Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

India suspends first GM food crop on safety grounds

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 07:45 AM
Original message
India suspends first GM food crop on safety grounds
Source: BBC

India has halted the cultivation of what would have been its first genetically modified (GM) vegetable crop because of safety concerns.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said more studies were needed to ensure genetically modified aubergines were safe for consumption. "Public sentiment is negative. It is my duty to adopt a cautious approach," Mr Ramesh said.

He said the moratorium on growing BT brinjal - as the variety of aubergine is known in India - would remain in place until tests were carried out "to the satisfaction of everyone".

The BBC's Geeta Pandey who was at the news conference in Delhi says it appears Mr Ramesh has put any cultivation of GM vegetables in India on hold indefinitely.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8506047.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. THANK HEAVENS
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 07:55 AM by SpiralHawk
In the years ahead, occult (unlabeled) genetically mutant food will be a MASSIVE story around the globe.

This unlabeled food-facsimile crapola substance is everywhere -- and the true consequences are UNKNOWN.

But the ugly realities of what Genetically Mutant products are doing to soil, plants, animals, and human beings are slowly starting to seep out.

Eventually, there will be an ugly Tsunami of genetically mutant consequences.

Use common sense: avoid corporate (R) mutant food-facsimile substance.

Be conservative - eat clean food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Be intellectually honest -- don't call it mutant.
The smart thing to do would probably be to avoid genetically modified food until it had a proven history.

But the potential benefits of such crops are large enough that being reactionary about it is particularly unhelpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. The potential harm of such crops is so vast, that the word mutant hardly
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 09:34 AM by SpiralHawk
begins to describe the case...

I am sure the bloggers of the future will find far more accurately pejorative terms to describe the mutant food-facsimile substances that corporate (R) interests are occultly shoving down the gullets of the world's peoples.

In the meantime, I make no apologies for being INTELLECTUALLY ACCURATE AND HONEST by calling mutant crap out as mutant crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Well, words mean things.
If you want to use inaccurate ones to advance your own opinions, well, as a progressive I can't get behind that. If you can't win the argument honestly, you shouldn't be in it. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. How is calling it mutant crap intellectually honest?
Everything you eat is a product of mutation and selective breeding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. It's the truth. The ugly, mutant truth. Deal with it.

I am unable to find it this morning, and I've got deadlines to meet, but before moving on I want to mention having recently read a specific report on a study showing that GMO crops cause mutation in soil organisms -- giving rise to 'novel' life forms in the soil. Those 'novel' life forms, which you and corporate (R) agronomists want everyone to merrily unthinkingly swallow under the claim that they will have no impact on the future health of human beings and their generations of children, are mutant. These genetically mutant entities live not only in the soil, but in your intestines.

Swallow the corporate propaganda if you wish, and the genetically mutant foods, too. That's your right. I choose clean food, and I am secure in my intellectual integrity.

Perhaps someone with more time can dig up the link on the report I reference -- or perhaps when my deadlines have come and gone I will re-visit.

Bon mutant appetite. - SH


These are not the report I reference, but are related...
------------
"given the nature of plants and the methods of genetic modification used, raises many other significant issues outside the realm of conventional pesticides that EPA has not fully addressed. Compared to conventional pesticides, plants genetically engineered to produce pesticides make risk assessment much more complex. As living engineered organisms, they reproduce and spread their DNA by wind or insect pollination, are extremely difficult to trace, and are impossible to recall.7 It can also be nearly impossible to fully identify how a crop has been modified, since gene insertion may result in unintended changes to an organism’s DNA.8 Some of those modifications may not become known until subsequent generations.

The methods of genetic modification are also highly problematic, despite the industry’s best efforts to downplay all the things that can go wrong when a gene from a distant or foreign species is inserted into a plant. For example, Stewart A. Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy, writes that when such a foreign introduction is made into the plant (”transgenesis”), it throws an entirely new component into the biological mix.

http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2009/10/20/epas-flawed-regulation-of-gmos-examined/

-----
The Devastating Effects of GMOs on the Future of Soil
Written by Dr. Gregory Damato, Wellness Uncovered
Saturday, 07 March 2009 20:02

A recent study was conducted in Vidharbha, India to determine the effect of Bt (Bacillius thuringiensis) cotton on the microbial population of various soil micro-organisms. The results indicated a significant decline in total microbial biomass in the Bt soil. If current trends continue, the researcher estimated that 6.7 million hectares of planted Bt transgenic crops in India were in danger of becoming sterile and unable to grown anything within the next 10 years.

http://www.wellnessuncovered.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:the-devastating-effects-of-gmos-on-the-future-of-soil&catid=34:articles-on-gmo-safety&Itemid=15
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. Like people who've had gene therapy, mutants. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #26
64. FYI, Debohah Koons Next Flick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
147. Um. You're linking to pseudo-science sites to back up your claims?
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 03:24 PM by JoeyT
I do love how questioning your (incorrect) use of a single word rapidly turned into my support for...well...anything really. (I'm not a fan of GMOs, by the way. I certainly don't think they should be used without extensive peer reviewed testing.)
I was merely pointing out that "mutant" is a pretty unimportant word. Mutations occur constantly and naturally on quite a regular basis.
It turns out you've just got no interest in actual science or using scientific terms properly.
Linking to a website full of known liars doesn't further your cause any.

The reactions are fun though.
*poke*
"SHILL!"

Edited to add: By the way, this is also on one of the sites you linked to: http://www.wellnessuncovered.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=14&Itemid=54

And I quote: "HealthLink chip carries an RFID number that can be used as both money and proof of ID) or as part of President Obama’s secret Nazi plan to enslave America."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
44. Yes but unless there's a way to make a plant resistant to a specific brand of herbicide
or getting genes of animals into plants, equating what they're doing in the labs with what is done by selective breeding is disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #44
132. Selective breeding can do those things as well.
It'd just take far more time and money.

So it's not really disingenuous.

There isn't anything that a genetic engineering does that does not occur more slowly and randomly in nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #132
167. Except that "selective breeding" does NOT....
...have the potential for a catastrophic world wide disaster.
Failures in selective breeding will be local and contained....by your own definition!

"It'd just take far more time"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #167
168. It's got as much potential for a catastrophic world wide disaster as GMOs.
"Failures in selective breeding will be local and contained....by your own definition!"

Um, no they won't. Consider all of the invasive species in the world. Now how many are GMOs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duende azul Donating Member (608 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #168
175. You still don't get it.
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 08:57 PM by Duende azul
The catastrophic results of invasive species just show what happens if new elements are introduced to an unadaptable system.

See Chestnut blight or Dutch elm disease for examples.
Most of these catastrophic events are unintended consequences of human action. So be it.
With GMO we will go down that road on a faster pace.

To advocate for experimental GMO introduction is like advocating for brain surgery with a chainsaw. When you still have no clue how the brain really works and possibly not even a fucking idea how your chainsaw operates. But let's just do it and see what happens.

You fault the people in India not to be happy about a fucking foreign corporation that wants to manipulate one of there main crops?
Without any control for them about the process or the results?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #168
177. Oh, I am SO glad YOU went there!
YES. Lets take a look at "invasive species".

Here is a GREAT example:

In December 1956 Professor Warrik Kerr of Brazil succeeded in bringing 54 living queen bees from Africa to Sal Palo Brazil in hopes of increasing the honey production of Brazil (Brazil was 27th in the world for honey production). When it was found that the African bees were too fierce to be handled safely he began a breeding program with European bees to hopefully bread out the fierce aggressiveness but keep the large honey production.

During the program a number of African queens were mistakenly released in October 1957. The African bees began to take over in Brazil. In 1967 an attack in Rio brought the bees to the attention of the world. Over the next twenty years the bees spread over Southern and Central America and reached the United States by the late eighties.


This "experiment" was conducted by a "scientist" using all "scientific" precautions.
His containment was 100%...no chance that these African Bees could escape...but they did.
No one (Corporation or Scientist) can account for ALL possible contingencies.
(A new worker with some experience in bee keeping deliberately removed the mesh screens under the delusion that he was doing the right thing.)

NOW, we have to deal with an "invasive species" generated by a "scientist" researching increasing production through selective breeding.
It has taken 50 years for this invasive species to migrate to our area.

We are Bee Keepers, and we are BEHIND the Africanized Line, yet we have no problems with Africanization in our colonies(so far). We have has YEARS to study the situation and develop strategies to deal with problem.

The Africanized Honey Bee is certainly a BIG problem for a lot of people, but NOT a "Global Catastrophe."
This is the product of some relative low powered Selective Breeding.
Can you even begin to comprehend (or admit) the potential for damage from creating NEW "Invasive Species" that are alien to ANYTHING the World has ever seen?
AND releasing these NEW "Invasive Species" through a global Corporate network with NO POSSIBILITY of containment?

The point is:
Every Single GM Crop IS a Brand New "Invasive Species".

Thank You for "going there"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #177
178. Yet you don't see people freaking out about selectively bred crops, do you?
No, of course not.

"Every Single GM Crop IS a Brand New "Invasive Species"."

Horseshit. GM crops aren't even new species, let alone invasive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #178
181. Horse shit back to ya!
Selective breeding is a WORLD of difference from "transplanting or splicing genes from one species into the cells of a host organism of a different species. Such DNA becomes part of the host's genetic makeup and is replicated."

The products from gene splicing are INDEED new life forms never before seen on Planet Earth.

Selective Breeding has some very specific limits impose by nature.

I will stand with my original statement:
"Every Single GM Crop IS a Brand New "Invasive Species".

Oh, and let me repeat,
Horse shit back to ya!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #181
182. Yeah, you're not getting it.
"Selective breeding is a WORLD of difference from "transplanting or splicing genes from one species into the cells of a host organism of a different species. Such DNA becomes part of the host's genetic makeup and is replicated."

No, not really.

"The products from gene splicing are INDEED new life forms never before seen on Planet Earth."

So are the products of selective breeding. They're new life forms never before seen on Planet Earth. Neither involve new species.

Ergo- "Every Single GM Crop IS a Brand New "Invasive Species" in unequivocal horseshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #182
191. Oh I "get it" alright...
There are Billions to be made and Global Markets to corner.

What could possibly go wrong?

Go ask Professor Warrik Kerr of Brazil, the "scientist" who gave America the Africanized Honey Bee. THAT was Perfectly SAFE too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #191
197. There's billions to be made from all kinds of agriculture.
Organic farming, for example.

"Go ask Professor Warrik Kerr of Brazil, the "scientist" who gave America the Africanized Honey Bee."

Africanized honey bees, as you pointed out, are 100% organic. No GM involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #197
199. Aren't YOU the one insisting that...
Edited on Wed Feb-10-10 03:13 PM by bvar22
Selective Breeding is the same thing as Genetic Modification?...that it is only a matter of an accelerated time frame?
.
.
.
.
Why YES. It IS you.



