Genetically modified foods at the Food Coop
Comments
-
Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]I'm sure there a lots of scientists who would love to study some of the changes that occur in plant genomes where they are subjected to genetic manipulation, but who will pay for the research?
If your point was that there should be more research on GM products, I think you would have had universal agreement here. But that wasn't what you said. You claimed these products were dangerous as though the research had been done and it had been proven. And by trying to remove these products from the shelves of the co-op, you're trying to take away the ability of others to reason this out for themselves and make their own choices. If your case were so compelling, then why are people still buying these products at the co-op even after you've presented your distorted view of the facts to them and labeled all the GM products? Are they all in on the conspiracy too? I guess if you can't convince people through rational discourse, you have to coerce them into acting as you wish.
Until genetic modification attains the status of global warming, research will be neglected. I'm afraid to think what will have to happen before this research gets funded. It will take more than a few million dead monarch butterflies or a few hundred suicidal Indian farmers.
What are talking about here is the difference between the "precautionary" principle and the "substantially equivalent" approach. With the latter, our food industry has bludgeoned the FDA into approving products without any animal testing, as has long been the norm for novel chemicals.
So in effect the animals GM foods are being tested on are those who eat them, namely you. Enjoy!
By the way, I finally spoke with my MD friend who specialized environmental medicine. He had two comments:
1. Do not argue in support of a study of which you know little about. It may well have been done to prove a point other than the one you're attempting to make it prove.
2. Recognize that the industry has prevented any meaningful research being done on GM foods. Which is a massive fraud and scary as hell, in his opinion.
Further he suggested I not waste a lot of time on a small number of folks who appear intent on buying into the industry myth and put their paychecks ahead of the public good.
Having said that, I think I'll take his advice.
Thanks. It's been informative. -
greg wrote: and put their paychecks ahead of the public good.
dude, misplaced anger much? who do you imagine you're talking to, here? is monsanto on this board and i didn't know it? carnivore, you'd tell me if you were monsanto, right? doctorj? -
sweet tea wrote: [quote=greg] and put their paychecks ahead of the public good.
dude, misplaced anger much? who do you imagine you're talking to, here? is monsanto on this board and i didn't know it? carnivore, you'd tell me if you were monsanto, right? doctorj?
seriously. monsanto can fuck right off. I KNOW Carnivore is not on their payroll. I don't know doctorj but I'm assuming not, as he seems to actually give a fuck about humanity.
in any case, monsanto is evil - and their evilness is deeper than any "scientific' methodology they employ. they are just motherfuckers who put ethical, small farmers out of business and fuck up the environment. I really despise them - they're globalizing their industry and currently battling farmers in Ecuador. I ... yeah. I'm done.
anyway, monsanto is NOT Carnovire. and greg, who I have met and liked, can't possibly think that. if he does, he's not the man I believed him to be. -
alafairnadia wrote: [quote=sweet tea][quote=greg] and put their paychecks ahead of the public good.
dude, misplaced anger much? who do you imagine you're talking to, here? is monsanto on this board and i didn't know it? carnivore, you'd tell me if you were monsanto, right? doctorj?
seriously. monsanto can fuck right off. I KNOW Carnivore is not on their payroll. I don't know doctorj but I'm assuming not, as he seems to actually give a fuck about humanity.
in any case, monsanto is evil - and their evilness is deeper than any "scientific' methodology they employ. they are just motherfuckers who put ethical, small farmers out of business and fuck up the environment. I really despise them - they're globalizing their industry and currently battling farmers in Ecuador. I ... yeah. I'm done.
anyway, monsanto is NOT Carnovire. and greg, who I have met and liked, can't possibly think that. if he does, he's not the man I believed him to be.
probably i should have used some kind of smile-y thing to indicate that i intended that to be a little tongue-in-cheek.
but i do think that, while it could be argued that people who buy GM products might possibly be putting their paychecks before their own health, it's a little harsh to accuse them of having it in for the public good.
[full disclosure: i buy a lot of organic food, i do not especially avoid GM foods, i think monsanto is pretty evil, i believe in the scientific method, i believe in stomach acid, and i have essentially no paycheck to put before anyone's good. oh, and my father is an MD (pediatric geneticist) who specializes in inborn errors of metabolism, for whatever that's worth. he treats sick babies; he does not mess with your food.] -
greg wrote: What are talking about here is the difference between the "precautionary" principle and the "substantially equivalent" approach. With the latter, our food industry has bludgeoned the FDA into approving products without any animal testing, as has long been the norm for novel chemicals.So in effect the animals GM foods are being tested on are those who eat them, namely you. Enjoy!
