Bill Gates says ideology threatens hunger fix

Source: Reuters

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - The fight to end hunger is being hurt by environmentalists who insist that genetically modified crops cannot be used in Africa, Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of software giant Microsoft, said on Thursday.

Gates said GMO crops, fertilizer and chemicals are important tools -- although not the only tools -- to help small farms in Africa boost production.

"This global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two," Gates said in his first address on agriculture made during the annual World Food Prize forum.

"Some people insist on an ideal vision of the environment," Gates said. "They have tried to restrict the spread of biotechnology into sub-Saharan Africa without regard to how much hunger and poverty might be reduced by it."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE59E58120091015

---

Bill must have an investment in Montsanto

never have been opened. Let's not compound the error by opening it wider.

Dumbass.

Trapping impoverished farmers into an endless round of buying chemical fertilizers and pesticides and new seeds every planting season is NOT the answer.

Sustainable agricultural practices in harmony with environmental conditions, saving seeds from each harvest to plant next season, planting a variety of food crops rather than monoculture -- there many ways to create successful farming practices that don't rely on indentured servitude to giant agribusiness corporations.

For centuries the Hopi successfully grew corn and other food crops in the freakin' DESERT because they knew how to honor and work with the ecological conditions of where they live.

The Western model of imposing on and opposing Nature instead of working with Nature is a dead end.

sw

Flood control. Pesticides. Nearly or completely wiping out diseases like Polio.

I don't want my kid to come down with polio. It is opposing 'nature' to want to eliminate such things. So yeah, sign me up for the anti-naturalists.



We don't have to destroy the environment, just because we oppose some of natures more deadly forces.

threatens the 'hunger fix'.

The man whose net worth is probably higher than most whole countries in Africa.

GMOs are not about small farmers, they're about entrenching the food supply more deeply and globally in huge business and removing yet another way that people can actually create their own livelihood, control their own resources.

Fuck you Bill Gates.

Just release the genetic codes of useful GMOs under the GNU Public License.

:D

Imagine the world's poor getting more food while we giggle at Richard Stallman insisting on people calling it GNU/Corn and GNU/Wheat. It'll be great.

Here. There is a reason his foundation doesn't contribute much within his own country.

Do you know Bill Gates personally?

The people in Africa are drinking shitty water when they can get it. Increasing food supply, however, would alleviate starvation. Try to put aside your jealousy for a moment and think about it.

the soils, poison the water and the soils, and don't consign heritage crops to an untimely and ill-advised demise.

Monsatan must be whispering in Bill Gates' ear.

Better yet, why aren't you getting on a plane to go live among them and teach?

The East African
May 31, 2008

Unwitting African countries are being coaxed and coerced to cultivate and consume genetically modified crops in a campaign bankrolled by giant biotech multinationals and executed by cash-rich “scientific” organisations who extol technology as the panacea for the continent’s hunger and low agricultural productivity.

The big-bucks campaign has been picking up steam in East Africa in recent months with one announcement after another being made through compliant media outlets of grandiose initiatives aimed at helping the region’s countries to fight hunger.

The media reports on these initiatives rarely query the role of the global biotech giants nor do they examine the broader agenda behind the big pro-GMO push in African countries. Almost all the reports on the GMO initiatives either explicitly endorse them or end up reproducing without comment the glowingly positive picture painted by the GMO proponents.

As a result, the possible social, economic and health consequence of cultivating and consuming GM “Frankenfoods” are rarely covered. Observers say the uncritical attitude of the media means that it has unwittingly been incorporated into the campaign and has failed to inform millions of African smallholder farmers and their families about the entire truth on GMOs.

http://www.blackherbals.com/biotech_companies_up_gmo_campaign_in_Africa.htm

what dangerous side effects are there? To date: None.
A java plant resistant to the Coffe Borer beetler? To date: none.

IS there a single GMO plant that has been found to harm humans?

The potential environmental dangers are a little more clear, such as possibly turning a former food crop into a choking weed. But harmful to humans? Are there ANY demonstrable side effects yet?


This reminds me of the damn food irradiation debate, which has been effectively lost in the US, and pisses me off to no end.

If it costs money or you starve, then it's not fine. The issue is economic.