I am not against GM Research.
There is potential for great good for humanity.
There is also the potential for GREAT harm on a Global scale.

One thing I know for SURE.
In the deregulated environment of Wild West Global Capitalism, I don't trust For Profit Global Corporations to provide adequate, effective oversight and consumer protection, especially in the 3rd World.
Nobody should trust them.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #199
200. Right, bvar22.
Are you insinuating that selective breeding and selectively bred organisms should be curtailed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #200
201. Now you are turning in ever tightening circles.
My suggestion to you is to simply go back and re-read my posts.
I have been consistent and clear in my position.

Thanks for the tips.
Since Gene Splicing and Selective breeding are the same,
I am going to put a tomato in a box with an arctic fish,
let them breed,
and then get a red fish with seeds, and a tomato that won't freeze.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #201
202. Are you familiar with a topic called "horizontal gene transfer?"
Yes? No?

It occurs in nature all the time. That's why you've got genes from other organisms in your own DNA.

It's not essential for selective breeding. But mutation is. So you're still ending up with new genes that "never existed in nature before."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #202
203. I am not arguing against "Science".
There is the potential for great benefits for humanity.
Do you deny that there is also the potential for GREAT harm? (one can not exist without the other).

I do NOT trust Global corporations like Monsanto to provide effective oversight and consumer protections, or to prioritize safety over profits.
They have demonstrated their inability to do so.

Until there is an effective Global agency with the ability to provide oversight and safeguards, and provide bullet proof containment when the inevitable mistakes and "unintended consequences" occur, I oppose the unrestricted global distribution of the products from these practices.

I consider your unrestrained promotion of these practices to be reckless, and an invitation to disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #203
204. You didn't answer the question.
"Do you deny that there is also the potential for GREAT harm?"

In a highly unusual essentially sci fi scenario sure. But no more than via selective breeding, or just the random mutation that goes on in nature every day.

"I am not arguing against "Science". I do NOT trust Global corporations like Monsanto to provide effective oversight and consumer protections, or to prioritize safety over profits.
They have demonstrated their inability to do so."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is the common fallback position with all the anti-GM luddites. They spend all their time ranting against the fundamental evils of GMOs, then when backed into the corner they claim that their real problem is with the business practices of Monsanto.

"I consider your unrestrained promotion of these practices to be reckless, and an invitation to disaster."

I consider your uneducated complaints against GMOs to be an invitation to ignorance, scientific illiteracy, and intellectual dishonesty, and the moral equivalent of the anti-stem cell goofballs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duende azul Donating Member (608 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #132
174. Time matters.
At least if you have a minimal interest in stability of the respective local/regional ecosystems and thus conditions of human existence.

The "more slowly" in your response is one crucial point that differentiates natural change from the genetic engineering approach.
More slowly means time to adapt for the fellow inhabitants of the system.

And the natural process is not motivated by the factor you thankfully mention in your first line: Money.

There seems to be no topic you wouldn't be found on the corporate side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #174
179. Not really.
More slowly means time to adapt for the fellow inhabitants of the system."

No, it simply delays the inevitable. Furthermore, GM is controlled while other methods rely heavily on random chance.

There seems to be no topic you wouldn't be found on the corporate side.
"And the natural process is not motivated by the factor you thankfully mention in your first line: Money.

There seems to be no topic you wouldn't be found on the corporate side. "

1. I always side with scientific illiteracy.

2. You think traditional selective breeders aren't just as motivated by money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #179
185. And boy is that bit true ...
>> There seems to be no topic you wouldn't be found on the corporate side. "
>
> 1. I always side with scientific illiteracy.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #185
194. Nice Catch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #185
198. Indeed, nice catch.
I always side with scientific literacy, against scientific illiteracy.

It's not hard to find me making a typo. Good luck challenging me on the science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
146. I agree.
I was just objecting to the word "mutant".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. Like gene therapy for people, it must be banned. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
89. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #89
99. Could be....
Gene therapy has multiple applications currently regarding human diseases including cancer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #89
149. it may be that already happened
ergo . . .

Where there's a monster and a castle there are always villagers with torches and pitchforks. The thing I like best about them is they're chewy on the outside and crunchy in the middle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. You think putting arctic fish genes into tomatoes is not mutant food?
That was one of Monsanto's experiments--to create a tomato that survives freezes, by injecting tomato DNA with DNA from fish that contain a sort of anti-freeze.

Do you have any idea what the consequences of that could be? And how will we ever know with Monsanto & brethren running the government?

"The smart thing to do would probably be to avoid genetically modified food until it had a proven history."

I don't think you understand the complexities of the Frankenfood industry and Frankencrop agriculture, nor the history of egregious corporate irresponsibility and crime on poisoning of the environment. GMO corn is everywhere--in virtually every processed food that you eat. HOW do you avoid it "until it has a proven history"? And what is a "proven history" in Monsanto's view and in the view of its lackeys in our government? People don't drop dead from eating it over a ten year period? Meanwhile, we lose the bee population of earth--because GMO crops and pesticides go together--but that doesn't count because it's in year eleven? What is Monsanto going to do now--create an artificial bee?

GMOs and pesticides are already "drifting." Do you know what that means? The damage is ALREADY DONE. Organic crops and all of surrounding wild nature have ALREADY been poisoned in many areas of the planet.

You cannot "avoid" them.

We are talking about a radical new kind of corporate pollution--pollution of the very matrix of life, the DNA of food--combined with vast poisoning of the environment in a number of other ways, and vast powermongering, bullying and profiteering, over which there is virtually no democratic control.

We should cheer every time a sovereign government, in the interest of its sovereign people, fights off these global corporate food predators. It takes tremendous courage and tremendous work on democratic institutions to be able to do that.

And, believe me, "mutant" food is a mild adjective to describe what this evil GMO industry is about. What they are doing to organic food production and farmers worldwide could mean, not just poisoning of the environment, but the end of the environment and of us.

Ten years ago, the World Wildlife Fund gave us 50 years at present levels of pollution and consumption--50 years to the DEATH of planet earth! Vast use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the tanker and other transportation associated with the global corporate food industry, are among the contributors to that mindboggling murder of all life on earth. We need to stop this industry from destroying the food chain itself, and from destroying the earth itself, by sourcing our food LOCALLY and by working on our DEMOCRACY to be able to break up their monopolies and their untoward power over our government.

"But the potential benefits of such crops are large enough that being reactionary about it is particularly unhelpful."

That is pure global corporate predator propaganda, and your description of resistance to these predators as "reactionary" is an interesting revelation of just how radical these global corporate predators are. They are RADICALLY changing the food production and distribution system that has fed human beings for over ten thousand years. They are RADICALLY attacking the sovereign relationship between people and land--the very basis of democracy, that it is not the "king" any more who protects the land, but the people as the sovereign entity. If we lose that relationship--our sovereignty over the land--to global corporate predators, we lose everything.

And THAT is what these global corporations are about--power, control, profiteering--NOT feeding people. A corporation that pushes "terminator seeds" is not about feeding people. A corporation that pushes pesticides is not about feeding people. It is about enslaving farmers to their products, driving small farmers out of business in favor of Big Poisonous Corporate Farms, and addicting people to their artificial food products, creating nations of fat, diabetic 'couch potatoes.' This global corporate predation is not about benefiting anyone except the super-rich, who are loyal to no country and no people--they are loyal to MONEY.

"Reactionary"? Damn straight. But that more accurately describes the suicides of tens of thousands of farmers in India, who have seen their life's work of organic farming, and their parents' life work, and their grandparents' life work and their children's future life work destroyed by the dumping of U.S. corporate agricultural products on their markets. That is a reaction to this horror. A more accurate word for the living is "conservative." True conservative--as in conservation of the Earth and its matrix of life.

It is one of the more painful ironies of our time that RADICAL global corporate predators have been able to front their RADICALLY destructive activities as "conservative." They are hardly that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. We really need to ban any gene therapy for people especially
since that has the most vectors for disease to spread to the general population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
51. You can eat all the GMO food you want.
And you can also be the first in line for the Swine Flu vaccine.

And I'll be happy to decide for my self whatever so called "Gene Therapy" I may need, if ever.

Get back to DLC Headquarters and get some better talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. But how do I avoid the bacteria that have picked up genes from GM people?
:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
60. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
131. +++1000 what you said
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. Do you know what the word, "Mutant" means?
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 10:13 AM by Kittycat
If you did, then you would know that GMO seed is exactly that - mutant.

mu·tant (mytnt)
n.
1. An individual, organism, or new genetic character arising or resulting from mutation.
2. Slang One that is suggestive of a genetic mutant, as in bizarre appearance or inaptitude.
adj.
1. Resulting from or undergoing mutation: a mutant strain of bacteria.
2. Slang Suggestive of a genetic mutant.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutant

And BTW - for home gardeners, I highly recommend Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds. They offer GMO free seeds (incl. corn) and seed varieties from heirloom seed vs. manufactured and modified (mutant) seed. My home garden is so abundant, that when it's in season - we can begin to eat it all, and give much away to neighbors. Just remember to plant things like Russian Sage, Salvia, Lilac, Lavender, and purple flowering Oregano on your lot to ensure plenty of honey bees visit. The first year we had very few bees, the second it increased, and last year they were every where (very friendly too, if you don't disturb them - the boys and I have never been stung).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
55. Mutant is the perfect word for them

Or would you prefer Frankenstein instead?

They are taking naturally derived seeds and modifying them through man-made scientific methods.

You'd have a point if the seeds were manufactured from scratch, but that's not the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
61. The Potential Benefits
All pertain to financial benefits. Forget about any utopian dream about more abundant crops and foodstuffs. This crap has only one purpose: to make its patent holders life-long beneficiaries of life-necessary materials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #61
136. Here are some papaya trees.
Some of them are regular papaya trees. Some of them are genetically engineered papaya trees. Both of them have been exposed to the papaya ringspot virus, which has ravaged the Hawaiian papaya crop. Some of these trees are sick, yellowing, stunted and dying. Others are healthy and productive. Guess which is which.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #136
142. So ....
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 03:06 PM by NashVegas
Researchers introduced a virus where none existed, for a field trial, and then crowed about how successful their GM crop was, after causing the contamination to the native plants in the first place. There are now half as many papaya farmers in Hawaii, thanks to GM. And the organic farmers' credentials are at risk due to GMO contamination.

And you think that's a great argument?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #142
148. No, I don't think that's a great argument.
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 03:21 PM by HiFructosePronSyrup
Because the researchers didn't introduce a virus where none existed. The virus existed in Hawaii and devastated the papaya crop, so the researchers introduced a variety of GM ringspot-resistant papaya, which saved the Hawaiian papaya industry.

