Can't believe: No genetic corn thread?

[Dis]

there is nothing wrong with genetically modified corn.

[Spiffor]

Is it any relevant to talk about famine in Africa when you are talking about GM crops ? I think both things have nothing to do together :

- Africa's agriculture is mostly oriented towards exportation of exotic foods to richer countries, which cannot compete because they don't grow this fruit / vegetables. So, the competition argument sounds ridiculous.

- The world's agriculture production is enough to feed everybody on Earth. The problem is not the production but the distribution of food : food distribution networks suck bigtime in Africa (especially in areas of war, obviously), and the local production of non-fancy foods isn't enough to cope with that.
Again, this is not explained by the lack of GMOs, but by the strategic orientations of the country towards the kind of food produced.
As a side note, chances are the distribution networks of Monsanto seeds will be as bad or worse than the distribution of actual food. I highly doubt the African remote villages (the ones worst hurt with hunger) will ever see one.

- Europe's only direct pressure on Africa in this issue is to reject GMOs it imports. And guess what : Europe doesn't import Manioc, but rather Bananas, Cacao and stuff like that. Should African countries accept to use GMOs for their non-fancy foods, the European market won't even hear about it, since the EU almost only eats homegrown non-fancy food.

Once again, Bush is trying to use the moral high ground to have things his way. I wonder how anybody can fall for it.


As a side note, there is something I don't know :
In the past, Monsanto had installed a gene called "Terminator" in its crops, so that they are unable to reproduce. IIRC, US farmers have yelled very loudly, and "Terminator" was removed. But it was some time ago.
Is it today possible to buy seeds from Monsanto once, and then to replant every day using the natural reproduction of the plant ? Or are they again programmed not to reproduce ?

[Wernazuma III]

Although for myself I wouldn't say genetic food per se must be dangerous to health, because we can all agree that genetic alterations have happened throughout history, there are a few very scary things. Like this potato:

The New Leaf Superior, marketed by the Monsanto corporation since 1995, is engineered to produce the insecticide Bt, or Bacillus thuringiensis, in each one of its cells. Bt kills the Colorado potato beetle, one of the biggest threats to healthy potatoes.
Unfortunately, the pesticidal potatoes are not labeled, so unless you consume only organic potatoes, there's no way to be sure that you're not eating the pesticidal variety. And some scientists say that the long-term effects of eating these potatoes is unknown.

Essentially that means we lost control over whether we want to eat pesticides or not. Not even mentioning people who are allergic!

And about the pesticide/parasites thing: You basically can't apply GE to a crop making it resistant to insect parasites. They even become more vulnerable due to a much lesser biodiversity in their genetic pool. BUT: You can make them easily resistant to certain pesticides from your own company!

Many of the companies behind biotech, in fact, such as Monsanto, DuPont and Novartis, are the same ones that manufacture toxic pesticides.
One of the most popular categories of GE foods are crops that are resistant to pesticides, meaning that more pesticides can be applied.
Monsanto, for example, has created the Roundup Ready soybean, which is engineered to withstand higher doses of Monsanto's Roundup pesticide.

Roundup Ready Cotton by the way caused several crippling crop failures, especially in India and similar things happened to other GE crops too:

http://www.cetos.org/agbioarticles/cropbusting.html

We continue to be told by Monsanto that because only Roundup Ready™ crops are failing and are doing so in an area known as the Delta, climatic conditions are to blame. Even if true, this news is hardly reassuring. It used to be that crops were domesticated for a certain environment. Crops became climatized, restructuring their own genome through natural selection to survive under specific climatic conditions. At the very least, it may be that nature is winning the genetic gamble taking place. Companies like Monsanto are releasing monocultures throughout regions in the country, irrespective of special climate conditions. Nature may be rejecting these transgenic monocultures simply because they are out of synch with the traditional environment.

[Wernazuma III]

Besides, I agree 100% with Spiffor, the problem is distibution, not production.

And people, THIS is also truely sick:

http://www.ghorganics.com/Monsanto%20vs.%20Percy%20Schmeiser.htm

On March 29, 2001, a Canadian judge dealt a crushing blow to Farmers' Rights by ruling that Percy Schmeiser, a third generation Saskatchewan farmer, must pay Monsanto thousands of dollars for violating the corporation's monopoly patent on genetically engineered (GE) canola seed.

Under Canadian patent law, as in the U.S. and many other industrialized countries, it is illegal for farmers to re-use patented seed, or to grow Monsanto's GE seed without signing a licensing agreement. If the biotechnology corporations and U.S. Trade Reps get their way, every nation in the world will be forced to adopt patent laws that make seed saving illegal. The ruling against Schmeiser establishes an even more dangerous precedent because it means that farmers can be forced to pay royalties on GE seeds found on their land, even if they didn't buy the seeds or benefit from them.

Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he obtain the seed illegally. Pollen from genetically engineered canola seeds blew onto his land from neighboring farms. (Percy Schmeiser's neighbors and an estimated 40% of farmers in Western Canada grow GE canola). Monsanto's GE canola genes invaded Schmeiser's farm without his consent. Shortly thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm and took seed samples without his permission. Percy Schmeiser was a victim of genetic pollution from GE crops--but the court says he must now pay Monsanto US$10,000 for licensing fees and up to US$75,000 in profits from his 1998 crop.