How refreshing! Why didn't you just say from the beginning, "I'm afraid of these products because they haven't been tested as much as I'd like" instead of trying to obfuscate the issue with studies and jargon that you didn't understand? However, this would have been a more reasonable point 10 years ago. How many millions of boxes of Cheerios have been consumed every day by millions of Americans over the past 10 years? What more do you think an animal study would reveal now? How many millions of animals and for how long would you have to test them to show more than the information that's already out there? Now that the products are on the market, it's laughable that you would focus on animal studies when human epidemiologic data would be so much more informative.greg wrote: By the way, I finally spoke with my MD friend who specialized environmental medicine...
I think that's what doctorj and I have been trying to tell you for days.
1. Do not argue in support of a study of which you know little about. It may well have been done to prove a point other than the one you're attempting to make it prove.greg wrote: 2. Recognize that the industry has prevented any meaningful research being done on GM foods. Which is a massive fraud and scary as hell, in his opinion.
"The industry" can't prevent research from being done. Maybe Jeff Smith can donate the proceeds of his book to fund the research if he feels so strongly about it. Maybe some of my lawyer neighbors can try to educate you about the definition of fraud as I have attempted to do about the scientific method, but it'll probably be a waste of time.greg wrote: Further he suggested I not waste a lot of time on a small number of folks who appear intent on buying into the industry myth and put their paychecks ahead of the public good.
Classy. When you can't win an argument, just change the focus by attacking your opponent. Straight out of the Karl Rove playbook!
Except I'm not your opponent. I just want to keep the basis of this discussion on the facts and not on the phobias. And my only paycheck comes from taking care of patients in a public hospital in an underserved community. -
sweet tea wrote: [quote=greg] and put their paychecks ahead of the public good.
dude, misplaced anger much? who do you imagine you're talking to, here? is monsanto on this board and i didn't know it? carnivore, you'd tell me if you were monsanto, right? doctorj?
Full disclaimer:
I do not work for Monsanto or any similar organization. I don't know enough about Monsanto to blanket them as 100% evil, but they do seem to bother a lot of people. I currently work as a scientist in the private sector for a technology firm, but not biotech as such. My employer might have a relationship with some firms or public enterprises that might have an interest in GM food, but I don't know about it, and not Monsanto as far as I know. Besides, my opinions are my own and very often tounge in cheek. I do have a vested interest in successful and safe application of emerging technologies, including peripherally genetic technologies, but not the agro/food side of the business. I was raised by someone who has a PhD in Biotechnology and is now a professor in Food Technology, but who doesn't work with GM or GM food firms as far as I know.
And also looking forward to meeting some of you when I get back to NY
-
greg wrote:
Are you suggesting that a GM potato is like a novel chemical? A chemical analysis will show a GM potato is made of water, carbohydrate, small amounts of protein, lipids, minerals and trace substances... not very novel chemically, very hard to tell GM from the original in fact unless you're looking for the gene in question:
What are talking about here is the difference between the "precautionary" principle and the "substantially equivalent" approach. With the latter, our food industry has bludgeoned the FDA into approving products without any animal testing, as has long been the norm for novel chemicals.
Medline 16186495
It's hardly Vioxx. If I find a completely novel plant in the jungle, which might have any kind of weird alkaloids in it in high concentration, bottle it and sell it as a "health supplement", does the FDA treat it like a novel chemical? Not according to the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.
I'm not saying that GM foodstuffs shouldn't be tested. A number of reputable experts seem to agree there should be a better regulatory framework and some smart new methods of testing:
Medline 16639559
Medline 16637668
Medline 16364445
But the model applied to new chemical entities doesn't seem appropriate for something that's essentially indistinguishable from an existing product at a chemical level. At least while the consumption and dangers of so many other plants are unregulated and unknown.greg wrote:
If I were one of the hundreds of researchers using public money to study GM foods, like some of the following, I would probably take offense at having my work called meaningless:
2. Recognize that the industry has prevented any meaningful research being done on GM foods. Which is a massive fraud and scary as hell, in his opinion.
Medline 16326439
Medline 16083797
Medline 16245168
Medline 16244918
Medline 16298467
Medline 15053345
etc.
Though I do feel for them, since they could spend a whole career finding nothing but null results.greg wrote:
C'mon, we were just getting warmed up. Had enough eh? It's just a flesh wound.
Further he suggested I not waste a lot of time on a small number of folks who appear intent on buying into the industry myth and put their paychecks ahead of the public good. Having said that, I think I'll take his advice. -
From today's NY Times:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 6, 2006
Questions on Biotech Crops With No Clear Answers
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
AUBINS, Spain  Enric Navarro was dumbfounded when the letter arrived from the testing lab of the Spanish organic farmers association in late February, telling him his organic crop actually contained 12 percent genetically modified corn.