We can EASILY fight the latter. Cut Montsanto and others out of the loop, just like the marquee drug companies are cut out by generic drug manufacturers, so people in africa can afford simple medicines they need to survive.

This is an eminently winnable fight. Better if we not cloud it up with murky, unproven fears, while people are starving.

Why not consider my point, since I took the trouble to state it? If Monsanto is willing to allow farmers to keep their seeds, I will be willing to see their good side. Otherwise they are just trying to make a profit on humans suffering.

Sure. I don't disagree with you. Again, this battle has been won against marquee drug companies, in the generic drug market. The patent types are the same. There is no practical difference.

Oppose Montsanto, not GMO crops.

If it fucks them up so what....after all they are black. And we could learn a lot by feeding them a lot of chemicals and stuff.
I hope I don't need the sarcasm thingy.

A single oxygen atom is a chemical. If you can find it on the periodic table of the elements, it's a chemical. So if you think "chemical" is some scary boogeyman of a word that's going to frighten me, you got another thing coming.

Nor do I think Africa is any more ripe for 'experimentation' than any other nation, including my own. I would be perfectly happy with this stuff in stores, just like irradiated foods and all the other advances that have been demonized with concern trolling disguised as psuedo-fear about progress.


We're progressive about human rights, political and economic issues, the envirionment, but oh no, not scientific progress.. what the hell.


I'd eat this stuff. Just like I used to wear a seatbelt before studies proved they save lives. I'd feed GMO crops to not onlt myself, but my kids too. Irradiated food, whatever.

And you are welcome to ingest all the chemicals you want, but I do think you have a duty to see that your children are not ingesting things that may be harmful to them.
And yes pesticides are a chemical and I take it that you would then eat food that has been sprayed with it without washing it because you believe that it won't hurt you....and that is fine for you, but not for your kids...they are not old enough to make that leap of faith.

but I think it is strange to call experimenting with the health of humanity scientific progress....it was the same mind set that led the Germans to gather a lot of data by using prisoners for scientific experments...it did gather a lot of information on science but at what a cost....when you reduce humans to a pile of chemicals you have lost your humanity.

happy to have the work and be able to help their fellow countrymen and women learn the sustainable ways. They don't need another know-it-all American coming into their lives telling them how to live.

Don't have to be American. Value can be measured by effectiveness.

and neocolonial structures.

Neocolonial structure in essence: The "developing" state took (or rather, was forced to take) a "development" loan. To pay (not back, just interests) the state needs foreign currencies, so it needs to export it's natural resources to rich consumer countries that gave the loan. Agriculture is harnessed to plantations of cash crops for overconsumers instead of feeding the local people in sustainable, self-reliant way - as it was before colonial times.

Amazing. It is not necessary for Montsano to be the source of these crops, and Humans have been tinkering with selective breeding of plants for thousands of years. Technically a hybrid is 'genetically modified' by human intervention.

I grow heirlooms myself, but I have the luxury of good soil, water, and I don't have to sustain myself off just my garden, like my life depended on it.

As you say, "I don't have to sustain myself off just my garden, like my life depended on it." Farmers in Africa do.

Look at the progress we've made in getting them cheaper generic drugs.

There's another solution here besides demonizing the core concept of genetically altered crops.

It's important to cut them out of the picture ASAP, but not because GMO crops are inherently dangerous in some way.

Gates is all about Gates, and all about money. His history is clear. And Monstano is all about money, and their history is clear too. If we can study GMO without making it a profit center, I am all for it, as a scientific study, a government run project for the common good. But if somebody needs to make a lot of money to justify the effort, then I am not for it.

But I'm not sure I am as suspicious about Gate's motives.

But by all means, the studies should be ongoing, whether Africa is about to receive these products or not.

Not what invention has improved the comfort or lifespan or mobility or happiness of humankind, but what has improved the Earth.

We have the resources and the knowledge to grow food without using plants that are not natural, fertilizers that are not natural, and herbicides that are not natural. We humans are short-term thinkers, no matter what the folks in Corporate Farming might want you to think. We didn't know 50 years ago that we might imperil the lives of a huge percentage of the oxygen-breathing creatures on this planet, yet we have done that.

We do not know what effect these altered organisms will have on our planet and on its future. Why tinker with that if there's any possibility that it might be the wrong path? Other than jobs and money for a few.