The GE canola that drifted onto Schmeiser's farm was engineered to withstand spraying of Monsanto's proprietary weedkiller, Roundup. But Schmeiser did not use Roundup on his canola crop. After all, if Schmeiser had sprayed his crop, the chemical would have killed the majority of his canola plants that were not genetically engineered to tolerate the weedkiller! Schmeiser didn't take advantage of Monsanto's GE technology, but the court ruling says he's guilty of using the seed without a licensing agreement.

Monsanto (acquired by Pharmacia last year) is the world's largest biotechnology corporation. The court ruling has far-reaching implications for farming communities around the world. Last year, Monsanto's GE seed technology was planted on 41.6 million hectares (103 million acres) worldwide. That means Monsanto accounted for 94% of the global area sown to genetically modified seeds in 2000. (Total worldwide area is 44.2 million hectares or 109.2 million acres.)

Thanks in large part to Terminator technology, the Monsanto's name has became synonymous with GE seeds and corporate greed. Although Monsanto disavowed "suicide seeds" in the wake of international public protest, the company has routinely employed Draconian measures to prevent farmers from re-using patented seed, including the use of private police to root out seed-saving farmers, and toll-fee hotlines to encourage rural residents to snitch on their farm neighbors. Monsanto has threatened to "vigorously prosecute" hundreds of cases against seed saving farmers, but Schmeiser's was the first major case to reach the courts. Schmeiser courageously decided to fight back and speak out against bioserfdom.

[uggabugga]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Essentially that means we lost control over whether we want to eat pesticides or not. Not even mentioning people who are allergic!

that's a valid point, and one that the biotech industry will probably eventually have to cave in to (labeling of GM, that is). as for the whole allergy thing, that's not nearly the concern it once was, as the co's involved are now much more cognizant of the potential problems there. embarassingly enough for them, it appears that allergic reactions were not something they really even thought about in the beginning. as for bt toxin, i once drank 1 ml of purified bt toxin on a dare. no probs. it's arthropod-specific.

And about the pesticide/parasites thing: You basically can't apply GE to a crop making it resistant to insect parasites. They even become more vulnerable due to a much lesser biodiversity in their genetic pool.

you could make precisely the same argument about any widely-planted hybrid crop. you can, indeed, apply GM to a crop making it resistant to insects and bacterial/fungal/viral pathogens, that's the whole idea. now if we're talking about a situation where the same (for example) Bt corn is planted across thousands of acres, season after season, that would indeed be asking for trouble in terms of driving the insects in question toward evolving Bt resistance. however, scientists have been aware of this for a long time, which is why they highly recommend seasonal rotations with different types of Bt corn [there are at least 260 different subtypes of Bt toxin (which is, by the way, a naturally occuring product produced by the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis), all of which differ from each other enough that there is no known case of insects developing resistance to more than one at once]

BUT: You can make them easily resistant to certain pesticides from your own company!
quote:
Many of the companies behind biotech, in fact, such as Monsanto, DuPont and Novartis, are the same ones that manufacture toxic pesticides.
One of the most popular categories of GE foods are crops that are resistant to pesticides, meaning that more pesticides can be applied.
Monsanto, for example, has created the Roundup Ready soybean, which is engineered to withstand higher doses of Monsanto's Roundup pesticide.

"toxic pesticides"... hmm, aren't pesticides, by definition, toxic?

kidding aside, this poorly-written quote shows that the writer is uniformed and agenda-driven. roundup ready soybeans arent engineered to 'withstand higher doses' of roundup-- they are engineered to withstand doses of roundup, period. this way, farmers can spray roundup on their fields and kill all the weeds but leave the soybeans intact. still, it is obviously a way for monsanto to sell lots more roundup (which, as far as herbicides go, is pretty innocuous). ideally, the highest goal for biotech should be the complete elimination of the need for any pesticides/herbicides.

Roundup Ready Cotton by the way caused several crippling crop failures, especially in India and similar things happened to other GE crops too:
quote:

http://www.cetos.org/agbioarticles/cropbusting.html

We continue to be told by Monsanto that because only Roundup Ready™ crops are failing and are doing so in an area known as the Delta, climatic conditions are to blame. Even if true, this news is hardly reassuring. It used to be that crops were domesticated for a certain environment. Crops became climatized, restructuring their own genome through natural selection to survive under specific climatic conditions. At the very least, it may be that nature is winning the genetic gamble taking place. Companies like Monsanto are releasing monocultures throughout regions in the country, irrespective of special climate conditions. Nature may be rejecting these transgenic monocultures simply because they are out of synch with the traditional environment.

not certain, but it seems that they may be confusing the indian roundup-ready cotton story with the indian bt cotton story.
nitpicky point, but it's not monsanto that is 'releasing monocultures thoughout regions of the country' - it's the farmers. the same complaints made in the above paragraph could be made about any widely released monocultured crop, so why the animus towards GM in particular?

bottom line is, if the farmers are happy with the performance of the product, they will probably buy it; if not, they won't, and monsanto will take its lumps just like the producer of any other product.



2 very good sites for GM questions, the first for laymen, the second for science geeks:

http://tinyurl.com/fgkk

http://tinyurl.com/fgmh

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have no problem with you being *******s. Just admit it. That's why I like Imran.

Damn straight!

Btw, if we label GM crops doesn't that mean EVERY crop has to be labeled? After all, every crop has been genetically altered somewhat throughout time.

[Az]

I wouldn't mind them being stamped, as long as a fair public debate, free of fearmongering is established. The cheaper prices, ( and the fact that the pro-GM side is right ) will do their job.

[Spiffor]

The problem with stamping GM foods is that we don't have decided yet to what extent GM food should be stamped:

If GM foods are allowed in the EU, they will first be used to grow crops destined to feed cattle. Because the European consumer will be hostile having his food immediately GMed, and because cattle-food is the lowest income sector, and cost reduction will be the most welcome there. Crops destined to produce vegetal fat, also being low-priced, will be turned to GMOs in a blink.

Problem is : all food sold by the agro-industry uses animal or vegetal fat to some extent. As such, every food product in our supermarkets will contain GMOs to some extent, even if it's very small (such as a product made with cow milk, the cow having been fed with GM crops).

Quickly, the whole food chain will have a GMO stamp on it, except for a parallel distribution of "natural" food which will be much more expansive, since it uses non-industrial ways already. Basically, all the already cost-efficient agriculture will convert to GMOs, while the already high-quality agriculture will keep its high ground.

The consumer who gets his food at today's supermarket will be screwed, for all products in the supermarket will have the GM stamp on them. There will be hardly any choice, except if the consumer wants to switch from normal food to high-quality food. And not everybody can afford that.

[VetLegion]

I wouldn't mind them being stamped, as long as a fair public debate, free of fearmongering is established.

I don't know how that can happen. While opponents of GM foods are often quite irrational (we will grow extra legs!aargh), Corporations involved can afford to fund research which back up their claims of GM food being harmless, hell, healthy!

Spiffor, but how will the consumer be screwed? Is it better to live in ignorance..?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I just wish that there will be non-contaminated more expensive non-GMO food to buy in the near future.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by VetLegion
From what I understand, allergies are one of the more visible problems. Some people can for example have allergic reaction on good that has been engineered, and even die. That is why corporations have already withdrawn some products (fear of law suits I guess, not humanism)

You are at FAR greater risk of allergies from new foods discovered, "herbal remedies", etc. than from GM crops, for two reasons: a) genetically engineered foods are EXTENSIVELY tested (FDA regulations require this) for things such as allergies, etc. and b) GM crops are only slightly different from long-established crops, whereas new foods and "herbal remedies" are completely different.

And the most revolting practice in genetic engineering is the self-destructing seed and other methods of rendering plants incapable of reproducing. That shit is so evil it should be forbidden by UN, EU, Pope and everyone else, in the name of Sanity.

"evil"? ummmm.... how is it "evil"?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The problem with stamping GM foods is that we don't have decided yet to what extent GM food should be stamped:

If GM foods are allowed in the EU, they will first be used to grow crops destined to feed cattle. Because the European consumer will be hostile having his food immediately GMed, and because cattle-food is the lowest income sector, and cost reduction will be the most welcome there. Crops destined to produce vegetal fat, also being low-priced, will be turned to GMOs in a blink.

Problem is : all food sold by the agro-industry uses animal or vegetal fat to some extent. As such, every food product in our supermarkets will contain GMOs to some extent, even if it's very small (such as a product made with cow milk, the cow having been fed with GM crops).

Quickly, the whole food chain will have a GMO stamp on it, except for a parallel distribution of "natural" food which will be much more expansive, since it uses non-industrial ways already. Basically, all the already cost-efficient agriculture will convert to GMOs, while the already high-quality agriculture will keep its high ground.

The consumer who gets his food at today's supermarket will be screwed, for all products in the supermarket will have the GM stamp on them. There will be hardly any choice, except if the consumer wants to switch from normal food to high-quality food. And not everybody can afford that.

So? As long as they aren't bad for the person, what's the problem? Just because they have some irrational fear of GM foods?

[VetLegion]

Stuff that is sold as 'homegrown' here is from the suburbs and near the roads (=full of lead), or full of pesticides, or imported from Israel... it can hardly get worse

[VetLegion]

skawalker, errr what is 'new food'? I have never heard of such a thing.

a) genetically engineered foods are EXTENSIVELY tested (FDA regulations require this) for things such as allergies, etc

There is a bacteria in huhmans called 'heliobacteria' or some such. It somehow reacts to DNA of what we eat.. I do not know the details. GM foods are I believe not tested enough, but as far as I'm concerned, no need to test them, just label them.

b) GM crops are only slightly different from long-established crops, whereas new foods and "herbal remedies" are completely different.

how is a tomato that does not rot 'slightly' different from normal tomato?

[Kuciwalker]

Exotic foods, new "natural" species that are discovered. More important are the "herbal remedies".

A tomato is MUCH closer to a tomato that does not rot than a tomato is to a peanut.