I think that's a great argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. Not In Puna, It Didn't
And then, magically, it did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #148
176. Oh, man, have you ever heard of the web of life?
You CANNOT argue for GMOs on the basis of a test like this, of ONE plant. And that is exactly what Monsanto & brethren do--create test data showing these limited benefits in one small area, of one crop, and failing to study--or suppressing studies of--cumulative effects, because those take time and would likely indicate problems with other species and impacts on other environmental factors of this radical genetic modification--impacts on the bees and other insects, on frogs, worms, birds, microorganisms, soils, mice, other plants, water supplies, microclimates and so on, in the surrounding areas.

I fought for twenty years against corporate loggers and I am familiar with the crap science that corporations produce. I saw one species after another disappear from our forests and go onto the endangered list (by which time it is too late). Everything they did was backed up by crap science, with government regulators eating that excrement. Major fish and bird species are now gone forever. Forever! They will never come back, nor will the forest web of life of which they were vital--and also visible--components. God knows what they lost of the invisible--the microscopic, the critters in the soils--and the very small, such as insects.

You've got to be CAREFUL with the web of life. Have we not learned that lesson, time and time and time and time again?! Yes, we HAVE. But corporate scientists--including university and government scientists who are funded by corporations or heavily influenced by politics and corporate lobbying--are paid NOT to heed it. They are paid to conduct narrow studies that "prove" that everything is all right, and that this product or that product, or this industrial rapine or that industrial rapine, is entirely beneficial. They squeeze the parameters of the "study" to make that appear true. Twenty years later we find out that pesticides cause frogs to grow three legs or two heads, or to die in massive numbers from diseases they were previously immune to, or we have "colony collapse" in half the bee populations in the U.S., or the polar caps and the glaciers disappearing from the face of the earth. The reason that nothing is done in time is narrow examples like this, of one "miracle" product--and corporate control of the government. This GMO tree does not solve the ecological problem. It is driven purely by greed, not by wisdom. What is causing the problems with the natural trees? That is likely what should be addressed--not invention of another "miracle" product, which, like pesticides, like chemical fertilizers, like the internal combustion engine, like antibiotics, and everything else that has been sold as the latest "miracle," creates a thousand more problems down the line.

Caution, caution, caution! That should be the watch word. And it never is, where corporations are involved.

Look, I love modern life. I really do. I think our civilization is a wondrous achievement. I love iPhones and refrigerators and washing machines and electricity and great cities and putting men on the Moon and rovers on Mars. I am in awe of what we can do. But we do NOT understand the web of life well enough to survive, to keep our planet in tact. We are headed out. We are going to become extinct, and probably kill all life on earth, if we don't learn respect for the complication of Nature. And GMOs tell me that we have NOT learned that--respect for the complexity of the system we are interfering with. Or, we have not learned how to require respect for Nature from these corporate entities. We are part of the problem, as consumers. But they are the drivers of this disrespect, and it is going to do us in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #176
180. Yes. Ever heard of agriculture?
It's rather detached from "the web of life."

"You CANNOT argue for GMOs on the basis of a test like this, of ONE plant"

Nash Vegas was arguing there are no benefits to GMOs besides a financial benefit. That "single plant" proves him wrong.

"And that is exactly what Monsanto & brethren do--create test data showing these limited benefits in one small area, of one crop, and failing to study--or suppressing studies of--cumulative effects, because those take time and would likely indicate problems with other species and impacts on other environmental factors of this radical genetic modification--impacts on the bees and other insects, on frogs, worms, birds, microorganisms, soils, mice, other plants, water supplies, microclimates and so on, in the surrounding areas."

The same would apply to any selectively bred organism. Nobody argues that their heirloom organic tomato or their chihuahua is a threat to the web of life, even though neither exist in nature and neither were bred with the web of life in mind.

"I am familiar with the crap science that corporations produce."

Uh huh.

"Major fish and bird species are now gone forever. Forever!"

So you admit traditional agriculture when exploited can lead to extinction. Can you name any plant or animal that's gone extinct due to genetic engineering?

"Look, I love modern life. I really do. I think our civilization is a wondrous achievement. I love iPhones and refrigerators and washing machines and electricity and great cities and putting men on the Moon and rovers on Mars. I am in awe of what we can do. But we do NOT understand the web of life well enough to survive, to keep our planet in tact. We are headed out. We are going to become extinct, and probably kill all life on earth, if we don't learn respect for the complication of Nature. And GMOs tell me that we have NOT learned that--respect for the complexity of the system we are interfering with. Or, we have not learned how to require respect for Nature from these corporate entities. We are part of the problem, as consumers. But they are the drivers of this disrespect, and it is going to do us in."

So basically you're fine with all the modern technology you have and all the destruction it's caused, you just don't want any more progress even if it means cutting down on pesticides and old growth logging, which you had previously mentioned were big problems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #180
192. I'm conflicted, like everybody with common sense these days, about modern life.
What I see is that, with anti-democratic, untoward corporate power, impacts on the web of life have been so accelerated that the entire ecological matrix in which we evolved is gravely threatened. All life on earth is threatened--ours and other critters. We have reached some kind of evolutionary plateau where, if we don't learn respect for the fragility and complexity of the remaining REMNANTS of wild earth, we will cease to exist.

Yes, I love modern life and human civilization, and I am also certain--along with the World Wildlife Fund and many, many other scientific analysts--that we are going to lose it all and go extinct ourselves, if we do not make a leap of consciousness--an evolutionary leap of intelligence--to understand all the destruction that modern engineering, agriculture, technology and consumption have caused and are causing, and find solutions for this vast destruction yesterday. With the development of global corporate predator power, I don't see how we can.

There is a rather big difference--many magnitudes of difference--between the slow human development of breeding animals and plants, over a period of ten thousand years, and the speedy, terrifying power of genetic engineering, particularly in the hands of politically powerful corporations who are driven entirely by profit. And this new power over the evolutionary mechanism itself combines with other recent, radical developments--toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, gas-driven vehicles, coal burning plants, throwaway plastic products, and thousands of radical pollutants from thousands of new products and accelerated activities--to profoundly threaten our very existence, and the existence of all life on earth.

We MUST put the brakes on. We must--or we're gone. And it doesn't appear that we have the intelligence--the wisdom, the deep insight--to do that. We are at the end of the evolutionary development of intelligent life on earth. We are our own "terminator seed."

That is what it looks like to me. I can appreciate and marvel at our cleverness--at the conveniences and great works of modern life--and at the same time lament the tragedy of what we have done and do not seem to have the political sophistication to correct: the trashing of the web of life.

We probably do not need to become primitive again--to reduce down to, say, small agricultural villages, or hunter/gatherer tribes--to solve this complex of problems--although cascading catastrophes COULD force that reduction upon us before we go extinct entirely, if we are unable to solve the problems. With extremes of freezing and frying, flooding and drought, new and old diseases, damage to the food chain, massive loss of agricultural land and potable water and very likely war, the human population could be rather quickly reduced to remnant populations, who would not have a "garden of eden" to migrate around in--as we did ten thousand years ago--but rather a blasted, polluted landscape with ever more lethal solar radiation. And this is not science fiction fantasy--it is a LIKELY outcome of the last hundred years of industrialization and current trends.

What we need to do is to massively change our mindset about Nature, AND establish or reboot political mechanisms for reining in corporate power. For instance, NO ONE--absolutely NO ONE--should be permitted to alter the DNA of any species and promulgate it into the world without long and entirely objective study of ALL potential consequences, laid before the people of a country--and indeed perhaps before the people of the world--FOR A VOTE. Experimentation should of course be permitted--careful, closely monitored experimentation. I am not against experiment. I am not against science. What I am against--and what I think desperately needs solution, on this aspect of the "web of life"--is corporate POLITICAL power to do anything they damn please on whatever scale they damn please, for PROFIT. That is NUTS. That is, in fact, suicidal.

A similar solution needs to be applied to non-organic agriculture and any large-scale alteration of the environment, such as corporate logging (which is not just clear-cutting--bad enough--but also involves pesticides and other extremely damaging practices). Artificial pesticides, chemical fertilizers, etc., should really be absolutely banned, but at the very least, they should be restricted, and subjected to the above process--long term objective study, full disclosure and A VOTE (--with no goddamn corporate campaign money involved).

Until now, our culture has had the peculiar notion that "the market" should be "wild" kind of like Nature itself--"...Nature red in tooth and claw." "Dog eat dog." Some kind of natural force will regulate "the market" and make everything come out all right. Faulty enterprises will fail. Useful enterprises will succeed--naturally, without regulation and intervention. A ferment of ideas and activities bubbles into "the market" and gets flogged up or flogged down, and prosperity is the result. And it has also been the particular idea of misnamed "conservatism" that this "wildness" of "the market" will always work--to produce prosperity for all--if it goes entirely unrestrained. The great irony is that they consider this unrestrained "Nature red in tooth and claw" to be the height of "civilization."

But the oddest thing of all, in our civilization, is that the "wildness" of "the market" is in fact producing the death of Nature. If profit is the only regulator, and the costs of ecological damage are not included, and if people are permitted to behave in this "wild" way, basing everything on personal/corporate monetary profit, with zero incentives to respect Nature, the very model on which this "conservative" (read, radical) idea of "the market" is based--Nature itself--will die--and is in truth being slaughtered by "the market"--by unrestrained, unregulated pollution of every kind, strictly for profit, with no care whatsoever for the long term consequences.

That genetic modification is in the hands of corporate powers is as dangerous as nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue leaders. And I would say the same of other pollutants and dangerous substances, especially those in vast use--artificial pesticides, chemical fertilizers, oil, plastics, antibiotics, viruses, the products of nanotechnology, GMOs, et al.

We cannot allow "the wild market" to determine the failure or survival of the human race itself and all life on earth. And that is exactly what is occurring now. Due to political failure--the failure of democracy--"the market" is destroying us by encouraging pollution for profit.

It's kind of a crap shoot whether or not democracy can correct this extremely grave problem. Democracy itself is based on an idea of "wildness"--that the best ideas will bubble to the top and succeed, if real conditions of democracy exist. But monarchical corporatism has clearly failed, as to protection of Nature and life itself, so something else needs to be tried--that old, old idea, going back at least to the Greeks, that democracy can yield collective wisdom. And we have some evidence of it, in opinion polls, for instance, which show overwhelming support--way up in the 80%-90% range--for strict government regulation to protect the environment. This "will of the people" has been thwarted (as has the "will of the people" on war and other grave issues). We can only hope that, with the fetters of corporate monarchy removed, democracy will save our asses.

