but not the crops, and get high yields with little effort. The new strains are cheaper to grow and quickly displace their competition.
And now you're deathly allergic to peanuts, corn, wheat, soy, and rice.
Or at least to the GM versions of the corn, wheat, soy, and rice.
But you can't tell from the labeling which strains of corn, wheat, soy, or rice are in any given product you buy.
And once they're growing in the fields, they produce polen that fertilizes OTHER corn, wheat, soy, or rice. A few generations later even some "unmodified" strains (such as those grown by the organic farmer in the next field downwind) will contain it. If the advantage is sufficient it becomes pervasive.
That's just one example. Iterate for other sources of useful protiens. Iterate using animals. Iterate for genes that produce powerful hormones or drug precursors, which may affect you when consumed orally. Iterate for airborne allergens. And so on.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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?
In other words, Bayer can't keep the unapproved and approved strains separate when they sell their GM products to the general public. **shudder**
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."
Japan is just as protectionist as the US. Take a look at the steel tariffs or sugar tariffs the US imposes on other countries to protect their own domestic markets for these or substitute products.
You cast your FUD in a light that suggests that genetically modified crops are obviously harmless. There is no evidence to support that notion. In fact, and you can look in the rest of thread for other examples, there are lots of reasons to believe that genetically modifying foods is a potentially very dangerous game. Some obvious reasons:
These are just some very obvious and immediate problems with genetically engineered foods. You might think that these are not severe problems. But if antibiotic have taught us anything it's that human intervention can cause unforeseen problems over the long run. Problems with unclear answers. For example, what happens when cross fertilization causes other plant organisms to also gain herbicide resistance? Do you know the answer?
What if genetically engineered crops, either through cross-fertilization or by design, become non-digestible by humans or animals? Do you know the answer?
Such possibilities are worst-case scenarios and the risk might be unlikely, but is it worth it?
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!
The issue of world hunger is an distribution one, not a production one. The federal government today pays millions of dollars for farmers (large corporations now days) to either let a crop rot in the fields, not grow a crop, or not distribute a crop. There are actions by the UN trying to stop this practice. I don't have the link any longer but there have been studies produced by Harvard I believe that prove that we can produce enough food to feed the world, we just can't get it to the people that need it.
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
He used a common allergy as an example to convey the idea. Think about how much worse it would be for someone with an uncommon allergy. As you say above, no GM producer would produce a crop that spread a common allergy. Its not just a possibility, but an eventuality that a GM producer would produce a crop that contained an uncommon allergy, whether they know it or not at the time.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
People are NOT allergic to peanuts. People are allergic to specific protein produced by peanuts. Just because you MAY borrow a gene from peanut does not mean you will automatically inherit the allergic protein as well.
In fact, since the peanut allegen is so well know, there is NO POSSIBLE way the GM producers will add such annoying protein to a modified rice. Why would they? They would liable for MILLIONS in damages (for knowingly adding stuff).
GM is effective because it is targeted, not a scattershot like breeding is. There is greater chance that you will produce a harmful allergic product using the traditional breeding method then target gene changes (because we only use genes where we know what their effect is).
FUD BS like yours is why there is unhealthy fear of GM products in the world today. Your FUD has no basis in science. Give me just ONE example where GM product caused allergic problems, just ONE!
Your post is nothing but a Troll and should be labeled as such.