Genetically modified foods at the Food Coop

capt. planet

Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]Some context about Indian and GM cotton might be helpful. Unlike in the US where agribusiness largely dominates everything and everybody, in India there has been considerable resistance to GM crops, particularly cotton. Vandana Shiva, a prominent leader in the attempt to preserve indigenous species and maintain traditional rural lifestyles, as helped spearhead the resistance to GM cotton and other corporate intrusions into Indian society. They have been numerous actions against Monsanto in Indian and there is a large anti-Monsanto sentiment there.

So it not surprising to see this kind of news story coming out of India. This would play well in Inida. It wouldn't in the US which is why you'd never see it here unless perhaps human children ate the cotton. In which case it would probably come out as a case of parental neglect and all of the blame would be placed on the parents, not Monsanto.

This case typifies the types of unanticipated results you get when you start tampering with nature. Who knew sheep and goats ate cotton? It's reasonable to assume that in its haste to recoup its huge investment in GM cotton, Monsanto was not about to spend additional time and money investigating what happening when animals ate GM crops. God only knows what types of other additional unanticipated characteristics GM cotton has. Time will tell, not Monsanto.

Once again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. Let's wait and see what the report shows before assuming this had anything to do with the fact that the cotton was genetically modified. Hundreds of animals dying at once sounds much more like an infectious disease or a chemical poisoning to me. Genes, if they were to have any effect when ingested wouldn't affect the animals so quickly. Do you know what the specific modification to this cotton was? It's possible that they were engineered to make a pesticide, which would make sense for a crop that isn't intended as a food. Then I could accept that the animals were poisoned by a toxin that the cotton was in fact designed to produce, meaning that the fault lies with those who let their animals eat this crop (just as if the crop had been sprayed with that pesticide). If that's the case, though, this has nothing to do with mysterious effects of genetic engineering.

The article states that the plant eaten was bt cotton. I recall several studies cited elsewhere showing that altered genes are not transferred through the gut into the tissue of an animal eating the GM plant. So that would suggest that these sheep and goats would not be effected by the genetic material in the bt cotton plants.

As I'm sure you're aware one of the biggest GM crops is bt corn. And certainly bt corn is intended for animal consumption. I'm sure you're also aware of the big Starlink scandal where the FDA approved a bt corn for animal consumption only and somehow it ended up in somebody's taco shells. With no labeling of either GM seeds or GM end-products, it's easy to see why mistakes of all types keep happening, especially in developing countries, where many farmers are either illiterate or can't read or write English. As long as the industry keeps supporting the myth that GM plants are the "substantial equivalents" of their non-GM cousins, we're all at risk.

capt. planet

Arizona is not India. Clearly the farmer needs to understand the product to get the most benefit from lower and more selective application of chemical pesticides. And whether or not the culprit in this case turns out to be the Bt toxin, maybe letting their sheep and goats graze on it isn't such a smart idea. I bet sheep can do more damage to the crop than the boll weevil.


Typical bourgeois thinking. Didn't it occur to you that these farmers are illiterate? I'm willing to wager that most Americans barely comprehend what GM plants are. How do you expect millions of Hindi speaking Indian farmers to understand these chimeric concoctions? Do you really believe that Monsanto cares? Do you think they are going to spend the money necessary to properly education illiterate farmers about the proper way to use GM plants? Even if they care to do so, does the infrastructure exist in Indian civil society to make this happen?

The world is full of plants that are poisonous if eaten in excessive quantities by humans or livestock. We learn to avoid them, wild animals learn to avoid them, and we help domestic animals steer clear of them. Bt cotton is not a food, and has nothing to do with GM food at the coop.

How is a wild animal supposed to know anything about GM cotton? Of course animals aren't going to read labels and, according to the FDA, GM plants are "substantially equivalent" to normal plants. No clue for the unsuspecting animals, unless of course, there really is a difference. Which is what many claim. In that case, the whole FDA big lie is baloney.

carnivore

greg wrote: As I'm sure you're aware one of the biggest GM crops is bt corn. And certainly bt corn is intended for animal consumption. I'm sure you're also aware of the big Starlink scandal where the FDA approved a bt corn for animal consumption only and somehow it ended up in somebody's taco shells. With no labeling of either GM seeds or GM end-products, it's easy to see why mistakes of all types keep happening, especially in developing countries, where many farmers are either illiterate or can't read or write English. As long as the industry keeps supporting the myth that GM plants are the "substantial equivalents" of their non-GM cousins, we're all at risk.

The story you posted wasn't about bt corn, it was about cotton. If bt corn is harmful, where are the similar epidemics of mass animal poisoning? Presumably there are many animals eating large quantities of the stuff, since that's what it's intended for.
We shouldn't ban products based on assumptions of their misuse. There have been many terrible tragedies involving non-GM grain treated with fungicide and intended for planting only that caused human toxicity when used as food (epidemic methylmercury poisoning in Iraq, for example). That doesn't mean those products are banned- it means they have to be used with more care. Your original complaint was about Cheerios sold at the Co-op, which contain GM grain clearly intended for human consumption. After almost 200 posts, we're still back at the beginning, with no evidence that these foods are harmful in any way. You wouldn't happen to be able to cite any cases of human toxicity resulting from those tacos shells "contaminated" with GM corn, would you?

doctorj

greg wrote:

Arizona is not India. Clearly the farmer needs to understand the product to get the most benefit from lower and more selective application of chemical pesticides. And whether or not the culprit in this case turns out to be the Bt toxin, maybe letting their sheep and goats graze on it isn't such a smart idea. I bet sheep can do more damage to the crop than the boll weevil.

Typical bourgeois thinking.

We're both stakeholders in the Free West, but at least I'm not preoccupied with genetic hygiene.

Didn't it occur to you that these farmers are illiterate? I'm willing to wager that most Americans barely comprehend what GM plants are. How do you expect millions of Hindi speaking Indian farmers to understand these chimeric concoctions?

Of course it occurred to me, or I wouldn't have said as much. It does rather look a bit like India may not be ready for this crop and this crop may not be ready for India. In which case Monsanto won't be making much of a return there on their investment which is probably substantial. Remind me to call my broker about lining up that put option in case the Indian report comes back showing the Bt toxin to be to blame.

Still, these shepherds might not have studied the classics but they do learn fast:

"A shepherd in another village, Akkapalli reported that he had cultivated Bt cotton the previous year and allowed his sheep to graze, which resulted in deaths. This year, while he still cultivated Bt cotton, he did not allow them to graze on it, and his sheep did not die."

Smart guy.

Do you really believe that Monsanto cares? Do you think they are going to spend the money necessary to properly education illiterate farmers about the proper way to use GM plants?

If they don't care, they ought to. They're a company and bad press affects their bottom line. Dead sheep make for angry shareholders. India might turf them out entirely. Either they'll have to make the product safer (if it is indeed dangerous) or people will figure it out for themselves second or third year around, or Monsanto will have to spend more on explaining how to use it safely and profitably, or they'll lose the business. Like I say, it looks to me like the chances of this product succeeding in this market at this point in time aren't great, but we'll have to see.

Even if they care to do so, does the infrastructure exist in Indian civil society to make this happen?

Good question. Indian society in general, medium term, I hope so. Back hills of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh, maybe not, I've never been there. Though it's pretty close to Hyderabad which is by all acounts a dynamic and switched on place.

greg wrote:

The world is full of plants that are poisonous if eaten in excessive quantities by humans or livestock. We learn to avoid them, wild animals learn to avoid them, and we help domestic animals steer clear of them. Bt cotton is not a food, and has nothing to do with GM food at the coop.

How is a wild animal supposed to know anything about GM cotton? Of course animals aren't going to read labels and, according to the FDA, GM plants are "substantially equivalent" to normal plants. No clue for the unsuspecting animals, unless of course, there really is a difference. Which is what many claim. In that case, the whole FDA big lie is baloney.

Well, not to go into too many details, as this is irrelevant to GM cotton grown in the United States, much less GM foods in the Park Slope Food co-op, but I note the following:

* Regular non-GM cotton is grown with lots of pesticides, more than Bt cotton, and poisonings are pretty common and serious problem in the third world. From this perspective, I'm surprised you don't support Bt Cotton for its relative safety and kindness to the environment.
* Probably not too many wild animals in Warangal. Whatever there is won't be sneaking onto the fields to feast on cotton. I never heard of an animal apart from the boll weevil that preferred cotton as its staple, to the exclusion of all other available sustenance. I'd go for the vegetables next door and the lamb first myself. And then if it came down to it, it'd still be a toss-up between the shepherd and the cotton.
* The shepherds forced their sheep on a cotton field where there was nothing else to eat for a protracted period. This is not a "natural" free range type of situation.
* The way it normally works out between wild animals and wild plants on their own is taste aversion and a varied diet. Most poisons taste bad. Naturally poisonous species generally differ from place to place, season to season, year to year, plant to plant in how edible they are, while looking and tasting indistinguishable. Your wild animal tries a small amount, and if it doesn't like how it feels, it remembers and doesn't try it again. If it weren't so, we would have died out long ago.
* Does the FDA really claim Bt cotton plants are "substantially equivalent" to regular cotton plants as far as human consumption goes? I wouldn't have thought they'd take much interest seeing that cotton plants aren't food or drugs. They become interested when cotton is bleached and used in a medical context, or when the seeds are processed into cotton seed oil, but that's a different matter.

emily

doctorj wrote: Still, these shepherds might not have studied the classics but they do learn fast:

"A shepherd in another village, Akkapalli reported that he had cultivated Bt cotton the previous year and allowed his sheep to graze, which resulted in deaths. This year, while he still cultivated Bt cotton, he did not allow them to graze on it, and his sheep did not die."

Smart guy.

Wait, so the guy observed a phenomenon, changed the conditions, observed a different outcome, and then came to a conclusion based upon his observations?

Next you'll be telling me that he told his neighbor about it, and his neighbor tried to create the same conditions to see whether the same thing happened to his sheep...smart guys!

carnivore

sweet tea

greg wrote:

The article states that the plant eaten was bt cotton. I recall several studies cited elsewhere showing that altered genes are not transferred through the gut into the tissue of an animal eating the GM plant. So that would suggest that these sheep and goats would not be effected by the genetic material in the bt cotton plants.

Right, but if bt cotton is engineered to produce pesticide, then it wasn't magical genetic transfer that (may have) killed the goats; it was the pesticide.

In other words, this is a story about GM plants behaving exactly as they were designed to behave.

Using less added pesticide is GOOD. Because, as much as I feel for starving goats, I'm a lot more concerned about the farm workers who are exposed to chemicals we already KNOW are bad.

whyfi

Kill... before... THIRD... PAGE!!!

capt. planet

sweet tea wrote: [quote=greg]

The article states that the plant eaten was bt cotton. I recall several studies cited elsewhere showing that altered genes are not transferred through the gut into the tissue of an animal eating the GM plant. So that would suggest that these sheep and goats would not be effected by the genetic material in the bt cotton plants.

Right, but if bt cotton is engineered to produce pesticide, then it wasn't magical genetic transfer that (may have) killed the goats; it was the pesticide.

In other words, this is a story about GM plants behaving exactly as they were designed to behave.

Using less added pesticide is GOOD. Because, as much as I feel for starving goats, I'm a lot more concerned about the farm workers who are exposed to chemicals we already KNOW are bad.

Hold everything: Monsanto also makes bt corn. It also is a pesticide, just like bt cotton, with the big difference, it was designed as a food crop. Now if sheep and goats get sick because they're eating a pesticide, what happens when cows eat bt corn? Am I missing something here?

And of course the big rap against all of the "bt" crops is that they're destroying the effectiveness by over-exposing insects to bacteria thurigenesis (bt), almost ensuring that sooner or later "super bugs" will evolve that are resistant to it. Historically bt has been used by organic farmers as one of the limited number of natural pesticides available to them. So by knocking out bt, Monsanto is also attacking organic farming.

doctorj

greg wrote:
Hold everything: Monsanto also makes bt corn. It also is a pesticide, just like bt cotton, with the big difference, it was designed as a food crop. Now if sheep and goats get sick because they're eating a pesticide, what happens when cows eat bt corn? Am I missing something here?

Well one obvious thing you're missing is that organisms don't express all genes in all tissues, nor in the same amounts throughout their lifecycle. You don't eat the stem of the corn plant, you eat the kernels. And it wouldn't surprise me if the bt toxin isn't expressed in the kernels, nor in the cotton seed.

Think of rhubarb: humans have learnt to cook and eat the stems, but they don't use the poisonous leaves. Or apricots: we eat the fruit but not the poisonous kernels.

carnivore

greg wrote: Hold everything: Monsanto also makes bt corn. It also is a pesticide, just like bt cotton, with the big difference, it was designed as a food crop. Now if sheep and goats get sick because they're eating a pesticide, what happens when cows eat bt corn? Am I missing something here?

Carnivore wrote: The story you posted wasn't about bt corn, it was about cotton. If bt corn is harmful, where are the similar epidemics of mass animal poisoning? Presumably there are many animals eating large quantities of the stuff, since that's what it's intended for.
...
You wouldn't happen to be able to cite any cases of human toxicity resulting from those tacos shells "contaminated" with GM corn, would you?

doctorj

greg wrote:
And of course the big rap against all of the "bt" crops is that they're destroying the effectiveness by over-exposing insects to bacteria thurigenesis (bt), almost ensuring that sooner or later "super bugs" will evolve that are resistant to it. Historically bt has been used by organic farmers as one of the limited number of natural pesticides available to them. So by knocking out bt, Monsanto is also attacking organic farming.

I note that Bt toxin has been in use as a pesticide for many years now by farmers, organic and otherwise. You're suggesting that organic farmers have special rights to Bt because they like to use it; maybe they'd like to form a cartel, take out some patents and force others to pay them royalties?

Can you explain to me the difference, in terms of safety and kindness to the environment, and in terms of evolutionary pressure towards resistance, between an organic farmer spraying the entire field with Bacillis thuringiensis including Bt toxin (Cry proteins) vs. those toxins being expressed in parts of the GM plant?

Seems to me that having just the Cry protein in the place and time where it's needed is not a more dangerous or less green option. I put it to you that organic farmers spraying the whole field with Bt are hitting all the plants and all the insects that feed on them, not just a particular pest on a particular plant at a particular point in its lifecycle. Remind me, who's overexposing the insects to Bt?

Maybe we should be labeling some products at the Food Coop as "sprayed with bacteria". I bet shoppers would like that. After hearing about those poor sheep, you've made me worried now about Bt -- the food safety committee has a duty to inform shoppers about products containing ingredients on which these toxic bacteria have been sprayed.

It makes me wonder whether the real reason the organic lobby opposes Bt GMOs is economic, not safety or environmental. They shouldn't fear: there will always be a boutique market for their products at higher prices than the mass-produced mainstream, and that market is growing at the moment in many Western countries. Cry proteins in the pollen of Bt corn won't stop that.

capt. planet

doctorj wrote: [quote=greg]
And of course the big rap against all of the "bt" crops is that they're destroying the effectiveness by over-exposing insects to bacteria thurigenesis (bt), almost ensuring that sooner or later "super bugs" will evolve that are resistant to it. Historically bt has been used by organic farmers as one of the limited number of natural pesticides available to them. So by knocking out bt, Monsanto is also attacking organic farming.

I note that Bt toxin has been in use as a pesticide for many years now by farmers, organic and otherwise. You're suggesting that organic farmers have special rights to Bt because they like to use it; maybe they'd like to form a cartel, take out some patents and force others to pay them royalties?

Can you explain to me the difference, in terms of safety and kindness to the environment, and in terms of evolutionary pressure towards resistance, between an organic farmer spraying the entire field with Bacillis thuringiensis including Bt toxin (Cry proteins) vs. those toxins being expressed in parts of the GM plant?

Seems to me that having just the Cry protein in the place and time where it's needed is not a more dangerous or less green option. I put it to you that organic farmers spraying the whole field with Bt are hitting all the plants and all the insects that feed on them, not just a particular pest on a particular plant at a particular point in its lifecycle. Remind me, who's overexposing the insects to Bt?

Maybe we should be labeling some products at the Food Coop as "sprayed with bacteria". I bet shoppers would like that. After hearing about those poor sheep, you've made me worried now about Bt -- the food safety committee has a duty to inform shoppers about products containing ingredients on which these toxic bacteria have been sprayed.

It makes me wonder whether the real reason the organic lobby opposes Bt GMOs is economic, not safety or environmental. They shouldn't fear: there will always be a boutique market for their products at higher prices than the mass-produced mainstream, and that market is growing at the moment in many Western countries. Cry proteins in the pollen of Bt corn won't stop that.

The bt bacteria when used by the organic gardening community is effective for only few days and is used only in response to a insect pest present on the crops.

Bt corn however expresses its toxicity constantly throughout its life cycle, flooding the environment with bt toxins, giving the insect pests a much greater window in which to develop a resistance.

Clearly Monsanto didn't really think much about the impact of casting huges amounts of continuely expressed bt toxic out into the environment. Not surprising for the producer of Agent Orange.

And who says the bt toxin in not expressed in every cell of the corn plant, including the corn seeds we feed to animals? This is easily tested. Do you have any evidence that bt is not expressed in the corn kernels?

And again, is it a consumer benefit to eat bt toxic in our food? Or soley MOnsanto's?

capt. planet

Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]Hold everything: Monsanto also makes bt corn. It also is a pesticide, just like bt cotton, with the big difference, it was designed as a food crop. Now if sheep and goats get sick because they're eating a pesticide, what happens when cows eat bt corn? Am I missing something here?

Carnivore wrote: The story you posted wasn't about bt corn, it was about cotton. If bt corn is harmful, where are the similar epidemics of mass animal poisoning? Presumably there are many animals eating large quantities of the stuff, since that's what it's intended for.
...
You wouldn't happen to be able to cite any cases of human toxicity resulting from those tacos shells "contaminated" with GM corn, would you?

Presumably the FDA has evidence that Starlink corn was not safe for human consumption, or why else would they have explicitly banned it for human consumption.

And just because Starlink doesn't affect animals like cyanide doesn't mean that it isn't toxic. Thousands of "downer" cows too sick to walk are put into dog and cat food every year. What are they sick from? Is anybody asking? Where are the biopsies?

carnivore

greg wrote: And again, is it a consumer benefit to eat bt toxic in our food? Or soley MOnsanto's?

The bt corn is only approved for animal feed.
But to answer your question, it is a consumer benefit to have abundant cheap food. You accused doctorj of bourgeois thinking, but I think you need to look a little closer at yourself. Boutique organic and small-production agriculture is nice for those who can afford it (I shop at the green market because the produce is fresher and tastes better, not because of superstition). But the fact is that the population of New York City could never be sustained on what could ever be produced on small farms in surrounding areas. Many of your neighbors could never afford to buy their food if forced to buy these products (which would become even more expensive without competition from industrial agriculture).

Or would you send the poor out to the countryside to work the land and produce food that satisfies your moral requirements?

carnivore

greg wrote: Presumably the FDA has evidence that Starlink corn was not safe for human consumption, or why else would they have explicitly banned it for human consumption.

You presume too much. What is the evidence? Did they actually ban the corn for human consumption or only approve it for animal consumption (not at all the same thing)? Did Monsanto ever even apply for approval for human consumption? In general, corn varieties used for animal feed are different than varieties used for human consumption, and wouldn't taste very good. It would be quite a leap to assume that the food was dangerous just because Monsanto didn't apply for the right to sell animal feed for human consumption.

The FDA has certainly approved other GM corn for human consumption. All of the "super-sweet" varieties are genetically modified to produce more sugars. I guess you'll presume that those are safe since the FDA approved them?

greg wrote: And just because Starlink doesn't affect animals like cyanide doesn't mean that it isn't toxic. Thousands of "downer" cows too sick to walk are put into dog and cat food every year. What are they sick from? Is anybody asking? Where are the biopsies?

Again you have lots of questions and no facts. Downer cows existed before genetically modified products, so it's illogical to assume that their existence proves that GM feed is dangerous.

capt. planet

Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]And again, is it a consumer benefit to eat bt toxic in our food? Or soley MOnsanto's?

The bt corn is only approved for animal feed.
But to answer your question, it is a consumer benefit to have abundant cheap food. You accused doctorj of bourgeois thinking, but I think you need to look a little closer at yourself. Boutique organic and small-production agriculture is nice for those who can afford it (I shop at the green market because the produce is fresher and tastes better, not because of superstition). But the fact is that the population of New York City could never be sustained on what could ever be produced on small farms in surrounding areas. Many of your neighbors could never afford to buy their food if forced to buy these products (which would become even more expensive without competition from industrial agriculture).

Or would you send the poor out to the countryside to work the land and produce food that satisfies your moral requirements?

I don't know if you noticed the article in the NY Times a few weeks ago about the high cost of housing in NYC. It stated that in 2000 NYer's spent about 38% of the household income on housing versus 28% in 1900. For food however the data was even more shocking. In 1900 NYC households spent 41% of their income on food, versus just 14% now.

Trully industrial agriculture has changed the cost of feeding a family. For in 1900, all food was organic, of necessity. It took the chemical industry to come up with herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and artificial fertilizers, not to mention tractors and combines, to make our food cheap.

The problem with this rosy picture is that it is in its final days. Because we are now approaching the end of cheap oil, the costs of the inputs that make industrial agriculture work are about to take a big leap upward.

Because the creators of industrial agriculture were not thinking long term, they've used up much of the available ground water, destroyed much of the top soil and changed millions of acres of land into desert.

Meanwhile, the by-product of burning all of those fossil fuels, global warming, is just beginning to have an effect. The shift in weather patterns documented so well in "An Inconvenient Truth" will create even more drought, flood low lying cities, more hurricanes and tornadoes.

So, all in all, industrial agricultural may well prove to be a quick fix that ends in disaster. Genetic engineering is just the last gasp of a dying industry.

If you're interested in a more positive approach to feeding the world, look at permaculture. It doesn't offer a silver bullet, but it does provide hope. Check out:

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/perma.html

capt. planet

Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]Presumably the FDA has evidence that Starlink corn was not safe for human consumption, or why else would they have explicitly banned it for human consumption.

You presume too much. What is the evidence? Did they actually ban the corn for human consumption or only approve it for animal consumption (not at all the same thing)? Did Monsanto ever even apply for approval for human consumption? In general, corn varieties used for animal feed are different than varieties used for human consumption, and wouldn't taste very good. It would be quite a leap to assume that the food was dangerous just because Monsanto didn't apply for the right to sell animal feed for human consumption.

The FDA has certainly approved other GM corn for human consumption. All of the "super-sweet" varieties are genetically modified to produce more sugars. I guess you'll presume that those are safe since the FDA approved them?

greg wrote: And just because Starlink doesn't affect animals like cyanide doesn't mean that it isn't toxic. Thousands of "downer" cows too sick to walk are put into dog and cat food every year. What are they sick from? Is anybody asking? Where are the biopsies?

Again you have lots of questions and no facts. Downer cows existed before genetically modified products, so it's illogical to assume that their existence proves that GM feed is dangerous.

According to Alan Zimmerman, produce buyer for the Coop, none of the bt corn is designed for human consumption. It is fed to animals or turned into high-fructose corn syrup which is in just about everything these days. Geneticall modified sweet corn is not genetically engineered but rather hybridized in the traditional manner. Loosely interchanging the terms "genetically modified" and hybridized is really glossing over what is fundemental difference and plays into the hands of the greedy bastards who brought use DDT, Agent Orange, dioxins, cfc's, chlorine and mercury poisoning.

If you've been following the story of mad cow disease, you know that very few of the thosuands of the "downer" cattle slaughtered in the US every year are tested for mad cow disease. The simple truth is the industry doesn't want their existence publicized nor their cause of death diagnosed. It would be bad press for the meat industry. More panglossian thinking in service of the cattle industry. And more human disease in the service of cheap food.

whyfi

carnivore

greg wrote: I don't know if you noticed the article in the NY Times a few weeks ago about the high cost of housing in NYC. It stated that in 2000 NYer's spent about 38% of the household income on housing versus 28% in 1900. For food however the data was even more shocking. In 1900 NYC households spent 41% of their income on food, versus just 14% now.

Trully industrial agriculture has changed the cost of feeding a family. For in 1900, all food was organic, of necessity. It took the chemical industry to come up with herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and artificial fertilizers, not to mention tractors and combines, to make our food cheap.
...
The problem with this rosy picture is that it is in its final days. Because we are now approaching the end of cheap oil, the costs of the inputs that make industrial agriculture work are about to take a big leap upward.

You are once again confusing 2 unrelated issues, trying to transfer legitimate concerns about one (global warming) to the other (genetic modification).
Still, I'll attempt to address your point. Industrial agriculture is a big part of what makes modern cities possible, and urban living is a solution to global warming, not a cause. People who live in densely populated areas and use mass transit are contributing much less to global warming than those who use their cars to get around less densely populated areas. The decrease in pollution from less driving more than outweighs that produced by growing food. It simply isn't possible to support the 15 million people in the NY metropolitan area on locally grown food.

greg wrote: So, all in all, industrial agricultural may well prove to be a quick fix that ends in disaster. Genetic engineering is just the last gasp of a dying industry.

A poetic metaphor, but not a real argument. Genetic engineering is an important solution to many of our agricultural problems. Making a bunch of arguments about global warming and then gratuitously tacking GM on the end doesn't really support your point about GM.

capt. planet

Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]I don't know if you noticed the article in the NY Times a few weeks ago about the high cost of housing in NYC. It stated that in 2000 NYer's spent about 38% of the household income on housing versus 28% in 1900. For food however the data was even more shocking. In 1900 NYC households spent 41% of their income on food, versus just 14% now.

Trully industrial agriculture has changed the cost of feeding a family. For in 1900, all food was organic, of necessity. It took the chemical industry to come up with herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and artificial fertilizers, not to mention tractors and combines, to make our food cheap.
...
The problem with this rosy picture is that it is in its final days. Because we are now approaching the end of cheap oil, the costs of the inputs that make industrial agriculture work are about to take a big leap upward.

You are once again confusing 2 unrelated issues, trying to transfer legitimate concerns about one (global warming) to the other (genetic modification).
Still, I'll attempt to address your point. Industrial agriculture is a big part of what makes modern cities possible, and urban living is a solution to global warming, not a cause. People who live in densely populated areas and use mass transit are contributing much less to global warming than those who use their cars to get around less densely populated areas. The decrease in pollution from less driving more than outweighs that produced by growing food. It simply isn't possible to support the 15 million people in the NY metropolitan area on locally grown food.

greg wrote: So, all in all, industrial agricultural may well prove to be a quick fix that ends in disaster. Genetic engineering is just the last gasp of a dying industry.

A poetic metaphor, but not a real argument. Genetic engineering is an important solution to many of our agricultural problems. Making a bunch of arguments about global warming and then gratuitously tacking GM on the end doesn't really support your point about GM.

I actually agree with your larger observation here: that urban living is more energy efficient than suburban (have you seen "Over the Hedge"? it's a real hoot). However you're avoiding the bigger problem that peak oil presents: how do we feed ourselves when oil costs $200 a barrel? GM foods presume energy intensive agriculture. If we can no longer afford to saturate our crops with tons of Monsanto's goodies, what can we do to feed ourselves?

Did you get a chance to check out the URL I included in the last post? Whadda think?

drano

Frankly, I think we should get back to the (purported) original issue, to wit: OMG, WHAT SHOULD THE COOP DO ABOUT GM FOODS?

Greg, perhaps your intentions are good, but it's clear to me now that no tangent is too wild, no point too unsubstantiated, and no link too sketchy for you to bring up in what I believe has become your quest for the last word.

It's been fun, but I hereby vote that we give it to you, impending justice or no.

carnivore

Drano wrote: Frankly, I think we should get back to the (purported) original issue, to wit: OMG, WHAT SHOULD THE COOP DO ABOUT GM FOODS?

Greg, perhaps your intentions are good, but it's clear to me now that no tangent is too wild, no point too unsubstantiated, and no link too sketchy for you to bring up in what I believe has become your quest for the last word.

It's been fun, but I hereby vote that we give it to you, impending justice or no.

I posted this on another thread, but can we take up a collection to buy greg a megaphone, a sandwich board and a subway ride to Times Square?

capt. planet

Carnivore wrote: [quote=Drano]Frankly, I think we should get back to the (purported) original issue, to wit: OMG, WHAT SHOULD THE COOP DO ABOUT GM FOODS?

Greg, perhaps your intentions are good, but it's clear to me now that no tangent is too wild, no point too unsubstantiated, and no link too sketchy for you to bring up in what I believe has become your quest for the last word.

It's been fun, but I hereby vote that we give it to you, impending justice or no.

I posted this on another thread, but can we take up a collection to buy greg a megaphone, a sandwich board and a subway ride to Times Square?

Gang, just quit responding to my observations and the parties over.

Somehow, you just can't seem to resist..........

capt. planet

Drano wrote: Frankly, I think we should get back to the (purported) original issue, to wit: OMG, WHAT SHOULD THE COOP DO ABOUT GM FOODS?

Greg, perhaps your intentions are good, but it's clear to me now that no tangent is too wild, no point too unsubstantiated, and no link too sketchy for you to bring up in what I believe has become your quest for the last word.

It's been fun, but I hereby vote that we give it to you, impending justice or no.

Drano, I've missed you. Where have you been?

But I guess I just see the connections among things. If you don't, so be it.

carnivore

greg wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=Drano]Frankly, I think we should get back to the (purported) original issue, to wit: OMG, WHAT SHOULD THE COOP DO ABOUT GM FOODS?

Greg, perhaps your intentions are good, but it's clear to me now that no tangent is too wild, no point too unsubstantiated, and no link too sketchy for you to bring up in what I believe has become your quest for the last word.

It's been fun, but I hereby vote that we give it to you, impending justice or no.

I posted this on another thread, but can we take up a collection to buy greg a megaphone, a sandwich board and a subway ride to Times Square?

Gang, just quit responding to my observations and the parties over.

Somehow, you just can't seem to resist..........
One person's "observation" is another person's paranoid rant. I guess we can just agree to disagree. :twisted:

sweet tea

Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]

Gang, just quit responding to my observations and the parties over.

Somehow, you just can't seem to resist..........

One person's "observation" is another person's paranoid rant. nI guess we can just agree to disagree. :twisted:

c'mon.... i just wanna see if whyfi's head'll explode if this gets to page 4....

capt. planet

Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg][quote=Carnivore][quote=Drano]Frankly, I think we should get back to the (purported) original issue, to wit: OMG, WHAT SHOULD THE COOP DO ABOUT GM FOODS?

Greg, perhaps your intentions are good, but it's clear to me now that no tangent is too wild, no point too unsubstantiated, and no link too sketchy for you to bring up in what I believe has become your quest for the last word.

It's been fun, but I hereby vote that we give it to you, impending justice or no.

I posted this on another thread, but can we take up a collection to buy greg a megaphone, a sandwich board and a subway ride to Times Square?

Gang, just quit responding to my observations and the parties over.

Somehow, you just can't seem to resist..........
One person's "observation" is another person's paranoid rant. nI guess we can just agree to disagree. :twisted:

Yea, I watched that paranoid ranter, Al Gore, on Charlie Rose last night. He said prominent scientists said we have maybe ten years to effect a change in the emissions of CO2 before we reach a point of no return. Charlie pressed him hard, reasonable man that he is, about this timeframe, but Al wouldn't be moved.

What a load that guy is!

doctorj

greg wrote:
The bt bacteria when used by the organic gardening community is effective for only few days and is used only in response to a insect pest present on the crops.

Sure, that's what you say. Of course you'd say that -- you're a lackey for the organic gardening industry. But can we afford to take the risk? Why should we, coop shoppers, be the subject of your experiments with organic toxins sprayed on organic food? Remember asbestos? Remember DDT? People said they were safe too. Maybe Bt is just like global warming and no one will pay attention until it's almost too late. It takes fuel to spray Bt on plants, and we're facing a global oil crisis. Can't you see that all these things are connected? Until you can prove that Bt is safe, I think we should label organic produce at the Coop with the truth: 'Sprayed With Toxic Bacteria'.

greg wrote:
And who says the bt toxin in not expressed in every cell of the corn plant, including the corn seeds we feed to animals? This is easily tested. Do you have any evidence that bt is not expressed in the corn kernels?

Where and when the Bt toxin is expressed depends on exactly which strain. For example, Cry1Ab event 176 hybrids express Bt in the pollen only. If you are interested, you can read some details in this fairly non-technical publication from the University of Minnesota.
Bt Corn & European Corn Borer
Long-Term Success Through Resistance Management

And yes, it's easily tested, for example in this paper:
Molecular Breeding 1997, 3(3), 169-176.
They only found significant levels in pollen and leaves, and not in silage (animal feed) produced from the Bt corn.

carnivore

greg wrote: Yea, I watched that paranoid ranter, Al Gore, on Charlie Rose last night. He said prominent scientists said we have maybe ten years to effect a change in the emissions of CO2 before we reach a point of no return. Charlie pressed him hard, reasonable man that he is, about this timeframe, but Al wouldn't be moved.

What a load that guy is!

It's really amazing how you keep attempting to pretend that this is a discussion about global warming, when every single party here agrees about the facts of global warming. And as EmilyM pointed out to you earlier, Al Gore takes a position contrary to yours on the topic of genetic modification.