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. "

Comments

Genetically Modified Crops

[whig]

The problem with GM crops is the possibility of cross-contamination of similar, but non-GM crops. If this should occur, then two outcomes are likely:

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.

Re:Genetically Modified Crops

[sjames]

And even if this happened, so what?

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.

Guess what happens to Farmer 1 next year when he plants mostly sterile seed! In a country where food production is lucky to be about 90% of need, it only takes a few cases of that to cause a famine.

I sincerely hope that if such a thing ever does happen, the starving people grab the nearest Monsanto rep and roast him on a spit.

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?

The fact is, the human race has co-evolved for a very long time with the various foods we eat. We are well adapted to eat them. While we have cross-bred and hybridized various food plants for centuries, none of that is as radical a change as genetic engineering is producing. It is entirely possable that Monsanto is creating a terrible health problem and nobody will find out for a decade or two. By then, their crops will be ubiquitous at this rate.

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.

Re:Genetically Modified Crops

[sjames]

You Can't Cross a Sterile Breed

That's the thing, the terminator isn't exactly sterile. The terminator gene is inserted into the plant, and remains dormant through it's life cycle. When the seed from the plant germinates, the terminator is expressed, and causes production of an herbicide so thet the newly germinated seeds die. That's where the problem lies.

Re:Genetically Modified Crops

[Mr. Slippery]

Therefore, being afraid that GM crops will drive out non-GM crops (under cultivation) is as silly as being afraid that my new traditionally selected long-grain rice will supplant other breeds of long-grain rice cause mine is better.

This already happens. Our food crops have been losing diversity for years. Crop monoculture is very, very bad - see the Irish potato blight.

GM could let us make this mistake even faster.

a few things about GM

[arp]

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

Re:Farmers don't reuse seed...

[zericm]

In the United States that may be the case. However, in most third world nations, they do continue to use their own seeds. Requiring these farmers to purchase new seed on an annual basis would destroy their farms. There was a protest over this very issue during the WTO talks in Seattle that was organized by farmers from India

This is not the problem at all.

[TheDullBlade]

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.

Re:This is not the problem at all.

[Malcontent]

Paranoia may be bad but so is lying. The big lie is that produce is modified to increase yield. Even a cursory investigation would reveal that GM modified plants are NOT designed to produce more food, better tsting food, or more nutricious food. They are designed to make monsanto more money that's all.

Even if by some freak unforseen consequence GM crops yielded more food how do you propose that this food get into the hands of the starving masses. The US govt has HUGE silos of wheat they buy from farmers who produce too mauch and can't sell on the open market. Same with dairy and meat products. Who is going to donate their extra crops to Africa? Who is going to pay to ship them there? who is going to distribute them? Nobody that's who. We stockpile food while others starve this is the way of the world. Today people are starving because of greed, economics, and politics not because there is not enough food to go around. In a few years that might change though.

There's a difference between progress & blackmail

[mouthbeef]

While it's true that "progress brings dependence on technology," Monsanto's strategy is all about making farmers dependent on Monsanto.

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.

We already have too much food

[DrSkwid]

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.
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.
.oO0Oo.

Soylent Green (OT)

[TheDullBlade]

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.

Labelling

[DanaL]

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

agucultural?

[KillBot]

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 :)

"Seeds of Destruction" is bad journalism

[SetupWeasel]

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.

The Green Revolution

[crush]

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

The lines were drawn hundreds of years ago

[DrSkwid]

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.
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
.oO0Oo.

Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic

[SnakeEyes]

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.

Re:Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic

[YIAAL]

I think these fears will be like Y2K -- peaking when the least is known, so that imagination (and charlatans) can run free, then dying out once reality asserts itself. People understand genetics even less than computers, allowing them to fear silly things under the guidance of hucksters like Jeremy "Repeal the Enlightenment" Rifkin.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you: a whole industry of techno-doomsayers has an incentive to paint lifesaving technologies as deadly in order to sell dumb books to gullible people. When their predictions of disaster don't materialize (are you reading this, Paul Ehrlich?) they get off scot-free. Yet thousands, even millions, may have died because technologies they criticized never got developed, or got developed late. Is this less evil than the depredations of those horrible Big Corporations? Phillip Morris is being sued for feathering its nest through lies and misrepresentations. Why should technology critics get a pass? How about liability for loosing toxic memes?