For Mr. Navarro, finding plants modified by biotechnology was almost as traumatic as finding nuclear waste would have been. For four years, he had lovingly planted hundreds of varieties of trees, shrubs, flowers and herbs to attract just the right mix of insects so he would not need fertilizers or weed killers on his precious seven hectares (17.3 acres).
"If I could not farm organic, I would not farm," said Mr. Navarro, dressed in sweatpants and a stained T-shirt as he sipped coffee in his shed. "I could not sleep at night if I sold that crop."
He decided to burn the corn still in the field, to rid his farm of what he called a "contaminant." But he is still not certain how the unwanted seed got onto his property. There is no way to claim compensation for his economic losses. And he is not sure when it will be safe to use the field for his form of organic farming.
As the European Union begins opening its doors wider to genetically modified crops, Mr. Navarro's byzantine experience serves as a cautionary tale about the uncertainties surrounding the lack of policies to deal with the problems that will almost certainly arise.
"There is a lot that hasn't been worked out," said Julian Kinderlerer, of the Institute of Biotechnical Law and Ethics at the University of Sheffield in England, who has advised the European Union on the issue.
For eight years, Spain was the only country in the union to permit commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops. But in the last 18 months, the European Commission has approved 11 genetically modified seeds for planting in the union, and in 2005, France, Germany, Portugal and the Czech Republic began planting small commercial plots.
In the United States, the vast majority of large commercial farms plant genetically modified crops, like corn or soy, and there is no general effort to distinguish those from nonbiotech crops and foods in farming or food processing.
But the cornerstone of the European Union's new open-door policy is the political conviction that it is possible for genetically altered crops and conventional crops to coexist separately within Europe with proper safeguards, like keeping a distance between fields and imposing a liability system for accidents.
Scientifically, there are strong disagreements about whether "coexistence" is possible, at what cost and even how it should be defined.
"Coexistence is feasible in the vast majority of places, so long as farmers talk to each other and cooperate," said Simon Barber of EuropaBio, an industry group in Brussels. He said that experiences like Mr. Navarro's should be rare.
But many scientists, and not just those with green credentials, think coexistence is not feasible in many European countries, where small, closely spaced farms are the norm.
"My experts all agreed that coexistence often just doesn't work," said Chantal Line Carpentier, an agricultural economist who led a panel of experts that studied the issue under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The study was requested by Mexico in 2002, after genetically modified corn was found in fields in Oaxaca, hundreds of miles from the United States. Mexico feared that the heartier modified variants would edge out its unique native strains.
That report, "Maize and Biodiversity," released in 2004 by the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, concluded that the genetically engineered corn might well have a long-term effect on Mexico's ecology and biodiversity and that it should be better studied and monitored.
The United States and Canada attacked its conclusions. But some farmers said the report did not go far enough. "Saying that G.M. and non-G.M. farming can coexist is nonsensical," said Julian Rose, an organic farmer from England. "It's like saying that noise and silence can coexist in a room."
The scientific disagreement over coexistence is also partly a question of definition: the biotech industry and new regulations proposed by the European Union would permit some degree of inadvertent intermixing.
The biotech industry considers "coexistence" achieved if mixing is below 0.9 percent and, under proposed regulations, foods in the European Union could be labeled free of genetic modification if they contained less than this amount.
Such labeling is not required in the United States, where the two types of product are regarded as essentially equivalent.
"I think that it's great we are able to commingle all types of corn," said Michael J. Phillips, a vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington. "That allows us to sell it at low cost and feed the world."
The concept of coexistence is problematic because there are simply too many ways that mixing occurs, experts said. Wind blows seeds, mills grind crops from different farms, a cookie contains oil made from imported genetically modified soy. The genetically engineered corn in Oaxaca was probably the progeny of corn ears that had been legally imported for animal feed but whose kernels had been illegally used for planting.
With so many routes, environmental groups say, the 0.9 percent limit will inevitably be breached.
Mr. Phillips acknowledged that keeping modified and nonmodified crops apart in fields or in the market was expensive and he ruled out industry compensation. "If you're a small farmer trying to differentiate your product," he said, "the onus is on you to pay for the needed separation."
Last year, Greenpeace tested 40 organic farms in Catalonia. Nearly 20 percent had contamination, from 0.7 percent to 12 percent.
Spain decided to admit cultivation of genetically modified crops in 1998. Twelve percent of corn is now biotech  about half of it in Catalonia.
Mr. Navarro's two fields are 70 and 100 meters from neighbors' farms, a distance often deemed adequate to prevent mixing. But it was windy last winter, and perhaps some seed blew in, he speculated.
There is no log of who plants genetically modified seeds and nowhere to turn for compensation for his economic losses. Neither the Agriculture Ministry nor the organic farmers association could provide guidance on how to clean up a contaminated field.
Mr. Navarro recently prepared a field in the center of his property for planting corn, hoping that distance and the rows of shrubs will protect it. If not, he says, he will quit.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map -
THAT'S what bothers me about GM crops, the stuff in that article. But that article doesn't have anything to do with the safety or not of consumming GM foods.
-
sweet tea wrote: THAT'S what bothers me about GM crops, the stuff in that article. But that article doesn't have anything to do with the safety or not of consumming GM foods.
Agreed on both points.
In the part where they say that 20% of the region's farms were contaminated with GM crops, ranging from 0.7% to 12% contamination, I wonder what the actual spread was. It's obviously way different if they were mostly around 12% than if they were all around 0.7% with a few outliers. -
sweet tea wrote: THAT'S what bothers me about GM crops, the stuff in that article. But that article doesn't have anything to do with the safety or not of consumming GM foods.
I agree. Once in use, it's pretty hard to contain the chromosome with the extra gene unless the plant is sterile and non-propagative. That could be a real problem if it turns out to be environmentally destructive or needs to be recalled for some reason, or is simply against the ideological or cultural or religious beliefs of a minority. Mind you, adding a foreign gene to an ecosystem isn't likely to be as destructive as adding an entire foreign species; I'm thinking of eucalyptus in South Africa, foxes and blackberries in Australia, possums in New Zealand, etc.
There's one thing working against the GM strain taking over and out-evolving the original strain: the original strain's genetic makeup was substantially optimized for its benefit, though in many cases bred for ours. A plant that spends more energy making a protein that helps us not it, is at a disadvantage vs. its competitors. So in the fullness of time you'd expect a low rate of the modified gene in the wild... i.e. slightly increased biodiversity for that species.
None of which has to do with the safety of eating GM food. -
While there has been a good deal of interesting info to come out of this thread, can someone put it out of it's misery now?! :? Damn thing has been ridden hard and put away wet...
-
sweet tea wrote: THAT'S what bothers me about GM crops, the stuff in that article. But that article doesn't have anything to do with the safety or not of consumming GM foods.
No funding = no research = ignorance = bliss -
Oh no.
-
greg wrote: [quote=sweet tea]THAT'S what bothers me about GM crops, the stuff in that article. But that article doesn't have anything to do with the safety or not of consumming GM foods.
No funding = no research = ignorance = bliss
I think the best answer to this whole thread comes from The Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180
Now this guy knows how to question authority!
-
greg wrote:
Regarding no funding and no research, you're making it up, and that makes it hard to take you seriously. The ignorance is yours, but it seems to result in fear not bliss.
No funding = no research = ignorance = bliss
On Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:23 pm (quoted verbatim by you on Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:49 am) I quoted a bunch of peer-reviewed publicly funded papers from around the world. If you look in the literature you'll find a lot more. Much of the work is recent, so maybe the people feeding you misinformation just aren't up to date. If you can think of a study which should be done and which is not being done, by all means contact some of these independent and funded researchers, and suggest it to them. I'll even help you get it off the ground if it sounds like a good idea, is technically feasible and would be practical given a reasonable sized grant from the NIH or the equivalent bodies in the EU.WhyFi wrote:
What's the record length for a thread on these boards? So long as greg keeps coming back with ridiculous non sequiturs and as long as we're printing on recycled electrons, I don't see the harm.
...can someone put (this thread) out of it's misery now?! Confused Damn thing has been ridden hard and put away wet... -
doctorj wrote: [quote=greg]
Regarding no funding and no research, you're making it up, and that makes it hard to take you seriously. The ignorance is yours, but it seems to result in fear not bliss.
No funding = no research = ignorance = bliss
On Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:23 pm (quoted verbatim by you on Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:49 am) I quoted a bunch of peer-reviewed publicly funded papers from around the world. If you look in the literature you'll find a lot more. Much of the work is recent, so maybe the people feeding you misinformation just aren't up to date. If you can think of a study which should be done and which is not being done, by all means contact some of these independent and funded researchers, and suggest it to them. I'll even help you get it off the ground if it sounds like a good idea, is technically feasible and would be practical given a reasonable sized grant from the NIH or the equivalent bodies in the EU.WhyFi wrote:
What's the record length for a thread on these boards? So long as greg keeps coming back with ridiculous non sequiturs and as long as we're printing on recycled electrons, I don't see the harm.
...can someone put (this thread) out of it's misery now?! Confused Damn thing has been ridden hard and put away wet...
For those few among us who don't have a PhD in microbiology, perhaps you could provide a synopsis of a few of these studies? -
People, people. People.
Amusing as I have found this review of the scientific method, the page is now all stretched out.
Here is some information on posting long URLs: http://64.21.158.241/~brooklyn/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1797
I'm not going to go fix all of them, but it would nice if the people who posted them would...I have a pretty big screen with pretty high resolution, so I'm assuming this is broken for just about everyone.
Also, it's generally not a good idea to post entire news articles here without permission. We're pretty sure that reporters from various local papers come to this site (because they quote it) so they are likely to find out about it. Better to link to the article. There's a way to link to an RSS URL if you're really worried about people finding it later. -
greg wrote:
I don't have a PhD in microbiology, but medline abstracts aren't that hard to read, and are a lot more trustworthy than someone's unreferenced book or website.
For those few among us who don't have a PhD in microbiology, perhaps you could provide a synopsis of a few of these studies?
In a 2005 Korean study, rats fed GM-potato vs. non-GM-potato for 10 weeks, which gave birth to rats who were fed GM-potato vs. non-GM-potato for 10 weeks, for five generations. And the gene was not found in the reproductive organs in each generation, nor were there any detectable medical differences like body or organ weight. They conclude that the GM-potato doesn't affect development or reproduction, and that the gene isn't passed on from the inheritance of the plant to the inheritance of the animal.
Medline 16326439
In a 2005 Portugese study, volunteers prone to allergy (children and adults) were tested with 5 GM materials, including GM-maize and Roundup Ready Soy. None of the volunteers reacted differently to the GM products, and antibodies that would indicate a reaction to the introduced genes were not found.
Medline 16083797
In a 2005 Italian study, pigs were fed GM-maize vs. regular maize for 35 days, to see if the gene would be transferred from the plant to the animal. They went through the organs of the pigs looking for DNA. Only tiny fragments (i.e. digested) were found. They conclude that the risk of gene transfer from a GM plant is not likely to be higher than the risk of gene transfer from a regular plant.
Medline 16245168
In a 2004 German study, GM and regular potatoes were fed to rats for 30 days. No difference in nutritional quality and chemical makeup between the GM and regular potatoes could be found. No difference, apart from a slight difference in body weight, was found between the rats.
Medline 15053345
These are by independent scientists in government or academic labs in countries which have been cautious about adopting GM products.
Then there are a bunch of literature reviews which recommend vigilance but that no evidence of danger has been found in all the studies so far.
If this keeps up, then at some point, even though most people agree that GM foods should be scientifically and independently monitored, it becomes difficult for governments to justify the expense and difficult to recruit scientists and students to do the work. -
Alex wrote: can you guys tell me how to genetically modify weed?
Michael Pollan wrote a great article in the NY Times magazine some years back (1995) about how the war on drugs had forced pot growers inside and the incredible horticultural advances that had been made as a result (more bud, less leaf, faster turn-around time for harvest). All very natural-like genetic engineering. A great article.
Also I want to mate a from with a squirrell
http://michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=6 -
Medusa wrote:
Along opposite lines, it seems a North Carolina firm called Vector Tobacco has been trialling nicotine-less GM tobacco in the US as well as Tanzania:
Michael Pollan wrote a great article in the NY Times magazine some years back (1995) about how the war on drugs had forced pot growers inside and the incredible horticultural advances that had been made as a result (more bud, less leaf, faster turn-around time for harvest). All very natural-like genetic engineering. A great article.
http://michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=6
Minister says Tanzania is growing GM tobacco. Deodatus Balile, SciDev.net, 22 April 2005
I guess it's like anti-Nicorette: most of the dangers, all of the antisociability, none of the benefits. This is not a good product for the Food Coop to stock in my opinion. -
greg wrote:
The incredible thing here to me is not that this research was done, but it was done AFTER the GM foods were introduced for mass consumption. What if the research had turned out otherwise? Who would have paid for the medical expenses associated with the huge liabilities? Would Monsanto? Or would they just declare bankruptcy as Johns Mannville did after asbestos was determined to cause cancer?
If this keeps up, then at some point, even though most people agree that GM foods should be scientifically and independently monitored, it becomes difficult for governments to justify the expense and difficult to recruit scientists and students to do the work.
The books I've read on the topic suggest that the effects of disruptinng the placement of genes on the genome can cause bizarre and unanticipated effects. Thus testers will have a hard time covering all of the possible mutations that might occur. We may well not know for years of possible changes in the genetic make-up of GM foods. This is why genetic engineering is so dangerous and why the traditional process of breeding is so much safer: there is less disruption to the genome and thus less likelihood of unanticipated side-effects.
