China May Restrict Genetically Engineered Rice

An anonymous reader writes "China's State Council has released a proposal for a grain law that establishes legislation restricting research, field trials, production, sale, import and export of genetically engineered grain seeds, the first initiative in the world that deals with GE food legislation at state law level. Monsanto had tried and failed to commercialize GE wheat in Canada. Now they were hoping China would become the first guinea pig, opening the gate to genetic experiments with staple crops."

Comments

When it comes to rice

[koan]

A billion Chinese can't be wrong.

Re:When it comes to rice

[cshark]

They're communists, they're never wrong about anything.

Re:When it comes to rice

[Anonymous Coward]

Those evil communists are just jealous of the freedoms in the US.

Re:When it comes to rice

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the word you're looking for is "Whooosh"... you know, the sound a facetious comment makes as it's flying over your head? (spelled it out for you just in case). Your sig might have Super Cow Powers but you sure as hell don't. Lighten up.

Re:When it comes to rice

[Inda]

A billion Chinese can't be Wong.

They're also Chin, Chang, Lui, Tang...

And before you all climb on your high horses, I have a Chinese name.

Re:When it comes to rice

[wisty]

Generally?

Hillarious Bias

[MightyYar]

opening the gate to genetic experiments with staple crops

You know, like most of the corn we produce in North America...

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Xandrax]

Very true. In fact, if not for the genetic manipulation of wheat, the people of the world would have actually faced the catastrophic starvation that was a concern in the early-mid 1900's.

For what it's worth, Norman Buraug, the Nobel Peace Prize winning scientist who fathered the Green Revolution, said a year before he died (2003) that GE crops would become the accepted norm in much the same way that genetically engineered antibiotics have been.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[erroneus]

I was thinking the same thing. Corn is a staple in the U.S... though it doesn't hold my papers together very well.

China is wise and correct in this case to block Monsanto and their monkey business. As the Monsanto story unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that Monsanto's crap is needless at the very least and is dangerous at worst. I say dangerous in the same way that the over-use and improper use of anti-biotics have resulted in the creation (dare I say selective breeding) of "super-bugs" Monsanto's insecticide foods are creating super-insects which can eat their poisonous plants and survive. I don't think the planet needs swarms of insects which have adapted to survive insecticide.

Meanwhile, Monsanto only has interest in getting GM seed spread across the planet so they can later sue for ownership of wherever the seeds find themselves.

By making Monsanto's crap illegal in their nation, they are closing the doors on Monsanto's game. It would be pretty hard for Monsanto to make claims against Chinese farmers when their product is illegal. On the other hand, Chinese farmers might find themselves in a hell of a lot of trouble should Monsanto's crap end up in their crops. Kind of frightening if you think about it.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[geekoid]

And they are closing their doors on vitamin fortified rice, and closing their doors on a substantial tool to feed their people. All for nothing but alarmist responses and irresponsible reporting by people who have no clue what they are talking about.

Yes, because it it's one thing China is known for, it's protecting IP~

You're just making up motivation to fit into your pet ideas.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[andydread]

Yes and don't get caught planting any of that corn without paying a license fee to Monsanto per hectare of Corn/Soy also If your crop gets contaminated with Monsanto GM corn through cross-pollination or any other natural cause then expect an expensive trip to court. Oh and don't bother saving the seeds from last year's crop for the next year. You will be sued out of existence. The 90% of corn that is grown in North America is Monsanto's Intellectual property you don't own your crop they do and they aggressively pursue anyone that violates their "intellectual property" FUCK Monsanto.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[andydread]

And they are closing their doors on vitamin fortified rice, and closing their doors on a substantial tool to feed their people. All for nothing but alarmist responses and irresponsible reporting by people who have no clue what they are talking about.

Yes, because it it's one thing China is known for, it's protecting IP~

You're just making up motivation to fit into your pet ideas.

Alamist?
Tell that to Troy Roush the vice president of the American Corn Growers Association. A 5th generation farmer. You seem to know more that he does. When their gene spreads like wildfire and contaminates farms all across America and they aggressively sue the contaminated farms out of business there is nothing alarmist about that. When food staples are all becoming Monsanto's "intellectual property" There is nothing alarmist about that. Patenting life forms should not be allowed period.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the Chinese are rejecting Monsanto's offer has nothing to do with Capitalism. If they wanted it, they'd take it. That's the funny thing about being a soverign nation these days.

Oh No. The reason the Chinese are Rejecting Monsanto's offering is because there are no studies prooving the GM Corn is safe. In fact, if you look around, there are very few studies whatsoever at all. Once the FDA approved it, everyone assumed it was safe.

Here's the one study you're going to find, and it basically says the findings are inconclusive.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Does it bother you 65% of the corn in the USA is Genetically Modified, with no studies on human health? Look, farmers make food, and farmers sell food, and they also breed their plants and cattle to make better plants and cattle. That's one process; the other process includes blasting genes into a genome until they stick and hoping what they knocked out if it wasn't important

I'm not saying natural selection is better at getting results. I'm saying patenting a corn crop, allowing it to reproduce (what are bee's good for?), introducing it into the US, Sueing every farmer that doesn't pay the monsanto tax, while bribing the FDA to allow it and sueing anyone who even considers questioning the product or publishing a study, is a bad idea. It's a very bad idea. And I don't even NEED to argue the health perspective; If 1, little tiny Insect figures out how to bypass the protien they injected into that crop, you've got a famine. You don't think, on a long enough timeline, that won't happen??? Are you stupid? I don't even need nature for that one. I get some Locusts, I feed them some percentage of GMO corn, some percentage of regular food. Some die, some live; the ones that live reproduce, I up the ratio until all they eat is corn, and I release them. TADA, I'm an angry farmer and just killed that product line and a few thousand people from the saftey of my shed in a few years.

Hrm, Gee, I wish there was some kind of Historical Precident to compare this too....oh yeah. rBGH!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

Did the FDA protect the market? No. Did the States protect the market? No, they didn't want the FDA to come after them.

Who protected the market? The Sellers of the product. Enough Customers developed SERIOUS health problems; I myself developed diahrea with blood after drinking their milk for more than a few days straight and stopped drinking milk entirely for nearly 6 years. Customers decided they weren't going to buy rbgh/rbst trashed milk, and enough health problems arose and enough people stopped buying milk or switched to buying organic milk that the sellers responded.

What's happening now? What food are studies being done on?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588

"Some believe that your body reacts differently to high-fructose corn syrup"

I will bet you my entire livelyhood that the next thing that will happen here is people will realize, perhaps slower than they did with milk, that products with Corn Syrup in them are bad. And they will stop drinking them. And where might that FIRST show up at?

Probably in Soda, since they're the #1 consumer of corn syrup.

