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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.