Slashdot Mirror
Hazards of Genetic Engineering
pos writes "Genetic Engineering can have effects that the companies that research them do not check. These effects can also be used to gain agucultural dependance on genetic engineering. Seeds of Destruction smells like a fishy way of gaining market share in the agriculture industry. Here's a quote:
'For decades, Monsanto and other agrichemical companies have relentlessly promoted farming systems aimed at making farmers dependent on synthetic chemicals. With the enthusiastic support and complicity of USDA, the plan worked beautifully.' The problem is, I can't even boycott because the US labeling system is so bad. "
1) The GM crop becomes dominant, and supplants the natural variant. Given its enhanced resistance to pests, blight and other "natural predators," the crop grows like a weed, and it becomes a problem to kill off the crop where it is unwanted.
2) A GM crop which has been modified to produce no fertile seeds causes the natural variant to become sterile as well. The crop dies out, apart from GM seeds created in the laboratory, and with patent protection ensuring that no one can create even a modified crop with the defect removed in order to restore fertility, the corp. effectively owns that entire crop.
I have no problem with the science of GM crops, and I think that outcome #1, while perhaps having unfortunate short-term effects, is nevertheless subject to the forces of natural evolution. Outcome #2 is far more concerning, and ought to be considered more carefully. In particular, we need to seriously reconsider patents in general, and on such things as genes in particular. Since genes are not an "invention" but a natural discovery, they should not be the subject of patent whatsoever.
Peace and love, y'all
One thing you have to remember is that these days very few farmers use their own seed. Almost all of them just buy it. This is due to hybrids that don't breed true and simple economics.
I'm all for bettering our food supplies, and amount of harvest, but all this scheming always gives me a headache.
there were chemical spills, and the air smelled pretty bad all the time. Ammonia, sulfates, god
knows what else.
It's a sad day when a vegan isn't safe from synthetic components in his/her food.
Thanks, Monsanto. My eyes don't burn since I've moved out of St. Louis.
I think genetics is really more important for medicine. Do you want to eat food genetically altered? Why? Natural food tastes good, therefore i don't need to eat that shit.
You know in the future all food we grow we be made by man. And if man makes the food we grow what will it be made out of? Would it be made out of humans? And we you be a vegitarian if you ate the plants grown? Would a meat pie be an apple pie, or an apple pie a meat pie? Maybe we dont have to worry.
...one could also imagine what would happen to civilization if we lost electricity, or modern sanitization, or printing, or medicine, or..., well, you get the point.
The point here is that each advance of civilization brings with it new dependencies within society. Yes, we will become dependent on genetic engineering for the standard of living we now (and will) enjoy. But then, I'm just as glad that medical science has made it possible for my children to live without the 'opportunity' to contract polio, diptheria, measles, and 10 other kinds of horribles. I don't see anyone whining about missing out on smallpox.
I for one am just pleased as punch that there are those scientists and businesses out there making it possible to increase the potential yield of an acre of arable land.
-- Ellsworth, one small voice
1. If you prefer open-source to closed-source coding, you will love what biotech companies want to patent... 2. The US is amazingly obvlivious compared to how much Europeans are up in arms over this issue; OR: The Europeans are far more reactionary about such things than the US is. 3. Do recall that we are talking about our food supply. Yes, I know that perhaps some of these scary stories about cross-polination and terminator genes seem rather alarmist, but we are talking about our food supply, one of those things that founds Maslow's little triangle. 4. Evolution is one thing. GM is evolution on crack, without the natural selection that tends to keep things in check. This is what really scares me about GM -- the fact that we accelerate things to where Ma Nature can't keep up with her natural antidotes to human stupidity, the balance is upset, and life starts to suck a lot more than usual. okay, that would be 4 cents, so I'm $0.02 over budget. nathan
*urp!*
From the top of the article The information on this website is not a substitute for diagnosis and treatment by a qualified, licensed professional. Rachel's Environmental & Health Weekly erf@rachel.org (410) 263-1584
Basically the article is full of the same old mantra's we've heard since forever. I remember an article in Nature on the same subject, but it wasn't peer reviewed I belief. Does anyone have any solid information on the subject?
My personal uninformed opinion (I can have one, I gonna be a politician), is that geneticly modified anything is bad, since we have no idea of the long term effects GM has on our ecosystems. I wonder if we even know of the short term effects it has. Before you can alter somebodies code, you first have to understand it. If ya don't, don't fiddle with it to see what it does, or at least do it in a controlled environment.
Use Adsense for Charity
Yeah, looks like you'll have to go back
to school and learn count.
2 goes after 1 XDDDDDD
The problem is not accidents of any sort, but that seed manufacturers ("growers" doesn't seem quite ) are not acting in the best interests of either the farmers, the final consumers, or the environment. For instance: not making crops that are naturally resistant to insects, but crops that are resistant to pesticides, then selling more pesticides to the farmers. In other words: acting like other industries in ways that seem insane except to the narrow view of one profit-seeking company. It's nothing new, just an old bad thing moving into a new area.
The strategy of requiring Monsanto-patented adjuncts (fertilizers, pesticides) for use with Monsanto-patented seeds is the worst kind of dirty pool. It's like Microsoft's (aborted) strategy of making it nearly impossible to install another company's browser as well as MSIE.
Regardless of how good, bad or dangerous the tech is, the fact remains that Monsanto's business practices represent a real threat to farmers and those economic interests that depend on agribusiness.
OTOH, Monsanto sure knows how to build a nice oversized wheel of gouda.
If we stopped feeding it to the billions of animals we slaughter every year and ate it ourselves we wouldn't need hardier crops. Farmers in Europe are paid not to grow food because it would depress the shop prices having an effect on the Eurpoean economy. It's called trhe Common Agricultural Policy but really it's a food growers cartel.
.oO0Oo.
Genetic variety is more of the answer than sterility and monoculture and organic food would be the best thing to pop into your tummy.
Monsanto is concerned with the profit of Monsanto, nothing else.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Some of the things they're doing may be good and a real "advance of civilization", although there are big risks. But other things, like preventing the modified plants' reproduction, don't help anybody but Monsanto. On a global scale, this can only be called evil.
I don't know about you, but I never could mesh the scenes of crowding in that film with the wonder the main characters show over a little chunk of beef.
If I lived under those conditions I'd be eating natural meat every day. They say it's a tender meat, and sweeter than pork.
Little green crackers... what a horrible waste.
Really have to skim these things before sending.
Because of the people reaction against GM crops and because of some scientifical articles that showed how gm crops were the cause of all kinds of problems. (one of them showed that the toxins incorporated in some GM corn crops were being leaked to the soil). Daniel
I remember a couple of years ago, the US government (after being bullied by the chemical companies) wouldn't allow labeling in regards to Bovine Growth Hormone. Specifically, they wouldn't even let organic farmers label their products as NOT containing BGH! The GE companies were worried that labeling of any kind would create a 'negative perception' about their product.
Sadly, the Canadian government took a similar stance about product labeling, but I believe they didn't allow the use of BGH.
Dana
There's been a huge backlash in the media about GM crops and so forth, over the last couple of years. I don't know what it's like in the states, but here in england some supermarkets have gone so far as to completely boycott GM foods throughout their entire product range - quite an amazing feat. feelings run very strongly about it here.
but what is Genetically Modifying a crop? If you take cells and start messing around with them and build up a plant that is, say immune to a local parasite, then sure, that's a GM crop.
but how about if you cut down all the plants that are not bearing fruit well, but leave the ones that are? one might argue you are simply accelerating natural selection, but the overall genetic makeup of the crop is being modified - the "weak" ones are being removed. by such reasoning, evolution is genetically modifying crops, albeit extremely slowly - if darwin's theory of evolution holds, what are humans but genetically-modified apes?
most of the "fear" seems to come from the impression that some loony in a white coat is tampering with food, in order to increase a company's profits. while i'm sure monsanto and others would be keen on this, it doesn't seem to hold much water past media sensationalisation.
genetically modifying crops is only one stage further than spraying fertiliser on a crop. its purpose is to increase the yield, health, and quality of the food - something which is good for everyone.
we made the mistake with fertilisers and similar products - many were used without proper testing, research, and thoughts for the environment. anyone remember DDT? what we must NOT do is make the same mistakes again.
thus research must continue - knowledge is _everything_. by implication it must be forced out of private enterprise's hands, and into an open, non-profit organisation - open-sourced, effectively, until it is known and understood to its full extent. best case - we find something we can use to benefit ourselves and the environment. worst case - we find we can't improve it, so we drop it. but at least we *know*, which is better than doing it unknowingly.
Fross
Is US becoming the first nation in the world to be dominated by options wielding technocrats? Or are the elite merely waiting for their life-extending biotech rah-rah while
- 50% of the world are still impverished
- a large majority don't even have a phone
- computers are useless because they can't read
- baby boomers waiting for the massive transfer of wealth and anticipate living off the tax-sweat of the next generation of the young
- can't afford health care much less the exotic drugs the pharmaceuticals charge to recoup R&D (plus hefty margin) costs (nothing like a captive market)
- still waiting for the US to pay off its $6 trillion dollar debt while addicting third world nations and various corrupt governments to a consumer lifestyle they can't afford
Yes, it's nice getting 6 figure salaries designing the next smart sweatshop sneaker and worrying about biobabble. I'd like to point out a little newspaper article that caught my eye when a reader ask her son (serviing in the East Timor Peace Keeping Forces) what the people over there would appreciate as a present from her and he replied that for the Timorese, Xmas is a sacred period for celebrating with kin and giving thanks for their delivery, not the credit-draining consumerism exercise it is here in the US. For what merit is technology without the moral sense to apply it wisely? Too often we see the glitter of a holy grail without realising the price. DDT, nuclear research, exploration spread exotic weeds, monocultures, derivative based capital flows, all had consequences beyond those intended by their creators. I just hope the Internet makes the human race as a whole a lot more prepared for the next technology wave than historical economic evidence. In particular read up on the past just to see how economic development has been derived from the struggles of various self-interests (of which OpenSource is yet another saga). Read up on books like Carl Sagan's "The Demand Haunted World" just to realise how much the average citizen is fascinated by superstition (its scary when more people believe in a live Elvis than a dead God). Will biotech be any different? Hopefully we will have developed a better sense of moral ethics by then to guide our decision making.
LL
I'm aware that it's a horrible spelling of agricultural, but I had to read that over a couple times to be sure it wasn't something else. Is it really too hard to proof read stories before they are posted? Or it could even be run through ispell in the admin utilities. I'm surprised at how unprofessional /. remains despite the gobs of money pumped into the andover staff.
:)
-- my completely offtopic $.02 because I've been working on just such a thing all day.
As for a relevant point, I'm also disappointed with the quality of genetically engineered food. (me too
for more on this
get
"From naked ape to superspecies"
by David Suzuki and Holly Dressel
it will scare the crap outa you
yeah, well I should point out that the proper use of GM foods would permit less use of chemicals for the growth of foods. GM is the least of your worries, I would be far more concerned about the pesticides and fertilizers.
Any article that calls one side of the argument "brillantly ruthless" should not be believed no matter how good their intentions are. Reading this article conjured up images of Mr. Burns hovering over a map of Springfield declaring, "Since the beginning of time, Man has yearned to destroy the Sun."
The seed company cannot nearly be as evil as this article insinuates, and the author cannot nearly be as noble. Just as I wouldn't believe any article written by the seed company, I would not believe this article either.
This particular example illustrates how "solving" problems under this get rich quick system works. The development process at Mosansto problably went something like this:
1: Scientists realize that Bt kills potato bugs
2: Scientists add Bt gene to potatoes
They obviously didn't consider the potential effects of their decisions, or what other, less drastic, measures could be taken. I think everyone would be better off in following the custom of one of the NY Native American tribes (Oneida i think) that requires tribal leaders to sonsider seven generations in the past and seven generations in the future when making decisions. People need to consider the effects of their decisions instead of doing what is easiest or will make the most money.
-Brian
I remember hearing a series of radio reports some time ago on Europeans' collective dislike of genetically modified foodstuffs. I thought nothing of it at the time, but the more it keeps popping up, the stranger is seems to me that Americans are rather ignorant of the concerns inherent to such mucking about...
A scenario above talks about the possibility that a commercial sterile variant outcompetes the natural variant. [i.e. more farmers use it, as it can't reproduce for itself.] The natural variant is thus eliminated. Big deal, right? We have superior crops. But the natural evolutions ends. New genetic development grinds to a halt, since the plants never reproduce. So?
1. New diseases and pests will be devastating. All individual plants will have the same vulnerabilities. Entire crops in an infected region will be lost.
2. The standard genome of a Monsanto WheatPlant(tm) 4.2 will be known to all the world. Wanna guaranteed way to wipe out your traditional ethnic/political/religious/economic enemy? Hit their food supply where it hurts, with 100% success ratio.
What makes it even more infuriating is that the companies trumpet liberal-sounding justifications for why they should be allowed to impose these technologies. My favorite one is that GM crops produce higher yield. This is supposed to be good because it is efficient and because there are hungry people in the world. The problem with the first claim is that while it's true that the farmer gets more foodstuff from the land he also has to take more nutrients out of the soil. That means either he depletes it so much that he can't grow on it or else he has to buy fertilizers from ..... guess who! A related problem with this is that soil actually has a complicated structure of layers (there's a whole branch of study called edaphology that looks at this) which is physically destroyed when there is too much tilling, ploughing. So, after a while it erodes off. The second claim about the "poor 3rd world" is the most cynical. There is more than enough food already - Europe's subsidized agriculture leads to the production and destruction of a large amount of food. Finally, these claims were made in the '60s when traditional plant breeding was creating new hybrids; everything was supposed to be solved then (according to their propaganda) so we accepted hybrids etc. Like you say, it's nothing new, just the same attempt to fly more profitable technologies under our radar with fine-soundign rhetoric
adding to the list: cucumbers, strawberries, apples, tomatoes... and you were thinking that what you eat was made by nature?... -> directed by human... ...sigh...
exactly! I can't think of a single area of science that hasn't produced bad effects, either intentionally or unintentionally. We should always move carefully, but we must move forwards.
Genetically modifying crops is only one stage further than spraying fertiliser on a crop. its purpose is to increase the yield, health, and quality of the food - something which is good for everyone.
.oO0Oo.
No it isn't. That's like saying it's one step further than watering the plants.
Monsanto isn't doing this for the good of everyone, that's the part you miserably fail to see.
We already grow enough food to feed everyone a couple of times over. Introducing pesticide into my food does not increase it's quality.
Take a look at fresh food. It's grown to appeal to your eye not your digestive system.
I humbly advise all of you to read up on farming and land use issues. Try "This Land is Our Land" by Marion Shoard, Published by Gaia Books Ltd, 20 High Street, Stroud, Glos GL5 1AS, UK: Tel 01453 752985
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Oh brother. Here we go again. Seems to me that, historically, whenever brand-spanking-new technology is introduced, it is viewed incredibly negatively and is usually predicted to surely signify the "beginning of the end" for us (collectively speaking).
Think about it. In the mid-1800's the advent of the steam engine, or "loco"-motive would certainly (and eventually did) spell doom for the frontier...and without the existence of the frontier, the American economy would flounder into oblivion, thus signalling the end of the "American Way of Life."
...or not.
Then it was the introduction of barbed wire ("devil's wire") that would spell certain doom for cattle ranchers. If there were no cattle ranchers, nobody would raise dairy products and urban areas would be without a significant source of food.
...or not.
Let's not forget the advent of the American Industrial Revolution...which allegedly made tasks so simple (and laborers so replaceable) that learned trades would become obsolete and the entire American society would be at the evil whims of greedy corporations.
Ok, so maybe that one did come true. ; )
Other technological advancements that would supposedly spell doom: automated-computer assembly lines (e.g. auto manufacturers), atomic energy, laser technology, and the internet (remember THAT one?).
But it seems that we've always been especially susceptible to claims when technology is suspected of tainting OUR food.
Perhaps we forget that techniques, which are now standard to nearly every farmer (such as selective breeding and hybridization, which was originally labelled as "genetic manipulation", or "playing God") were originally considered taboo.
Bottom line: We as a societal whole have backed ourselves into this corner. If farmers don't begin looking to technological advancements in crop production, our food supply is going to be incredibly short in the next few years, if the world population keeps growing at its current rate. In fact, if it weren't for existing technological advancements, we would right now be in the middle of a global famine!
The US has taken upon itself the task of feeding the entire world. In fact, entire countries are at our mercy for grain supply (Japan, for instance), so if our crop production doesn't continue to improve (with, if I may add, less farm land each year due to increased urbanization) not only will we experience a food shortage, but so will many other countries who are not agriculturally dependent!!
Something else to consider: according to this article, the EPA had approved of many of the so called Genetic Engineering prodedures. Anybody who has dealt with the EPA knows that if there ever was a paranoid and anal-retentive Government agency, it was the EPA.
They yearn to shut down industries who don't meet acceptible norms in the realm of "environmental protection". I'm willing to trust their judgement on this one.
I do agree, however, that people should still be given a choice, and should at least have a choice of "organic" or "synthetic".
I just think that the evils of this new technology have been greatly over reported and exaggerated.
Come on, Tinkler, Tink!!
The flaw in your argument is that monsanto has nothing close to a monopoly. There are plenty of places to get seeds, and plenty more to get fertilizer. If farmers choose the "package" it is because they see an advantage.
Every plant contains pesticides, being the end-result of millions of years of a continuing evolutionary arms race between eaters and eaten.
Every plant we eat has been selected to be maximally offensive to some eaters (bugs) and minimally offensive/maximally tasty to others (cows,
I don't see much problem until they transfer potential allergens into foods. A single peanut gene in potatos, and they will have so many law-suites
That is, unless the gov steps in with regulations. Usually, a company can't be sued if they are following gov regs. Since regulators always end up slaves of regulatees, Ralph Nader has killed more people than GM ever could alone.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Note that the references in G Null's article are dated Oct '98 and earlier.
It seems that the article referred to in this post is substantially outdated.
Requiring labeling is stupid. Bear in mind that the average consumer would not realize what label x meant, but would only assume that being "x free" is a good thing. Acme Lard could claim to be "Vitamin Free", and with marketing, this could be perceived as a good thing. (!) Thus, labeling only leads to more consumer confusion.
While Monsanto's "seeds of destruction"
are abhorrent (I've heard of it before this story), I firmly believe that market forces will force schemes like this to fail. As previously pointed out, many farmers depend on a recycling of seeds. Because of this, they will not and cannot buy Monsanto's kamikaze seeds-and so the scheme will fail.
Biotech is a new market. Give capitalism a chance to work before calling for new regulation. Ultimately market "evolution" will weed out the crappy ideas: both crappy morally and crappy economically.
-Merlyn42
The audience doesn't care if it's hard.
In the labs at Berkeley exsists a strain of (I think) corn, an African variety that was engineered to be resistant to a certain virus that caused a famine in Africa by wiping out the crops. It's not being allowed to Africa because of 1) laws against such imports and 2) politics - the (perverse) thinking is that once they have abundant food, they'll want more than just food. The recent history in some regions is for nations to become jealous of eachothers' wealth, then warlords rise up and start wars. Altogether a sick mess, while the rest of the world is mostly worried about what color BWM to buy.
A Monsanto official told the NEW YORK TIMES that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job," Angell said.
I build a gizmo. This gizmo is substantially important that many people purchase one. This gizmo has a faulty wire defect causing an explosion large enough to destroy a 3 mile radius. I (the manufacturer) know the gizmo has the defect, but I don't care. My interest is in selling as many as possible. It's the FCC's job to make sure the gizmo is safe. I make the product, but it's not my responsibility to make sure it's safe? Bullshit. As the manufacturer, I have a certain *obligation* to be DAMNED sure this thing is safe. If it's not, people will stop buying them, the government conducts an investigation, my company goes under, and I'm screwed. Doesn't anyone realize this? (Of course not. And our government doesn't care. They just put their blindfold back on and get back to work.)
Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potatoes will have major effects on U.S. agriculture, regardless of their human health consequences (if any).
Of course. As they so eloquently put: "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible."
To tighten the noose on farmers, Monsanto has a new technology in the pipeline, called "the Terminator."[...]The Terminator is a group of genes that can be spliced into any crop plant, sterilizing all of the plant's seeds. Once Terminator technology has been widely adopted, control of seed production will move from the farmer's field to corporate headquarters and farmers will become wholly dependent upon corporations for seeds.
Good, but what assurance do I have that this shit isn't going to render me sterile? The company could care less, so who's going to tell me this is safe to eat? What about my kids? When I have kids, this will probably be "widely adopted." Does that mean *they* might be sterile?
(By the way, couldn't this constitute a monopoly?)
Monsanto says that its genetic manipulations are providing the "operating system" for running a new generation of plants.
BUZZWORD BINGO!!! I vote Linux. My vegetables better not be running Windows.
A computer operating system, like DOS or Windows or Unix, is fully understandable (!) by the programmers who wrote the code. On the other hand, the genetic code was written by the Creator and no human --or group of humans --understands even a small fraction of it.
This seems to be like placing a Chimp in a Nuclear Reactor control room. Sure, he doesn't understand the ramifications, but that big red button SURE LOOKS PRETTY.
The TIMES says that, to create its New Leaf Superior pesticidal potatoes, Monsanto has had to introduce the Bt gene into thousands of potatoes to get it right because often the introduced gene ends up in an unexpected place in the potato's DNA, creating a plant that doesn't have the right pesticidal properties, or one that is an outright freak.
Picture the poor bumb rummaging through these people's dumpsters. He's not too happy right now. (Judging by the company's disregard for human life, they probably had a sign that said "EDIBLE" on the dumpster. "Look, Doctor! Free case studies!")
We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another," Lewontin said.
Does "Rude Shock" worry anyone else?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I have built an atomic bomb. I should not have to vouchsafe that it will not detonate. My interest is in creating the most powerful atomic bomb possible. Assuring its safety is the NRC's job.
What can one do about this other than scream one's head off? Really, if anyone has an answer, please tell me.
DISCLAIMER: I have not really built an atomic bomb.
one might argue you are simply accelerating natural selection Yes, but that might in itself be a worry. You are assuming, I think, that evolution is itself desirable and good, whereas it is merely a process. It's outcome may be positive or negative for the involved parties. Species evolve to dead-ends, over-specialize, fail to compete with others, become bottle-necked and lose enough genetic variation to cope with new challenges. If we were guaranteed that Monsanto was going to take a nice long-view and try to produce genetically diverse crops that used the minimum of fertilizer/pesticide etc. and sold them at a reasonable price then I wouldn't be worried. most of the "fear" seems to come from the impression that some loony in a white coat is tampering with food, in order to increase a company's profits. while i'm sure monsanto and others would be keen on this, it doesn't seem to hold much water past media sensationalisation. But, I think that the purpose of any corporation is to return high profits to its shareholders. The desirable traits that I mentioned above won't necessarily do that. Those things _could_ be achieved by Genetic Engineering possibly, but that is not the direction that the market will take it. Monsanto, Novartis and friends have nothing pushing them in that direction and they are large enough that _they_ and not _us_ can determine that the "free choice" that we will have will be between Monsanto Product One and Monsanto Product Two. So, I whole-heartedly concur with your idea that what we need is some non-commercial, open-sourcing of research into GM crops - who would fund it? We, the interested tax-payers. I'd rather my taxes went to that than to subsidies to the armaments industry. humans but genetically-modified apes? genetically modified shrews! ;)
Genetic modification of plants is not a bad thing. Bad, poorly conceived genetic modification of plants is a very bad thing.
First, this dependence on synthetic chemicals has some benefits. Monsanto makes Round-Up, a herbicide, and sells Round-Up resistant crop seeds. Round-Up is a pretty harmless, as far as (herb/pest)icides go. It degrades quickly, has a very specific biochemical target function, and binds in soil (so no runoff).
Other things, like constitutive expression of natural pesticides, are unbelievably idiotic. This could cause serious problems, killing off a variety of (unintentional) insect life and breed resistantance within ten years.
Also, genetic engineering is inevitable. We won't be able to sustain current farming practices at a sufficient volume to feed the world's growing population. Water sources are drying up and soil is being ruined rapidly. Genetically modified plants to overcome this will be necessary.
And finally, genetic modification is not a completely new thing. Humans have been mucking with the genetic development of domesticated species for more than 10,000 years. Inserting new genes isn't all that different from directed cross-breeding and the selective pressure applied by earlier farmers. We're doing (roughly) the same thing now, just at a hyper-accelerated pace.
We can't stop modifying plants now, but we should be far more careful and there should be very strict guidelines to regulate these modifications. The biggest problem, by far, is the USDA; it's a joke organization with no resources and no spine. It can't handle the responsibilites, and this industry is largely unchecked (thanks to some key lobbying, too, I'm sure). The best thing that could happen is actually political. Congress needs education, and the EPA, FDA, USDA, and related organizations should be merged into one well-funded and very powerful agency.
Of course, it's unlikely to actually happen. The most likely outcome will be unchecked genetic modification, driven primarily by the agricultural industry's astounding ignorance and short-sightedness, leading to massive environmental problems. If history is any indication, they will simply rely on (aka abuse) science to fix/postpone the major problems for them, allowing us to continue on our crash course towards a barren, life-less planet (until the next wave of extraterrestial microbes rides in on a asteriod, that is).
As a gene jockey at a private agrobiotech company, I want to remind everyone of two essential facts of genetic research: 1) scientists still (despite great strides in genomic and informatic research) know little about the mechanisms of genetic information flow. 2) scientists are often the most ethical, concerned and informed people you will ever meet!!! the real enemy is not the technology, it is the capitalists who know the concerned citizen will go after scientists instead of the evil buisinesspeople...why? because even smart penguinheads care more about the non-science they learn about in movies and on Dateline NBC. get a clue! GM foods are probably not that dangerous, when compared to an ignorant government and evil corporations!!!
What the heck?.....BIOTECH!
how's this: monsanto's cafeteria only serves non-GM foods, they do this because that is what the worker's demand. hmm, is it safe, why don't we ask the people who make it? they certainly don't trust it.
First, you can be very sure the Monsanto scientists looked at LOTS of possible effects.
Second, you can be absolutely sure Monsanto nor anyone/everyone else CANNOT look at all possible effects. - Nonlinear equations --> chaos + computational complexity guarantees this.
So, given that we can't predict the future because of the 'prediction horizon' imposed by chaos + computational complexity, do we stop all progress?
They couldn't, in fact, consider effects 7 generations into the future 200 years ago either, and that was a much simpler age.
Sorry, the world is an uncertain place, and global rules about what to do or not to do just make things worse. No regulation, with feedback from the market (including the legal system if you screw up and hurt people), beats regulation by gov any day of the week.
Europe has lots of problems with unemployment, etc because of its excessive caution/regulation.
The future is not predictable in any detail. We have to live with this, and no doubt many of us will die from one freak un-intended effect or another of some technology or another. Generally, many more of us are living much better lives as a result of other effects, intended and un-intended.
Uncertainty is -- Get used to it.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Isn't it Demon Haunted World?
There is one major difference between a technology like software, where if you write a crappy program people will delete their copy and forget about it, and genetic engineering. If we find out that a plant has bad properties we might not be able to stop it from propagating.
Right now in the US we have major headaches from exotic species like cheat grass, tamarisk and kudzu.
Cheat grass is a major problem where I live because it is replacing the natural prarie grasses, with the result that we have grass fires every year instead of every 10 or 15 years. Tamarisk is replacing our natural stream-side vegetation and greatly increasing the rate at which streams lose water to evaporation. Both of these plants evolved naturally in a different ecosystem and are now replacing our local species. It is effectively impossible to stop this process.
My greatest fear for genetically engineered plants is that somebody will produce a plant with even worse properties than cheat grass or tamarisk, release it into the environment and create major headaches for everybody. Since a DNA-based technology can replicate itself unaided, we might well find it as impossible to stop as cheat grass. Since genetically engineered DNA is not subject to the usual evolutionary constraints, there seems to be no limit to the potential for noxious properties.
it looks like *nobody* can boycott them. they've got congress and the WTO pressuring the European Union to drop import restrictions on U.S. Agriculture products. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.CON.R ES.213.RFS:
Heard a quick corporate bio of Monsanto on CBC a six or so months ago. Have a few "firsts" that I'm sure they aren't proud of. One of three makers of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, but their formula had the distinction of having the highest concentration of the active ingredient. Had the first serious industrial accident in the US (Texas I believe) when a ship exploded in the harbour. Made their money by supplying Coke with chemicals. The name was not created by a "naming company" but rather was the maiden name of the founders wife. It was a side job (I believe he was a chemist), and back then moonlighting was frowned upon.
Uh, what crack have you been smoking? There are 3 corporations which control the entire global seed market.
No regulation, with feedback from the market (including the legal system if you screw up and hurt people), beats regulation by gov any day of the week. Was the "ridiculous" part of your title intended to refer to this part of your post? What other things would you like to see deregulated? The police, the army, nuclear power stations, drug companies, prisons, hospitals? No? You didn't mean them? Or perhaps you did. Yes, I can see that the threat of being sued for exploiting consumers for profit would be a big deterrent - just look at all the bankrupt tobacco companies. By ridiculing the poster that you were replying to you got carried away in your own hyperbole. There are many "predictable" aspects to the Bt saga. Under a strong selection pressure a population will sooner or later either be destroyed or evolve a solution. There are countless examples from the application of pesticides that Monsanto is surely aware of having done the trials themselves (so what they have to do now is produce _new_ pesticides) so I think that we can reasonably guess that they decided that this would happen yet they could make money out of it. Thus, they made lots of money and destroyed the "organic farmer's" last resort. I'm not asking for certainty its trivially obvious that it's not obtainable, I'm asking for controls to prevent _obvious_ wrongs being committed. If you don't like these sorts of governmental controls, perhaps you should live in todays wonderful Russia?
You're contradicting yourself. First you state that the average consumer is too stupid to make an intelligent choice, and will just buy what's marketed well. Then you state that market forces will choose the most intelligent path automatically. Exactly what do these market forces consist of if not of consumers? Just because farmers are also producers does not mean that they are not consumers as well. The only way your argument would be logical is if you assume that farmers are somehow smarter than other consumers, which I don't see any reason to believe (I'm not bashing farmers, I just don't think they are much different than people in general).
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679745408/ o/qid=946606065/sr=8-1/104-1971471-84884 12
http://www.the-revolution.org
Bean counter is a more accurate term than technocrat. Monsanto isn't run by chemists or by geneticists. And I don't count Gates as a technocrat either. He hasn't shown me that he understands technology, just marketing.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The writers of this article are criminally misleading - because they completely neglect the use of genetic engineering of agricultural crops outside Europe and North America. Places where you cannot impune technological progress simply by claiming it is being "forced on us by those evil corporations". Places where all the arable land is in production, and grain is NOT fed to cattle. And where it is estimated that a 20% increase in crop yields would relieve huge pressures on the environment, break the cycle of sustenance level poverty and provide a buffer against the potential of food shortages and famines.
It's fine to yap about crazy theories of corporate greed and misfeasence of government in an attempt to push an anti-technology agenda, and beat up on the whipping boy of the moment, which seems to be Monsanto. But if you do so you have to examine the cases where it is NOT being driven by corporations, and ask why?
These critics are very conveniently neglecting the use of genetically engineered crops outside the North Atlantic. Anyone who REALLY wants to appreciate the picture of what is going on here needs to look at a broader view, and include organizations like the Phillipine based International Rice Research Institute, and it's programs to introduce genetically engineered rice into Asia. The Rice Institute isn't doing this for money - it's a non-profit. The Rice Institute isn't doing this to enslave farmers into its corporate model, nor any of the other self-interested motivations that the anti-genetic engineering neo- Luddites are complaining about.
If it were just corporate interests, that would be one thing. But it isn't. The move to genetically engineered foods is in fact a phenomena the is truly global and is motivated by a lot more than the profit motives that are accused in the polemic of this topic.
People need to really THINK, and get out of their chavanistic attitude that America and Europe are equal to the world when they try to assess the impact of a fundamental technology such as this.
The pages at the IRRI are also very illuminating in other ways - because they give some REAL information as to what is going on with food production in the world's most densly populated areas - where ALL arable land is in maximal production, and the grain produced is NOT being used to feed cattle.
People who throw out statements like 'we grow enough food already' and 'all we have to do is stop feeding grain to animals' are sadly mistaken.
It's the bugs which develop an immunity to the potato and are now resistant to BT. Bt is the best pesticides on the market today, far better than some of the others which can cause nerve and brain damage to the farmers which spray their crops. Whether we like BT or not, without BT America's farmers will suffer another potato famine, similar to or worse than the potato famine of Ireland.
The problem with the BT-potato is that farmers are supposed to rotate their crops - a certain amount of their crops are supposed to be a regular potato designed to fool mother nature. But most of them don't. To my knowledge, there is no regulation to make sure farmers plant the proper quota of non-BT potatos.
So what does this mean? It means mother nature will have this much more incentive to create a BT-resistant bug, which will go and destroy a large portion of America's potatos, whether or not they use BT-genetically bred potato, or just the BT spray. And it will take us years to catch up with the BT-bug plague, years which will destroy potato farming as we know it.
Just my $0.02
Tepp
Unfortunately (and fortunately) people make changes on a different time scale than natural evolution does, even under the punctured equilibrium scenario. To take a well publicised example, by the time the Monarch butterfly adapts to the increased amount of one kind of poison in the pollen that drifts over the milkweeds, there will be 70 new kinds of poison (I'm probably understating the difference of rate, but I trust you get the general idea. I'm certainly not exaggerating!)
Technology and evolution have time scales so far out of whack that one should most correctly consider evolution as standing still. The only obvious exceptions occur in the realm of microbes, and that's basically because of the large number of independantly reproducing entities. And they won't keep up for long (they are already generally being outpaced, with but a very few exceptions).
This being the case, if someone starts planting crops next to your crops, the pollen WILL be shared between them. This is not a case of natural evolution. This is more like a PCB spill. The nature of the plants that you grow will change to reflect those that your neighbor planted. If he plants a crop that goes sterile after one generation, that's what you get next year. This is one reason why variations in the crops were traditionally regional rather than familial. A single family couldn't keep a variety isolated enough for long enough to establish a stable variant. A valley, however, acted as a natural barrier against the pollen of other varieties. (etc.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"We need to study the consequences." I don't even know the consequences of getting out of bed. I won't believe anyone who says they understand the consequences, refereed peer-reviewed panel of published potheads or not.
"Monsanto thinks only of itself." Of itself, yes. Only of itself, no. Someone thinks it's worthwhile enough to spend money on, no?
"Farmers don't re-use seed." They do. Just not hybrids, like the big bags of purple corn kernels covered with lots of good stuff.
"Everyone will starve otherwise." They're starving now.
"We already have too much food." Yes. We don't distribute it well.
"People shouldn't eat chickens." I don't like getting my protein from peanut butter because it sticks to the roof of my mouth.
"Population growth." Needs to stop.
"Someone's making money." From your tone of voice, I assume it's not you.
"The bugs will multiply." Then we'll eat them.
"Why aren't we more like the Europeans?" I thought we were trying to get out of there.
"Mother nature can't keep up." So the world will be covered with potatoes. What's your point?
Roundup Rules!
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
If you're interested in GM crops, this site has new articles about them every day.
Anyone smart enough to read Slashdot ought to be immune to the kind of scaremongering and technophobia that plagues the issue of GM crops.
Ok I may risk a great backlash but has anyone ever thought that maybe, just maybe that some of these third world countries would have been better off with some form of European colonial rule? Reasoning is quite simple in relation to what is actually going on.
1. To create a stable nation you need a stable government
2. To have a stable government you need a stable population of at least semi-happy people.
3. To have semi-happy people you have to have basic necessities such as clean water, food, and medical care.
4. To have all of the things in 3 you need to have the infrastructure to support it and that usually means having 1 and 2 sometime in the past.
5. All of these forces combined allows for the creation of technology which allows more of 1-4 to occur.
When little countries think that they want to create a new country they effectively eliminate 3-5 for a while. This then allows for a decrease of lapse in 1 and 2.
I get a real kick out of some of these arguments that all these "evil" corporation are doing "really bad things". I live in a world where basically people are given one of several choices they can increase in their power or allow it to stagnate and then slide backwards. In the last decade I have been hearing more of these little arguments that sound like perfect mimics or something some pot smoking hipie would have said. I guess I think that people should be thinking about things that will allow them to get jobs and make money. I guess since I am not living in some third world country and don't have the luxry of taking a machete to my neighbor's head to steal his withered turnips dosn't make practal concerns any more non useful.
I have studied and looked at things about these corporations and have seen what appears to be some rather nice improvements especially in getting people fed. If people are fed then perhaps they can survive better and not have to fear death or lives of lonliness and such. A great deal of my schooling was based in the 1990s in terms of actual data and most of my opinions were made in the 80s about such key issues. Americans are not the great satan nor are they inherently evil. But you have to wonder about effectiveness on certain key issues. If I spend all of my time trying to help all of these displaced/helpless/victims of corporations/victims of the evil Americans/insert your favorite post-modern phrase here.
I have read several thousand publications, I have close friends and relatives and other acquantainces who have traveled extensively and thourally to all sorts of places. Guess what the consensus of all these great learned men and women some of whom were holders of prestigeous awards and even a couple of the Noble Peace Prize holders. No once even thinks that the world is comming apart at the seams. This is not the x-files and conspiracies are very exposable because there are many differing and large gaping moles now adays.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
wrong again "nony"
nobody "controls" the market
one different corporations have larger market shares, but this is not control
and in any case, you are ignoring the definition of what a monoploy is
try not to confuse your moral outrage with superior knowledge
you don't have a monoploy on thought or analysis
p.s. this really should be private, get an account with an e-mail on it, even a hotmail
Since I have a little trouble believing you are there any references from an objective (read non environmentalist source) source that sites some field in Kenya where farmers 1 and 2 actually experienced the evil things from happening.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Look at nature and natural selection. You can't save everyone. For any species to be successful for long periods of time there needs to be some sort of predators. Like diseases viruses, etc etc. Wonder why shit like ebola and honta virus is only showing up now? Overcrowding. Its natures way of thinning out the weak so the strong can procreate.
But increasing interdependence is woven into our social and evolutionary fabric. Most of us wouldn't have made it to adulthood without modern medicine. We have become dependent on numerous agricultural techniques and species. We rely on electricity, water, and other "everyday technologies".
On the whole, this isn't bad. While people from an agrarian society 500 years ago might be shocked if they heard about and understood our dependence on just-in-time grocery delivery, we don't mind. Future generations won't mind the additional dependencies created.
However, the web of patents, ethical questions, ecological uncertainties, and policies surrounding biotechnology and bioengineered crops should make us tread cautiously. Do we really want to create dependencies on a few large agribusinesses? Are we certain that the current GM foods are really safe for the long term? Do we understand the social and economic consequences? Much simpler agricultural techniques (damming, irrigation, etc.) have turned out to be harmful and unsustainable, and it seems almost certain that we don't yet understand well enough the consequences of genetically modified foods.
In the long run, biotechnology will be beneficial in agriculture and it will create interdependencies that people will live with happily, just like with live happily with our current interdependencies. In the short run, however, I think we need to tread more cautiously.
While #2 will get them off the hook as far as when a disaster happens. Number one is the one people keep forgetting. That also applies on the macroscopic scale in which the product of genetic manipulation is deployed. As long as we prefix all of our decisions with a touch of arrogance that indeed we have knowledge (or wisdom) that we don't have, then caution should be our constant companion.
I love technology. Linux, mp3's, the internet, it's all wonderful stuff. It has the potential to liberate, bring people closer together, and create a very roddenbury-esque future that I'd love to live in.
But there's a distinction to be made. I hate greed. I hate what it does to technology, how it affects it. I hate seeing mp3's getting attacked by the music industry, I hate seeing the Internet become just another shopping mall. I hate the way technology, fueled by greed, has the potential to oppress, silence, alienate, and destroy.
A little history: The Luddites were not concerned with technology, exactly. They weren't afraid of the technology itself, but with the way it could be used against them. They were afraid for their jobs, and how the looms could be used to force them out of work, instead of making their lives easier and their days shorter, as the promise has always been.
This is why I, despite loving technology, *hate* Monsanto, DuPont, and other biotech butchers. Their movements into the fields of genetic modification aren't fed by world hunger, or a love of science, but by greed, pure and simple. "Maximise those stocks, my good man. By any means necessary."
Why isn't all this research and funding going into organic farming? Sustainable, local farming. Creating *good* food. I don't want to rely on huge factory farms in a third world country for my food. What if there's a revolution there? What if there's a natural disaster? What if they get sick of the US pushing them around, and decide to close trade? Where does the food come from, then?
Organic farming (once commonplace, now a luxury) was replaced with chemical factory farming. There were unforseen problems with large agri-business, though, and now we see Monsanto all too willing to "fix" them, as long as farmers pledge allegience to them until the end of time. I say, it's time to take a move back to how food was supposed to be farmed, and go from there, as opposed to continuing on this skewed timeline towards a potentially disastrous outcome.
Michael Chisari
a closed mind slamming shut. I guess the "Living Downstream" people got to you first. If the author of the post you're replying to had made his points first, you'd probably be cheering him on.
Either come up with some cogent arguments, or don't even bother to reply. Vaguely citing the left-wing Unabomber-tract-of-the-month doesn't count. Think for yourself.
Hmm... the titles says it all, but...
All the foods you mention were directed
by humans, but this is refering to the
creation by humans of a food item
(sure, they're re-using genes, but still...)
I'll use a math analogy...
Think of all the genes, etc., vectors.
The sum combination of these is a vector space.
All directed evolution stays (relatively)
in this space, and can be accounted for.
This means that for the most part,
no mutation will occur which is SO drastic that
the environment cannot address it's effect,
and form a balance.
But consider GE: it basically amount to,
(in the math analogy) throwing in a vector
parallel to all the others. It exists outside
the vector space, and all equations that held
true for that space may, or may not, get f***ed.
(sorry for the language). Likewise, GE
may or may not harm the environment.
But it may or may not be equipped to handle
it, unlike in the above example. If it can't,
it will destruct.
So certainly, directed evolution is different
than GE in this sense, but what is wrong with
GE, if it helps? Nothing, I would say,
except that if the ecosystem can't quite deal
with it, it can only hurt in the long run.
Maybe it can do some good, but almost all GE,
such as Monsanto's, is financially motivated,
not "for the good of all", as is almost all
research nowdays (at least indirectly).
I have nothing against strawberries,
but how about the GE that resist certain
pesticides, etc? One could ask the converse:
why not use naturally-based pesticides,
which they are already immune to? The answer
is (kinda) obviously money. And anyway, the
insects aren't there to eat everything, they
are there to _regulate the strawberries_.
Sigh...rant I about more?... yes...
One more thing, the idea of a Terminator Gene,
and the implications of it and cross-pollination
which have been mentioned earlier in the comments:
It seems to me that the implications of such
seem to parallel the idea of a computer virus
sent to destroy competeing software...
oh, I don't know, to sum things up:
1. I just don't like it.
2. I'm not happy here (earth).
No other options though.
Happy Y2K, 2038, etc... how we do love our
apocalypses.
-Slackergod
Buffalo are still with us
Think carefully, because like it or not, humans are NOT the masters of the Earth. If we fuck it up, there isn't any backup Earth waiting a couple of "parsecs" over to move to to try again. The decision to go ahead and implement a "great" new technology simply because it has short term promise is INSANE if it is not fully thought out, explained and then supported by the majority of people who are bound to be affected. Claiming those of us opposed to GM foods are ignorant because we hesitate to embrace every new thing is not enough, it does not put you on a moral high ground from whence you can cast your judgements from. If we are wrong and you know it, LET'S SEE THE MATERIAL! I want to learn why my misgivings are wrong!
I think it would be wise to take extreme caution when dealing with any unproven technology that has such massive and potentially far reaching implications as does genetically modified foods. For example, perhaps I have not kept up, but I have not seen any significant research into the long term effects of wide spread GM food use by either humans or animals. If there are some, I'd love to get some references so I can look them up and learn some more about it.
If we save a hundred million people now using GM foods, but a couple billion die 20 years from now because of unseen consequences, have we won?
and a little less biased... href=http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/gm world/gmfood/gmfood.html
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
I recently visited HydroSerre, a company in Mirabel (near Montreal canada) who grows crops on massive vats of water. They have several advantages over regular farming and don't need to resort to geneticaly engineered crops to increase the output. Produceing 500 heads of letus per square meter a year (as oposed to 16 in regular farming) would go a long way to feed the world's population. Heck, imagine hydroponic 'farms' in a downtown area or in the desert, location, land, or availabilty of water are irrelevant. They're not dependent on the biotech companies to constantly provide them with more seeds. Herbicides and pesticides are unessary because of the way the food's grown. Check out the company's website. It's prety cool tech. This is prety much how I see the farms of the future. http://www.hydronov.com/ That said, doubt they'll realy succede, too much money to be made in geneticaly engineered seeds which the farmers have to buy every year for the rest of their lives.
To visit the herds from the Denver area, go west on Interstate 70 to the Genesee Park exit (exit 254). There is a tunnel under the freeway that the animals can go through so they may be on either side of the highway. To go to Daniels Park, take Interstate 25 south to Castle Pines Parkway (exit 188). Follow that road west to Daniels Park Road, then travel north on Daniels Park Road. The Bison may be on either side of the road. The animals can roam freely on large open areas, so you may not always see them in the summer months, but when we feed them daily in the late fall, winter and early spring, you will see them almost every day
Just west of Sioux Falls, (mile marker 391) you will find Buffalo Ridge, an abandoned tourist trap, built to resemble an abandoned ghost town. Keep your eyes peeled, because there *is* a herd of buffalo that can sometimes be seen in the valley just before the fort. check both sides of the highway.
The problem is that we aren't good enough at genetics. We don't really have total maps of the plants we want to modify: which genes are linked to others? How does changing this one affect growth and development? There are so many variables that fully documenting even one species would take huge amounts of resources. A probable hypothesis is that genes aren't so cut and dry: you can't just attach some more pesticide resistance. The genes are more like guidelines of how the structures in the plant are grown: mostly they tell how to make enzymes and proteins, basic building blocks of the cells.
In other words, the leap from DNA to plant is so complex that changing one thing might have totally unforeseen consequences might occur: Changing this segment might result in a totally new enzyme, and suddenly you've got corn that is nitrogen fixing. Wow! That's amazingly useful, because corn takes a lot of nitrogen out of the soil--farmers have known it for years, so they usually rotate corn with other crops like soybeans, which add nitrogen to the soil. recently they just dump fertilizers with lots of nitrogen in them on the fields. But with nitrogen-fixing corn, you don't have to do that, so it's a lot cheaper to grow corn. but what if that same modification that made your plant nitrogen fixing also makes it have smaller root structures, because without the need for nitrogen from the soil it doesn't need to have so many roots down there? now you have to irrigate more or your corn will die of drought.
This scenario is pretty simple. it probably wouldn't happen. but it's an example: changing a tiny thing that makes the plant better in some way will change it in some other, possibly crucial way. the trick is to figure out which changes you can make and still have a viable, enviromentally sound and useful plant. We could give our apples long hairs to vent excess heat so we can grow them in arizona...but do you really want hairy apples?
Then again, I could be wrong.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/24/monsanto.html
http://www.americanoutback.com/featurearticle_ther mop.htm The big hot spring is located in Hot Springs State Park, a green oasis between red hills and blue river. The park includes a good-sized pasture where a buffalo herd grazes happily. You can drive through the pasture, get really close to the bison, and get great photos, but stay in your car. Bison are big critters and unpredictably dangerous. You can't outrun one, so if you approach one on foot be certain you take along a companion who is slower than you are. The same advice, by the way, applies to grizzly bears. Also within the buffalo pasture is the old Smoky Row Cemetery, which contains the remains of, among a few others, "Augernose Jane." Let your imagination run!
I think many folks are niave as to how those pretty fruits and vegetables get to their kitchen.
GM can offer viable, safe alternatives to all the pesticides/herbicide and fungicides being applied to the vast majority of crops. Face facts, people buy fruits and vegitables based on appearance, texture and to a small extent smell.
So called "organic" (definition still unclear) will never fill the demand of 5+billion mouths.
Not to mention that fungal and bacterial pathogens of F&V's can produce a number of toxins which can be lethal if ingested in quantity. Organic growth is not without its drawbacks.
foremost, Ive noticed the arguments surrounding GM 's turn irrational very quickly with sometimes unwarranted speculation.
$0.04
On Sept. 13, 1999 the Moon as you know it was replaced by a hologram and artificial gravity for planet earth was turned
FDA's approval of Iradiated Meat.
w are.htm
r t/comments/Fdag.htm
r t/comments/biolabel.htm
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/rad-food/ConsumerBe
FDA and Genetically engineered foods.
http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/harmonizationale
And info on the Laballing of genetically altered foods.
http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/harmonizationale
Mind you these articles do favor one perspective but I do agree with it.
For those who are Jewish, there may be religious and ethical problems with eating GM foods. GM "foods" are frequently created by snipping a section of DNA out of one organism and inserting into the genome of another.
Given:
- The chapter Leviticus in the the Old Testamant in the Christian Bible contains a prohibition against mating different kinds of animals, and
- The rules in Leviticus are often similar to Jewish law
then it is possible that GM foods may not be clean to eat because they're created by a means which may be illegal under Jewish law.I hope someone who's Jewish and knowledgeable about such things can comment on this.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
First what I would like to know is what it is that keep people coming back for more. Over the past 100 years there is one thing that the USA should Know better then any other country in the world. That any time you leave any company (or any self serving group of people) unchecked they will undoubtedly start pursuing there goals no mater what the cost to those around them. As can be seen in resent news with cases like 'Microsoft vs. DOJ' and 'etoy vs. etoys', demonstrating my point, that companies will ruthlessly pursue what there after. And I sure we all know that the only thing on a fortune 500 company's mind is, "The betterment of man kind", and nothing else.
What I'd like to know most of all is, what line do I stand in when the class action lawsuit comes up. Because I can begin to tell you how man french-fries and potato chips I eaten over the years.
All I can say is "This spuds for you!"
What do you mean 'Linux in a nut shell', it don't fit.
Buy Certified Organic.
Perhaps groups like Greenpeace that aren't interested in the truth?
What is it about environmental advocacy that causes truth and rigorous scientific study to be subordinated to scaremongering and technophobia?
This topic was debated in a two-part series over at Scientific American:
/explorations/1999/071999plants/index.html
http://www.sciam.com
There was a neat artical on this in time magazine about 2 months ago..i think its called baby geniuses..everyone go to your local libraryand read it!!!!!!!!
Where are these nameless results published? What toxic effects were verified? I challenge you to find any sound empirical evidence to establish this questionable claim. It is possible to argue that GM crops could possibly cause some form of environmental damage, but the foods produced from them are nutritionally indistinguishable from the alternatives.
The Seed Savers have been warning about the problems of non-free genetic material (seeds) for a long time, and have been keeping Old Varieties and Non-Hybrid seeds viable for decades by instituting seed banks and Seed Savers networks.
Basically, the 'information' in the genetic code should not be the proprietary or 'closed' property of any individual or corporation, but is for everybody to profit from (ie, by eating and staying alive).
This is a very similar situation to software and many of the arguments for Free Software are near identical to those of the Seed savers, and are worth investigating. They are an old network, and natural allies of many of us preserving our freedoms in this day and age of the mega-corp (E-toys and the like) and things like WIPO and other plans to severly restrict our abilities to work, think, eat, and play.
routinely in use in modern agriculture? Non-GM seed strains are generally developed by subjecting seeds to radiation or mutagenic chemicals to produce a high rate of random mutation. Seeds from offspring that have some sought-after quality are retained for the next round of mutation treatment. Genetic engineering techniques do not rely on such scattershot methods - they involve implantation of specific genetic material in the target organism. It is far from obvious that genetic engineering is more likely to produce dangerous organisms than more conventional methods. Isn't "radiation induced mutation" just as scary as "genetic modification?"
Sure, it takes more dollars from your pocket. But do you understand the actual cost?
Did you know that commercial farmers can (and do) reclassify highly toxic waste as fertilizer and spread it on crop fields? I didn't believe it either, until the san jose mercury news ran a whole series on it.
Let's keep on the USDA to not to dilute the organic standard any further, and to let us keep our local certifications.
Scientific experimentation is one thing, but to say "hey, now let's feed this shit to everyone" is another. Especially since we are now aware of unpredictable short term side effect (eg. corn that produces pollen which kills monarch butterflies on contact). We have no way of knowing the long term side effects.
BUY ORGANIC!!
at all. Individual governments (especially France and Spain) and the Eurocrats in Brussels have found food scares to be a useful tool for the protection of their politically influential agricultural interests. Do you really think that the embargo of British beef would have got anywhere if it were not aligned with the interests of unproductive French cattlemen? Scaremongering about the safety of GM plants must be seen in the context of the EU's desire to protect its economically unviable cereals industry.
Unfortunately I don't have the information at my fingertips, but I did read about quite a few farmers in India committing suicide a year or two back after planting GM seeds from Monsanto (sorry, don't recall the crop, although I'm certain this happened) and having their crops fail (and going into debt to buy the seeds, other capital investments to use them, etc). Once again, corporations are killing people. Oh, wait, they have no liability for that. But still, Monsanto is responsible for many deaths (not those alone).
Bottom line: We as a societal whole have backed ourselves into this corner. If farmers don't begin looking to technological advancements in crop production, our food supply is going to be incredibly short in the next few years, if the world population keeps growing at its current rate. In fact, if it weren't for existing technological advancements, we would right now be in the middle of a global famine! Actually, that isn't quite true (of course it depends up on which "technological advancements" you're talking about, and how far back you want to go). Check out the Food First website. Famine isn't caused by underproduction of food. Generally speaking (and one can *only* speak generally!), famine is caused by maldistribution of purchasing power (name any great famine in recent years--I'll tell you how much food the affected countries were exporting), as well as the affluent 'western' diet, consisting of a shitload of meat.
Check out (I dare you), sometime, just how much of the earth's landmass is used for beef production, how much water is used, how much environmental destruction this causes, and (mustn't forget) how much grain is grown to be FED TO COWS WHILE HUMANS STARVE. I had to shout--it's so obscene.
Hopefully, this won't get buried in the spam.
A bit of background on myself, first. I graduated this past year from the University of Illinois with a degree in Agronomy. I'm currently working for a large ag cooperative, selling agricultural inputs (seed, chemicals, fertilizer) to farmers. Dealing with agriculture biotechnology is part of my everyday life.
Some fact tidbits: Over half the US soybean crop last year was Roundup Ready soybeans. This is probably going to stay steady, or maybe even increase this coming year. Roundup is an amazing product for farmers. It saves money, time, and is much safer than a lot of conventional chemical programs. The chances are that those McDonalds french fries you ate yesterday were cooked in oil from Roundup Ready soybeans. It's here to stay. Whether these beans are safe over the long run for human consumption is not something I, or anyone else can say with any certainty, though. Certainly, I have no current qualms about eating them. But then, I drive on Chicago freeways, too...
Terminator technology: One of the stupidest things ever thought of. I can tell you right now for a fact that there are no commercially available seeds that use this technology. Farmers are not currently planting it. I don't believe you will ever see farmers plant it. As I understand it, the 'terminator' part of the seed has to be activated by spraying a certain chemical at a certain time on the field, and that's money farmers aren't going to want to throw away. This one's a definite no-go.
Bt: In my area, the Bt gene is used in corn as a preventative against European corn borer. Farmers have had decent results in some years, depending on the borer population, which will vary from year to year. I, personally, am seriously worried about the resistance issue. Farmers look at Bt and say 'Why plant anything else, if this works so good?' Five to ten years, and we're going to see serious resistance in the borer population to Bt. Maybe sooner. Bt acreage for the next year is probably going to stay steady, or maybe even drop a little, due to farmers' concern about the European market not accepting Bt corn.
Biotech isn't going to go away because a bunch of people think it's bad. Too many corporations have put too much money into it. Whether agriculture can weather this storm and come out in front is something I worry about. I'd like you all to remember, though...farmers do care. We don't work our asses off trying to feed the rest of you just for the money. 'Cause there certainly isn't much of it for us...
You mentioned:
1) The GM crop becomes dominant, and supplants the natural variant. Given its enhanced resistance to pests, blight and other "natural predators," the crop grows like a weed, and it becomes a problem to kill off the crop where it is unwanted.
2) A GM crop which has been modified to produce no fertile seeds causes the natural variant to become sterile as well. The crop dies out, apart from GM seeds created in the laboratory, and with patent protection ensuring that no one can create even a modified crop with the defect removed in order to restore fertility, the corp. effectively owns that entire crop.
There is a THIRD possibility:
Since GM crops are the product of mixing genes of entities from totally different evolutionary trees, - such as taking a gene from a FISH and put it in a PLANT.
Even if the resulting GM crop is still 99.999% genetically intact, who knows what the pollens of that GM crop will do to OTHER NATURALLY OCCURING PLANTS that share sizeable portions of genetic sequences with the GM crop?
To illustrate what I am saying - Let's say Mosanto created a GM crop (let's say a rice plant) by taking gene X from a fish and insert that gene into a naturally occuring rice species, and the resulting GM crop was declared "safe to eat" by the FDA.
When the pollen from the GM crop gets into, and fertilizes, a neighboring natural crop, lets say a species of wild-rice, and produces a hybrid.
The resulting hybrid may produces a new kind of toxin, that was resulted from the genetic sequence of (fish + rice + wild-rice).
Of course, FDA didn't get to test the resulting hybrid. In fact, they don't have to. After all, the resulting "hybrid" is classified as a "product of natural evolution", the offsprings of the hybrid spread like wildfire.
Eventually, people start to feed their livestocks with offsprings of the hybrid, without realizing the presence of the new toxin. Thus, the toxin is passed to human beings via the milk, egg or meat of the livestocks, accumulating in the human bodies.
Decades later, people start to have strange illnesses, as a result of the accumulation of the new toxin in their body. By then, it has already been DECADES since the spread of the hybrid, and there is just NO WAY to eliminate that hybrid plant anymore - they are just everywhere.
Question is: what can the people do, then?
It is not wrong to try out new things, if the new things can somehow be LIMITED IN SCOPE.
What Mosanto and many other GM crop companies are doing is that they are playing with something that they KNOW THEY CAN NOT POSSIBLY CONTROL.
They scope is just too large. Once you release the pollens that carry the genes of the GM crop into the world, there is just no way to know what may happen next.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
good post, I think it's time for me to back you up.
Might I point out that every revolution has its robber barons. The industrial revolution produced those bastards who ruined the environment, but then people woke up and stopped them. We are on track to having the cleanest environment in the last 100 years. If we can stop urban sprawl and save enough land in pristine condition the world is well on it's way to being an absolutely beautiful place to live. We seem to have gotten a handle on this problem.
Then the internet revolution, companies like Microsoft ruined a lot of others and wasted a huge ammount of our money and time (crashes, bloatware). But now they are more or less under control. It is only a matter of time before opensource pushes them out. If there is a borg in the software industry opensource is it. If everyone throws in their two cents no corporation can take on their creation, especially when it's free. Open source will tame the wiles of the likes of Microsoft.
Now genetic engineering. First of all might I point out that patents do expire (I think it is 14 years or so?) so even if Monsanto does make all these changes and add the terminator gene to it's crops there is nothing to prevent someone else from "stealing" these crops and adding them to our arsenal. Keep in mind that after these patents expire they cannot be panted again, so this stuff becomes public domain. Granted we will screw up a few times, but there are pesticides on your food now. Wouldn't you at least have those pesticides only on the plants and not all over the place (as happens when we spray them on).
I might also add that although organisims can become resistant to almost anything they can not keep up with us for long. Every one of those immunities exacts a price on it's bearer. We can always rotate our chemicals and design new ones to work in new ways or to attack the organisims resistance it's self. That would be the best of all possible worlds. Various organisims become resistant and then we design a chemical that only attacks resistant organisims by exploiting their resistance mechanism. Although an organisim can be resistant to many things there are limits. Can it be resistant to 100 things? How about 1,000. Can it counter our counters, and our counters to it's counters. If it can do all this it will probably not be a threat to us because it will be so full of resistance machinery that it will get out competed by the non resistant strains, or be an easy mark for it's natural predators (or our immune system). We haven't won the arms race with our pests yet, but they can't stay with us forever. Eventually we will beat them all into obscurity. Resistance, while it shouldn't be allowed to come easily isn't the end of the line. If we retired penicillin right now for a decade or two then we could use it again later and nothing would be resistant to it because they would have been out competed by the non resistant varieties due to the overhead of the resistance mechanism.
Just my two cents.
Tyler Ward
tjw19@columbia.edu
Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
** A Monsanto official told the NEW YORK TIMES that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job," Angell said.
What can one do about this other than scream one's head off? Really, if anyone has an answer, please tell me.
Educate yourself.
Boycott all GM foods.
Write letters to political whores.
Try to directly assist folks who are growing organically (by buying their stuff, telling other people).
Grow your own organically (you can grow a tremendous amount in very small places using vertical structures--all you need is some chicken wire, tar paper, good earth, rocks and sand (central drainage in the vertical cylinder, which has a circling spiral of slits, where the plants grow, naturally), water, sun...) Oh, and compost, too. Stick all of your veggie waste (meat very bad!) in a bucket. When the bucket fills, put it in the compost bin (I'm not going to tell you how to do that.))
Organize in your neighborhood, bitch to your supermarket, join other folks who are demanding disclosure and even and end to this bullshit.
Tear up fields where they're testing GM crops. Lots of people do it, and it's fun and easy! Live near a university? You have work (play) to do in your own backyard!
Get together with a few hundred or thousand of your closest friends and make lots of noise in the streets.
Get together with a few, a few dozen, a few hundred, or a few thousand (as in Seattle recently), and shut down Monsanto's offices. Learn how to build lock-down devices (more fun! interesting problem: how to lock yourself to something in such a way that the police have the most trouble dislodging you! And, as some very good people trying to save ancient redwoods in Humboldt discovered in recent years, experience the joys of police torture--pain compliance!--when they wipe pepper solution directly into your forced-open eyes!)
Shut down other stuff! Demand things! This sucks! Fuck this! Engage in the *greatest* American tradition that has ever existed, that of *civil disobedience*!
So called "organic" (definition still unclear) will never fill the demand of 5+billion mouths. That's just silly and false. Study up on it, take a look at the yield possible with vertical (even very short vertical) growing structures and hydroponics. Look at how much space it requires to feed a person for a year. Look at the available growing space. Extrapolate. It's easy--everyone could be fed; it's just that we have an incredibly fucked-up system that keeps everyone starved and/or poisoned to serve the interests of those who own and control stuff. Not hard to see.
I don't know where to begin--so many delusions.
Study some history--take a look at how these places got to be the way. And don't expect to find anything in the "official truth" but self-justifying, frequently racist lies which treat non-Western peoples as invisible, childish, or monstrous.
If you don't think corporations are doing bad things all the time, you're in a fantasy land. Again, I can only suggest you educate yourself (oh, and by the way, if the book was put out by a corporation, there's a teensy chance that it's heavily biased). It isn't easy to find the truth, when it's buried beneath a mountain of lies. It isn't terribly hard, though, to find out enough about the way the world works to make you feel like fool for writing what you did. Ever hung out with poor people? See if they think the world is just peachy. Find out how many people are starving, right now. Check out Food First. If you think they're wrong, fine. But until you've examined their arguments, you're (in your specific case) living in a world of veils and mirages.
As a BioGeek whose primary interest and training is in biology and not computers, I'm often astounded by the expertise and insight that Slashdotters display when dealing with technology. However, I'm distressed by the relative lack of knowledge and FUD displayed by the typical response to to GM/Biotech articles--and I've occasionally noticed similar comments from the several other BioGeeks.
In this topic alone I've come across several posts which (IMHO as a biologist) were quite calm and rational, yet were labeled as flamebait. While certainly some of them have attracted flames, that is quite, *quite* different that deliberately encouraging a flame war.
I've repeatedly come across phrases like "Frankenstein", "Playing God", "Gattaca", and "Brave New World". Katz's Planet Gattaca is an almost perfect example of this. Imagine if he instead had written an article for the mainstream press, holding up movies like The Net or Hackers as "serious" examples of the dangers on the big scary Internet. Slashdotters everywhere would be breaking out the pitchforks and torches. An arguement laden with emotionally charged trigger words and no logical debate is not an arguement--it's propaganda, designed to produce a quick, instinctive "right bellyfeel".
I think part of the issue stems from the fact that there is no BioGeek equivalent to the Hacker. On Slashdot, there are individuals who not only understand the uses, risks, and abuses of software, but are actually capable of producing programs equal or even superior to what a mega-corp can code (While I'll bet most of us BioGeeks work for mega-corporations :).
Unfortunately, there is no BioHacker culture--and I believe that is why there is so much FUD here. Imagine for a moment we had some BioGeeks here who produce GM organisms in their bedroom, or run sequencing gels in their basement. I have yet to meet, or even hear about anyone who does this sort of thing as a hobby--currently economic and technical barriers are just to high. But imagine a few decades down the road. It might happen--Biotech is moving as fast as Silicon tech, becoming faster, better, cheaper. And it's like (hardware) Silicon tech in that you need corporations to plow serious $$$ into development to turn million-dollar mainframes into desktop PCs. Quite a bit of the critical equipment for biotech is actually not that expensive to produce.
For instance, consider PCR, one of the basic techniques of modern biotech. I can't believe this equipment won't become cheaper in the future. Nucleotides and buffers are already reasonably priced. Polymerase is expensive, but I've known poor professors who substituted by growing and purifying their own because they couldn't afford the commercial stuff. Thermocyclers are expensive, but their just fancy peltier heater/coolers--again, poor professors sometimes substitute, this time using hot/cold water baths (and a poor grad student :). And if you want to do sequencing by PCR, I can't imagine that plate scanners are that much mechanically different from a good flatbed reader. A lot of other biotech has the potential to become much cheaper, as economies of scale improve and patents expire (Much stuff is very new and very novel). As the tech becomes more accessible to individuals, we might have some voices that Slashdotters would trust. Of course, in that day ever comes, expect to see some *real* scare stories about rogue virii authors :P.
Anyway, what I'd really like to see is a technical debate on GM. For instance, are the problems brought up inherent in the technology itself, or are they merely solvable problems caused by an oversight, like some buffer overflow exploit, and that a technical problem may very well have a technical solution? For instance, consider the presence of BT protein in Corn Pollen? Could we design a plant such that the BT protein is produced only in the leaves/husk of the plant, and not the pollen or corn? It is almost certainly possible, in a theoretical sense. A more useful question might be: What knowledge do we need to design such a system that both selectively expresses the BT, and does it at a usably high level? What is are the experiments and projects needed to gain such knowledge? There are similar questions for Monsanto's potatoes. (Which were already substantially similar to their current form when they began development over five years ago--we've come a looong way)
On a completely different topic, I have another explanation for some of the points discussion in the article. First, how about an alternate explantation for the choice of BT as a pesticide? BT is a protein, and as such, can be encoded in a single gene. With almost any other system, you would have to engineer an entirely new pathway into the potato plant, and it would probably have greater safety problems to boot (Very few pesticides are as selective as these peptide ones). An entire pathway is *hard*--it may have been impossible several years ago, at the time development began on these potatos.
Second, the article makes a point how BT pesticide labels carry the warning not to ingest or allow it to come into contact with cuts. I believe the main reason for this is because BT pesticides contain the entire bacterium which produced the BT protein crystals. The bacteria themselves could trigger any of the usual things that bacteria do, like allergic reactions, and while they are probably dead I doubt the product has gone through a sterilization step during production.
Well, it's late for me and I'm tired, so please pardon spelling errors and the lack of citations. Hope I haven't been too cantankerous in this post.
i don't really understand most posts on this discussion but remember this story that how some fruit flies were eliminated by just releasing some flies that cannot reproduce, would this GM crop thing do the same to other crops.
Although it is a good article, it is over a year old. How about posting some actually science news? Why does /. have a science section anyway? Perhaps /. should change its slogan to "news for Linux zealots. Stuff that matters to Linux zealots."
Since it remains to be seen whether GM will prove more dangerous that the usual assorment of pesticides, herbicides, preservatives, artifical flavors, colors and sweeteners, nitrates, hodrogenated fats, and random bits of pests found in our food supply - requireing lableing would be harsher than usual FDA behavior.
However, when they were forbiding labeling, that was a very scary and wierd thing. If Ben & Jerry want to state that their stuff is BGH free, why should our government stop them? That benefits no one but the BGH producers. What right does the government have to forbid truthful disclosure of ingredients and production methods?
There is no way that anyone can know what the long term affects, if any, will be. The technology simply hasn't been around long enough to know for sure. Some people feel the risk is negligable, others would prefer to use natural products (for some, such as rastas, it could be a religious nessecity), some people will enjoy the lower prices that this technology is supposed to bring, others would rather not support the GM companies. No matter what, if a vendor is willing to discose honest information about the production methods, the consumers have a right to hear it.
- bridgette
Lately, it seems like SlashDot has gone from being the leading site for tech geeks to the leading site for luddite paranoiacs with low IQs... How does this crap get posted?
whoops, misread.
US labelling system is as bad as EU labelling system. We really have an issue here. I have a better knowledge of labelling food when it comes to allergies prevention:
Even traces of substance can cause an allergy, and producers tend to ignore it. If an device was used with, say, arachid oil and then with another oil, traces of arachid oil could appear in the new product. So people should be warned of that fact by labelling the product with a "may contain traces of arachid oil" unless the device was well cleaned. If you ask industries to do so, you'll have to be cautious about the fact that they could tend to ALWAYS put such an advice on their product labels. So they can be sure they won't get sued if you get sick or die. But by doing this they would spoil the entire process of prevention cause every label warning you if exactly as if no label was warning you.
I think the same problem raises with GM and unless you want a "may contain GM food" on every label you have to ensure a tracability of food on the whole chain and give special quality labels to food not containing any such GM stuff.
Monsanto has a rather Catch-22-like situation on their hands here. They make their herbicide-resistant, self-fertilizing products, etc., and hopefully feed more people, prevent famines, all that good stuff. On the other hand, if they're not careful, it's quite possible that these genetically engineered qualities could spread to the weeds that they're supposed to help prevent, through hybridization, etc. Gene flow happens between plants, but the mechanisms are not incredibly well understood.
So if the Monsanto people just give out their seeds like normal, then they get lambasted by all the people who are worried about the modifications spreading out into the environment to create races of super-weeds. If they react to this well-founded worry by adding genes to prevent their modified plants from reproducing (hence preventing hybridization), then they get attacked for their monopolistic practices. Of course, they may well practice those in other ways (for instance, the no-seed-reuse contracts people keep mentioning), but in this case, there is a very good reason to.
So, tell me, which should they do? Add to the risks of an environmental catastrophe, or threaten the livelihoods of the poor farmers?
-----
For every question, there is a solution which is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H.L. Mencken
Genetic engineering is neither supremely benign nor is it the harbinger of global famine. It is a complex set of possibilities which include very dire and extraordinarily beneficial promise. It will take a large amount of effort to find the correct answer between the USDA's easy answer and the EU's easy answer.
What is absolutely clear is that if consumers and regulators look the other way the sole beneficiaries will be the agribusiness purveyors. Just look at the "benefits" so far. Fruits and veggies that don't spoil on the way to market. Theoretically this could mean lower prices, but so far it's just been larger profits.
Interestingly, some of the more frightening scenarios involve agribusiness attempts to develop Microsoft-style solutions, which require farmers to adopt techniques that lock them into the technology down the road. It reminds me of an experience from my farming days:
We (along with all the other farmers around us who were also growing alfalfa for hay) by a spraying company. Now, this was a little unusual because there is little reason to spray alfalfa. Cows eat it, but bugs usually don't. Cows are pretty easy to keep out of the fields without spraying.
The sprayer pointed out that we had aphids on our alfalfa. Now, aphids can be very bad on your roses. But they don't really like alfalfa that much. They may reduce your output by a few bales, but it takes a lot of aphids to really slow the growth of alfalfa.
So, we told them we didn't want to pay for the spraying. But our neighbors all went for it.
When the neighbors crops all got sprayed, all the aphids left their fields and came to ours. It was pretty strange. Walking through the field, your boots would get covered with green squashed aphids (aphids are kind of like miniature cows that give green milk).
It turned out that aphids in that quantity really can stunt the growth of the alfalfa. Of course, they would never reach that quantity without the spraying.
So, we hired the guy with the airplane to spray our alfalfa. And all the aphids jumped back onto our neighbors fields. Nobody ended up gaining anything except the sprayer. Of course, if you didn't spray, you risked your neighbors spraying and ruining your crop.
Essentially, the only way you could guarantee you would not get screwed majorly was by agreeing to be screwed minorly.
The implication, however, that the USDA has enthusiastically supported everything Monsanto and the other chemical companies do is simply not true. There have been examples of major conflicts between the two as well as cooperation.
And that's the way it should be. Psycho-libertarians notwithstanding, regulation does have a place from computer software to agribusiness. Anybody who assumes the free market will always advance the general good is easy prey to the Microsofts and Monsantos of the world.
Over-regulation is bad. Under-regulation is bad. Freedom can be taken away by governments. Freedom can be taken away by big corporations. Freedom can be taken away by guys with thick necks. Freedom can be taken away by guys with airplanes and big tanks of strange chemicals.
Freedom is easiest to take away when we are not paying attention. The easiest way to avoid paying attention is to adopt an ideology which gives us easy answers to difficult questions. Such an ideology can be based on the notion that government will always help (Communism). Such an ideology can be based on the notion that government is always the problem (psycho-libertarianism).
I do have the solution for the psycho-libertarians: Let them eat aphids.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
I never used the word "monopoly." This is about dirty tricks. People who lived in coal towns nominally had the ability to buy their drygoods somewhere other than in the company store, but in practice, no one ever did. The homogeniety of choice for them lead to de facto indentured servitude.
If Monsanto requires large capital outlays for "complimentary" products for people hoping to plant their seeds, farmers will be in the position of not being able to afford to reinvest in nonspecific products for use with another company's seed.
SPECIAL REPORT
The facts versus the frenzy
Unpalata ble truths
A question of breeding
The great divide
Fears for the future
How to price what we put on our plate
Check out our comprehensive international coverage of GM crops
The GM debate: readers' letters
The GM debate: Editor's response
Future shock
Apocalypse when?
Running wild
Strange fruit
Brave new rose
Live and let live
Food for all
For some American work trying to figure what might happen when a GM fish starts competing with its unmodified brethren, see another New Scientist article.
New Scientist is one of the better science magazines, IMO (and I'm not a UK netizen). As you can tell, this is just a sampling from their site.
Another piece, "FARMERS IN THE FIRING LINE," has subtitle "Take a few million suspicious European consumers, a handful of dead caterpillars and what have you got? A crisis of confidence in America's corn belt ." It discusses the (unintended) effect on caterpillars (Monarch Butterfly) of pollen from "bt corn," the GM corn with built-in insecticide, and doubts raised. Elsewhere it's been pointed out that some people are seriously allergic to pollen, and there's no data (unless held by some who'd rather not tell) as to what GM content might do in this context.
In all this, it seems to me, we must not let "safety" be a smokescreen to let legislation pass that will deny us the ability to make informed choices for ouselves. When scientists in whatever employ do their studies, and committes "find" that things are safe enough that you don't need to know what is in your food or environment, be worried about the safety, but be outraged at the attempt to deny your free choice.
You have a right to reduce any small (or whatever size you think it is) risk to zero by making a choice in the marketplace. Nobody has a right to make choices about your body for you without your informed consent. Denying you that choice by misleading labeling is criminal, IMO, and those who put GM food on grocery shelves without identifying GM content in the labeling are setting themselves up for eventual class action suits, again IMO.
To any "scientist" who postures about "insignificant trace amounts with no effect on humans," I say let him swallow that same amount, by weight, of LSD.
--
Corporations should be resources for humans, not vice versa. No matter what the privileges, it is not a privilege to be used, except by God.
To tighten the noose on farmers, Monsanto has a new technology in the pipeline, called "the Terminator."[3] Terminator technology was developed with public funds by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and a seed company that Monsanto is in the process of buying. The Terminator is a group of genes that can be spliced into any crop plant, sterilizing all of the plant's seeds. Once Terminator technology has been widely adopted, control of seed production will move from the farmer's field to corporate headquarters and farmers will become wholly dependent upon corporations for seeds. As the TIMES summarized it, "The Terminator will allow companies like Monsanto to privatize one of the last great commons in nature --the genetics of the crop plants that civilization has developed over the past 10,000 years." Brilliant and ruthless.
The WORST thing I've ever heard. In a newspaper they were considering that it's in the nature it'll be the control of all the agriculture. Why ?
Supose that you buy some seeds to test and they grow to the point that they open flowers. The polinization can occur with your normal plants, generating new and esterilized seeds. This can continous to the point that I'll do'nt have any seeds and then you are dependent of Monsanto or another hell big company that can decide if they like you to buy or they produts, earning much in our needs to eat.
Is what is between the lines in any article such as is linked to here, or the majority of this discussion. Genetic engineering has been around since the inception of agriculture people. And I am sure that with every new innovation that allowed more food to be manufactured at lower cost, the stupid were always there to lash out against it. Now in our neo-nazi culture (big corporations = jews) we can safely denounce anything made by a corporation as bad. How? In this particular case, we prop up some stupid small farmer and tell everyone that his job will be gone because of big evil Montsano. Thank god for genetic engineering. Thank god for progress. Thank god for Montsano. The small farmer is a dying breed, and good riddance. Food will get cheaper and better and in 20 years everyone who bitches now and buys organic garbage will have forgotten all about it as they eat their irradiated, genetically altered, chemically treated, etc, food of the future.
In Canada we have amazing food labelling laws, but we're pushing them to include whether food is "natural" or "genetically engineered". The problem isn't so much the labelling but the differentiation ...
... I've heard US congress people say that they'd push for better food labelling if that's what the US people wanted. Why don't you start asking for it?
If I go to the store and buy some spreadable cheese product, I get told on the package if it contains cheese or not. Americans don't. That scares me, at least.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Im glad someone else is finally as smart as I am. Since science failed a few times and only succeeded a thousand times more, it isnt worth the risk. Will you help me petition for the banning of all computers also since they can be used as guidance systems for bombs? It isnt worth the risk that someday we may create an artificial intelligence that could maybe take over the world.
Good thing there are so many evil people and corporations in the world, or else I may have to start blaming innocent businesses and governments for all of the world's problems.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Scaremongering or truth? Thats a good question. Junkscience.com provides ONE viewpoint, and a highly right-wing skewed one at that. You can claim free speech, and that is usually the defence for these kinds of sites, but ultimately by linking to the tax returns of various charitable organizations and implying they are criminals, it is the junkscience.com people who are the real criminals here. While organizations like greenpeace and the world wildlife fund have demonstratably ACCOMPLISHING A GREAT DEAL in preserving the natural resources of the planet, right wing wackos like those who seem to run junkscience.com are only adept at attacking those who oppose their political and economic goals. It is one thing to debunk questionable research, but another to publish the tax returns of charitable organizations with the implication that they are criminal organizations. Smoking isn't really bad for you. Toxic substances are harmless. Xeno-estrogens are a myth. What's next? Car crashes don't hurt anyone. Sniffing glue is fun? Perhaps that holocaust thing WAS a fake after all, and the moon landing was done in a movie studion in area 51. Free speech indeed.
> The problem is not accidents of any sort
Actually, I think that the greatest problem with genetic engineering can be summed up under the definition "accidents" - unforseen consequences of our actions. Biotech companies are not evil scheming masterminds deliberately unleashing hordes of poisonous and purely destructive products on an unsuspecting populace. Nevertheless, there is always the possibility that any new technology might have unforseen long-term effects.
> but that seed manufacturers ("growers" doesn't
> seem quite ) are not acting in the best
> interests of either the farmers, the final
> consumers, or the environment.
Large corporations are well-known for acting primarily in their own economic self-interest. This is perhaps how they come to be large corporations. I don't like it either, but it seems like a pointless thing to complain about.
> For instance:
> not making crops that are naturally resistant
> to insects,
One of the most common genetic modifications of crops in use today is the addition of the Bt gene (which comes from a particular species of bacteria) to plants in order to make them resistant to insects. For example, the Bt gene encodes a protein which kills the corn borer - a significant insect pest to corn farmers. Use of this GM corn means that the farmer can use less pesticide and can avoid the major losses often associated with this insect.
> but crops that are resistant to
> pesticides, then selling more pesticides to the
> farmers
Monsanto does indeed promote the combination of two of its products: the herbicide Roundup and the Roundup-Ready (GM) crops. It is an extremely profitable combination for the company. However, Roundup is one of the most effective and least environmentally damaging chemical herbicides that exists, and combining it with Roundup-resistant crops allows farmers to use a technique called No-Till farming which can potentially decrease pesticide/herbicide/fertilizer use as well as decreasing loss of topsoil due to runoff. Not all situations which benefit the Big Evil Corporations are completely without benefit to the rest of the world.
I don't mean to sound like I'm fully supporting Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry, but it would be nice if people would make arguments based on FACT. Call me picky.
</biogeek rant>
smallstar
> In much of the world, farmers normally save
> seed from one season to plant in the next. Lets
> say farmer 1 does just that. Farmer 2 decides
> to buy Monsanto's seeds with Terminator. Farmer
> 2's crop crosses with farmer 1's crop, so that
> unbeknownst to farmer 1, the seeds from his
> fine crop are mostly sterile
Let's assume for the moment that Farmers 1 and 2 have not decided to mix their seeds and plant them in a single field. Instead, they have chosen the more traditional option of planting them in separate fields, on separate farms. Your crossing situation implies a wind-borne pollination method, which is typical of many crops. Now imagine that you are a plant somewhere in the middle of Farmer 1's field. Which do you think is more likely: that you will be pollinated by one of your thousands of neighbouring non-GM plants, or that pollen from Farmer 2's plants will manage to get to you first? Now obviously pollen can be carried on the wind from one field to the other, but my point is that it is much more probable that a particular plant will be pollinated with pollen from its own field. Hence, it is almost impossible for an entire field to become cross-pollinated and produce sterile offspring, as you suggest.
> That doesn't even get into the fact that
> genetically engineered organisms have unstable
> makups, and could re-combine in unpredictable
> ways. What if the terminator gene recombines
> oddly (a transposition for example), and
> produces a carcinogenic crop?
To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely nothing about genetically modified DNA that makes it inherently less stable than "regular" DNA. It is the same molecule we're talking about here, just a slightly different sequence of bases. The probability that the terminator gene might recombine improperly or mutate is exactly the same as the probability that this might happen to ANY gene present in a given plant. The probability of this happening at all is fairly small; the probability of a plant randomly acquiring the exact mutation to make a carcinogenic product is miniscule. Genetic alteration often produces proteins which may have unknown effects, but the chances of producing a NEW protein with a specific negative effect is the same in GM crops as it is in regular ones.
> The fact is, the human race has co-evolved for
> a very long time with the various foods we eat.
No we haven't. Co-evolution is a process driven by natural selection, not the artificial selection which we use on crops. In a plant-herbivore relationship, co-evolution describes a series of adaptations driven by the nature of the relationship. For example, a plant may evolve a chemical defence to avoid being eaten by the herbivore, but then the herbivore could evolve a mechanism for coping with this defence, which would prompt the evolution of further defences, and so on.
By employing artificial selection, we override natural selection and make co-evolution impossible. Our crops have traits which are beneficial to us (eg. high yields) not which are directly beneficial to the plants by allowing them to defend themselves from human consumption.
> It is entirely possable that Monsanto is
> creating a terrible health problem and nobody
> will find out for a decade or two.
Yes. This is a valid concern, and it demonstrates the need for conscientious testing and properly enforced standards for this industry. I don't believe that it is a reason to eliminate genetic engineering of crops entirely. All new technologies have the potential to pose health and safety risks, but this is no reason to avoid all exposure to new technologies.
> The hell of it is, with Monsanto's big money,
> and government's rubber spine, we the consumer
> don't even get to choose for ourselves wether
> or not we eat GM foods.
I'm very much in favour of labelling that allows consumers to make informed decisions. I just hope that these decisions will be based on scientific fact and rational thought, not on misinformation and fear of the unknown.
smallstar
The following is a recently published review article discussing the benefits and risks of transgenic crops. I haven't read it myself yet, so I can't vouch for its availability or its difficulty level, but it would probably be a good place from which to draw further references.
Title: Biosafety of transgenic crop plants.
Authors: Bhatia, C.R. and Mitra, R.
Source: Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy Part B Biological Sciences. Oct.-Dec., 1998; 64 (5-6): 293-318.