I see this democratic protection of the environment working to some extent in the leftist democracies in South America. Bolivia and Ecuador, in particular come to mind. Ecuador, in fact, just enshrined the rights of Mother Nature ("Pachamama," in the indigenous), into their new Constitution, which says that Mother Nature and all her critters have a right to exist and prosper apart from human needs and desires. OUR government--basically run by global corporate powers--is doing everything it can to destroy these democracies in South America. But I hope to God that our government fails in that endeavor, and that the democratic idea of saving Mother Nature bubbles up to the north.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #180
196. That Single Plant Proves Nothing
A virus was introduced in an area where there was no virus. Within weeks, the native crop was contaminated with that virus, and the impact of GMO contamination on surrounding crops remains an issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
65. We have one world and one body. Your post is particularly not helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sasquuatch Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Well we all know where over processed, food like material has got us!
Obeisety, diabetes, heart disease..........massive poor health. We need to do away with agribusiness and petroleum based fertilizers! Bring back organic family farms...they have, and can feed the people. Learn to cook, grow a garden and throw out the microwave and stop using processed foods( your buying trash)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. GMO food isn't soely to blame for this. The U.S. food industry in general is to blame.
All that over processing happens after the crop is harvested. Be it corn, rice, beef, chicken, fish or anything else. Its the industrial processing of the food that is the real problem. GM food can be a benefit and it can be a curse depending on what is done with the food and how its handled. GM has many issues and is very alarming in its implementation and legalities, but to blame obesity and diabetes on GM food is a big stretch. Its not Monsanto's RoundUp Ready plants making people fat (cancer mabye, but not fat) its the over processing (pre-digestion too) of the corn after harvest that is causing these problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sasquuatch Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
94. GM crops are grown for those Corporate,profit above all, bastards!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
19. Your use of all caps proves you have won the argument
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. +1
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
183. I agree. Also, the corporate-pushed rush to GM foods undermines genetic diversity
and undercuts the ability of farmers to grow their own seed or get good, diverse choices of healthy seed from other than the big corporations. "Pay us or you starve" as an official corporate policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuraVidaDreamin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes!!!
Rec!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. That's good news. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
5. What about all those stories about Indian dirt farmers committing suicide? And now you tell me
they haven't even raised a single crop?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. The cotton crop went GMO in 2002 in India
And that is where those stories came from, cotton farming. This fact is repeated in the story linked by the OP. So not a hard piece of information to find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bravo India!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
9. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
17. We should ban all modified foods
And we should start by banning cultivated wheat and domesticated livestock.


Gene modification has been going on for at least 10,000 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. There is a difference between cross-breeding and genetic engineering.
If you cannot grasp the difference, educate yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Is there a difference between human gene therapy and GMO?
Please be specific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnie624 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #24
46. I'd say the biggest difference
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 11:56 AM by ronnie624
is in the ability to monitor and control the proliferation of artificial mutations in human populations versus that of plants. You can easily monitor the activities of human subjects and their offspring. The reproduction methods of plants as well as their short reproduction cycles, makes such control impossible. Once pollen has been released into wild populations, there's no controlling the result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. You can keep track of the modified DNA that bacteria nd virii...
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 11:57 AM by WriteDown
pick up from their human hosts and are then transmitted? Neat trick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnie624 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. Well then,
I guess you've just defeated your original thesis (there's no difference between genetically modified foods and human gene therapy, therefore the former is perfectly safe).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #53
63. Never said either is safe...
Said both should be banned. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnie624 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #63
86. It's hard to tell.
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 01:08 PM by ronnie624
I would find a fleshed-out opinion by you on this topic interesting. I like reading the opinions of others.

Your profile indicates you might have some insight into biology. There are many smart, well-informed people posting here. Perhaps you're one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #86
97. I'm alright...
Truthfully, my interest is in reptiles and not humans :). Always has been. I did have a good friend who's life was extended for a time do to gene therapy though and used to joke about her being a mutant. I am still here despite exposure to her though :).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Of course there is
One has been around long enough for you to decide you're comfortable with it, and the other is new and terrifying to you.

If the choice is between starving to death within the next few weeks or maybe (just maybe) facing kidney problems in 40 years, I know which option I'll choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
43. False dilemma but thanks anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
108. Not a false dilemma, but thanks anyway
So you don't understand what an ad hominem is, nor do you understand what a false dilemma is. You've heard of logic, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #108
117. You might want to do some homework
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

I would explain how what you stated is a false dilemma but I am getting a strong feeling that I will only receive diminishing returns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. Nope, it's not a false dilemma, because I didn't assert that there are only two choices
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 01:46 PM by Orrex
I posited a hypothetical in which there are two choices, and that's very different.


But keep trying. Some day maybe you'll understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #118
124. The problem is that they are false choices
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #124
157. I'm curious how they can be false, since they're explicitly hypothetical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
62. You can die a miserable death early if you like.
But I plan on outliving you and have better quality of life and excellent health while I'm doing it.

Sooner or later the crap you eat will catch up to your Liver, Kidneys and wherever else the toxins pile up.

Domesticated plants using time tested crossbreeding are as old as life on earth. Blasting DNA across the species barrier with a Gene gun and using Viruses to insert the DNA is not.

As long as Cheerleaders like you accept the fact that you will pay to remove escaped Noxious varities at great cost, it it would be ever possible, you wouldn't be singing such a happy tune about GMO Plants. When that 100,000 acres of GMO forest all blooms at once and dumps alleric pollen all over the lanscape by the ton, you'll be singing a sad song, and "Whoops" isn't going to help.

As long as the GMO and BIOTECH companies are held accountable for cleanup and free testing of GMO from any Farmer that desires it for free, then I'm OK with it. But as it is now, the Biotechs are shielded from any accountability, and this is why they are going to be put out of business by people that can put more than two factual thoughts together and see that GMO's are Genetic Roulette. Sometimes you win, but most of the time, you lose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #62
109. Well, with your nose so high in the air, you'll probably walk into the path of an oncoming bus
Meanwhile, my kidneys, liver, and I will be happily living into our 80s or 90s. I make this assertion with at least as much confidence and justification as you make yours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #25
130. I'll choose C) Neither
I'll choose C) Neither.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
27. Horseshit. That's parroting corporate (R) propaganda
GMO is vastly different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #37
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #45
106. It's an ad hominem because it claims that my opinion is tainted by corporate interests
And that claim is, frankly, absurd.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #106
115. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. So if the CEO of Archer-Daniels and I both say that it's raining, then I'm a shill?
It's up to the accuser to support the charge. It is insufficient to declare that someone's statement coincides with a statement by a corporation; it must be shown that the the person's statement is made in the deliberate service of profit or personal gain.

Since neither of those is the case here, the charge is baseless. And since the charge is intended to discredit my posting on the subject, it's an ad hominem.


Of course, calling someone a shill is pretty easy shorthand for declaring that one's own argument is without merit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #116
122. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
72. I'd love to ban the cultivation of wheat. Lots of people would be much healthier.
Next, barley, oats, and rye -- get rid of all that gluten.

;)

I can dream, can't I?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
28. Stupid, anti-scientific approach by the Indian minister.
But it sure plays well with the cheap seats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Courageous, far-seeing exercise of wisdom by the Indian Minister
Our children and grandchildren for generations to come will thank him for his caution -- waiting till the facts are in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. The ones that haven't died of starvation of been malnourished. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
59. Suicided farmers really are productive food producers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #59
78. No idea what you are talking about. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #78
84. Then you hardly know enough to speak about India's dilemma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #84
107. yeah right.
You could easily say what you are talking about, but you won't, so I have to simply assume that your post was worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #107
114. It was mentioned earlier in the thread. I will find you another link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #114
125. Wow, thank you. I had no idea.
That being said, it doesn't mean that GM crops are no good, it means that Monsanto lied about the promised yield increase and induced farmers to take out debt based on that promised yield.

The indian government should simply announce that the debts will not be collectible from the farmers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. You're welcome. And that is only one angle and yes there are solutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #41
143. Salt water for the thirsty...
Salt water for the thirsty...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
icnorth Donating Member (954 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
102. Waiting for the facts to come in...
How quaint...

In 1994, Congress enacted the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). This act allows for the marketing and sales of “dietary supplements” with little or no regulation. This act is the work of folks like Tom Harkin (who took large contributions from Herbalife) and Orrin Hatch, whose state of Utah is home to many supplement companies.
DSHEA has a couple of very important consequences (aside from filling the pockets of supplement makers).
What does the FDA require of “supplements”?
Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed. FDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market. Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.* Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading.
To paraphrase: “sell whatever you want, just don’t let us catch you.”
What’s more frightening than this inexcusable lack of oversight is that many of the products marketed under DSHEA aren’t just vitamins and such, but products that claim to do the same things as real medicines. How do they get away with that?


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=567#comments
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
193. Agreed...tired of seeing the corporate apologists in this thread...
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Haole Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. Being cautious about genetically altered foods isn't 'anti-scientific' (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #34
42. Should we be "cautious" about stem cells as well? nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Haole Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
54. Stem cell and GM foods are not the same thing. And you know it.
Argument by analogy seldom works.

Messing with Mother Nature really isn't a good idea... not when feeding whole populations...

not when the alterations may end up leading to new disease, possibly cancer, or who knows what

down the line.

With each new manipulation of nature comes another price. Eventually, the price may be too high.

I think the Indian gov't is wise to be cautious in this case. It's a "look before you leap" attitude

one we could learn from.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #42
67. You bet, -- Don't put Human Stem Cells in a Pig!
I'd say that's pretty cautious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
76. No one consumes stem cells unawares, whereas GMO foods look identical
to non GMO foods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #34
66. Mahalo!
Aloha from the Orchid Isle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Haole Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #66
105. Aloha!
Wish I had a papaya from the upcountry right now!!

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
56. Yeah, I am sure that is it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
71. There is nothing anti-scientific about showing caution
toward genetically modified foods, especially given how many people ALREADY have problems with food allergies.

Scientists have no required ethical training or mission. It is up to society to decide how to regulate scientific advances. Nuclear fission was a scientific advance as well. Science is no panacea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #71
82. The Majority of Scientists and Engineers are Specialists
They are trained to focus on one aspect of life, and for the most part are lacking in Liberal Arts, and they are pigeonholed into a narrow worldview. While I appreciate specialists when it comes to their expertise, they can be so blind to the cause and effect of certain interactions that they are nearly dysfunctional oustide of their specialty.

I believe that this is by design, because it allows the Media to manipulate certain groups very easily, as each specialty speaks their own "Language" and comprehends the world according to a narrow world view.

We need more Polymaths in the world, not more specialists that ate told what to do by the Corporations without question.

Most of the Shills here that are defending GMO's have obviously no clue about what they are talking about. If they did, they wouldn't be pounding their chests so loudly on this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. +1 Or, they just represent DLC interests? Could be that simple for some?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #85
101. No arguments from me About the Toxicity of the DLC
They seemed to have embraced the almighty dollar as their God, and by golly, that's the only worldview they know, and they are at a loss to figure out why their God has abandoned them. When their God, the almighty dollar no longer wields any power, we see the breakdown of both parties that worship at the altar.

There is a new worldview that people are finally coming to realize, and that is that Human's by nature are designed to be healthy, and it is not natural to be prone to as much disease as the civilised would seems to be. People all over the world have cast off GMO food and have gone back to Organic foods, and they have seen their health, stamina, thinking, and physical abilities increase to the point where they can finally see through the haze and see how unhealthy most of the people really are.

It does not take a rocket scientist to observe people and see the drawn, tired, sick facade they present, and then take a look at their shopping cart and see exactly why they are so ill.

When people actually take the first step and treat their body like our ancestors treated theirs, we easily see that our environment, diat, and thinking does make a difference in our overall health.

Most Americans have been Propagandized into submission, and think that Health Insurance is a requirement of life. It isn't. Nutritious Food, Clean Water, and Clean Air are the most basic things we need, yet 85% of the world's population lives in an urban environment, that has none of those attributes. They produce nothing for themselves, and rely totally on imported inputs. Organic, fresh food does not fit well in a high density urban envirnment simply because there is never enough, and that's why they rely on processed foods so much. It may taste good, but it's hardly nutritious, and most definately toxic in the long term.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #101
113. Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #82
88. Great Post
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 01:02 PM by NashVegas
Liberal arts, which have been under attack for 30 years, are subjects that point to the need for a moral truth and an ideal to uphold. Is it any wonder we're where we are right now?

FWIW, most of the shills are easily shut up when you start putting yield statistics in front of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #88
110. They still attack Liberal Arts, simply because it promotes Critical Thinking
The system is rigged to take away your power one way or another.

The old adage "Skilled at many tasks, Master of none" is a typical jingoism conjured up by the Corporations, Governments, Educational Systems, Military, etc, to make you feel less important for having a broad range of knowledge, without having a particular specialty.

I have found this to be entirely false in my lifetime of experience. My resume is 25 pages long, doing everything imaginable under the Sun, in the Corporate world, to the field, to the construction, farming, and engineering fields, along with art, music, and media. I no longer doubt my ability to become a domain expert in any subject, given the motivation to do so, and the ability to access the libraries of the world.

After a while, the connections just become apparent, and the Social System can no longer fool you anymore. In many cases, you see the world for what it is, and that is that it has a "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" suspension of reality that manipulates us into thinking a certain way.

Common Sense, Ethic's, and Rule of Law are no longer the foundation of most people's lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #82
121. Maybe, but they're not isolated madmen working in dark castles overlooking the churning sea.
If it were just a matter of evil, over-specialized scientists and engineers plotting the spread of malignant GM foods, then maybe your objection would be valid, but the scientists and engineers represent only two parts of a long, intricate process.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #121
151. I think you may have missed the main point
Because they are working on very specialized aspects of the problem, scientist specialists are not focusing on a larger picture or worldview. These scientist specialists are removed from the big policy decisions. The corporations and their executives with precisely targeted bribes to our government are not just directing scientists to find answers to their preferred questions but are also setting the overarching policy rather than elected representatives or other regulators working in the best interests of ordinary Americans.



Reminds me of the following story.

The Buddha answered, "Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.

"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'

"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Buddhist.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #151
160. If those five blind men didn't speak with each other to compare notes, then sure
But if their observations aren't dictated by a party with a vested interest, and if the blind men are allowed to compare notes, you're going to get a much more accurate description of the animal.

As folklore goes, it's a cute story. As a way of looking at cutting-edge science, not so much.

Because they are working on very specialized aspects of the problem, scientist specialists are not focusing on a larger picture or worldview. These scientist specialists are removed from the big policy decisions. The corporations and their executives with precisely targeted bribes to our government are not just directing scientists to find answers to their preferred questions but are also setting the overarching policy rather than elected representatives or other regulators working in the best interests of ordinary Americans.

That's a criticism of the political system without specific relevance to the issue at hand. If you have evidence of these "precisely targeted bribes," then let's see it; otherwise you're just engaging in evangelistic fear-mongering.

Every significant advance in science in the last 200 years could equally be criticized by that same tactic, using the same language. Time to update the playbook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #160
162. We are talking past one another again. Alright, I am done playing.
Take it easy.

If someone else wants to pick it up, I'll jump in later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #160
186. Your cautious wording was very wise ...
> But if their observations aren't dictated by a party with a vested interest, ...
> you're going to get a much more accurate description of the animal.
(my italics)

Unfortunately the converse is also true: when their observations are
controlled by a party with a vested interest, you are going to get a
much less accurate description.

And when that "party with a vested interest" is very rich, very politically
connected and very concerned with maintaining that status, the result is
a huge bias against the "more accurate description of the animal".
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #82
190. As a Biotech major I consider this a disgustingly insulting post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #190
205. If the Shoe Fits ...
You are being trained to be a specialist just like the majority of college students are now trained to be specialists. You will take your orders, directly or indirectly, from sons of bankers with broader educations. Funny how that works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #205
207. I have very broad interests. Just because I don't take a class on a subject...
doesn't mean I'm ignorant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
30. good - sanity prevails
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
31. I suggest everyone look up Arpad Pusztai & his study on GMO potatos
Honesty cost him, so be sure to see how these corporate assassins work to destroy unfavorable data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Haole Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
33. Good for them!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
35. Another large issue here is that farmers lose the ability to save seeds
to plant the next year. They must pay royalties to the companies, because the companies own the intellectual rights to this genetically identifiable product.

Here's the really good part for the companies: if your regular crop is pollinated by the GM crop next door, you'll have to pay Monsanto (or whoever) for your own seeds, even though you never bought or used a genetically modified product.

So all the companies have to do is get a GM crop in anywhere, and eventually, they will own ALL the seeds in the area, eventually the globe, and all farmers everywhere will have to pay the company for seeds that they themselves produced and saved (!)

Let's see; do we really think that corporate ownership of the means of production of all food on the planet is really a great idea?

Those who control the food control the earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. that's the main issue, really, the only one.
Humans are exceptional at cleaving proteins and starches into nutrition, from almost any source - and much of poor rural India still cooks with cow poop, handles cow dung and food in the same kitchen and as well as other traditions we would consider extremely unsanitary and even dangerous in the western world.

The fact is grains are pretty difficult to turn into human mutating three headed baby making food, but very easy to turn into fear mongering conspiracies.

Those who control the water control the earth.

The worst thing about genemod crops is that there are NO guarantees that mule crops won't cross pollinate natural crops and reduce crop yields for farmers and growers who choose not to pay for genemod.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #38
48. "really, the only one" - That is rubbish
When a plant is modified to survive drenching in herbicides and pesticides, there are no externalized costs or health effects. Right.

Only have one earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #48
75. well that was uncivil
I would not have stated that had I thought it was "rubbish".

I would restate it but you would merely respond with more amateur opinion, and guessing you are not a geneticist, I'll just go ahead and characterize whatever you have to say next as amateur, if not outright rubbish.

So, to avoid that outcome please tell me your qualifications in biochemistry . . . whenever you're ready.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. My husband is a PHD chemist and he doesn't want us to eat GMO foods.
ESPECIALLY ones that have been modified to repel pests.

Not that you would know which ones have, since nothing is labeled that specifically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #75
81. I worked in a barrier facility with genetically modified organisms at Glaxo in RTP, NC
I also worked with a company cross breeding maize.

I also worked in microbiology and in med sci at UM.

I received my Bachelor of Science at the University of Michigan.

I taught biology, chemistry and a few others.

And calling something rubbish is not terribly uncivil, please thicken your skin a teensy bit more? Please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #81
95. You Miss the Point
Emotional arguments cloud the issue.

Talk about "frankenfoods" is pathetically easy to shoot down when there're very few hard facts, at this point, on GMO safety.

OTOH, yield statistics speak for themselves.

Patent-holders and intellectual property rights versus human rights to food that comes from open-source, race-wide ancestral knowledge, that is where the real issue is. Anything else is mere distraction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #95
104. I appreciate the idea that logic is preferable.
http://www.truthout.org/article/three-approved-gmos-linked-organ-damage

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Since when did caution become our enemy?

I strongly agree that your bold lettered statement is significant but I do not agree every other consideration is distraction. If you want that to be THE argument, there needs to be a simpler way to market it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #104
145. Well, Sure
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That and 3.50 will get you a latté but good luck getting legislation & regulation passed.


Since when did caution become our enemy?

That coincided with the marketing and PR degree. Anyone who is willing to accept the client's dollar will be all too happy to wipe the floor with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #145
155. I don't have time for 15 rounds right now. What are you talking about?
Who said that is how you get legislation & regulation passed?

Yes, I understand the marketing types are masters at influence. Yes, alone, by myself, they could. What's your point?

What is your avatar there anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #81
96. I still see more fear mongering than facts
and a lot of emotional "rubbish" on this thread.

Presumably then you know that generalizing here is merely adding to the hysteria.

I will now restate my assertion: it's the mule crop that is the most worrisome part of this. When do bugs attack? What mechanisms would be used at each of those growth stages to repel a pest in the absence of a pesticide? What mechanisms would be used to make a crop drought hardy? What mechanisms would be used to make a crop resistant to pesticide usage?

It's not scary science - there are concrete finite answers here. I'm not defending it in any way, just saying the common sense part here for me is not the mole bio and gene tinkering with a fairly simple plant, it's how that plant interacts with its environment that gives me greater concern.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #96
111. What practices allow farmers to produce the healthiest food with
the fewest negative consequences for their land and the larger environment?

The mega-corporations have not shown they are responsible citizens.

We can look at a problem from a specific angle and while that can be extremely useful and efficient, it does not represent the whole picture.

Please give me feedback, your thoughts, maybe I am missing something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #111
119. I'm not defending them
at ALL.

Just saying if I were to triage what I worry about in that line of products, it's definitely less the food quality than the crop behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #119
127. I understand that you are not defending them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grinchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #75
93. This is DU, Maybe you should grow a thicker skin
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 01:01 PM by Grinchie
You made the mistake that Grains that contain GMO DNA can very easily spread that gene into the multitude of Bacteria that live in our Digestive tract, cause all sorts of problems that will last a lifetime. It's called Horizontal Gene Transfer, and I'd rather not have BT Toxins being manufactured in my guts for the rest of my life.

Who's to say what prolonged exposure to these novel proteins and Toxins would NOT cause genetic Mutations? I don't believe you or anyone can say with any certainty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #93
100. oh jeez
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 01:24 PM by sui generis
I'm also afraid of the boogeyman so I leave the lights on at night. :eyes: I never touch soft plastic or eat soy because I'm afraid I'll grow man boobs and my balls will shrivel up. I have stopped breathing as often as possible because of formaldehyde outgassing in virtually every man-made space, and don't EVEN get me started on sheetrock radon. God dammit I'm scared that I'm not scared enough, so I'll always have something to be scared to death of. Thus my oh jeez. Not even a bit.