I don't trust man's wisdom or his foresight.

I see flood and erosion control as an improvement. Others will see it as harm to nature. (salmon runs, etc)

There are things we can do, and are doing, right now to conserve the salmon anyway.

fine without flood control for thousands of years because they were aware of the natural flow of rivers. The natural flooding and depositing of silts have been giving us fertile lands and wetlands teeming with plants and animals that have fed us for millenia or hundreds of millenia.

We're "conserving" the salmon now because we have almost harvested them to extinction. Don't get me started on the cod and what we have done to the pelagic species of fish like marlin, bluefin tuna, swordfish, etc.

has always the sense of 'forcing' and 'against', and each fix to control problem creates couple more new problems that need fixing. After a while that sort of lunacy gets very tiresome.

I prefer to work with nature, not to fight against it, because I'm also part of nature and don't see the point of fighting against my self. :)

If kids are meant to die or measles, mumps, or polio, then they should die as nature intended.

You have strange idea about nature - excluding culture from nature. If culture is not part of nature, what's it then - something above nature, "supernatural"?

Genetic therapy is used to treat and sometimes to even eliminate genetic disorders. Should a person who has been modified genetically through genetic therapy be allowed to breed?

I'm sure much of what we can do today would have been "supernatural" many years ago.

"I'm sure much of what we can do today would have been "supernatural" many years ago."

Does this mean that culture is separe from and above subordinate nature? You are not answering my question.

Is that what you are asking?

In some cultures female genital mutilation is part of the culture and promoted. Is that natural? On the other hand, the family unit is natural to raising offspring and promoted by culture so its a multi-layered issue.

So natural = ethical!? World is full of surprises. :)

How about disease, suffering, etc., are they not natural?

Do you disagree?

Better question, is taking action to prevent disease natural?

disagree, in fear of having to engage in a debate.

However, in amiable discussion each participant can present their point of view without fear of being shouted down, so maybe I'm allowed too. My primary understanding of the word 'natural' is that it means all that happens and is, whole of being. From this point of view yes, mutilating organs is natural and so is taking action to prevent disease, all these events happen in this whole of being that we call nature.

Of course cancer is also natural, it just does not behave organically like other organs of an organism, but destroys the organism that it is dependent from - and thus also self-destructs. I think it is fair to say that some human cultures, wholly naturally, behave like cancer tumors. What may be a common feature of such human cultures is that they for some peculiar reason feel separated or excluded from (objectified/ethical etc.) "nature".

"natural" then.

Words can have many meanings. I prefer campfire discussions, sharing various viewpoints to get a fuller picture and comprehension.

:)

Made me thirsty and aint got a drop of whiskey in the house... :D

...so if culture is part of nature, then technology is part of nature too.

The problem with worrying about the "good of the planet" as an abstract thing questions like "good for what?" or "good for whom"? "Good" does not exist without a perspective to evaluate it from.

For all life that exists today, it was a "good thing" an asteroid smacked into the planet about 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs (and a lot of other life). For life already there at the time... eh, not so good.

Even if humans lived in some neo-luddite, grass hut "all-natural" utopia, humans would still be competing with other organisms for natural resources. Some non-human life would be better off without humans, but then again, some non-mouse life would be better off without mice -- everyone is a competitor, and removing a competitor usually benefits someone (perhaps a vole that feeds on much of the same stuff as the mice) while possibly harming someone else (a predator that feeds on mice but might not do as well trying to eat voles).

Rats and roaches and pigeons are probably better off than they would have been without humans. Farms animals (wretched though there condition often might be) exist in far greater numbers than a human-free environment would support.

As for the evolutionary competition, evolutionary co-operation is at least equally important part of the picture. Does human cultural evolution use certain plants and animals or vice versa, plants and animals using human culture to spread their genepool? Best to speak about coevolution. :)

As for Principle of Caution and other manifestation of (intellectual) survival instinct, maybe it's no biggie but I can't deny being still affected.

...as other living organisms, rather than saddling them with some extra burden of guilt or responsibility because of intelligence (which is just another adaptive trait, just like other organisms have), humans aren't doing anything that other organisms haven't done, given the chance: recklessly pursuing their own advancement.

The first cyanobacteria poisoned the whole planet with a thing called "oxygen" that was toxic to most other organisms on the planet at the time. Various photosynthetic organisms have more than once plunged the whole planet into a deep freeze by sucking up a lot of carbon dioxide, producing the reverse of the greenhouse effect. Many smaller scale disasters have occurred over and over again as organisms overfeed and over-reproduce, depleting resources they need themselves, killing themselves off and taking down other parts of the ecosystem in the process.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to use our brains even better than we have to avoid creating disasters -- we should, we imperil ourselves if we don't -- but I get really tired of the whole "Oh, how horrible humans are!!!" crap.

the issue was getting rid of famine. Industrial aggriculture is not the answer, it's the problem - terribly wastefull in energy economy (needs whole technoculture based on fossile fuels to support), poisons the healthy soil, uses up ground water. Green Revolution is a hoax, it has not produced more but less edibles, just more of small variety of cash crops. And it's destroying the natural fertility of soil, the carrying capacity of this planet.

Most effective (per acre, energywise etc.) way to feed people is multilayerd home gardens / forest gardens with lots of variety. Africa is rich with wide variety of edible trees that give huge yield per acre, trees that can be and are being used also to reforest arid environments with great success.

People in Northern Niger were "forgotten" and left in peace for couple decades by UN development specialists and even their own governement, thinking that desertification is unstoppable and those people are doomed anyway. Some litterate guy happened to visit those parts resently and to his amazement found lush forests of edible and other trees, created by ancient gardening technology to which people returned when left in peace by the (colonialist) "developers". They are now doing fine, their newly recreated forest gardens providing food, medicine and firewood in sustainable way.

One species of plant from a GMO production run.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x566874#567020

First link to Scientific American is curious, the article has been deleted. So, using the name attributed:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/GMO-Corn-Causes-Liver--Kidney-Problems-in-Rats-3A-Study-19171-1/

---

"New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity
...
"We observed that after the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase for females. Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also by differential sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased by 24–40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31–35% (week 14, dose 33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to seven diets tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature and extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product."

---

"Genetically modified maize MON863 (MON863), which has passed a safety examination in Japan, is commercially cultivated in the United States as a food and a resource for fuel.
...
We concluded that various maize processed foods on the market were contaminated with MON863.
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/shokueishi/50/3/50_140/_article

---

Maybe there are more out there. But some of what is said in the rat study remind me of similarities to disease processes in humans that I've read of. For one, It appears liver disease is on the increase (nice chart at following URL)
http://www.britishlivertrust.org.uk/home/media-centre/facts-about-liver-disease.aspx

Anyone who favors multiNat corporate profits and monopolies over the health of the planet and the people is seething with hatred for his fellows.

.

Being correct and pragmatic is usually a death sentence around here. ;)

to get cancer or other illnesses that we didn't know were caused by genetically altered food?

Still, it could be safe. Who knows? It hasn't really been studied enough, I think. Not enough time.

But if they want to do that and give it to people who would die otherwise, sure, go ahead, is what I say. They are dying, so they need food. As long as the food doesn't find its way here. Oops. Too late. It's here already, isn't it?

Agriculture to fuel livelihood. How about a GMO version of the cotton plant that is resistant to the Jewel Beetle? Or maybe a companion crop who's presence acts like a pesticide?

Companion plants are age old gardening skills.

GMO resistance against this or that are very short term solutions, as unwanted species evolve fast and overcome the technoresistance, which is likely to create few more "unpredictable" problems to solve.

Long term solution is the same'o same'o biodiversity, instead of monocultures multicultures, lots of different varieties with nature taking care of balanced resistance and leaving us spare time to spend time with family and friends and hobbies instead of fighting against nature with all our (self-destructive) "might".

I am sort of new to this subject but from what little I have read these crops CAN cause severe harm to local crops.

A little debate about the science here would be useful, at least for me, to form a reasoned opinion.

Right now instead of tearing apart we should be looking at the scince (and not just corporofascist propaganda and PR)

Gates might be misinformed. sold out, or on to something important.

It is not necessarily either or though.

If the GMO crops threaten humanity and the environment we NEED to know - and to what extent the dangers go

I don't think we can trust Gates or Monsanto or some dweebs on DU to tell the difference

details

links

studies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_OJcPKEYDE

I don't have time to watch it again... but the take-home message is GMOs have not been adequately tested for safety, they fuck up the local economy wherever they have been introduced and Monsanto aggressively stalks, discredits and has fired any scientist who even vaguely criticizes them.

:puke:

And they do not give a damn about the consequences

Gates, you are one of them

....hey billie, there are other ways to reduce hunger and poverty....we could start by spreading the worlds' resources around more fairly....we could start with a few hundred billion from you and your friends....how does 91% top tax bracket sound?

So did Warren Buffett.

How much have you tossed in the kitty?

And that he can use to invest in himself and his friends....they never just give it away.

Gates has given it $26 billion, for which he received an 8.3% tax deduction on the donated sums. Warren Buffett has pledged to donate almost all of his fortune to the foundation as well...more than 90% of his worth.

The foundation is run by a trust. Bill and Melinda Gates created "mission statement" high-level directions for the foundation's charities, but the actual granting decisions and operations are undertaken by an independent trust in which the Gates do not have executive authority.

The foundation has a great record so far in global economic development in underprivileged countries, and global health initiatives. Among other projects, they are spending money hand over fist, especially in Africa, to bring basic services and medical care to those who have none.

See for yourself. Here's the website. After that, google up the foundation's name. Except for some crackpot blogs, you'll find nearly universal acclaim.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/programs/Pages/overview.aspx

In both the Gates' case and Buffet's case, I do think they've decided to "just give it away." That's what they've said they would do, and so far, actions have matched words. Seriously, after your first billion, what else is left but philanthropy anyway?

I may not have a billion to throw in a foundation, but I do feel a responsibility to recognize and support good works, and this meets my standard.

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that it is paying for inoculations to protect health, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.

Indeed, local leaders blame oil development for fostering some of the very afflictions that the foundation combats.

Like most philanthropies, the Gates Foundation gives away at least 5 percent of its worth every year, andthus avoids paying most taxes. In 2005, it granted nearly $1.4 billion. It awards grants mainly in support of global health initiatives, for efforts to improve public education in the United States and for social-welfare programs in the Pacific Northwest.

It invests the other 95 percent of its worth. This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune. Monica Harrington, a senior policy officer at the foundation, said the investment managers had one goal: returns "that will allow for the continued funding of foundation programs and grant making." Bill and Melinda Gates require the managers to keep a highly diversified portfolio, but make no specific directives.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003513256_gates070.html



Bill Gates' Guinea Pigs
The Gates Foundation wants to remake American education, and ground zero for their billion-dollar experiment is Mountlake Terrace High School. Results so far? It's been a learning experience.

"The last five years, though, have been anything but average. Mountlake Terrace and its staff and students have been guinea pigs for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Small Schools project. It is the first suburban high school in the nation to go through a wrenching top-to-bottom transformation process that has been hailed as both the salvation of our failing public education system and a crucial step on the road to sustained economic success for America. Success or failure at Mountlake Terrace will play a pivotal role in the future of this high-powered and monumental effort to reimagine a major social and educational institution: the American public high school.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-07-20/news/bill-gates-guinea-pigs/


Unintended victims of Gates Foundation generosity


In 2000, the Gates Foundation joined with the drug firm Merck & Co. and chose Botswana as a test case for a $100-million effort to prove that mass AIDS treatment and prevention could succeed in Africa.

Botswana is a well-governed, stable democracy with a small population and a relatively high living standard, but one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world.

By 2005, health expenditures per capita in Botswana, boosted by the Gates donations, were six times the average for Africa and 21 times the amount spent in Rwanda.

Deaths from AIDS fell sharply.

But AIDS prevention largely failed. HIV continued to spread at an alarming pace. A quarter of all adults were infected in 2003, and the rate was still that high in 2005, according to the U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS. In a 2005 survey, just one in 10 adults could say how to prevent sexual transmission of HIV, despite education programs.

Meanwhile, the rate of pregnancy-related maternal deaths nearly quadrupled and the child mortality rate rose dramatically. Despite improvements in AIDS treatment, life expectancy in Botswana rose just marginally, from 41.1 years in 2000 to 41.5 years in 2005.

Dean Jamison, a health economist who was editor of Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries, a Gates Foundation-funded reference book, blamed the pressing needs of Botswana's AIDS patients. But he added that the Gates Foundation effort, with its tight focus on the epidemic, may have contributed to the broader health crisis by drawing the nation's top clinicians away from primary care and child health.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates16dec16,0,6256166,full.story?coll=la-home-center


Liar, Scoundrel?
By Rick Anderson
Thursday, Jun. 7 2007 @ 10:12AM

The way medical researcher John Buse recalled it yesterday, the lead researcher at pharma giant SmithKlineBeecham (now GlaxoSmithKline) called him a "liar" and said he was a "scoundrel" for questioning the risks of a diabetes drug, Avandia, the company was pushing.

The researcher who maligned and threatened him eight years ago was Dr. Tadataka Yamada, now the director (since 2006) of global health for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle.

Buse was testifying at a House hearing in D.C. where lawmakers are probing how Avandia and other drugs get onto the market without proper warnings of their hazards.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2007/06/liar_scoundrel.php

crops, we have a reboot. He is part of the forcing of GM on indigenous populations. And the screwing of long climatized strains.

AND he's no dummy, he's a true blue multi billionaire capitalistic NWO kind of guy. This absolutely solidifies my thinkings about him. :thumbsdown:

trans-species genetic engineering has about as much in common with conventional breeding techniques as removing a splinter does with brain surgery.

...GM crops can kill you and Vista can kill your computer. No wonder Gates doesn't have a clue.

Just how will Africa benefit from using seed that is modified so much that it is good for only one growing season? That must be bought from companies like Monsanto? That can and will contaminate other nearby growing crops?

Some scientists are now posing a theory that GM crops are what's killing the honey bees. They cannot digest the GM pollen.

I don't buy Gates is that stupid.

Gates makes it sound like tree huggers are all about environment not people. It is not just Monarch butterflies and frogs(although important too).

How about all the health risks to people????.......a little bit below of one of MANY health articles at naturalnews.com about GMOs.......also be aware that in USA, just because a product is labeled 'organic' doesnt mean it necessarily is not GM! oh yeah even the creepy FDA was against GMO spread-should say something

FROM NATURAL NEWS______________________________________________________________________________
In the United States, about 24 farmers reported that their pigs became sterile after consuming genetically modified corn.
Genetically modified corn and cotton, purposely engineered to create their own built-in pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), have been indicted in several studies to provoke intense allergic and immune reactions and death. Since the levels of Bt produced in the plant represent thousands of times more a concentration of Bt than natural Bt spray, the effects are greatly amplified. Shepherds whose sheep grazed on Bt cotton after harvest witnessed thousands of their sheep die. Post mortem examinations revealed severe irritation and black patches in the intestines and liver, as well as enlarged bile ducts. All sheep fed the Bt cotton eventually died within 30 days while those that grazed on natural cotton remained healthy.
Bt corn was also responsible for the deaths of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chicken in both Germany and the Philippines.
Genetically modified tomatoes fed to rats were shown to cause bleeding stomachs and eventually killed many of the rats.

These are just a few examples of the many catastrophic effects of using genetically modified organisms as food.

Probably the worst finding in the AAEM report is the fact that GMOs can live and reproduce in the intestinal flora of the body long after being eaten. The genes present in the genetically modified organisms transfer into the DNA of intestinal bacteria, the good bacteria that digests food and maintains bodily health. This reprogramming can cause the intestinal flora to begin reproducing Bt pesticides, for example, rather than producing the living bacteria it is supposed to. The permanent, deadly implications of these alterations are mind boggling since intestinal flora is crucial for life.

Despite consensus from most FDA scientists in the early '90s declaring that genetically modified foods are inherently dangerous and could lead to all sorts of serious health problems, politics won out as mandates were given from Washington to promote biotechnology and GMOs in spite of apparent and obvious dangers.

I like seedless grapes and oranges. I am sure they had to have been genetically modified

They've both been around far longer than biotech. As for the argument, "people have been modifying plants for generations", well that's not what's meant by a GMO and and trying to imply it is is dishonest. Not sure that's what you're implying, but no one who is anti-GM is against creating better strains of plants, they are against GMO technology. You don't need GM to make something seedless - just selectively breed until fewer and fewer seeds are produced.

Many deadly conditions have been helped or eliminated with genetic therapy. Should they be allowed to breed?

eugenics you are asking about. So how about brand new breed of GM race of humans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

I had a close friend who had this done for an immune disorder with good results.

the "should they be allowed to breed?" question. Sterilizing "defected" races, classes and what not was quite common eugenics not so long ago.

What can I say? I'm not really into universal moral codes or "shoulds" from "is". Maybe, if could agree on some ethical axiom, we could try to deduce from it a should or should not, but I'm not sure I'm interested. As the practice goes here, parents are informed of certain genetic risks and they decide if they want to give birth or abort. Fine by me.

I meant after they've been genetically modified. Isn't that the same argument as with GMO crops that their breeding could pollute the natural gene pool?

Do you know how plants breed? It doesn't start with candle lit dinner, comparing medical histories... ;)

Your analogy limps, badly. :)

Gene therapy is becoming more and more widespread in its use. Should it be limited? Also, we're not just talking about breeding here. Human genetic material can be picked up by virii, bacteria, and even mosquitoes (see swine flu for how virii can get bits and pieces). Ever read I Am Legend?

I'm not into universal moral codes and shoulds from is, not my cup of tea. :)

My axe grinds with whole industrial farming and GM as part of the industrial (self-)destruction. Call me fool or worried dad, I just don't think (self-)destruction is that smart.

As for gene therapy, I'm fully open to the possibility that also some of shamanistic healing happens at genetic level - which is natural in holistic healing in holographic nature where there is no strict separation but correspondance between macro and micro levels.

No, havent read I Am Legend.

Voluntary gene therapy IS NOT EUGENICS!!! Calling it eugenics is Godwinizing BS.

I like to think of myself as at least part humanatarian and I don't like the idea of suffering for any goup or individual, but I am also more interested in fact based solutions, so -

If we allow GMO crops to dominate food supplies, do we not risk exponential population growth and consumption which bears a great dependance liability? Do we bar GMO crops and work to preserve and improvise holistic farming techniques to help sustain current populations, but leave the hungry to thier own demise?

I grew up farming. I watched my family move away from pesticides and take up the organic cause. I feel better about the foods we supplied to the surrounding communities and I have a fear that we risk much when we allow experimentation in GMO food crops without long term review. I'm not claiming nature to be perfect, but that is the environment from which we came and to change nature, we will change ourselves for good or worse.

"If we allow GMO crops to dominate food supplies, do we not risk exponential population growth and consumption which bears a great dependance liability?"

No, we guarantee worsening famine, GMO crops dont solve famine, they make it worse. Let's not try to teach Mother Nature what she knows best.

"Do we bar GMO crops and work to preserve and improvise holistic farming techniques to help sustain current populations, but leave the hungry to thier own demise?"

Yes, leave the hungry to their own demise (ie. rob them them no more so some may overeat themselves sick) and let them preserve and improvise their own holistic gardening skills.

But I'm a Biotech major, so what do I know? Certainly the luddites understand it so much better than I do! :sarcasm:

Most corn crops have been contaminated by GMO-also soy. Remember the farmer in Canada who lost a lawsuit because his field had been contaminated by Monsanto's GMO field? I remember reading how farms in India were being pressured to introduce GMO rice. Yeah, right, it was going to be more nutritious-how about if the plant does not easily digest and absorb into the body. Instead of collecting seeds for the next planting, you are forced to buy seeds, and special fertilizer and pesticide to go with GMO seeds? How much can a poor farmer afford?

While going to UC Davis, I had a friend who majored in genetics. This was back in the early 90's. We had a discussion on genetic ethics. One thing I remember her saying is that you can modify a plant genetically to introduce various things. You can modify a plant to introduce things that are harmful to humans--once it is in the food supply it can have a devastating affect on certain populations. Now, I don't know if that is true, but when our corn supply, as well as, that supply in the countries south of us are mostly contaminated by GMO, I don't think that is a good thing.

So, those who defend GMO plants, good on ya, but the choice is taken away from those who do not support using GMO, just by contamination, especially contamination of non-GMO crops.

They support mass population control, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that he wants poor people to eat what could poison them. He also said last month he supports and wants to fund weather controlling research. He is a very evil and dangerous man.