Slashdot Mirror
Europe Needs Genetically Engineered Crops, Scientists Say
First time accepted submitter Dorianny writes in with a story about the ongoing battle over genetically engineered crops in Europe. "The European Union cannot meet its goals in agricultural policy without embracing genetically engineered crops (GMOs). That's the conclusion of scientists who write in Trends in Plant Science, a Cell Press publication, based on case studies showing that the EU is undermining its own competitiveness in the agricultural sector to its own detriment and that of its humanitarian activities in the developing world. 'Failing such a change, ultimately the EU will become almost entirely dependent on the outside world for food and feed and scientific progress, ironically because the outside world has embraced the technology which is so unpopular in Europe, realizing this is the only way to achieve sustainable agriculture,' said Paul Christou of the University of Lleida-Agrotecnio Center and Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats in Spain."
When the lid is opened there is no way of closing it again.
There are certain technologies mankind is not yet responsible enough to use.
If nuclear power leaves waste for 10000s of years... gene modification does so for the rest of existence.
And no. Cross breeding is not the same as gene modification. There are very few herrings that mate with a tomato IRL.
No one *needs* genetically-engineered crops, they simply result in a higher profit (and possibly various unknown health risks).
EU pays farmers for not growing stuff because it it produces too much food. There have been surpluses for decades, only recently they have been depleted because of the world market.
Yes, obviously there are imports, but only in winter time or for exotic fruits.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
... IP laws where removed so as to prevent the monopolization of species when (not if, look for the literature) genes jump from GMO to naturally occuring varieties.
It is the wholesale rejection of an entire body of science and technology on non-scientific bases that will affect both Europe's ability to contribute to scientific progress in those areas and its ability to produce its own food.
In other words you have confused the direction of the cause and effect relationship between scientific progress and food production in this case.
1. The world, and the EU, produce plenty of food. People in certain areas do not have enough food due to problems in the food distribution system.
2. 90%+ of GMO food is either herbicide resistant or produces its own insecticide. It's focus is not producing more or better food. Yes, this could change some day, but that's how it is and has been for a long time.
"Scientists claim Europe must surrender to Monsanto or starve."
To surrender to a corporate tyrant is just as bad as to surrender to any other sort of tyrant.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Except the people that sell them...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
First, this guy developed the first transgenic soybean, which has then been sold by Monsanto ( http://www.sciforum.hu/programme/speakers/paul-christou-research-professor-university-of-leida-spain.html ). What else is he gonna say?
Then, there's enough food everywhere for everybody provided : it's seasonal, regional and mostly vegetarian.
Sure, if you want huge steaks for every meal, with tomato salads, mango and strawberries for dessert all year round, you'll need a lot of antibiotics, pesticides, GMO's, oil and water.
Paul Christou
He received a first class honors degree in Chemistry (University of London) followed by a PhD in plant biochemistry (UCL, London) in 1980. Following postdoctoral research at UCL, he joined one of the very first plant biotechnology companies, Cetus Madison Corp (subsequently Agracetus, Inc.) Madison Wisconsin, USA. He led a research group which achieved the first genetically transformed staple crop (soybean). Subsequently his team developed a variety-independent gene transfer method for rice. These two achievements had a significant impact, as the first transgenic soybean on the US and global markets sold by Monsanto was a direct output of his group’s research efforts.
It is the wholesale rejection of an entire body of science and technology on non-scientific bases that will affect both Europe's ability to contribute to scientific progress in those areas and its ability to produce its own food.
Actually that describes the report pretty well. It is blatant scare-mongering by an industry body and the university professor they sponsor.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Problem is complex. There's general fear of anything related with "genetic modification", because of this theme exploited so heavily in tabloids, junk and paperback sci-fi, and by conservative politicans betting heavily on science fearing crowd. And then there's huge greedy corporations like Monsanto, which are blinded by gold rush in this field. Then there's politicians, desperate to have at least some kind of investment in countries, relaxing some rules so far that it's really irresponsible.
In overall, GMO debate has almost same semantics as nuclear one. Done right, this field would really do right for humanity. However, there's that very strong question - can we really do right for humanity? It seems that we as society don't trust ourselves - or current capitalistic system we embrace.
So, this is actually discussion "we don't trust multinational corporations to do theoretically dangerous stuff", not "is GMO good or bad", isn't it? However no one discuss corporations, because it's well...just not worth it. Because when money talks, everyone asks how high to jump (including media).
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Since 25 years GMOs were tested and not a single case of adverse effects has ever been described. GMOs are not more dangerous than plants coming from classical breeding, actually GMO products are much safer because they are actually being tested. While classic breeding products (even mutagenesis!) are not tested even though it causes massive uncontrolled genetic changes (e.g. jumping genes get activated).
There is also no documentation that organic products are healthier in any way. You can find cancerogenic compounds in many organic products (e.g. aflatoxins) and nobody cares about that because it is "organic".
You should get out of your romantic view of nature, nature is dangerous!
What is interesting is that only people who do not understand anything about biology, plant breeding and GMOs are against GMOs.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with genetically modified food sciences, but you give 'em an inch and they take a mile. If we could trust them to simply improve the size and frequency of fruiting bodies' production then that would be great, but they don't stop there -- Some of these GMO food producers decide that we need to make poisonous plants to prevent bugs from eating them without actual long-term studies to validate their claims of harmlessness -- Scientists don't make conclusions based on lack of evidence. We need proof they're not harmful to us and the environment. We don't have that proof.
It's the unwillingness of people to think clearly that is harming us. We can use SOME types of genetic modifications without using others; However, corporations maximize profits and pundits aren't typically adequately educated, so we end up with people polarized on the issue and no real way forward -- no compromises, no middle ground.
The wholesale rejection is the only option for some if the ones making the modified food say they'll put the poison gene in or you get no GMO at all... The gene splicers are just as much at fault for this, and that's without even delving into BS patent issues and neutered seeds that could lead to even MORE dependence on foreign entities for food.
Be careful when you paint with a wide brush, you may end up with paint in your eyes.
It's a huge subsidy, but it also has a crucial strategic value. Without the subsidies, farming in the EU would steadily decline into irrelevance and you become ever more dependent on imports. But food is even more critical than oil. What if there is a drought in the future? Import restrictions? Huge price increases? Shit, suddenly the EU can't feed its own citizens anymore. Other countries can use the EU's dependence on its food imports to exert diplomatic influence, essentially up to the point of blackmail. Take Russia for example. The only reason why it gets away with its subjugation of democracy and freedom of speech is because Europe is hugely dependent on energy imports from Russia. If Europe is not self-sufficient in its food requirements, it opens up another attack vector.
Ohh boy. Please guys, don't fall to their level. GMO is valid technology if applied right, as was genetic selection in the past (your poor man's GMO).
If you don't trust corporations, fine. But if you want to be taken serious in counterargument, please don't use "that's what they said". If you think their assumptions are wrong, please at least explain why.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
GMO food can be good, no doubt about it. The problem is that the goal of producer and user are widely different. For the user, increased production is the goal whereas it is only the necessary evil to sell it for the producer.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
One problem "Monsanto"
They produce most of the GMO that people are aware of, are notorious for suppressing any study that they do not like, for not publishing results, for patenting entire plants, for suing poor farmers who never bought their seed, for poisoning the environment .... etc ....
They may not be typical of GMO companies, but they are the poster child and best known, and are the worst possible advert for GMO ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Ohh boy. Please guys, don't fall to their level. GMO is valid technology if applied right, as was genetic selection in the past (your poor man's GMO).
If you planted GMO anywhere in Europe you could argue, and win, that the technology was being applied incorrectly. EU farmers are being paid to not use their fields. For a variety of reasons, one of them being price of crops, another being that the soil cannot handle re-sowing of the same crop over and over again.
GMO is not going to fix that, it will make the problem worse. Fertilizer helps, but we'd rather not use that in a high enough degree to make it viable. So the option is to leave fields unused to let the soil recover. This is simple. Farmers in the fucking iron age knew this. This article is a fearmongering attempt because a really big market isn't drinking the kool aid, and Prof. WhatsHisFace is a sad panda.
... whatever
Scientists don't make conclusions based on lack of evidence. We need proof they're not harmful to us and the environment. We don't have that proof.
You cannot prove a negative. What you can prove (and what already has been proven) is that all of the GMO crops are safer than peanuts, penicillin, and organic bean sprouts and spinach, and cell phones (GMOs 0 deaths with 100s of millions of exposures over nearly 20 years, the others many thousands of deaths between them due to anaphylactic shock, e. coli, driving-while-texting, etc) .
I am not arguing that there is no risk with GMO technology. What I am saying, however, that the rational approach is to formulate scientific hypotheses regarding risks such that those hypotheses can be tested via either examining existing data or conducting experiements that quantify the risk such that it is possible to determine whether those risks are acceptable based on our best current knowledge.
The "poison" genes you're referencing (e.g., Bt11) are currently based on proteins that are produced by soil bacteria, bacteria naturally found in milk, and other things that humans have been consuming for centuries and that are in many cases applied to organic crops as well. They have also been tested according to both USDA and EPA regulatory standards (in the US, pest control GM traits are regulated by both agencies whereas herbicide tolerance traits are only regulated by the USDA). At this point it is not a question of whether or not they have been tested, but whether they have been tested to a sufficient degree. My personal opinion is that given that they have been tested (both scientifically in controlled experiments and by default through market exposure) far more thoroughly than anything else I consume short of pharmaceuticals, I am OK with them. Beyond my personal comfort level I would challenge anyone to come up with a scientifically defendable justification to require greater testing that would not logically require much greater testing of non-GM foods as well.
The problem is not that there is a lack of "clear thinking" regarding GMOs. The problem is that the ratio of rational thought to irrational thought is unfortunately very small, and the ratio of rational communication vs. irrational communication regarding the issue is even worse. These difficulties are also compounded by the unfortunate fact that many people conflate GMOs with IP laws, religious beliefs, personal philosophy, etc.
The bad argument here is to argue that GMO is just like genetic selection, just pushed a bit further.
Of course it is not. Nobody is against genetic selection, neither in Europe not anywhere else.
or do proper crop rotation with crops that help replenish.
And what exactly is wrong with using fertilizer? Even the iron age farmers knew about spreading fertilizer although they mostly referred to it as manure or just shit. But continue down the luddite path if it makes you feel better about yourselves.
Over-fertilization pollutes the groundwater. This has already been problematic and a reason for agricultural reform in the Netherlands.
It will happen.
Well, the guy is certainly 'pro' GM foods, as you would expect from his background, but 'OMG Europe won't be able to feed itself'?
Hardly. We've been paying farmers a fortune for years to let good farmland stand idle... The problem is not with the crops, it's the crazy CAP which distorts everything, including world trade. For example:
"In the autumn of 2007 the European Commission was reported to be considering a proposal to limit subsidies to individual landowners and factory farms to around £300,000. Some factory farms and large estates would be affected in the UK, as there are over 20 farms/estates which receive £500,000 or more from the EU."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy
Anyway, back on topic, it seems to me that the GM debate is like the nuclear one. On one side, the promise of a bright, science-led future, (limitless clean energy, cheap disease-free crops) with real or potential problems often glossed over or ignored, on the other the NIMBYs and hand-wavers with a "we're all gonna die" reflex. Where's the reasoned debate?
People don't trust the nuclear industry for a good reason, (and I say this as a firm believer in the promise of nuclear power over alternatives). It's not just about Three Mile Island etc, it's about how too many people have systematically covered-up shoddy work over the years, often to save or make more money.
These people should have been severly punished; none were. Seen any TEPCO Execs hanging from a tree recently? Nope.
It's the same with GM food. I'm sure the Scientists are sincere and have done great work, including field tests. But can we trust the agribusiness? Well, recent history (especially in Europe) says no. But it's too late anyway - even food advertsied as 'GM free' is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms
Remember, this is also the same industry that brought you horsemeat labelled as beef. Oh yeah, and even when it really is beef, remember BSE ('mad cow' disease?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy
So, do I trust the technology? Yes. Do I trust the agribusiness? Hell no.
So this guy says we need to make more food? Is this so it can just be thrown away like we do currently? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/half-of-the-worlds-food-is-just-thrown-away-8445261.html
Maybe if we did a better job of using what we make, this would be a total non problem (not that it is anyway, unless your a Monsanto salesman)
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
"The numbers I found in a quick search suggest that EU-wide there is still a small population growth [wikipedia.org], but pretty close to zero."
We grow by acquiring new countries as members, it's much easier that way.
And we don't like the Rolling Stones (they're English), we get what we want, not what we need. :-)
The GMO producing companies are the most evil entities in the world.
They keep suing farmers when the wind blows their cr@p on other people's land. The fertilizers that keep their seeds going are a natural disaster for the soil, for the animals and all other crops in the vicinity. They forced a law in the US that doesn't even *allow* people to find out whether the product they buy is GM or not. They bait new customers with low prices, then when those farmers can no longer switch back to natural seeds, they ruin them. They expressly want natural seeds to die out so the whole world has to buy from them: they are sworn enemies of natural seeds because farmers can save those.
I trust natural selection. I don't trust greedy corporations that don't care about anyone or anything else. If you want the truth about them, read the stories of farmers who battled their army of lawyers for years. Percy Schmeiser's moving story at http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ is a good start.
Both of you are off-topic and not insightful. Nowhere in this article does anyone mention Monsanto. Monsanto sucks, but:
Monsanto != GMOs
GMOs hold incredible promise to feed the world, but all anyone can ever talk about is Monsanto and "Frankenfoods." There is not one single shred of scientific evidence of any GMOs causing serious health problems (Note: I said "GMOs" not the pesticides farmers are using on those crops), and there are plenty of publicly funded GMO projects that have produced real-life benefits like saving Papaya crops, bringing crops to parts of Africa where they wouldn't normally survive, and bringing nutrient-rich rice to impoverished parts of China.
But you know what? All of this scientific progress is being stymied because of anti-science people screaming "frankenfoods!" In Africa, some countries refused American food aid because of GMO fears--until their people began to starve to death. The Blood Rice GMO could nourish millions, but China can't get anywhere with it because of GMO fears. GMO farm salmon has spent 15 years trying to get approved in the United States, but politicians have blocked it for fear of GMOs; meanwhile, our natural fish stocks collapse from over-fishing.
If you are anti-GMO, then I put you in the same class of people who don't believe in Evolution, who are anti-vaccine, or don't accept the very basic science of Global Warming. You believe things without evidence or are simply denying the scientific evidence that exists, and your ignorance is making life harder for the rest of us.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
Hi, I'm a former computer nerd, now a biologist.
Don't overestimate the role of mutation in short-term evolution. The rate of mutation per site per generation in almost all extant species is very low, and almost all mutations are deleterious. For any de novo allele to persist in a population, it must confer a significant benefit to survival or reproduction. If its selective benefit is only slight, its chance of persistence or fixation in a population is equal to its initial frequency, which is extremely low (except in very small populations, but then you have other problems). Mutation is certainly necessary for evolution, but it works on extremely long time scales.
From a biological standpoint, what Monsanto does is pretty irrelevant. They create populations that, barring mutation, don't reproduce. What they do does not affect the genetic variation of natural populations, except insofar as it restricts the total acreage occupied by non-GMO crops. But it's important to realize that those non-GMO crops are _not_ natural populations, nor are they "natural" plants. Such crops have been as thoroughly modified by man as has any Roundup-Ready plant. That's exactly what selective breeding for greater yield, better taste, etc. are - genetically modifying organisms. Corn, wheat, cabbage, mustard, and a whole host of other plants that are grown "organically" and eaten every day do not occur in nature in the forms we consume. The only difference is that companies like Monsanto target single genes, because they can. There is an argument to be made that, by selectively adding or modifying only beneficial alleles, biochemical engineering is a safer way to shape crop plants to our needs; selective breeding is sloppy, messy, and can't eliminate negative genes that, for example, are in linkage disequilibrium with selectively positive genes. And, if you don't want to grow GM seeds... don't. Agribusiness isn't preventing anyone from growing old crops the old way.
From what I have observed, most people's objections to Monsanto boil down to what one of my non-major humanities professors said: "It just doesn't seem natural." People don't seem to realize that when engineering these plants, what is happening is simply a refinement of a process that's been going on in agriculture since we first figured out planting seeds makes plants grow. It's just a more precise version, and able to avoid a whole host of problems presented by the old way of doing things. But it's happening in a lab, so it's automatically unnatural, and interfering with either God's plan or evolution. Evolution is a tricky subject, and far more complicated than most people realize.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't get a gut feeling about something and just call it good. There is a huge amount of propaganda on both sides of this issue, and the reality of the situation is more nuanced than 99% of people realize. I'm probably going to get attacked for this as a Monsanto shill, but please note that I didn't take a firm position either way. There's a reason for that: despite all the screaming from both sides, there is not enough reliable data available to do real, objective science on the broader effects of widespread GMO agriculture. Unfortunately, this dearth of data just feeds the gut feelings on both sides.
Lecture over. Feel free to flame.
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!