5 years ago; I go into the aisle of a super market, I'd be hard pressed to find Sugar in my soda.

Now?

Lots of "Wayback Mountain Dew" and "1960's Classic Cola" and lots of "fancy" soda's with SUGAR in them.

Yeah....

Re:Hillarious Bias

[the plant doctor]

With corn pollen drift is a problem, with rice not so much. It's "estimated" at 0.1% spread/mixing because as scientists we wouldn't say "zero".

Re:Hillarious Bias

[currently_awake]

GE crops have LOWER yields than traditional ones. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html If we switch to GE grains en mass it will lead to food shortages and higher food prices, like we're starting to see now. A second point: raising more foods always ends up with more humans, leading to starvation. The only limit on human population is food, so growing more just delays the trouble.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[currently_awake]

You ignore IP when climbing up to the top, then enforce it to hold your position. Every single world power follows that route. Given that Monsanto (USA) owns most of the GE grains it makes perfect sense for China to block the competition while they develop their own.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[No, I am Spratacus!]

Is this really worthy of -1: Troll? Perhaps someone more familiar with this can verify or dispute the claims presented.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true at all. Breeding is not the same as genetic engineering. Breeding happens naturally on its own, genetic engineering is specifically only possible with external tinkering.

Nice troll post though.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[RoknrolZombie]

Don't know how significant this is: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n9/full/nbt0909-801b.html (it's paywalled and I don't feel like spending $32 to find out what their "clarifications" about the claims in the above article). I suspect that their numbers are misleading - I had always thought that GM crops *do* produce less, but a given crop may survive drought conditions or freezing conditions (extending the growing season)better. Different crops that have already been modified (as mentioned, corn and wheat) may have been modified do behave in different ways - it would just depend on what problem they're trying to solve in that area. Under those circumstances, tests performed under "ideal conditions" wouldn't show the benefits of using GM crops. Of course, how much of what I "know" is propaganda, I can't say. Generally speaking, I trust Penn & Teller, but I can't promise facts :p

Re:Hillarious Bias

[the eric conspiracy]

So lets just stop making that nasty polluting artificial nitrate and let 2 billion people starve.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes let me know if you want your children to eat this corn
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Even people with problems growing their own crops won't touch the garbage
http://www.ecocentricblog.org/2011/12/07/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields/

And finally:

new study by Indiana’s University of Notre Dame has revealed that streams across the U.S. Midwest contain insecticides from adjacent fields of genetically engineered corn, even well after harvest. The transgenic maize (GE corn) in question has been engineered to produce the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab. Pollen, leaves and cobs from those plants enter streams bordering on the cornfields, where they are said to release Cry1Ab into the water.

Notre Dame ecologist Jennifer Tank and colleagues conducted a field survey of 217 stream sites in northwestern Indiana, six months after the corn harvest. 86 percent of those sites contained corn crop debris, and Cry1Ab was detected in the debris at 13 percent of those sites. That said, Cry1Ab that had presumably leached out of corn debris was detected in the water itself at 23 percent of the original 217 sites. The concentrations were not provided.

"Our study demonstrates the persistence and dispersal of crop byproducts and associated transgenic material in streams throughout a corn belt landscape even long after crop harvest," Tank stated.

The study also concluded that 91 percent of the 200,000 km (124,274 miles) of streams and rivers in Indiana, Iowa and Illinois are located within 500 meters (547 yards) of corn fields. Cry1Ab, a byproduct of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, does already occur naturally in the environment – expansive crops of corn that produce it, needless to say, do not.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[__aaltlg1547]

Meanwhile, Monsanto only has interest in getting GM seed spread across the planet so they can later sue for ownership of wherever the seeds find themselves.

Not so. They make a profit on the seeds themselves and it expands their market for their pesticides. That's sufficient motivation to want to sell their seeds everywhere they can.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[justforgetme]

I'm not a geneticist but my understanding is that GE is just targeting some property of the crop and
enhancing it. On some crops they go for climatic durability, on others they go for high production etc.

Practically it is the same thing farmers have been doing for ages by breeding the best livestock
together and focusing on taking seeds from the well producing plants. Just now it is done in labs
with enzymes and stuff. I don't know what the reasons are China thinks about restricting these crops
but I don't think there could be serious side effects from the mass use of correctly produced GE/GM
crops.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Sir_Sri]

It's amazing what enough money to buy millions of barrels of oil a day, electrical power for refrigeration, and general farming equipment will do to yields.

100 years ago it took 2/3rd of the population to grow enough food for 100%. Now we can, in the west, pull that off with 1 or 2% of the population because we've mechanized it. Mechanization comes with its own problems, but we'll just gloss over those.

Of course we can also feed 1.4 billion people in an unsustainable way. If you rely on fertilizer that's mined in some distant country, oil to run the machinery etc. all you're doing is shifting the problem around.

It's not that traditional crops can't feed people, it's a question of whether or not you can do it more efficiently or cost effectively. If you need pour billions of dollars of chemicals on food to feed 1.4 billion people then being able to get the same effect with less billions of dollars in externally sourced chemicals is good. Those chemicals don't have to be pesticides, hell, it could be water. Imagine being able to engineer a plant to need 20% less water. Sure, you can feed the same number of people with it, but using less water would be wonderful at creating food security for billions of people. Even if it has 10% lower yeilds, if your limiting factor is water, not land (and this applies to pretty much anything) you're still ahead.

Whether or not any particular GM crop is worthwhile is separate from the principle that GM crops could do wonders to help feed people more cost effectively, and more sustainable. Any particular GM crop could be completely useless or downright dangerous. You can make the same argument about buildings. Great things to live in, but putting a building not designed for earthquakes in an earthquake zone is not a great plan. That doesn't mean we should never build buildings, or even shouldn't build buildings in earthquake zones, you just need to understand the requirements and be able to design towards it, and the same applies as much to crops as it does to anything else.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Znork]

Teaching people to grow and eat varied crops is of course another way to deal with specific vitamin deficiencies, while keeping up biodiversity and avoiding the dangers of relying on one specific crop.

But then again, that wouldn't leave people helpless in the hands of Monsanto, the posterboy for despicable corporate behaviour.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[biodata]

0.1% seems a reasonable estimate. So in every field containing more than 1000 plants (all of them) it is likely to happen every year. This is how I have heard Monsanto work - they plant a crop, it spreads to the neighbours, they sue the neighbours, the neighbours can't afford to defend, so Monsanto takes their farm, rinses and repeats with the next set of neighbours, spreading like cancer. I can completely understand why China are trying to keep this out of their country.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[adrn01]

Presumably, the nsecticidal protein Cry1Ab being so persistent in the environment long after harvest will accelerate the rate at which the insects it is supposed to protect against become immune to it.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Dr_Barnowl]

I think it was the quantity, rather than molecular incompatibility, that caused the issues.

Think of it like overclocking the cow beyond a sensible limit.

It's not as if there was a shortage of milk, either. The main reason farmers were willing to buy rBGH was that the milk price was so low because there was massive overproduction. rBGH was just intended to segregate farmers into two groups - those producing milk for a glut market, and those producing even more milk for a glut market and paying Monsanto for the privilege.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Dr_Barnowl]

It tastes better too. People have long imported soda from Mexico because they use cane sugar to make it. Here in the UK we probably use beet sugar. My wife loves Coke, but won't drink it in the States because it tastes bad.

Here we have another problem with adulterating our soda though ; because artificial sweeteners are so much cheaper than sugar, even the non-diet varieties are replacing some fraction of the sugar with sweetener, which means that you get all the down side - nasty aftertaste, etc - without the upside - no calories.

So now we have premium brands of tonic water, and soda, that only use sugar as a sweetener appearing...

Re:Hillarious Bias

[MightyYar]

Feel free to correct me, but every case I've read about Monsanto taking a farmer to court for using cross-pollinated seed involved the farmer allegedly selecting for the Monsanto trait. For instance, dousing their field with Roundup and then taking seed from the survivors.

While I still think that's something that should be legal and I dislike Monsanto's tactics, it is far different from being expected to actively prevent contamination.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[MightyYar]

A second point: raising more foods always ends up with more humans, leading to starvation. The only limit on human population is food, so growing more just delays the trouble.

I think perhaps you should look at countries with modern, high yield agriculture - where 1-2% of the population is involved with farming - and look at their birth rates. Now look at developing countries where most of the population is involved with low-yield subsistence farming, and glance at their birth rate.

Now come back to this site and tell me that high-yield crops will lead to overpopulation with a straight face.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[MightyYar]

and made more milk, which was tainted with the same "substantially equivalent" hormone that killed them.

You had me until that statement. When you invent a test that can actually measure this hormone that you claim is there, let me know.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[jbeaupre]

1) The FDA does not regulate GMO's http://environmentalcommons.org/RegulatoryDeficiencies.html So the FDA never approved or disaproved it. Neither did NASA, the CIA, or Treasury department. Whether GMO's should be regulated by the FDA or another agency is a good discussion, but stating there is some sort coverup concerning the FDA is bullshit.

2) rBGH is chemically the same as BGH, which cow produce naturally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin. Using rBGH has effects on the health of the animals, which has caused it to be banned in many countries. But if rBGH harmful, so is natural BGH.

3) I read http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm. It states that there were signs of toxicity, but not proof. A very interesting study that should inspire more studies, just as the authors state. Lots of organic foods will produce the same effects on kidneys and liver, but we don't panic. This study is not definitive proof and should not be interpreted as such.

4) It's all about risk assessment. There is not such thing as zero risk (not doing something carries risk too). If you took a bath recently, you probably exposed yourself to a high level of risk of injury or death. 400 people a year die from using natural gas. These are judgement calls. Please don't state risks as absolutes.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[koan]

Monsanto's goal is not to feed the World, it's to control the food chain and profit.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[chickenrob]

I believe the sugar trend in pop has more to do with the rising cost of corn due to ethanol production and use making beet sugar a more competitive product. I thought I would like the sugar pops but surprisingly I found I prefer the more acidic rounder taste of corn syrup.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Rich0]

I dunno, the biologists tell me that breeding is all it takes to turn a paramecium into a person....

Re:Hillarious Bias

[arisvega]

Monsanto had tried and failed to commercialize GE wheat in Canada.

I think this is the news here: Monsanto tried and failed

There is hope.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[Errol backfiring]

Very true. Modern agriculture has caused more than enough desert-forming even in developed countries. Take a good look at the Alentejo in Portugal, for example. This was once the main grain producing area for the Iberian Peninsula. Now it almost dead.

With Permaculture principles, this can be reversed, however. In fact, the people in Tamera have done exactly that.

Oh, you mean that people would starve if we did NOT pollute the precious soil with chemicals? How silly of me.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[the eric conspiracy]

Modern agriculture has nothing to do with what is going on in Alentejo. Modern agriculture has is rarely practiced in this area. Crop outputs have always been at the low end of the scale for Europe. This is a very dry region which has always been subject to drought. Combine this with deforestation, overgrazing by goats and overplanting of traditional crops like cork and eucalyptis and voila deforestation.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[MightyYar]

I didn't say that the hormone didn't exist, I said that you can't actually measure it in the milk.

Re:Hillarious Bias

[c6gunner]

It's amazing to me that no matter how often this lie is addressed, people keep repeating it as if it were gospel. For fucks sake, do a bit of research. Monstanto hasn't sued anyone for having their crops contaminated. They sued people who intentionally took contaminated crops and then selected for the Monsanto strain. This isn't like someone throwing a DVD through my window and then suing me for having stolen property - it's like someone throwing a DVD through my window, and then suing me because I took that DVD and sold 10,000 copies.

I know that the anti-GM folks really don't HAVE anything other than FUD, but at least come up with some new stuff instead of repeating the same old lies over and over. You're starting to sound like creationists.

Greenpeace.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I get some intelligent commentary on the topic from a resource who isn't Greenpeace? I figure you can trust them for reliably at least as little as you can trust Mosanto.

Re:Greenpeace.

[spyder-implee]

Strongly agree. Greenpeace and Monsanto may appear at the opposite ends of a spectrum, but they're equally as biased when it comes to their own agenda.

Re:Greenpeace.

[geekoid]

Nope, because the intelligent discussions on the topic, you know by scientists and experts in the field, get shouted down by the ignorant unthinking masses.

Re:Greenpeace.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out a documentary called The Future of Food. I won't claim that it's completely unbiased, but it features commentary from a number of small family farmers and does explain some of the science behind genetically modified food crops. I grew up on a farm myself and my parents still farm and the stuff that Monsanto is doing makes me mad as hell, both as a consumer and for what they're doing to the little guys (family farmers). IMHO Monsanto is a shining example of corporate greed and massive corruption. They aren't even all that bashful about it.

Re:Greenpeace.

[Gideon Wells]

The problem is the current poster child for genetically engineered foods is Monsanto. They are effectively the RIAA/MPAA of GE foods. You bought some seeds, and want to replant some seeds produced by those plants? Nope, that is copyright/patent infringement. You don't intend to copy their product, but seeds accidentally fall on your farm by natural dispersion (someone playing licensed music too loudly), they feel they can sue you for the leaked material.

The thing that has me pulling my hair out over this debate is this. It would be good to see scientists and experts argue back and forth, or even give a consensus. But as you say, they are drowned out. The two voices that get all the ink in newspapers either are the equivalent of the RIAA or people who want all music banned because RIAA is a bunch of crooks.

Re:Greenpeace.

[rtb61]

Monsanto's bias is towards profits, including profits that are high enough to pay criminal penalties and still have plenty left over. Greenpeace has a bias to protecting the environment and taking a very 'conservative' approach to putting the environment and us at risk.

So they are apples and organes biased not equally biases. To be equally biased it would have to be two corporations, pushing genetically modified crops with limited and unverified, as well as pumping toxic agricultural chemicals into the food chain, both claiming there junk is safe while the others guys is toxic and should be banned.

Re:Greenpeace.

[Anonymous Coward]

You bought some seeds, and want to replant some seeds produced by those plants? Nope, that is copyright/patent infringement.

That is a problem now, but what will farmers do when Monsanto decides to use their Terminator? The Terminator technology allows the creation of seeds that grow into plants which have sterile seeds (i.e. if you want to plant again you have to buy more seeds). When (and that's when, not if) they decide to use this DRM commercially they will hold farmers and everyone else by the balls.

People saying GE can solve the famine problem are wrong - hunger exists because of a problem of distribution, not shortage. Simply having more food without solving the other problems will just mean an even larger population in this already over-populated planet.

Re:Greenpeace.

[pseudofrog]

seeds accidentally fall on your farm by natural dispersion...they feel they can sue you for the leaked material.

Okay, can you give me a citation for this? In Percy Schmeiser's case, the court ruled (correctly) that he purposefully experimented for and then grew Monsanto seeds. I've never come across a case where a farmer was sued for accidental contamination, yet this argument comes up repeatedly every time Monsanto is mentioned.

Re:Greenpeace.

[Znork]

I don't particularly trust Greenpeace, but Monsanto are so far on the other side that you can trust them to be evil. They will knowingly and willingly dump toxic waste, they'll bribe and coerce as far as they can, to the point that one can question if making money is actually less important to them than simply being vile.

So if Monsanto wants something you can trust it to be harmful in some way.

Probably Not the Best Test Market

[mentil]

Rice is a staple food in China, any unforseen problems with a strain of genetically-engineered rice could lead to a massive famine, which would likely be (attempted to be) covered up similar to the previous Chinese famine. Poor rural people would be unable to afford the expensive imported rice, or the remaining good domestic rice, due to shortages.

Imagine a monoculture of cheap rice that had only previously been grown in small quantities for a couple decades, which is overtaken by a fungus (like in the Irish potato famine). Due to new communications infrastructure, China could have a serious uprising on their hands.

Then there's the problem of IP. Chinese industry is notorious for not respecting IP laws whenever possible; even if counterfeiters weren't making 'counterfeit' rice, their government could simply nullify the patent for being vital to the country's interests. Monsanto would be wasting their money. American farms are up in arms over Monsanto lawsuits and 'terminator genes', and they're much more modernized than Chinese farms, so imagine how much respect an American company would get there.

Re:Probably Not the Best Test Market

[the plant doctor]

Psst, rice already is grown in a monoculture. Two and three cropping seasons per year.

The possibility already exists for this to happen.

Re:Probably Not the Best Test Market

[steelfood]

You hit the nail on the head. Monsanto only wields power here because they have the rule of law on their side and deep pocketbooks to keep it so.

They'd be laughed out of China if they tried some of the boneheaded maneuvers they've tried here. That is, assuming they're not brought in front of a firing squad.

Re:Probably Not the Best Test Market

[DigiShaman]

'terminator genes'? Well, so they've finally invented GRM.

GRM = Genetic Rights Managment.

Ugh.

[mirix]

If they ever implement the death penalty for 'legal persons', I'd like to see Monsanto as one of the first against the wall.

Genetically Modified Food.

[hackus]

So bad, let me count the ways...

1) Growing Food crops that are 100% genetically identical is so stupid, it borders on idiocy.

2) Genetic conatmination of the environment. People seem to have a big problem if they see CO2 anywhere, but if you want to wipe out native species of grains and destroy the gene pool, hey, thats A O.K.

3) Greed, surprise! The small handful of people who run everything and pick who you get to vote for, rip off huge pension plans from everyday people and then claim they aren't cost effective and are socialist anyway also want to control the food, _ALL_ food you eat. Hell, they don't just want to control it, they want to turn those little genes on and off depending on how much nutrition you can pay for. No no...that is not enough, the good food you see, they get to eat as they build gigantic native grain, non GMO seed vaults for themselves and their families world wide, quietly and away from public attention.

You see, GMO's isn't just about money. They want to be able to turn off your food supply and make it illegal for you to grow any of your own food without a intellectual property agreement.

Besides, growing your own food is communist, socialist...or any other kind of ism if they can't control it themselves directly.

-Hack

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[MightyYar]

I'm no expert, but I can tell you aren't either.

1) Growing Food crops that are 100% genetically identical is so stupid, it borders on idiocy.

Who is talking about that? You can still have a mix of crops: genetically modified from several suppliers and conventional from several suppliers. There is even the potential for genetically modified crops to only fill in where conventional crops fail (such as saline environments), thus displacing no conventional crops.

but if you want to wipe out native species of grains and destroy the gene pool,

Native species of grains? What agriculturally useful grain is this you see growing out in the wild? Rice, wheat, and especially corn are all dependent on man to cultivate the soil and plant them.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have reservations about GMOs, but the discussion should be based on some form of reality.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[Intropy]

1. It's bad because it's bad. That's not a "way" that's a restatement of the assertion. If you have a reason in mind, state it.
2. Absolutely. We must do everything in our power to make sure that the environment isn't contaminated with... genes. Did you know that genes have become so prevalent that some have even been found within the human body?
3. I am immune from this as all of my hats are made from 93% tin.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[geekoid]

You're understanding of crops and this situation doesn't border on idiocy, it plows right on in.

I'm not an expert, but I can see one from my cube. Hey Paul!

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[geekoid]

Oh crap. I wish I read your sig before bothering to post. You clearly can't think rationally and logically.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[jason777]

Not to mention the organ failure, intestinal damage, and a host of other health issues with GMO foods.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[andydread]

I'm no expert, but I can tell you aren't either.

Troy Roush a 5th generation farmer and Vice President of the American Corn Growers Association is the expert look him up.

Who is talking about that? You can still have a mix of crops: genetically modified from several suppliers and conventional from several suppliers. There is even the potential for genetically modified crops to only fill in where conventional crops fail (such as saline environments), thus displacing no conventional crops.

Actually no you cannot. The GMO stuff you have License from Monsanto and they have special rules about what you are supposed to do in the license agreement. Also in practice the GM Corn and Soy are dominant and they cross-pollinate the conventional corn and soy. If your corn or soy gets contaminated by GM corn or soy then you have to pay for a license from Monsanto plus purchase seed from them.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[bjpowers39]

I have actually done some work for major seed companies. There is no danger of the crops being "100% genetically identical." The industry is very good at protecting their underlying crop lines, the licenses are only for the particular traits. The company which licenses the traits then incorporates it into their own plant lines. Most of the major plant companies have a wide variety (hundreds or thousands) of different plant lines from a wide variety of regions with a pretty complete breeding and growth history-they are very aware of the problems involved with monocultures and work very hard to avoid that. The plant company then picks the seed lines where they think the trait will have the most impact/greatest demand and then they incorporate the trait (and the trait only) into that line. The technical term for this is "introgressing" the trait and they have worked for a long time to develop techniques which are very specific for individual stretches of DNA.

Sometimes (and this is getting more frequent now) they will incorporate more than one trait in a particular plant line. This is a major issue for things like glyphosate tolerant plants. By incorporating multiple modes of herbicide tolerance into a single plant line, the farmer can use a mix of herbicides on the field to make sure that the weeds do not become tolerant to a specific type of herbicide. Similarly, extensive studies are done to make sure that insects do not become resistant to certain traits. One of the primary approaches for this is the use of "refuge" which consists of planting non-insect resistant crop with the insect resistant crop. By having the appropriate mix of the two, you can manage the tolerant insects to prevent losing the effectiveness of the trait. This is also important to the plant company because nobody will purchase the trait if it no longer works. The refuge requirements for a particular trait have a pretty good safety margin included as well to make sure that the trait will continue to be effective.

I respect individual decisions to eat modified crops or not, my family generally eats organic primarily to benefit local growers and give them a better margin in return for a product which is not mass-produced. We like meeting and knowing the farmers who grow our food. Whatever your opinion might be, disinformation and conspiracy theories is not the way to have an intelligent debate. The plant companies are well aware of the risks and it is in their best interest to mitigate them. Having worked with a number of employees from plant companies, all that I have met take their responsibility for feeding the world very seriously and want to do what they can to increase yields, decrease pesticide/herbicide use and protect the food supply.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[zill]

I'm no expert, but I can tell you aren't either.

Troy Roush a 5th generation farmer and Vice President of the American Corn Growers Association is the expert look him up.

Argument from authority.

Actually no you cannot. The GMO stuff you have License from Monsanto and they have special rules about what you are supposed to do in the license agreement. Also in practice the GM Corn and Soy are dominant and they cross-pollinate the conventional corn and soy. If your corn or soy gets contaminated by GM corn or soy then you have to pay for a license from Monsanto plus purchase seed from them.

With GMO you can certainly have a mix of crops. It's just that with Monsanto's particular brand of bullshit you can't mix and match. While what Monsanto is doing might be morally hideous and broader-line racketeering, that doesn't mean GMO as a technology is flawed or inherently immoral. Attack the evil-doer, not the technology.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[andydread]

Nice trolling there. i'll bite.

1) its bad because the strain is a dominant patented strain owned by one company. In the case of corn and soy the Monsanto strain is in 90% of crops. 90% of those crops are now Monsanto's "intellectual property" and they aggressively pursue violators intentional or not. The strain contaminates conventional crops with Monsanto's patented gene causing people who are growing conventional crops to have to take out a license agreement with Monsanto. Farmers are not allowed to save the seed from their crops, must buy new seed every harvest, must purchase all their chemicals from Monsanto. This is also not good for the free market.

I wont bother with 2 and 3 since your statements regarding those were nonsensical.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[zill]

With GMO you can certainly have a mix of crops. It's just that with Monsanto's particular brand of bullshit you can't mix and match.

I think you're talking past each other.

Yes, in the larger sense, you can technically have a mix of GMO crops, but in the US Monsanto is GMO and there will be no mix of Monsanto GMO crops.

If Monsanto were to disappear tomorrow, they still will have poisoned the name of GMO for years, perhaps decades to come.

Monsanto have 90% marketshare in US GMO seeds. But 90% isn't 100%; Monsanto isn't GMO. If Monsanto were to disappear tomorrow, the companies that make up the other 10% will have 100% of the market to compete in by definition.

Those other companies might be as corrupt as Monsanto. They might even be worst than Monsanto. But that still doesn't mean GMO as a technology should be blamed.

they still will have poisoned the name of GMO for years, perhaps decades to come.

I agree that's the case for the general population. However it's easy to see the fallacy here. Just because a knife was used to murder someone doesn't mean that all knife owners are murderers. Rational people can differentiate between Monsanto the corporation and GMO the technology.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[Intropy]

That is an argument against the particular business practices of Monsanto as well as with related legal structure and rulings, one with which I agree. That is not at all an argument against genetically modifying food plants.

Also, statements with which you disagree are not automatically "trolling" or "nonsensical."

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[andydread]

It's not about GMO its about patenting life-forms that can spread and contaminate other life forms with the patented trans gene then suing everyone who gets contaminated with that patented transgene out of existence with an army of lawyers. Its about the company that is the face of GMOs in North America. Their internal studies that have been leaked shows clearly that their methods are not safe. This is Monsanto we are talking about. The same people that said DDT was safe, then Agent Orange was safe, then rbst was safe, feeding cattle corn was safe, they claimed Round-Up was biodegradable...it was not. now they are claiming that their Round-Up ready products are safe when their leaked internal animal studies have shown not to be so and their claims about previous products have shown to be consistently false. Why are people so willing to stick their heads in the sand on this matter?

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[slackware 3.6]

Rice, wheat, and especially corn are all dependent on man to cultivate the soil and plant them.
In Canada we have rice that grows wild eh. You can take your birch bark canoe out on the lake and find it growing. Then you fill up your birch bark canoe with it eh.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[Sir_Sri]

If, in the long run, yeilds are better, more sustainable, more secure etc. then ultimately all future generations benefit from it. The reason you want GM at all is because there's a market that isn't able to be filled by current products, something new, that fills both the new and old role is by definition better, the transition may not be pretty, but if at the end of it you can feed 20% more people, or the same number of people with 20% less water/fertilizer/area/whatever then in the end you've made the world a better place.

Oil made the world a better place, for all of its perils. You accept that there are some perils, but you have to look at the benefit as well, that applies to anything. Any particular GM food may or may not have any actual benefit though, and I don't doubt there are a lot of snake oil sales out there. That doesn't mean all GM will always be bad, no more than all pharmaceuticals versus snake oil.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[biodata]

Your comment about native species of grains shows you know nothing about this. Native species are capable of surviving the worst nature can throw at them - pests, diseases, droughts, shitty soil - and still reproduce. If we want our crops to survive the coming changes, then we need to mine the native stuff to bring in genes and alleles which are capable and adaptable. That is why we need to preserve the native stuff and not contaminate it with GMOs. The native stuff is what will help our crops survive the next century, with our help.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[MightyYar]

I suppose it depends what you mean by "native". If you mean derived from a native species, fine. Almost all grain crops (maybe all?) have been heavily bred to be quite different from their wild ancestors.

If we want our crops to survive the coming changes, then we need to mine the native stuff to bring in genes and alleles which are capable and adaptable.

I think many genetic engineers would agree with you.

That is why we need to preserve the native stuff and not contaminate it with GMOs.

How would the GMOs displace the native traits if the native plants are superior? You should welcome the "contamination" just as you should welcome random mutation - if the contamination/mutation survives and spreads in the wild, that means it is more fit for the given environment.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[MightyYar]

LOL, yeah wild rice does exist. That's not what China lives on, though.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[MightyYar]

Whenever you introduce something that outcompetes the natives, the natives die.

The "natives" in question are so dependent on man to plant them that this is a non-issue. If people continue to plant the "native" crops, they will continue to grow. Un-natural selection, if you will.

OTOH, do you really want to go through something like that with grains?

FUD. Genetically modified corn is not a disease, and it is not smallpox. Hell, corn is native to the Americas, so corn growing anywhere else is an invasive species. Even GMO corn will not last more than one generation without man planting it. Want to stop the GMO scourge should it become a problem? Don't put the seeds in the ground during the next growing cycle.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[biodata]

Commonly, GMO's currently in use are resistant to herbicides, so will outcompete native species under pressure of herbicide spraying, even though the native species contain resistance to many other stresses, which are not contained in the GMOs. As the herbicide resistance spreads through a native species, the diversity of the native species is reduced, in favour of the few offspring which are derived from a cross between the native species and the GMO. In this way, many useful alleles for resistance to all kinds of stresses are lost from the native species, and all is left is a very small subset of diversity, from the few native individuals which originally inherited the herbicide resistance from the crop, due to this polluting effect. Although the native species are far removed from our modern crops, it is perfectly possible to bring useful alleles from native species into a cross with a crop plant, then repeatedly backcross the cross to crop plants to remove the rest of the native allesles, but leave in the one for the desirable trait (stress tolerance). In this way, although native plants are far removed from crops, useful variation from the native species can be brought into the crop in a controlled manner. If the crops pollute the native species in an uncontrolled manner, then the genetic engineers will have lost most of their raw materials.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[MightyYar]

But the native ancestor to corn (and maybe rice?) would be considered a weed in any farmer's field. It wouldn't do very well competing against whatever cultivated crop is planted there, and all domesticated crops are going to pose the same danger of crossbreeding and weakening to the native species - domesticated corn can't even reproduce by itself.

Not only that, but in the case of GMO corn, there simply is no such thing as "native" teosinte in most of the places that corn is grown. Even if you did harm the resistance of native teosinte, I'm not sure it would make future generations any worse off - is anyone really going to roll the clock back a couple of thousand years and reboot the corn domestication process? Ironically, there might be some benefit in splicing teosinte genes back into modern corn to gain some features of the native plant - but that would be a (drumroll) GMO crop!

Anyway, I find it kind of hilarious that we can take something like teosinte, manipulate it's genes so thoroughly over thousands of years that we end up with corn, and then we drop in a single change for herbicide resistance and people go ape shit. Yes, evolution will kick in and eventually Roundup will be useless for weed control... so what? That has been happening ever since herbicides were first introduced. Yet here we are, continuously inventing new ways to kill weeds.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[Carik]

[quote]Native species of grains? What agriculturally useful grain is this you see growing out in the wild? Rice, wheat, and especially corn are all dependent on man to cultivate the soil and plant them.[/quote]

Rice, wheat, and corn in the form we commercially farm them are moderately dependent on man to cultivate them.

Amaranth, spelt, and others are all capable of supporting and spreading themselves.

As to their use... well, for the most part, they're of fairly limited use. But it's always useful to have a wide gene-pool: pretty much any kind of animal breeder can tell you that it's a good idea to keep a few outcrosses available in case the primary bloodline gets too inbred. The day may well come when some pest or fungus evolves that will decimate commercial modern wheat, and nothing else. It'd be nice, at that point, to be able to work with some other grain.

In addition, those are also pretty useful for people who, for whatever reason, can't eat wheat. I know three or four people who can't eat wheat -- it makes them violently ill -- but have no problems with amaranth or spelt.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[idontgno]

It's also, strictly speaking, not really rice. Taxonomically, it's as closely related to rice as barley is to wheat, and barley doesn't get called "wild wheat".

So, yeah, ironically, Canada grows rice, but not real rice. This sounds like an Alanis Morissette comeback. Canadian irony, eh?

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[idontgno]

domesticated corn can't even reproduce by itself.

That caught my eye. I spent too much of my youth detasseling perfectly viable fertile domesticated maize fields to prevent them from reproducing by themselves to believe that statement in any literal fashion.

Maybe you're failed to proviso that statement with "GMO domesticated corn"? Because last I looked cleaning up volunteer corn in a field rotated to another crop (say, soybeans) is a significant issue.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[MightyYar]

Yeah, I think because of the shear number of plants and all of the violent harvesting, you'll get a small second year out of the field. But I'm pretty sure that if you let a corn field go fallow, there won't be any corn after a generation or two.

Re:Genetically Modified Food.

[AK Marc]

You are right, he is wrong, you are just supposed to burn all your planting seed if it's contaminated by GMO, according to Monsanto.

GM crops in the US

[rgbrenner]

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/

Soybeans: 94%
Corn: 72%

The first GM crop was planted in the US in 1996

the first guinea pig?

[frovingslosh]

the first guinea pig ? What in the world are they talking about? Monsanto has been using the US citizens as guinea pigs for years?

Re:the first guinea pig?

[Anonymous Coward]

the first guinea pig ? What in the world are they talking about? Monsanto has been using the US citizens as guinea pigs for years?

No doubt that was sarcasm. However anyone not real familiar with the Monsanto story should do some searches as they have been playing with people's lives since well before they made their first move into bio-engineering. They have also been long in bed with the US government. No telling what everything is that they might have buried on government activity with them that gained them protection from the government as well as non-stop subsidies of their business. Monsanto's actions have resulted in a lot of death over the years and their death toll continues to grow. Too much evil to document here even if did have it all documented, just start searching and follow where it leads you (everyone) for as long as you can stomach what you find,,,then look some more!

GM Foods

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/

Soybeans: 94%
Corn: 72%

The first GM crop was planted in the US in 1996

Huh. And what about Ford and Chrysler crops?

Of course, I'm sure Toyota, Honda, and the other Japanese companies did it waaaay before the Americans and with better fuel economy to boot!

I understand that BMW has some "ultimate" growing crop in the making.

Vitamin A

[Intropy]

Vitamin A, who needs that crap, anyway?

You're why people don't believe statistics

[MaizeMan]

Ninety percent huh? Ever heard of Pioneer Hi-bred? Syngenta? BASF? Monsanto's market share if the american seed corn market fluctuates between 30-40%. And yes, their lawyers are trigger happy. But that's no excuse for getting your facts wrong.

Re:You're why people don't believe statistics

[andydread]

I meant GMO soy is 90% of the market

Greenish revolution

[tomhath]

Much of what made the Green Revolution so successful wouldn't be acceptable to the organic farming True Believers - pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, cultivation practices, etc. But billions of lives have been saved by using them. Genetically Modified crops are the next extension of that revolution. Like it or not, people need to eat.

The "fail" in Canada was with Roundup Ready wheat. But it's now "a matter of when, not if" GE wheat becomes commercially grown.

Re:Greenish revolution

[ThatsMyNick]

Green Revolution was all about finding the right breed of rice by cross breeding different varieties of rice. It was something that had been done for centuries, but now at a large scale. The effects of cross breeding are mostly known, and nothing too radical is expected.

I agree, Genetic Engineering is the future, but it needs to well studied and effects understood before it can become mainstream. China and India (see Monsanto attempt to introduce Genetically Engineered Egg Plant in India - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bt_brinjal), have not really banned generic engineering, but only have asked for more data. Especially with Monsanto, trying to fast track everything, I would say the scepticism is warranted.

Re:Greenish revolution

[devent]

Can't we just stop with this Myth once and for all? The world is capable to produce more food that humans can ever eat, the problem is that most of the people can't afford to buy food.

Please go to the poorest countries in the world, and tell them that GE food can solve all their problem and feed their children. The people don't have money to get normal wheat or rice, how please in the world can they afford to buy expensive GE wheat, or rice, from one supplier, Monsato.

It's all a matter of money and who have the money to buy stuff. In Germany we throw away food in a volume of 20 Billion Euros each year. That is one year turnover of Aldi in Germany (one of the biggest groceries stores). Alone with the thrown away food we could feed all the starving people in the world twice.

Or in England we throw away 4,1 million ton food each year. So please stop with this myth that we need better technology to feed the world population. No we don't need better technology, we need a better redistribution of wealth. We need to make sure that all people in the world can afford to buy food. We can ship bananas or pineapples around the world to Germany, but we can't ship bread, wheat or rice to the starving countries? Because the starving people don't have money to buy our food so we throw it away.

* http://www.taste-the-waste.de/

Re:Greenish revolution

[khallow]

No we don't need better technology, we need a better redistribution of wealth.

Note that we don't need a redistribution of wealth, the countries with all those starving people do.

Re:Greenish revolution

[Cytotoxic]

There are those with boots on the ground in these poverty stricken areas that disagree with your conclusion about redistribution. There was PBS documentary a few years ago about an Ethiopian expat. working in the US who returned to her home country to solve the problem of famine. In spite of many decades of billions of dollars of direct aid, there were still massive regional famines in her home country. She saw that access to capital and markets was restricted for poor rural farmers, so they were not getting fair prices for their product nor were they able to get accurate market information about which crops to grow. The issue is very complicated, tied up with government corruption, state control, rent-seeking monopolists, etc., but many international aid organizations including the UN have embraced the concept.

The basic premise is a variation on the "teach a man to fish" argument. In this case it is "give a man access to a market where he can sell the fish for a fair and transparent price" and he'll eat for a lifetime. The agricultural revolution in the west was not simply one of better farm machinery and fertilizers. It also included infrastructure like grain storage, transportation, access to capital and futures markets.

Re:Greenish revolution

[c6gunner]

That is one year turnover of Aldi in Germany (one of the biggest groceries stores). Alone with the thrown away food we could feed all the starving people in the world twice.

Great, but who's going to feed them the other 1093 times?

Seriously, though, your numbers are a bit silly, and your assumptions are flawed. It's like adding up all the coffee breaks that employees at a company take, and saying "Look, this year alone employees wasted 16 man-years of company time. Clearly the real problem isn't that we don't have enough employees; we're just not working them hard enough". It's easy to come up with big numbers, and it's even easier to twist them in order to support your preconceived notions, but they're pretty much meaningless when it comes to coming up with real-world solutions.

There are 3 main problems which contribute to starvation around the world:

1. Lack of suitable land for locals to use.
2. Lack of security.
3. Poor choice of markets.

Technology can solve the first problem by providing food strains capable of growing in relatively inhospitable environments. The third problem can be resolved through a concerted effort by multinational entities to provide better trade opportunities to the citizens of impoverished nations. And the second can only be solved through force - be it brute force used by external actors, or popular support within the indigenous population for reformist leaders. Number 2 is, of course, the biggest issue. A country whose citizens have security can pull together and overcome the other issues on it's own. A country whose citizens don't have security is unlikely ever to succeed, regardless of how much effort we put into correcting the other issues.

Either way, "wealth redistribution" has nothing to do with it. We've been pumping trillions of dollars of foreign aid into third world shitholes for decades, with nothing to show for it. If you want to see what it takes to create a successful nation, you have to look at the efforts that went into reforming places like Japan and South Korea.

NOBODY wants it

[msobkow]

Maybe someday Monsanto will clue in to the fact that they can't buy off ALL the world's governments.

NOBODY WANTS GMOS EXCEPT THE PEOPLE PRODUCING THEM.

Re:NOBODY wants it

[tomhath]

Actually most people don't really care. Activists have been successful because for the vast majority it's a non-issue.

Re:NOBODY wants it

[msobkow]

Nobody except the farmers and citizens of just about every country EXCEPT the US.

"State Advances While the Private Sector Retreats"

[Guppy]

My cynical interpretation is that Monsanto failed to make sufficiently generous offers for technology transfer. In which case the ban will last until Chinese laboratories make sufficient advances to field their own GM crops.

The problem with banning ALL GMO crops

[the plant doctor]

We're working to develop rice that can still produce even under drought conditions using genes from bacteria, genes that aren't expressed in the grain itself at all. This is something that could be quite useful to farmers, yet because of shortsightedness and Greenpeace, efforts like this may never be released for use.

It's not all about poisoning insects, or killing weeds, some of the GMO stuff is done to, you know, help people eat.

Re:The problem with banning ALL GMO crops

[cshark]

Yeah, but we have no long term studies on what genetically engineered crops are actually doing in our bodies. All the consumer rejection of gmo foods isn't all about xenophobia. Some of them appear to be dangerous, and it's reckless and irresponsible of Monsanto and company to pour these things into the market before we have a good understanding of this. I think at the very least gmo food needs to be labeled so consumers know what they're buying. But China's move to ban genetically engineered rice is not an unwise one.

Re:The problem with banning ALL GMO crops

[VortexCortex]

If only those short-sighted humanitarians would get out of our way we could research splicing genes for photosynthesis into humans to reduce our dependence on edible food, produce our own antibiotics and insect repellent, and enrich the soilent green crops. Agricows herds could grow hay on their hides, and survive harsh conditions or long migrations by eating themselves.

I'm sick of everyone holding back progress. If only we were allowed to we could wire up new senses directly into the brains of human foetuses so they'd grow up to have upgradeable digital eyes ( maybe even in the back of their heads ), actual mental telepathy (wifi), faster minds that interface directly with computers, or even collective conciousness hive-minds.

Screw Evolution! We stopped doing that since our medicine and ethics gave the finger to Darwin and his natural selection. If we're going to pollute all of the gene pools, let's put some effort into it and do it right!

...

Heh, they think I'm joking.

Re:The problem with banning ALL GMO crops

[phantomfive]

Yeah, but we have no long term studies on what genetically engineered crops are actually doing in our bodies. ;

We have no long-term studies of the long-term effects of CFL bulbs, either, and yet here we are, all bathed in their light, every night. Why aren't you calling it reckless and irresponsible to pour those onto the market?

There are ways we can know that GMO crops aren't likely to be dangerous in the long term, just like we have ways of knowing that CFL bulbs aren't likely to be dangerous in the long term.

Re:The problem with banning ALL GMO crops

[the plant doctor]

Again, the genes I was talking about for drought tolerance are NOT expressed in the grain. If you're eating the whole rice plant, you're doing it wrong!

Re:The problem with banning ALL GMO crops

[dunkelfalke]

You don't usually eat CFL bulbs, do you?

Re:The problem with banning ALL GMO crops

[phantomfive]

Yes, in a bowl with corn flakes.

Re:The problem with banning ALL GMO crops

[c6gunner]

I'm sure they would never short-circuit research efforts that focus on safety of some of their GMO "stuff"; after all their own rigorous studies, much like this one have shown the "stuff" is safe, no?

Yes, they have. The willingness of fear-mongering buffoons to engage in data-manipulation is a different topic altogether. These clowns have published multiple papers making the same claim, all of which make the same kind of methodological "mistakes". The FSANZ response is particularly devastating.

The fact of the matter is that the main reason Monsanto needs to be so draconian about enforcing IP rights is because of the billions of dollars that have to be spent on testing "the stuff" and then convincing international agencies that it's safe for general use. It's hilarious - you want better testing but bitch about them trying to recoup the insanely high investment that goes into it, and even after they jump through all the hoops, you pull out half-baked "studies" to try and prove that the stuff is unsafe.

Just be honest - no matter what the data shows, no matter how much testing is done, no matter what kind of business practices are used, you'll never be satisfied because someone has convinced you that ("frankenfoods" == "double plus ungood"). Why waste time arguing the details when you're not willing to be convinced?

Organic farmers lament dismissal of Monsanto suit

[Proudrooster]

This might have something to do with it: http://www.pressherald.com/business/organic-farmers-lament-dismissal-of-lawsuit_2012-02-29.html

Re:A Cause for Concern

[zill]

Good thing we have public funded universities and the NSF then.

No competition in GE foods.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with GE food, but it is produced and controlled by one company, Mansanto. Mansanto lobbies the Congress through the campaign donations, so that the company would have near monopoly on the GE seeds. The current laws favor the Mansanto. There should be competition in GE seeds. No one company should control the GE seeds. Monopolies are bad for the market. Monopolies abuse their power to protect the market dominance.

growing food crops?

[gsivaram]

growing genetically food crops is so stupid and dangerous

With Apologies to General J. Ripper:

[Hartree]

Do you realize that genetic modification is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?

Do you realize that in addition to modifying corn and soy - why, there are studies under way to modify tapioca, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake! - children's ice cream!

Do you know when genetic modified crops were introduced?

Nineteen hundred and ninety-six. 1996, Mandrake. Just after the World Trade Organization was established. How does that coincide with your New World Order Commie conspiracy, huh?

It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign genetic substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual - certainly without any choice.

That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Re:With Apologies to General J. Ripper:

[Hillgiant]

Mandrake ice cream? Mandrake is poisonous, isn't it?

Also: Do you know what the QUEERS are doing to the SOIL?

Re:With Apologies to General J. Ripper:

[Hartree]

"Do you know what the QUEERS are doing to the SOIL?"

You're saying the milkmen died after they put genetically engineered mandrake into the ice cream, Stuart?

Re:With Apologies to General J. Ripper:

[Hillgiant]

Well it sure wasn't from drinking bleach... or was it?

Good for China.

[WaffleMonster]

I'm not against all GMO. There are plenty of "natural" plants that will kill you instantly if you ate them. There is plenty of âoenaturalâ mutagenic insecticides nature invented that are not so good for you either. In the end it is the final product and its nutritional value that matters rather than means of production.

Having said this there seems to be evidence for issues concerning several popular GM products:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

We simply don't have the technology to understand the first, second and nth order effects of cutting and pasting DNA from other species on the food and repercussions of complex interactions with ecosystem of the planet.

If you want to produce a new drug you need to spend years in testing and trials. People then have knowledge of and a choice over what drugs they are consuming.

If you want to produce a new GM product you have to give 120 days (voluntary?) notice with FDA and fill out a little bit of paper work. Hundreds of millions of people have no knowledge or choice over their consumption of this new GM product. How the hell is this reasonable or tolerated by anyone?

There are a few problems with Monsanto as I see it.

Monsanto contractually offloads responsibility for their products to farmers.. If their seeds go ape and pollute other fields or turns the world into grey goo. The farmer not Monsanto is on the hook.

The IP protection regime especially in the face of invasive species is fundamentally insane and unfair. Knowingly going after farmers for using their IP when they must have known in advance their seed would contaminate other fields is a blatant abuse of the law.

Re:A Cause for Concern

[oever]

A good documentary on monsanto can be viewed online.

"the world according to monsanto"
There 's an acoompanying book with tons of shocking revelations about this company, starting from dioxins, ddt, round-up through to their push on GMOs while ignoring all risks and even trying to suppress them.

Solution to crime.

[Mattsson]

If you want to do something criminal or unethical, do it somewhere where it's not...

Good!

[WanQiaoYi]

Stay away from our food! My rice is fine the way it is thanks