Interestingly, in none of the major cases of GM foods is there any real benefit to the consumer. All of the major GM plants sold by Monsanto - Round Up Ready soy and cotton and BT corn - provide benefit to Monsanto and arguably benefit to large growers, but no beneift to consumers. And it is consumers who being asked to risk the possible healths of eating these foods, plus pay for the environmental consequences and the consequences of small farmers driven out of business.
In short theres is nothing in what Monsanto is offering in these plants that benefits the end-user and no good reason they should have ever been developed -- except to make Monsanto a lot of money. -
greg wrote:
The thing is: we know what the chemical composition is of these foods. We know in each case what the extra gene is. And the companies developing the products will have done a variety of testing before releasing them. You may find it incredible that more research wasn't required in the US before the products were released. But that's because you have a superstitious belief that the products are guilty until proven innocent. If we were talking about a novel chemical for human consumption, e.g. a medicine, then scientists would agree with you. But because we're talking about something that's almost indistinguishable chemically from foodstuffs in current widespread consumption, scientists generally assume that GM food is innocent until proven guilty, so long as the new protein introduced, like most protein, is treated by the body as a food not a poison. Which is a pretty reasonable assumption and one that's easily tested.
The incredible thing here to me is not that this research was done, but it was done AFTER the GM foods were introduced for mass consumption. What if the research had turned out otherwise?
Secondly, there's a range of scientific and political opinion, such that some countries have indeed required more research and more thorough inquiries before allowing the foods on the shelves. Clearly the US was an early adopter of GM-food, which makes some sense since the US owns most of the IP and most of the firms are American. Countries who don't own the IP and who do subsidise their own agriculture have a vested interest in slowing the adoption of GM crops, and one way to do that is require more stringent testing. The main export of the USA now and in the future is technology and IP -- this is what is supporting your decadent Western lifestyle, now and in the future. You are a benficiary of GM-food technology whether you like it or not. Now we might say that the US was taking a calculated risk in allowing widespread growing and consumption before much research was done. Other OECD nations watched on with interest as the experiment on Americans was done. But the fact of the matter is that both subsequent research and the subsequent lack of the emergence of any negative human health effects as a result of GM-food over a number of years now, would seem to show that the US made the right decision. With every passing mealtime and every new study, the case for banishing GM-foods on the grounds that they might be dangerous to human health grows weaker.
Thirdly, research, especially human research is extremely expensive, and resources and budgets are limited. Imagine you're in charge of the NIH budget: do you spend research money looking for cures for AIDS, malaria, cancer, diabetes, bacterial infections, etc., which are real and present problems, or do you spend it on something most scientists say is most unlikely to be dangerous? I put it to you, that if you would spend an outsized proportion of the budget on an imagined potential danger rather than the proven real ones, then you have a superstitious and immoral fanaticism about food genes together with a worrying disregard for the value of human life.
You are therefore fighting what the best evidence says is a losing and quite unimportant battle. There are so many evils in the world, including other food-borne dangers -- why are you devoting energy to battlling what is now clearly one of the least of them? Wouldn't it be more ethical for you to turn your attention elsewhere?greg wrote:
The funny thing about companies and their shareholders is that they don't want to kill their customers and wind up with enormous liabilities and go bankrupt. If they do that, everyone loses all their money and their jobs. First the company and their insurers are liable, and if all those accounts are emptied in a disaster, then yes unfortunately the consumer and the government is left holding the bag for the remainder. You can point to a few high-profile disasters, but there are many more instances of the safe and successful application of new technology. If it weren't so, then we'd be living in caves not a rich Western democracy. So I encourage you earnestly, as a person of good conscience, to do the right thing and reserve your energy for the real medical and environmental disasters that are unfolding and causing misery now, rather than worrying what might have happened if the scientists had been wrong on this particular point.
What if the research had turned out otherwise? Who would have paid for the medical expenses associated with the huge liabilities? Would Monsanto? Or would they just declare bankruptcy as Johns Mannville did after asbestos was determined to cause cancer?
I don't think asbestos is a good analogy. Asbestos is a rock fiber not a food. Its physicochemical composition is unlike what humans evolved to consume or be exposed to in large amounts, as opposed to GM-plants which are practically the same as what humans evolved to consume. We need to be more vigilant about exposing our bodies to high concentrations of novel chemicals, metals, rock particles, and pathogens, than we do about novel sources of proteins, carbohydrates, and fats.greg wrote:
The recent scientific abstracts I've read directly contradict what you are saying based on the books you've read. An extra gene is a small change. The genome has to be pretty stable in order for the plant and the product to be viable. Such instability, if it were greater than for regular plants, would be more dangerous to the plant and the biotech company than the consumer. We've been over this, and it looks like those books of yours exist to make money by frightening a certain class of well-intentioned but gullible and non-scientifically literate people, and are basically junk as far as real information goes. Don't drink the KoolAid. If there is any hard evidence for the truth of what you're saying, please point us to it. Maybe it's out there but I haven't seen it yet.