Maybe some of us should grow a thicker cortex, and a thicker hormetic response. You're right nobody can say ANYTHING with certainty, which just means you have to pick the ills you plan to fear.

You villagers always need a monster and whichever one is in front you will do, no matter how many more worthy monsters there are. Just pick one - suppose this one is your raison d'etre. BFD - I really am more repulsed by soy products in general than genemod corn and wheat, but I don't live in abject terror of being alive either.

I'm not in the running though, and pitchforks don't bother me.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humus Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #100
133. humus or hubris
it is not forced upon you to eat only Soy as it is or will be to eat only GMO's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #133
139. well we know what's best for everyone
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 03:23 PM by sui generis
that would be an example of hubris.

Poor little people can't and shouldn't choose for themselves, and of course the clear alternative is . . . . crickets. What ARE the alternatives this noble and concerned group of scholars here on DU propose? I see a lot of opinion, not a lot of pragmatism.

Crickets are nutritious, high in protein and loud in the absence of other noise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humus Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #139
153. nothing but GM seeds or else
that would be a good motto for Monsanto "We do Know what is best for everyone"
your argument being that someone is forcing their lifestlye or knows better then someone else,that is the epitome of Monsanto dealings.

If you’ve lost the capacity to be outraged by what’s outrageous, you’re dead. Somebody ought to come and haul you off.

Farmers report that a Monsanto investigator laughed that they were doing "rural cleansing."

Steve Hixon is a seed cleaner in southern Illinois. He has equipment that takes the plant materials and "cleans" it so that the seeds are separated out and can be given back to farmers to save for the next season. It's a mechanized step up from farmers hand picking seeds off their own plants, which, with hundreds of acres - or even 10 - would not be easy to do.

Mr. Hixon has the non-distinction of being attacked by Monsanto. He is far from alone. Monsanto has been picking off seed cleaners across the Midwest, having already done its thuggish thing in Pilot Grove, Missouri, and in Indiana, attacking Maurice Parr, destroying business for all of them.

Mr. Parr reports that when he was sued, the first thing the judge said was how he was "honored to have a fine company like Monsanto in my courtroom."

nd they have done and are doing a bucket load of things to keep farmers and everyone else from having any access at all to buying, collecting, and saving of NORMAL seeds.

1. They’ve bought up the seed companies across the Midwest.

2. They’ve written Monsanto seed laws and gotten legislators to put them through, that make cleaning, collecting and storing of seeds so onerous in terms of fees and paperwork and testing and tracking every variety and being subject to fines, that having normal seed becomes almost impossible (an NAIS approach to wiping out normal seeds). Does your state have such a seed law? Before they existed, farmers just collected the seeds and put them in sacks in the shed and used them the next year, sharing whatever they wished with friends and neighbors, selling some if they wanted. That’s been killed.

In Illinois, which has such a seed law, Madigan, the Speaker of the House, his staff is Monsanto lobbyists.

3. Monsanto is pushing anti-democracy laws (Vilsack’s brainchild, actually) that remove community’ control over their own counties so farmers and citizens can’t block the planting of GMO crops even if they can contaminate other crops. So if you don’t want a GM-crop that grows industrial chemicals or drugs or a rice growing with human DNA in it, in your area and mixing with your crops, tough luck.

Check the map of just where the Monsanto/Vilsack laws are and see if your state is still a democracy or is Monsanto’s. A farmer in Illinois told me he heard that Bush had pushed through some regulation that made this true in every state. People need to check on that.

4. For sure there are Monsanto regulations buried in the FDA right now that make a farmer’s seed cleaning equipment illegal (another way to leave nothing but GM-seeds) because it’s now considered a “source of seed contamination.” Farmer can still seed clean but the equipment now has to be certified and a farmer said it would require a million to a million and half dollar building and equipment … for EACH line of seed. Seed storage facilities are also listed (another million?) and harvesting and transport equipment. And manure. Something that can contaminate seed. Notice that chemical fertilizers and pesticides are not mentioned.

You could eat manure and be okay (a little grossed out but okay). Try that with pesticides and fertilizers. Indian farmers have. Their top choice for how to commit suicide to escape the debt they have been left in is to drink Monsanto pesticides.

5. Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners across the Midwest. In Pilot Grove, Missouri, in Indiana (Maurice Parr), and now in southern Illinois (Steve Hixon). And they are using US marshals and state troopers and county police to show up in three cars to serve the poor farmers who had used Hixon as their seed cleaner, telling them that he or their neighbors turned them in, so across that 6 county areas, no one talking to neighbors and people are living in fear and those farming communities are falling apart from the suspicion Monsanto sowed. Hixon’s office got broken into and he thinks someone put a GPS tracking device on his equipment and that’s how Monsanto found between 200-400 customers in very scattered and remote areas, and threatened them all and destroyed his business within 2 days.

http://survivingthemiddleclasscrash.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/the-multiple-ways-monsanto-is-putting-normal-seeds-out-of-reach/

Biotechnology, variety patenting, and other agribusiness innovations
are intended not to help farmers or consumers but to extend and
prolong corporate control of the food economy; they will increase the
cost of food, both economically and ecologically.
Wendell Berry

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. I have lost the capacity to live on borrowed outrage
if that't the only way you can feel alive then somebody oughtta come haul YOU off. . . .

mkay?

When you're a villager everyone looks like a monster. Never defended Monsanto here or anywhere, but thanks for the irrelevant lecture. I'm merely saying that inarticulate fear and loathing is not helpful to anyone.

R & D does not happen unless there is a path to profit, and that's cruel reality with any resource that underscores public health and welfare: water, food, medicine, even waste.

Monsanto is merely one corporate shark, and there are many of those sharks in the ocean. They're part of the ecology. I'd rather be angrier at the people who keep throwing chum into the water and feeding the sharks than the sharks themselves, and that's not always evil Americans OR ignorant farmers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #139
154. or Africanized Honeybees.
"and of course the clear alternative is . . . . crickets...."

or Africanized Honeybees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #38
74. Allergies is another issue. With mixing of genes, it becomes increasingly difficult
for consumers to identify foods as ones they should avoid. It's already difficult enough to avoid food allergens just because of labeling issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #74
126. how many people do "real" food allergies impact
I mean the anaphylactic shock kind, not the "gives me a tummy ache and gas" kind. As a percentage of the population.

Of the population in a developing country?

I can't stand the Monsanto's of the world, personally but hybridization is more worrisome to me than food allergies, especially in countries that don't employ USDA labeling standards.

On the other hand, didn't Monsanto deliver a "golden rice" that was high in B vitamins - not many people questioned that. How many people who ate golden rice (presumably didn't starve to death) had three headed babies? What ARE the trade-offs? Should westerners really have a say in what developing countries do or don't do to feed themselves?

Before I'm accused of being insensitive, I think there is a tone of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. I'm saying maybe there are other criteria to consider, generally speaking, and not in support of any specific corporate solution here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #126
159. There is a tone to this post that invites an angry response.
After discussing this with you upthread, I think your intentions are overall positive, but reading this made me want to argue again. I'll avoid it for now and try to learn from my reaction. You have to be true to yourself though, so ignore this or just take it as a headsup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #159
164. we're on the same page
but I like to do the differential diagnosis kind of thinking, even at risk of a hostile reaction.

It seems we often look at a relatively minor detail as a reason for emptying the bathwater altogether - kind of like trying to decide whether we'll buy the house by looking through the keyhole. I really wouldn't understand anger in asking to see past the foyer / entry way.

On food allergies - it was a genuine question. I'm not asking the proverbial Ford Pinto trade-off question here - just trying to figure out if "food allergies" is an adequate criteria for making a decision about this house, so to speak.

Thank you for recognizing that my intentions are positive - I assure you they are. I gather from your posts you aren't terribly moved by emotional arguments either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #126
170. Let's pretend you're right that it's an insignificant part of the population
that has a serious problem with food allergies. (That say, Celiac disease and gluten sensitivity don't count, because they don't cause anaphylactic shock -- only damage to the intestines, a continuing insult to the immune system, elevated liver enzymes, and a host of other problems.)

And that all the rest "only" have painful digestive issues. Aren't those people entitled to be able to avoid the foods that make them ill? Or do you have stock in the makers of Pepcid, Tums, etc.?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #170
188. I'm just curious
apart from your almost nasty tone (and by almost, I mean definitely), are you talking about people in developing nations or people in America? if the issue is labeling then maybe the solution should center on labeling instead of banning.

What are your thoughts, or do you have stock in the alternate plan, which is . . . .

I'm actually for food safety no matter what population the food serves, but I'm also for making my own choices. Here's an example: if there are two products on the shelf and one of them has a label that says genemod and the other one has a label that says it has sugar, HFC, preservatives, gluten, peanut and walnut particles and artificial flavors and colors, I'll choose the genemod any day.

If it's labeling that bothers you, then fix the labeling.

I would add the eyes thingie but it would be redundant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
36. Meanwhile back in the USA GMOs are screwing your farmers too.......
Note to mods: More than the usual 3 or 4 paragraphs are quoted because the publisher requests the article be circulated widely.


GM Crops Facing Meltdown in the USA

Major crops genetically modified for just two traits - herbicide tolerance and insect resistance – are ravaged by super weeds and secondary pests in the heartland of GMOs as farmers fight a losing battle with more of the same; a fundamental shift to organic farming practices may be the only salvation Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Please circulate widely, keeping all links unchanged, and submit to your government representatives demanding an end to GM crops and support for non-GM organic agriculture.


Two traits account for practically all the genetically modified (GM) crops grown in the world today: herbicide-tolerance (HT) due to glyphosate-insensitive form of the gene coding for the enzyme targeted by the herbicide, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), derived from soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and insect-resistance due to one or more toxin genes derived from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). Commercial planting began around 1997 in the United States, the heartland of GM crops, and increased rapidly over the years. By now, GM crops have taken over 85-91 percent of the area planted with the three major crops, soybean, corn and cotton in the US <1>] (see Table 1), which occupy nearly 171 million acres.

(Table 1 snipped)

The ecological time-bomb that came with the GM crops has been ticking away, and is about to explode.

HT crops (HT = Herbicide Tolerant and generally they got that way through genetic engineering /JC) encouraged the use of herbicides, resulting in herbicide-resistant weeds that demand yet more herbicides. But the increasing use of deadly herbicide and herbicide mixtures has failed to stall the advance of the palmer super weed in HT crops. At the same time, secondary pests such as the tarnished plant bug, against which Bt toxin is powerless, became the single most damaging insect for US cotton.

Monster plants that can’t be killed

It is the Day of the Triffids - not the genetically modified plants themselves as alluded to in John Wyndham’s novel - but “super weeds that can’t be killed” <2>, created by the planting of genetically modified HT crops, as seen on ABC TV news.

The scene is set at harvest time in Arkansas October 2009. Grim-faced farmers and scientists speak from fields infested with giant pigweed plants that can withstand as much glyphosate herbicide as you can afford to douse on them. One farmer spent US$0.5 million in three months trying to clear the monster weeds in vain; they stop combine harvesters and break hand tools. Already, an estimated one million acres of soybean and cotton crops in Arkansas have become infested.

The palmer amaranth or palmer pigweed is the most dreaded weed. It can grow 7-8 feet tall, withstand withering heat and prolonged droughts, produce thousands of seeds and has a root system that drains nutrients away from crops. If left unchecked, it would take over a field in a year.

Meanwhile in North Carolina Perquimans County, farmer and extension worker Paul Smith has just found the offending weed in his field <3>, and he too, will have to hire a migrant crew to remove the weed by hand.

The resistant weed is expected to move into neighbouring counties. It has already developed resistance to at least three other types of herbicides.

Herbicide-resistance in weeds is nothing new. Ten weed species in North Carolina and 189 weed species nationally have developed resistance to some herbicide.

A new herbicide is unlikely to come out, said Alan York, retired professor of agriculture from North Carolina State University and national weed expert

Glyphosate-resistant weeds from widespread planting of HT crops

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the US and the world at large. It was patented and sold by Monsanto since the 1970s under the trade name and proprietary formulation, Roundup. Its popularity shot up with the introduction of HT crops. Data from the US Department of Agriculture indicate that the use of glyphosate on major crops went up by more than 15 fold between 1994 and 2005 <4>. The EPA estimated in 2000-2001 that 100 million pounds of glyphosate are used on lawns and farms every year <5>, and over the last 13 years, it has been applied to more than a billion acres <6>.

It did not take long for glyphosate-resistant weeds to appear, just as weeds resistant to every herbicide used in the past had appeared. The Weed Science Society of America reported nine weed species in the United States with confirmed resistance to glyphosate <6>; among them are strains of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum), and palmer pigweed (Amaranthus palmeri).

snip

Glyphosate resistance with the greatest of ease
Critics have been predicting glyphosate-resistant weeds before HT crops were introduced, simply through cross-pollination between HT crops and wild weedy relatives. But they had neglected the ‘fluid genome’ mechanisms that can alter genomes and genes in response to environmental stimuli, enabling most weed plants to become herbicide resistant independently of cross-pollination. I drew attention to these mechanisms in my book Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business <9> first published in 1997/1998.

Researchers led by Todd Gaines at Colorado State University, Fort Collins in the United States investigated glyphosate-resistant palmer pigweed populations from Georgia. They found that the gene coding for the enzyme EPSPS responsible for metabolising glyphosate herbicide was amplified (multiplied) 5 to 160-fold in glyphosate-resistant plants compared with glyphosate-susceptible plants <10>. The level of gene expression was positively correlated with gene copy number. Fluorescent staining for the gene showed that the amplified gene copies were present on every chromosome.

Gene amplification is one of the most common physiological responses of cells and organisms to ‘selective’ agents in their environment, known at least since 1980s <9>.

Glyphosate resistance has been confirmed in 16 weed species as of 2009 <10>. The mechanisms identified so far include reduced glyphosate uptake, and/or mutations in the EPSPS gene that make it less susceptible to inhibition by the herbicide. Glyphosate-resistant palmer pigweed is the first case of resistance based on gene amplification. It confirms the ease with which resistance to obnoxious agents can evolve <9>, and the futility of this ‘chemical warfare’ against nature.

snip

More of the same is futile

It is disappointing though predictable that the only official academic advice given to farmers is more of the same conventional practices that created the problems in the first place, spraying more and spraying mixtures of different kinds of pesticides, including those banned for being too toxic. Industry, meanwhile, is ready to sell varieties with more stacked GM traits; up to eight at double the seed price <16>.

Disappointing too is the persistent effort by some governments and government scientists to promote the failed GM technology, which as I made clear, was already obsolete since the early 1980s <9>. A Sciencexpress paper (indicating quick publication, probably without peer review) entitled “Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people” <17> co-authored by UK chief scientist Prof. John Beddington among others, while somewhat dismissive of current GM crops, nevertheless holds out promises we’ve heard for more than 30 years. “The next decade will see the development of combinations of desirable traits and the introduction of new traits such as drought tolerance. By mid-century much more radical options involving highly polygenic traits may be feasible.” It went on to promise “cloned animals with engineered innate immunity to diseases” and more.

Glyphosate and Roundup, still advertised as ‘less toxic to us than table salt’ in a pamphlet from the Biotechnology Institute promoting HT crops as ‘Weed Warrior’ <18>, is in fact highly toxic as new findings indicate <19, 20> (Death By Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup, SiS 42; Ban Glyphosate Herbicides Now, SiS 43). Thirteen years of GM crops in the USA has increased overall pesticide use by 318 million pounds <21> (GM Crops Increase Herbicide Use in the United States, SiS 45). The extra disease burden on the nation from that alone is considerable.

India has learned bitter Lessons from Bt Cotton <22> in a saga of worsening farm suicides and, in common with the USA, an ecological disaster in secondary and new cotton pests, resistant pests, new diseases, and above all, soils so depleted in nutrients and beneficial microorganisms that they would cease to support the growth of any crop in a decade. Their only salvation is a return to organic agriculture, which has already proven far more sustainable and profitable than Bt cotton <12>. This may apply also to the USA.

snip

Certified organic acres more than doubled from 1.3 million acres in 1997 to a little over 4 million acres in 2005 (0.5 percent of all agricultural land in the US). In the same period, the number of organic farms increased from 5 021 to 8 493, and the average size of certified organic farms went from 268 acres to 477 acres.

So why are US farmers failing to taking advantage of the rapidly expanding market? It is thought <23> that potential organic farmers may opt to continue with conventional production methods because of “social pressures from other farmers nearby who have negative views of organic farming”, or because of an inability to weather the effects of reduced yields and profits during the transition period. This is not surprising on account of the persistent negative propaganda carried out by GM proponents, including government regulatory agencies, against organic agriculture. (See for example the recent attempt by UK Food Standards Agency to prove organic food is no more nutritious than conventional food, which backfired <24> (UK Food Standards Agency Study Proves Organic Food Is Better, SiS 44). The usual claims are that organic agriculture yields less and require more energy than conventional agriculture, and organic produce no more nutritious or healthy, but less hygienic than conventional produce. These false claims are all thoroughly refuted in ISIS report Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free <25>, with evidence from the published scientific literature, as well as other studies.

Most relevant for US farmers is a study by Kathleen Delate of Iowa State University and Cynthia A. Cambardella of the US Department of Agriculture assessing the performance of farms during the three-year transition it takes to switch from conventional to certified organic production <26>. The experiment lasting four years (three years transition and first year organic) showed that although yields dropped initially, they equalized in the third year, and by the fourth year, the organic yields were ahead of the conventional for both soybean and corn.

Our report <25> also documents the enormous potential for reducing greenhouse emissions – even to the extent of freeing us entirely from fossil fuels – through organic agriculture and localised food (and renewable energy) systems. It is a unique combination of the latest scientific analyses, case studies of farmer-led research, and especially farmers’ own experiences and innovations that often confound academic scientists wedded to outmoded and obsolete theories, of which GM technology is one glaring example.

At about the same time our report was released, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was also published. IAASTD was the result of three-year deliberation by 400 participating scientists and non-government representatives from 110 countries around the world <27>. It came to the conclusion that small scale organic agriculture is the way ahead for coping with hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters <28> (“GM-Free Organic Agriculture to Feed the World<”, SiS 38).[br />
A fundamental shift in farming practice is needed right now, before the agricultural meltdown is complete.

Original at:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCropsFacingMeltdown.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #36
87. .
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertDiamond Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
39. !!! INDIA!!! THANK YOU FOR THE SANITY!!! :-) :-) :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
40. This is where the left is as anti-science as the fundies.
We can feed the whole fucking world many times over using far less of the land, and less fertilizers and chemicals, but some of you guys are like the damn creationists and are just as anti-science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #40
47. Some may sound anti-science, but not all.
Three Approved GMO's Linked to Organ Damage

All three varieties of GM corn - Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto's confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.

The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto's 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide-producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.

The data "clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system," reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

http://www.truthout.org/article/three-approved-gmos-linked-organ-damage

We know corporations would never harm us. They fight food labeling because they don't want us to starve. They're doing gawd's work after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #47
80. That's an excellent study, actually.
It highlights one of the real dangers of GM corn: the farmers go ape-shit with herbicides and pesticides because the plant can "take it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaulaFarrell Donating Member (840 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. Sorry not true
GM crops are not designed to be more productive on less land or to use less fertizizer. Any reduction in use of pesticides is generally lost withion 10 years as resistance is acquired by the pest/weed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #50
77. huh? of course they are.
Not every one of them, but many certainly are designed to need less water in particular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Haole Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #40
57. I suppose time will tell if science will triumph over nature. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #57
69. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. People who disagree with you are shills and morans.
Brilliant. Dale Carnegie would be proud.

There are valid concerns about GM food. But there are a bunch of anti-science ones, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #73
83. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #40
68. It is NOT anti-science to be cautious about food safety.
In my personal life I'm surrounded by PHD scientists and engineers who have SCIENTIFIC doubts about the safety of GMO foods. We avoid them as much as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #68
92. "I'd love to ban the cultivation of wheat"
That ain't "cautious about food safety."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #40
91. Yup.
This whole movement has its origins in a conservative creationist- Jeremy Rifkin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chrisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
90. Gm crops, if proven safe, could be very beneficial.
Think of creating very nutritious food for starving populations, or plants that can grow in harsh environments that normally wouldn't support them.

On the other hand, people are willing to eat crops that have had every pesticide and fertilizer known to humanity sprayed on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
98. Good news. Hope this is real and not theater. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
103. sounds like a future suicide victim....
Hello Monsanto!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
112. GMO crops are not cheaper to produce. They are merely heavily subsidized.
Those up thread implying that BioAg technologies somehow benefit starving populations &/or result in affordable food are woefully naive.

Take away the taxpayer subsidies for these dangerous crops, and the cost to produce will skyrocket. These subsidies are a big gift to Big BioAg companies.

Why not subsidize organic crops? Imagine the cost savings in terms of healthcare & chemical pollution reduction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
120. I understand the concern over this. But, this planet is headed for a severe food shortage.
We need to do something to avert an upcoming world wide famine. Heck, as you know, there is famine in a lot of places already. And some Americans go to bed hungry too.

So if the naysayers in this thread don't want us to use any kind of GM foods, what is their solution for world hunger? Yes, we should promote family planning and birth control, but that in and of itself won't be enough. And with the possible negative effect of global warming upon many crop growing regions, that problem will make it even worse, as if it's not bad enough already.

Yes, it's easy to criticize, but I ask again, if not GM foods, what is your solution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #120
123. See my post right before yours. The "GM crops will end world hunger" is the big lie.
You've bought into the propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #123
128. No, it's not a big lie. The researchers freely admit that it's not cheaper now, but there is a...
lot more to it than that. An instructor in one of my classes was talking about this just the other day.

As the production of GM foods increases, then the cost to produce them will come down over time. That's always the way it works. It used to cost more than $500 to buy a blueray player. Now you can get a model that is superior to the earlier models for less than $100. And once expensive DVD players can now be had for $30. Yes, GM foods are more of a long term solution to world hunger, but we need long term solutions.

Plus price is not the only factor. If we can get GM foods to grow in areas of the world that cannot sustain crop production now, then that's a benefit, higher cost or not. And it's simple economics. Add to the supply and eventually costs will come down.

And BTW, you didn't answer my question. If not GM foods, then what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #128
135. That's stupid, how many GM foods are designed to require less water, less nitrogen, etc.
than what humans already have used. How many? Can you list them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. There are a number of drought resistant crops in the pipeline.
Corn, wheat, cotton...

I don't know if they've reached market yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. They've been saying that crap for over a decade now as well as higher yields and a while ago they
even claimed to be more nutritious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. Ah, more nutritious.
Like golden rice. It was intended to increase the amount of pro-vitamin A and help alleviate vitamin A deficiencies in 3rd world countries. Early varieties did indeed have more pro-vitamin A, but not enough to make a significant impact. More recent varieties are in the pipeline. I believe there's a corn variety currently on the market that does indeed have huge amounts of beta-carotene in it compared to non-GM corn. As for higher yields- that's the whole point of Round-up Ready and Bt crops. They produce significantly more yields.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #140
158. Yeah. Significantly more yields
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 04:29 PM by Orrex
OF EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #158
165. I didn't get a chance to finish my post becase I'm typing from work.
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 05:28 PM by superconnected
All that they promised have been lies. The crops have had significantly less yields and have not been more nutritious. What they did do was sue the neighboring farmers because Montesantos seeds got into their crops and infected them(spread by wind) and the Montesanto company claimed it was an infringement on genetic copyright, so have systematically put sued other farmers around them out of business. Bush had several Montesanto executives and pundits in his own cabinet for his first four years - that's when they passed legislation that genetically modified foods (frankenfoods aka frankenstein foods) are not required to be labeled. Which is still the case in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #165
166. Baloney.
1. Crops which are designed to produce more beta carotene do indeed produce more beta carotene.

2. Round-up ready and Bt crops are indeed more productive. Monsanto (you can't even get the name of the company right? Way to pay attention, Einstein) only sues farmers which violate their licensing agreements and save seeds and then replant them. Farmers like Schmeisser lie and claim wind contamination, but it's been shown otherwise in court. That said, there have only been a handful of cases where Monsanto has taken farmers to court over this. On the other hand, thousands upon thousands of farmers have bought and continued to buy from Monsanto and other GM providers. Why? Because they produce more yield.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #166
172. Read up on it.
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 08:20 PM by superconnected
I read up on it quite a bit a few years back, I see you haven't at all, ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. I have read up on it. I invite you to do the same.
Stay away from the woo woo, though. That's all misinformation.

But if I'm really the idiot that you claimed that I was before you edited your post, why can't you put up a proper argument?

"The Court's ruling concluded:

... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffs’ Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs’ patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffs’ patent."<2>

The case was then heard by the Federal Court of Appeal at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, beginning May 15, 2002. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the trial judge.

The Federal Court of Appeal in particular stressed the importance of the finding that Schmeiser had knowingly used the seed, in their decision to find Schmeiser in infringement of the patent, and noted that in a case of accidental contamination or a case where the farmer knew of the presence of the gene but took no action to increase its prevalence in his crop, a different ruling could be possible (see paragraphs 55-58 of the appeal ruling).<4> No damages were assessed against Percy Schmeiser, the private individual. Only Mr. Schmeiser's farming corporation, Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd., was held liable, as Mr. Schmeiser had acted in his capacity as director of the corporation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser#Initial_trial_and_appeal

Vitamin-enriched corn derived from South African white corn variety M37W has bright orange kernels, with 169x increase in beta carotene, 6x the vitamin C and 2x folate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_crops#Development

Onfarm field trials carried out with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in different states of India show that the technology substantially reduces pest damage and increases yields. The yield gains are much higher than what has been reported for other countries where genetically modified crops were used mostly to replace and enhance chemical pest control. In many developing countries, small-scale farmers especially suffer big pest-related yield losses because of technical and economic constraints. Pest-resistant genetically modified crops can contribute to increased yields and agricultural growth in those situations, as the case of Bt cotton in India demonstrates.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5608/900
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #135
141. I will let your insult to my intelligence pass. However, you need to look no further than...
GM tomatoes that were first grown in the UK in the mid nineties. They hold less water which means that it will take less water to produce them and it will take less energy to remove water from them before processing.

But look, this is an ongoing process and nobody is saying that we have all the answers yet. One of the main goals of the researchers is to produce drought resistant varieties. We are not all the way there yet, but we can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem of world hunger will just go away on it's own. And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #141
152. And how useful will these crops be when farmers can't afford to buy the seeds?
The problem isn't the science, its the legal framework(traditional patent/copyright system) that's the problem with GM crops. When you have a patented product that people may be required to live off of, then you will have many problems with distributing that product fairly. GM crops may be great to solve world hunger and other problems with raising food and distributing it, however not at the current time, frankly its impossible legally to be able to solve world hunger unless we allow only a few organizations total global control of the world's food supply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #120
134. OK, since when are GM foods supposed to reduce famine?
I have yet to see makers of GM foods create crop varieties that require less water than more typical breeds. Mostly I see them create crops that are resistant to herbicides or pesticides, or produce them within themselves to reduce the need for spraying fields with more chemicals. Of course, there is no free lunch, so some of these GM crops require more water and fertilizer than more typical breeds as well. How is this solving global food shortages?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #120
187. First, do no harm.
> We need to do something to avert an upcoming world wide famine.

I suspect it is a bit late for the "averting" phase but anyway ...


> Yes, we should promote family planning and birth control, but that in and
> of itself won't be enough.

It is no coincidence that the set of people that promote GM food as a "solution"
overlaps greatly with the set of people that fight against family planning
and birth control.

Quite apart from increasing the market for food products, such a position
also serves to increase the pressure on the acceptance of any "silver bullet"
and the minimisation of "safe testing".


> And with the possible negative effect of global warming upon many crop
> growing regions, that problem will make it even worse, as if it's not
> bad enough already.

Again, examine the set of people advocating both of the above positions
and compare it to the set that are denying (or maybe just "doubting")
the validity of global climate change (warming/drying/flooding/etc.).


> Yes, it's easy to criticize, but I ask again, if not GM foods,
> what is your solution?

The starting point should be as in the title of this post: don't panic
and rush blindly into accepting the timely & "generously" proferred
silver bullet from Monsanto & friends ... at least not without making
*damn* sure that the bullet is really silver and not plutonium ...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #187
195. Excellent Response !
:toast:

We simply can NOT afford a Global mistake.

"Gee, nobody could have anticipated THIS" will NOT fix a GLOBAL disaster produced by "unintended consequences".

Ask Research Scientist Professor Warrik Kerr of Brazil.
He brought the Africanized Honey Bee to America.
His "containment" was thought to be 100%, but he had not considered the possibility that someone would intentionally remove the barrier screens from the experimental hives.
(Gee. Who could have anticipated THAT?)

The powerful new gene splicing technologies and Global Corporate distribution networks carry the potential for Global Disaster. (Anyone who denies that is lying.) They also bring the possibility for HUGE Worldwide benefits.

My problem is that in our current deregulated Corporate Wild West environment, there is NOBODY providing adequate oversight to ensure that effective safeguards and oversight are in place.

One thing I know for sure:
A For Profit Corporation will NEVER provide effective oversight for itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #120
206. This Is Not the Answer
Edited on Wed Feb-10-10 09:25 PM by NashVegas
I'm sorry. I hate to sound like a fatalist, but the planet is far, far better off with a few billion less people than removing the means of self-reliant self-sustenance from the survivors. Learning to cope with tragedy is the greater skill than preventing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-11-10 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #206
209. Correct.
> the planet is far, far better off with a few billion less people
> than removing the means of self-reliant self-sustenance from the survivors.

Even if people disagree with the first part of your comment (the subject
of human population levels tends to get over-emotional very quickly), the
second part cannot be denied.

Removing the means of self-reliant self-sustenance is manslaughter at best.

When this is done purely for profit, it is murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
144. India is very strong on the GM issue.
Bravo to the Indian people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmoney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
161. When INDIA turns down food, something must be REALLY wrong with it.
(Flashback to childhood and being told that "there are starving children in India who would love to have those lima beans" and the inevitable response of "ok, send them these.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
163. Pooooorrrr Monsanto. Tsk tisk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
169. My wife & I feel so strongly about this,
and have so little confidence in our Corporate Owned Government to provide adequate safeguards and oversight that we moved to The Woods in 2006 and started growing our own food.

We are far away from any Factory Farms or GM crops.
ALL GM Crops, non-naturally occurring pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are permanently banned from our little hilltop in The Woods.
We also keep HoneyBeees and free range chickens.

No Hormones
No prophylactic antibiotics (or ANY antibiotics so far)
No Handling, Processing, Transportation, and Packaging "contaminants"
No artificial "fillers", artificial coloring, or inert ingredients
No "Preservatives" or Irradiation

So far, so good.

You are, of course, free to consume as much Factory Produced Food-Like substances as you desire, take comfort in the Corporate Approved "research" and "consumer protections", and rejoice in the Corporate Approved Press Releases claiming SUCCESS!!!


Safety concerns aside, we would do this if ONLY for the taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #169
184. .
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
twitomy Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-09-10 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
171. Bah! GMO is safe...its "settled science"...
GMO deniers are kooks!

Ok I'm kidding...couldnt help myself..

Actually Im not thrilled about GMO. I have a nice 3-acre plot of heirloom red-fife wheat in winter hibernation right now..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-10-10 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
189. Technophobic hysteria strikes agian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-11-10 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
208. Good.
Edited on Thu Feb-11-10 02:53 AM by Trillo
Hopefully India will require generational safety studies. 7 generations of safety? Or would 4 be enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC