China May Restrict Genetically Engineered Rice

When it comes to rice by koan · 2012-02-29 12:28 · Score: 4, Funny

A billion Chinese can't be wrong.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Re:When it comes to rice by cshark · 2012-02-29 12:33 · Score: 2, Funny

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

--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re:When it comes to rice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 15:46 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Hillarious Bias by MightyYar · 2012-02-29 12:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

opening the gate to genetic experiments with staple crops

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

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:Hillarious Bias by Xandrax · 2012-02-29 12:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by erroneus · 2012-02-29 13:01 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by andydread · 2012-02-29 13:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 13:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by the+plant+doctor · 2012-02-29 13:52 · Score: 2

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 by currently_awake · 2012-02-29 13:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by currently_awake · 2012-02-29 13:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by No,+I+am+Spratacus! · 2012-02-29 14:08 · Score: 2

Is this really worthy of -1: Troll? Perhaps someone more familiar with this can verify or dispute the claims presented.
Re:Hillarious Bias by RoknrolZombie · 2012-02-29 14:20 · Score: 2

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 by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-29 14:37 · Score: 2

So lets just stop making that nasty polluting artificial nitrate and let 2 billion people starve.
Re:Hillarious Bias by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 15:37 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by justforgetme · 2012-02-29 18:16 · Score: 2

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.

--
-- no sig today
Re:Hillarious Bias by Sir_Sri · 2012-02-29 18:18 · Score: 2

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 by jbeaupre · 2012-03-01 03:13 · Score: 2

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.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.

Greenpeace. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 12:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

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. by spyder-implee · 2012-02-29 12:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
Re:Greenpeace. by geekoid · 2012-02-29 12:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Greenpeace. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 12:46 · Score: 4, Informative

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. by Gideon+Wells · 2012-02-29 13:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
Re:Greenpeace. by rtb61 · 2012-02-29 15:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Greenpeace. by pseudofrog · 2012-02-29 16:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Probably Not the Best Test Market by mentil · 2012-02-29 12:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.

Re:Probably Not the Best Test Market by the+plant+doctor · 2012-02-29 13:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by steelfood · 2012-02-29 14:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Probably Not the Best Test Market by DigiShaman · 2012-02-29 15:03 · Score: 2

'terminator genes'? Well, so they've finally invented GRM.
GRM = Genetic Rights Managment.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Genetically Modified Food. by hackus · 2012-02-29 12:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.

Re:Genetically Modified Food. by MightyYar · 2012-02-29 12:51 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Genetically Modified Food. by geekoid · 2012-02-29 13:13 · Score: 2

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!

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Genetically Modified Food. by bjpowers39 · 2012-02-29 14:18 · Score: 5, Informative

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. by zill · 2012-02-29 14:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by andydread · 2012-02-29 14:59 · Score: 2

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. by andydread · 2012-02-29 17:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

GM crops in the US by rgbrenner · 2012-02-29 12:48 · Score: 5, Informative

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? by frovingslosh · 2012-02-29 12:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

You're why people don't believe statistics by MaizeMan · 2012-02-29 13:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

"State Advances While the Private Sector Retreats" by Guppy · 2012-02-29 13:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by the+plant+doctor · 2012-02-29 14:01 · Score: 2

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 by cshark · 2012-02-29 14:34 · Score: 2

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.

--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re:The problem with banning ALL GMO crops by phantomfive · 2012-02-29 17:18 · Score: 2

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.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:The problem with banning ALL GMO crops by phantomfive · 2012-03-01 03:53 · Score: 2

Yes, in a bowl with corn flakes.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:NOBODY wants it by tomhath · 2012-02-29 14:22 · Score: 2

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

Re:A Cause for Concern by zill · 2012-02-29 14:45 · Score: 2

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

With Apologies to General J. Ripper: by Hartree · 2012-02-29 15:31 · Score: 2

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:Greenish revolution by devent · 2012-02-29 19:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

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/

--
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute

Slashdot Mirror

China May Restrict Genetically Engineered Rice

48 of 183 comments (clear)