The books I've read on the topic suggest that the effects of disruptinng the placement of genes on the genome can cause bizarre and unanticipated effects. Thus testers will have a hard time covering all of the possible mutations that might occur. We may well not know for years of possible changes in the genetic make-up of GM foods. This is why genetic engineering is so dangerous and why the traditional process of breeding is so much safer: there is less disruption to the genome and thus less likelihood of unanticipated side-effects.greg wrote:
This statement shows a lack of understanding of economics and the US economy in particular. US companies pay tax to the US government; when they make a larger profit, part of that profit goes to you. You may have retirement funds that are invested in the stockmarket, including some biotech companies. US companies exporting technology hold up the value of the dollar, which means you as a consumer can buy all manner of consumer goods more cheaply compared to your wage than if you were doing the same job in Zimbabwe for example. Reducing the cost or increasing the efficiency of growing a crop does allow larger profits to the farmer, and the farmer does give some of that money to the company to buy the technology. But if you lower the cost of production and increase supply while demand is steady, some of the benefit must flow to the consumer as a lower price. The profit is thus split between the consumer, the farmer, and the developer of the technology.
Interestingly, in none of the major cases of GM foods is there any real benefit to the consumer. All of the major GM plants sold by Monsanto - Round Up Ready soy and cotton and BT corn - provide benefit to Monsanto and arguably benefit to large growers, but no beneift to consumers. And it is consumers who being asked to risk the possible healths of eating these foods, plus pay for the environmental consequences and the consequences of small farmers driven out of business.
In short theres is nothing in what Monsanto is offering in these plants that benefits the end-user and no good reason they should have ever been developed -- except to make Monsanto a lot of money. -
greg wrote:
The thing is: we know what the chemical composition is of these foods. We know in each case what the extra gene is. And the companies developing the products will have done a variety of testing before releasing them. You may find it incredible that more research wasn't required in the US before the products were released. But that's because you have a superstitious belief that the products are guilty until proven innocent. If we were talking about a novel chemical for human consumption, e.g. a medicine, then scientists would agree with you. But because we're talking about something that's almost indistinguishable chemically from foodstuffs in current widespread consumption, scientists generally assume that GM food is innocent until proven guilty, so long as the new protein introduced, like most protein, is treated by the body as a food not a poison. Which is a pretty reasonable assumption and one that's easily tested.
The incredible thing here to me is not that this research was done, but it was done AFTER the GM foods were introduced for mass consumption. What if the research had turned out otherwise?
Secondly, there's a range of scientific and political opinion, such that some countries have indeed required more research and more thorough inquiries before allowing the foods on the shelves. Clearly the US was an early adopter of GM-food, which makes some sense since the US owns most of the IP and most of the firms are American. Countries who don't own the IP and who do subsidise their own agriculture have a vested interest in slowing the adoption of GM crops, and one way to do that is require more stringent testing. The main export of the USA now and in the future is technology and IP -- this is what is supporting your decadent Western lifestyle, now and in the future. You are a benficiary of GM-food technology whether you like it or not. Now we might say that the US was taking a calculated risk in allowing widespread growing and consumption before much research was done. Other OECD nations watched on with interest as the experiment on Americans was done. But the fact of the matter is that both subsequent research and the subsequent lack of the emergence of any negative human health effects as a result of GM-food over a number of years now, would seem to show that the US made the right decision. With every passing mealtime and every new study, the case for banishing GM-foods on the grounds that they might be dangerous to human health grows weaker.
Thirdly, research, especially human research is extremely expensive, and resources and budgets are limited. Imagine you're in charge of the NIH budget: do you spend research money looking for cures for AIDS, malaria, cancer, diabetes, bacterial infections, etc., which are real and present problems, or do you spend it on something most scientists say is most unlikely to be dangerous? I put it to you, that if you would spend an outsized proportion of the budget on an imagined potential danger rather than the proven real ones, then you have a superstitious and immoral fanaticism about food genes together with a worrying disregard for the value of human life.
You are therefore fighting what the best evidence says is a losing and quite unimportant battle. There are so many evils in the world, including other food-borne dangers -- why are you devoting energy to battlling what is now clearly one of the least of them? Wouldn't it be more ethical for you to turn your attention elsewhere?