Re:Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic

[Dr Caleb]

Let's see here; "Steam Engine". well, the American way of life didn't end, but how about the people that were living there at the time? You know, Native American Indians? Most farmers have been caged into a non-sustainable form of farming. Their land is so expensive to operate, they can't follow the time tested method of crop rotation. All the land must produce all the time. That means they have to use fertilizers to compensate. Those too are expensive. Then they don't get a good price on their crops unless they use pesticides because their tomatoes or whatever don't look good on supermarket shelves. Or they get less than satisfactory yields unless they use herbicides. More $$$! Then, one farmer has to work an unbelieveable amount of land. That require$ machinery. That require$ repair$ and maintainence. (One farmer I know works over 2400 acres of land, himself and his two sons!) Now bugs and weeds have adapted. (We are borg.) Right now, we export grains; wood, meat, steel and many others, to the US and overseas. What happens when we can't feed ourselves? I can see why a farmer would go for the quick fix of GE crops. But what will that do to us in the long run?

Re:Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic

[Mr. Slippery]

(such as selective breeding and hybridization, which was originally labelled as "genetic manipulation", or "playing God")

Horseshit. Selective breeding is thouands of years old, far predating our knowledge of genetics. Or monotheism, for that matter.

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.

The world's population keeps growing because farmers keep increasing production. Every species increases population in the presence of food surpluses.

Even putting that aside, unsustainable agricultural methods only delay, not prevent, population overtaking food production - and by allowing population to grow in the meantime they could create a greater disaster.

Re:Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic

[Mr. Slippery]

Selective breeding in agriculture wasn't utilized or fully understood until the agricultural boom around the early 1700's.

Selective breeding was the mechanism that neolithic man used to domesticate animals - kill the agressive ones, keep the docile ones with big udders. (Consideration of the relation of this process to man's treatment of women is left as an exercise for the reader.) That far predates the 1700s. It may not have been practiced with the precision used in more modern times, especially post-Mendel, but it's been around for many a year.

The world's population keeps growing because underdeveloped countries feel the need to reproduce unchecked.

But they couldn't breed unchecked without food, no? (Not meant as an argument for letting people starve to death, just for realizing that just throwing food at them is no more a long term solution that is giving whiskey to an alcoholic with the DTs.)

If your theory held correct, then the US's steady surplus of food would have resulted in a skyrocketting population growth.

Food supply is not the only factor that determines the rate of increase. (And many of the best things we can do about overpopulation deal with those other factors.) But our population is increasing.

Yet, the US of A has held roughly around 270 million since the early seventies.

Only for a very loose definition of "roughly". US population in 1970 was around 203 million. Today's population is 30-35% higher.

While countries such as India, China, and Ethiopia (where they've never had enough food for the populace) have increased at PHENOMINAL rates.

If the population is increasing, then they do have enough food - not enough for comfortable, healthy lives, but enough to breed, and that's all evolutionary pressures care about. (Your genes don't give a fsck about your quality of live, they just want a new host.)

Context is missing -- as usual for major media

[rlglende]

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, ... people).

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 ... They know this, and so I have some confidence that tort law will keep them intelligent.

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

Boycotting?

[Merlyn42]

...the US labeling system is so bad.

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

This technology could save millions of lives.

[Voltage_Gate]

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.

Love it.....Just Love it.

[Accipiter]

Ah, the product of the marriage of Corporate America and the Science community. How wonderful.

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?

Help.

[Greg Merchan]

** 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 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.

Re:Help.

[kaphka]

Reality check: Genetically engineering food to increase crop yields and food quality is a little different from building nuclear weapons.

Monsanto is taking ordinary vegetables, which are about as unlike nuclear weapons as possible, and modifying them slightly. While it's possible that those modifications might make the food dangerous, I'm pretty sure that's not Monsanto's intent. I am also sure that if Monsanto knew that a certain modification was dangerous, they would stop using it, or suffer the legal consequences. Regardless of what their PR guy says, Monsanto would of course be liable if they knowingly sold a dangerous product.

There's a difference between saying "It's not my responsibility to decide if this product is safe," which seems to be Monsanto's position, and saying "We will claim that this product is safe irrespective of any evidence to the contrary."

Your interpretation of Monsanto's position, on the other hand, seems to be "Let's see how many people we can kill with our vegetables!" Making baseless (implied) accusations is a good way to get people to "scream their heads off", but I think a rational consideration of the situation is more appropriate.

Re:Help.

[Greg Merchan]

Please understand, I have no objections to genetically engineered foods. And I strongly doubt that Monsanto intends to make dangerous foods. What concerns me is the cavalier attitude of their PR guy towards liability and that it may represent the company.

"It's not my responsibility to decide if this product is safe," which seems to be Monsanto's position
That's exactly my concern. It is their responsibility, just as it is the responsibility of a gun owner to take reasonable precautions (e.g., not leaving it publicly accessible) to prevent misuse of his gun.

I think your interpretation of my interpretation is far from the mark. Their position seems to be, "We'll do as we please (the rights of others be damned)." It doesn't seem to be, "Let's damn the rights of others." My implied accusation is one of criminal negligence, not attempted murder.

I did rationally consider the situation, and came to the conclusion that at least their PR guy seemed perfectly willing to act in a reckless manner that could endanger the life of every one of their customers. On the basis of that conclusion and given that I do not know what to do about the actual, daily, widespread violations of individual rights, I am very upset, angry, and sad. If I knew what to do, I'd do it; but I don't, so I screamed my head off (at least metaphorically) and then posted to slashdot asking for advice.

Re:Help.

[pos]

Well, I'm taking ordinary plutonium atoms and just modifying them slightly.

The idea is that GE can set off a chain reaction just as deadly. The problem is that we are all afraid of, and respect, nuclear power because we (a government) already used it to blow a couple of cities up. We didn't understand the bomb when we tested it and there was no way the researchers could know that it wouldn't destroy much more. We were willing to take the chance due to the circumstances. In this case we (a company working toward it's own interests) could be setting off a chain reaction of environmental effects.

The reason I posted this article, is that I saw it the same way I view Linux. Big company trying to use it's money and power to control and develop a monopoly. BTW, here's my original rant. (I was pretty pissed off. ;)

-pos

The truth is more important than the facts.

In Need of Regulation

[nitsuj]

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).

Re:Rule of the technocracy ...

[rhyac]

So, what, you're blaming technology for all of that? Come on, man. What are you suggesting, that we stop coming up with new things? That maybe we slow down for the other people in the world to catch up? Something like that? From a purely evolutionary point of view, that's impossible. I mean, the only reason humans are at the top of the food chain right now is because we started making tools. And we're going to keep making tools, regardless of what else happens. And besides, even if we could, why should we stop? I mean, so far, technology has made our lives infinitely more pleasurable than not. Would you rather revert back to cave-dwelling? So, why should we slow down, why should we stop? If others don't pursue technology like we (western civilization) do, fine, that's their choice. That's their choice. Don't blame technology for other people's inability (or lack of desire) to acquire it.

For what merit is technology without the moral sense to apply it wisely?
So, you're implying that the Timorese are 'better' because they 'apply technology wisely, and morally'? Whereas, the US doesn't? Well.. If that's the case, then hook me up on a train to the nearest country that applies technology at random, because I would way rather live in the US than in East Timor.

I don't know, personally, I think you're looking at this from a way-too-narrow perspective. You're going 'hey, that sounds so nice... they value things in Timor.. I wish we did that..', etc... (Maybe not, but it kind of sounds like it)... But if you take a step back, you'll probably realize that our society is better, in a quality-of-life sense. Yeah, we fuck up. And yeah, maybe we'll fuck up so significantly that it'll kill us all. But so far, technology has been a boon (to those of us pursuing it). I live in Canada, and honestly, there is no place in the world that I would rather live.

It's not the potato that worries me...

[tepp]

Actually, it's not the potato that worries me.

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

The third world brings these problems on.

[slashdot-terminal]

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.

Re:Rule of the technocracy ...

[JohnL]

50% of the world are still impverished

Well, we could impoverish ourselves, and bring everyone down to the same level. We could do what we do now, and give the worst situations a little help. Or, we could actually help poor people around the world, by making birth control a mandatory condition for receiving any aid (after all, why pay people to produce more starving babies?), encouraging private industry to develop in "developing" nations, and demanding certain social standards (not feeding soldiers in the middle of a civil war, making sure that people come before cattle, and not supporting dictatorships).

a large majority don't even have a phone

So? Why not concentrate on helping them pull themselves up to a level where they can afford them?

computers are useless because they can't read

Then they need education, not computers. Walk before you run.

baby boomers waiting for the massive transfer of wealth and anticipate living off the tax-sweat of the next generation of the young

Is grandma on SS really a "technocrat"?

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

Again, if someone thinks that tribal infighting is more important than feeding their family, I see no reason why I should help them. If drug companies didn't make a profit, they wouldn't be able to stay in business, let alone conduct often-fruitless research. Do you think that every time a drug company spends 10 years researching something, any usefull product results? We only hear about the successes, because they are rare.

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

What, exactly, is so "addictive" about American lifestyle? Are people ODing on Dockers and Levis? Are native tribes in the Amazon dying because they can't find a Gap to shop at? If people around the world didn't want to be like Americans, they wouldn't buy our stuff, and we wouldn't bother trying to sell it to them. You know, if someone can't afford something, they don't buy it. That's why McDonalds and Pizza Hut haven't taken over Russia -- most people can't afford it. Are they any worse off for that? If so, am I any worse off because I can't afford $500 to blow at a good resturant?

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,

Which is working to eliminate malaria and yellow fever around the world, mostly in those can't-afford-a-cellphone-and-computer countries that you mentioned earlier. Maybe you should ask them to go back to dying from mosquito bites, and see what they think about it.

nuclear research

Which has led to the demise of quite a few oil and coal-powered electrical plants. I don't know about you, but sulphur dioxide isn't exactly one of my favorite flavors.

We have the moral sense to use technology wisely, and we do. True, not everyone gets the same things at the same time. There isn't any way to ensure "fairness" -- the closest you can get is to make everyone poor. If we spend all of out time and efforts trying to put a computer on every desk and a phone in everyone's hand, we'll never gain anything, for anyone.

Scientific research, funded mostly by private industry, has brought more advances to the poor and downtrodden than anything else. In this case, the glitter of the biotech holy grail is possibly the end of hunger and disease -- no small goal. When the human genome is finally decoded, when the Sahara blooms again, it will be because of those evil, greedy technocrats. Damn them.

interdependence

[jetson123]

If it were only as simple as some evil master plan by a few giant corporations.

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.

Directed != Engineered

[slackergod]

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

Yet another "all technology is good" reply

[Anonymous Coward]

If I proposed that we push the moon out of orbit with the Earth in order to increase the short term yield of crop production evenly over the next, say 100 years, would you be giving me donations to get the project under way or would you rather try to get me to PROVE its effectiveness decisively before making such a DRASTIC change to the earth's environment? Do you think the people of earth should have a say or should I just go ahead and do it on my own if I had the money/technology to do so?

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?

Re:Farmers don't reuse seed...

[retep]

Quite true. I wonder how many of those farmers from India buy seed from big companies though... It's probably less then the number of US farmers who buy seed from those big companies.

Are Genetically-Modified foods kosher?

[B.D.Mills]

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.

Re:I want some 'real' research

[Ichoran]

We do have a very good idea of the long term effects of some genetic modifications. What do you think genetecists have been doing all these years? They don't understand all of it, but does anyone understand all of Linux's code? Are the ones that do the only ones who should modify it? Maybe understanding some of it is good enough.

Life is a modular system. Just because you add, say, a bacterial toxin gene to a plant it doesn't mean that it's going to take over the world--in the same way that adding one program to your 386 is not going to make it outperform an Athlon across the board.

Keep in mind that life has been adapting for a long time and therefore is already pretty close to optimal for natural conditions. It isn't that close for weird conditions, such as are found in your average heavily fertilized agricultural monoculture. Our peculiarly adapted things have a long and glorious history of faring horribly in the wild. (Note the lack of packs of wild poodles overruning the world.) GM allows us to make peculiar adaptations even faster than before.

Rather than being scared of GM in general, then, we have to examine each and every proposed application and consider how that might have an impact. Including pesticides in food is questionable, for some of the reasons the article mentioned. Removing enzymes responsible for breakdown in ripe fruits seems a bit more reasonable.

Prohibiting Labels != Requireing Labels

[bridgette]

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.

Re:Objective proof and references?

[sjames]

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.

Since it hasn't been 'deployed' yet, that'd be a bit difficult. What I presented is an all too likely scenario of potential harm. Monsanto has never shown any evidence that this scenario can't happen. Since they are the ones who want to introduce this new thing into the environment, the burden of proof is supposed to be on them (especially since they are the sole beneficiary of the technology). If it were a new pesticide or industrial chemical, they WOULD be required to provide a study (not as rigorous or detailed as one would like, but nevertheless, a study).

So in that light, I ask, is there any proof that this technology that is meant to benefit ONLY Monsanto will cause no harm in the environment or food supply? I personally don't want to be one of their lab rats.

Petition for labelling

[MikeBabcock]

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.

Re:How do GM strains differ from others

[Mr. Slippery]

Non-GM seed strains are generally developed by subjecting seeds to radiation or mutagenic chemicals...

I've never heard of this. Reference, please.

Genetic engineering techniques do not rely on such scattershot methods - they involve implantation of specific genetic material in the target organism.

But current GM techniques are scattershot! The gene is not inserted carefully into a known place in the plant's genome, but shotgunned into the chromosomes in the hope that it will "take root" somewhere that will produce the desired effects.

Re:Colonialism rears its ugly head

[Mr. Slippery]

Every human on the planet went day to day wondering if they would have enough food the next day

Hmm. My understanding is that hunter-gatherer societies in hospitable climates were able to feed themselves pretty well with only a few hours work per day. Agriculture allowed many more to be fed, but at the cost of more labor being required to feed a person, and a much heavier environmental impact.

Re:Farmers don't reuse seed...

[Mr. Slippery]

The was something based on nicotine that my folks wouldn't let me get within a mile of, and they used masks and changed clothing after using it.

While they require more care during application, isn't it true that nicotine-based pesticides don't build up in the environment the way things like DDT do?

We either increase yield per acre, or learn to live on a cup of rice a day,

In the long run, increasing yield is not a solution, for feeding people or for saving farms.

Every animal expands population in the presence of food surplues. And every increase in production has brought about a fall in prices that keeps the farmer in the same economic position.

Re:genes or chemicals, your pick

[Mr. Slippery]

...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.GM is the least of your worries, I would be far more concerned about the pesticides and fertilizers.

One of the leading uses of GM is to make crops herbicide resistant ("Roundup ready"), so that farmers can actually use chemicals indiscriminately. Another popular use is to make plants actually produce their own pesticides (Bt).

That hardly counts as less chemical use, does it?

Re:Please get your facts straight

[sjames]

Hence, it is almost impossible for an entire field to become cross-pollinated and produce sterile offspring, as you suggest.

You are correct that the entire field scenario is unlikely. The problem is, many of these farmers are just getting by now, combine a bad season with cross-polination, and it could be the difference between marginal success and failure. In any event, it's a risk that farmer 1 did not have a choice in.

To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely nothing about genetically modified DNA that makes it inherently less stable than "regular" DNA.

The DNA itself IS just as stable, but it's position and expression is not. The problem lies in the methodology, and has been a big hinderance to some work in genetic engineering. The 'glow in the dark' tobacco (luciferin gene spliced in) was an experiment to try to determine the circumstances which lead to the problem. In particular, the Terminator takes advantage of the situation in order to produce the 1st generation seed, yet have the second generation non-viable.

No we haven't. Co-evolution is a process driven by natural selection, not the artificial selection which we use on crops.

I was not referring to the breeding process, I was referring to the MUCH (orders of magnitude) longer period before we started breeding the plants (in pre-history). I agree that co-evolution stopped once breeding and cultivation began.

All new technologies have the potential to pose health and safety risks, but this is no reason to avoid all exposure to new technologies.

Agreed. The problem is, I don't see much evidence of conscientious testing or of any standards to enforce. There is also the question or risk/benefit. In the case of terminator, the farmer and consumer get the risk, and only Monsanto would see a benefit. To me, that is unacceptable. In other cases where the equasion is more balanced, it is reasonable to cautiously move forward. The past suggests that agribusiness cannot be counted on to adequately test or to provide sustainable solutions. The USDA is simply going to have to do better (though their past record isn't all that encouraging either, at least they don't have a direct vested interest).