INDIAN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATING DEATHS OF ANIMALS THAT ATE GM COTTON
ORGANIC CONSUMERS - In India's Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh,
government officials have ordered an investigation into the deaths of
hundreds of sheep and goats who appear to have been poisoned by eating
genetically engineered cotton. "They just became very dull and
lifeless and died," said one shepherd, Pendala Venkatamma. Sheep and
goats regularly graze on traditional cotton, but after 4-5 days of
eating Monsanto's genetically engineered bT cotton, the animals'
stomachs swelled, and they died. Although Monsanto denies its cotton
could have this effect, government officials have launched a
scientific investigation. "We have immediately alerted the animal
husbandry department to give us the details of villages where this has
happened and... their findings regarding this" said Poonam
Malakondaiah, Agriculture Commissioner. -
greg wrote: INDIAN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATING DEATHS OF ANIMALS THAT ATE GM COTTON
I don't think that any cotton is meant for human or animal consumption. I'm sure the FDA wouldn't approve cotton (GM or otherwise) as a human food product. Was the cotton treated with pesticides or fungicides? Are they testing the animals for infectious diseases, or poisoning with a chemical agent?
ORGANIC CONSUMERS - In India's Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh,
government officials have ordered an investigation into the deaths of
hundreds of sheep and goats who appear to have been poisoned by eating
genetically engineered cotton. "They just became very dull and
lifeless and died," said one shepherd, Pendala Venkatamma. Sheep and
goats regularly graze on traditional cotton, but after 4-5 days of
eating Monsanto's genetically engineered bT cotton, the animals'
stomachs swelled, and they died. Although Monsanto denies its cotton
could have this effect, government officials have launched a
scientific investigation. "We have immediately alerted the animal
husbandry department to give us the details of villages where this has
happened and... their findings regarding this" said Poonam
Malakondaiah, Agriculture Commissioner.
An interesting anecdote, but there's not a lot to go on here...
Keep us posted when they release their final report. 5 bucks says this had nothing to do with genetic modification. -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=greg]INDIAN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATING DEATHS OF ANIMALS THAT ATE GM COTTON
I don't think that any cotton is meant for human or animal consumption. I'm sure the FDA wouldn't approve cotton (GM or otherwise) as a human food product. Was the cotton treated with pesticides or fungicides? Are they testing the animals for infectious diseases, or poisoning with a chemical agent?
ORGANIC CONSUMERS - In India's Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh,
government officials have ordered an investigation into the deaths of
hundreds of sheep and goats who appear to have been poisoned by eating
genetically engineered cotton. "They just became very dull and
lifeless and died," said one shepherd, Pendala Venkatamma. Sheep and
goats regularly graze on traditional cotton, but after 4-5 days of
eating Monsanto's genetically engineered bT cotton, the animals'
stomachs swelled, and they died. Although Monsanto denies its cotton
could have this effect, government officials have launched a
scientific investigation. "We have immediately alerted the animal
husbandry department to give us the details of villages where this has
happened and... their findings regarding this" said Poonam
Malakondaiah, Agriculture Commissioner.
An interesting anecdote, but there's not a lot to go on here...
Keep us posted when they release their final report. 5 bucks says this had nothing to do with genetic modification.
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. -
greg wrote: 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.
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.
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. -
greg wrote:
Right. I wish you'd never come down from the trees, Greg. In fact, the trees were probably a bad move, and it would have been better if you'd stayed in the ocean. But all is not lost: you can still abandon all your clothes and possessions and go and live in a cave somewhere and eat locusts and wild honey; then you'll be truly at one with the Earth Goddess. No fire allowed -- fire is tampering with nature, and has been known to cause all kinds of unanticipated results.
This case typifies the types of unanticipated results you get when you start tampering with nature. -
Carnivore wrote:
Indeed. The Bt cotton includes a gene to produce a natural pesticide (Bt toxin from soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis) which is highly toxic (for now) to the boll weevil, less so to vertebrates.
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 jury is out on whether this crop is economically viable. The free market should be able to figure that out. However the latest and largest publicly funded study, of 81 fields in Arizona, says about half the regular pesticide was needed, and that wildlife, including ants and beetles, were not affected.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, May 16, 2006, 103(20) 7571-7576
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.
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. -
doctorj wrote: Indeed. The Bt cotton includes a gene to produce a natural pesticide (Bt toxin from soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis) which is highly toxic (for now) to the boll weevil, less so to vertebrates.
Thanks for the further info.
The jury is out on whether this crop is economically viable. The free market should be able to figure that out. However the latest and largest publicly funded study, of 81 fields in Arizona, says about half the regular pesticide was needed, and that wildlife, including ants and beetles, were not affected.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, May 16, 2006, 103(20) 7571-7576
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.
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.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds