GM Crops

[ComradeMan]

What's your opinion on GM crops?

Here's a Greenpeace tagged video I found on Youtube:-

1H9WZGKQeYg

[Revolution starts with U]

All crops are genetically engineered. Unfortunately I don't have sound on this computer. But from all I know, support them, study them, feed the world.

[ComradeMan]

All crops are genetically engineered. Unfortunately I don't have sound on this computer. But from all I know, support them, study them, feed the world.

No- I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. I was sceptical about the anti-GM movement before but when I read about the issues and the issues behind the issues it convinced me that it was evil and wrong.

[Ele'ill]

Profit drives a lack of research and ethical application of GMO. I'd imagine it has a place within society- even if that is nothing more than a back up plan- so long as it's first understood (long term complications etc) and used in an appropriate manner.

[Sadena Meti]

For (obviously)

It just needs to go non-profit.

The G stands for Goodness

(Just like the K in K-mart stands for Quality)

[RGacky3]

Basically in theory I have nothing against them, I am personally uncomfortable with the idea, but thats basically out of ignorance.

I don't think, however, that its actually needed, given that food problems are entirely problems of distribution.

[JTB]

skeptical of GMOs

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-pathogen-found-in-roundup-ready-gm-crops-causes-spontaneous-abortions-and-infertility-in-livestock.html

[ComradeMan]

Profit drives a lack of research and ethical application of GMO. I'd imagine it has a place within society- even if that is nothing more than a back up plan- so long as it's first understood (long term complications etc) and used in an appropriate manner.

The trouble is that it won't and it's big business- a further tool of capitalist and imperialist oppression with particularly dire consequences on the developing world.

Well, when we have no rainforests left we can feel glad that our potentially hazardous food is err... what exactly?

[Ele'ill]

The trouble is that it won't and it's big business- a further tool of capitalist and imperialist oppression with particularly dire consequences on the developing world.

Well, when we have no rainforests left we can feel glad that our potentially hazardous food is err... what exactly?

This is pretty much exactly what I said in my post. I think you misinterpreted 'place within society' meaning within capitalism which is not what I meant. I am viewing GM from a position where it's operating within a healthy society. Under capitalism we see a lot of things mismanaged, used without adequate research etc.. and it's because of profit and competition.

[Sadena Meti]

This is pretty much exactly what I said in my post. I think you misinterpreted 'place within society' meaning within capitalism which is not what I meant. I am viewing GM from a position where it's operating within a healthy society. Under capitalism we see a lot of things mismanaged, used without adequate research etc.. and it's because of profit and competition.
A valid point. Shall we run a poll on Hospitals - Yes or No simply because the health care industry is a capitalist shambles?
(EDIT) This poll now exists. Please vote. http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-use-t153364/index.html

[Revolution starts with U]

Of course they need to be studied. But honestly, growing corn in the desert is win. What are these deeper issues?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Of course they need to be studied. But honestly, growing corn in the desert is win. What are these deeper issues?The deeper issues are that industries are developing GM foods in the name of profit, not health or environment and so on. They have been trying to claim "copyrights" on seeds or create plants that can not reproduce so that independent growers become dependent on the GM patent owner.

But like any technological development, there's nothing inherently wrong with it - GM food could be produced in a way that has the interests of feeding people and not harming the environment, but with the profit motive, these are secondary concerns - if thought of at all.

[Lord Testicles]

GM crops have been show to increase biodiversity and is better than conventional or organic farming, so I'm essentially for the technology.

[danyboy27]

Comrademan, its not beccause capitalism suck so bad at using technology responsably that we should be against technology.

GM food are indeed used has a leverage against third world countries, but that valid for like, practicly everything i freaking own.

Technology isnt the problem, its how its used.

Right now the production of GM food lack oversight and for some stupid reason isnt supervised by any serious governemental institutions.


hoo and just so you know, Iran is manifacturing their own brand of GM weat and rice. Beccause you know, their climate suck and those things allow them to feed their peoples.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I just don't understand why genetically modifying something is different than selective breeding...

[Le Libérer]

The trouble is that it won't and it's big business- a further tool of capitalist and imperialist oppression with particularly dire consequences on the developing world.

Well, when we have no rainforests left we can feel glad that our potentially hazardous food is err... what exactly?

My ex brother in law who is a multi millionaire and his neo-con friends horde 2 things, heirloom seeds (seeds that have not been genetically altered) and gold. They must know something we dont know.

The issue I have with GM crops, is its used as a vehicle to make profits more than it is used to feed the masses.

As it was said previously there is legislation to copyright seeds and force out the heirloom versions by outlawing them. I'm not a big fan of outlawing plants that come out of the ground that havent been alered, same as marijuana.

[Lord Testicles]

The issue I have with GM crops, is its used as a vehicle to make profits more than it is used to feed the masses.

Like everything else in capitalism? Capitalist are always going to be more concerned with the exchange value of something as opposed to the use value of it.

[StockholmSyndrome]

The main issue is the commercialization of genetic material. As soon as the human genome was mapped, companies began scrambling to isolate and patent specific genes. There are real ethical boundaries being crossed when you start patenting life. However, like people have been saying, GM food is not inherently unethical. So, like many other things, measures must be taken to curb the dangerous influences of market forces in this particular area. If we care about taking a rational, scientific approach to feeding the world population, GM should not be ruled out all together. Greenpeace has been known to tell starving people in the developing world not to accept GM food aid. Do they really care about starving people?

[The Man]

When it comes to certain environmental issues such as genetically modified crops, or DDT. I really just don't care.

I'm not for or against it.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

When it comes to certain environmental issues such as genetically modified crops, or DDT. I really just don't care.

I'm not for or against it.

The reason for you posting this eludes me.

Anyways, it's bullshit that a GM thread was started when a discussion was already underway in the urban agriculture thread.

What I said was,



Corporations creating crops that are invasive and the sole property of the corporation is more of what I was referencing.

I have absolutely no problem with research into GM crops, like I have no problem with research into cloning animals or perhaps even growing organs. I agree completely that anyone who opposes this should give a very good reason about why this type of study and research shouldn't go forward.

However, before the system is set up to feed people, not make money, I'm going to feel queasy about it. Especially with less than satisfactory oversight coupled with a legal system that is a joke when the battle is between the mammoth agribusiness corporations and individuals/small businesses.

[ComradeMan]

GM crops have been show to increase biodiversity and is better than conventional or organic farming, so I'm essentially for the technology.

Source?

Because the studies I have read and the video all suggest the opposite.

I think people are forgetting that the argument against GM crops is not an argument against science. It's an argument against the misuse/abuse of science to make profit, control a fundamental of human survival, i.e. food, and run the risk of disastrous environmental consequences.

The fact that the pro-lobby throw up dubious arguments in defense does not help their cause, namely:-

1) genetic selection has been done for thousands of years
True, but early humans did this by working with what was there and selecting what "nature" already produced in order to bring out certain features that were inherent.
Early humans did not form large corporations and patent their breeds of animals or cultivars.

2) the feed the world argument
There is already enough food produced in the world to feed everyone probably four times over and again, the problem is with unfair distribution and overconsumption and waste by a small portion of the world leaving the rest of the world malnourished.

3) environmental consequences, fewer pesticides so better.
The pesticide argument, blatantly false.

4) the no risk argument
Scientifically and empirically speaking impossible- we don't know but we run the risk that by the time we will know it will be too late.

[Revolution starts with U]

1) Well, there's still really no fundamental difference. Cows used to be slightly larger than dogs and produce milk like normal. But now they're huge and (some) produce milk at all times. And milk isn't exactly the safest product.
2) That is entirely true, and I agree completely. But are you going to tell someone who is starving "too bad, you can't eat this, because there is already enough food."
3)I don't know enough about it
4)That is true of everything, realy.

[Ele'ill]

We can't float between a post and pre revolutionary atmosphere with this discussion. Let's discuss GMO from one and then from the other.

[Rooster]

I just don't understand why genetically modifying something is different than selective breeding...

There really isn't any. GM is just quicker and more flexible.

My main gripe isn't with the technology or anything about genomes (which I think is just a lot of scaremongering). The concentration of power and capital within this sector is the main worry. But, saying that, I'd be quite happy to eat bacon flavoured apples the size of my head.

[Sadena Meti]

There really isn't any. GM is just quicker and more flexible.

My main gripe isn't with the technology or anything about genomes (which I think is just a lot of scaremongering). The concentration of power and capital within this sector is the main worry. But, saying that, I'd be quite happy to eat bacon flavoured apples the size of my head.

Steak with a lobster tail attached. Surf and Turf in one.

[ComradeMan]

Guys, let's be serious, this is a serious issue. Everyone is free to have their own opinion but it's surprising me a lot how ill-informed a lot of people are about this major issue.:crying:

Surely the video contains enough information to be of concern? :confused:

[Ele'ill]

Guys, let's be serious, this is a serious issue. Everyone is free to have their own opinion but it's surprising me a lot how ill-informed a lot of people are about this major issue.:crying:

Surely the video contains enough information to be of concern? :confused:


Yeah, it's a concern but I think the explanation for the vast amount of problems GMO creates (or could potentially create) is that it's mismanaged, under-researched and overused because of capitalism.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, it's a concern but I think the explanation for the vast amount of problems GMO creates (or could potentially create) is that it's mismanaged, under-researched and overused because of capitalism.

The trouble is with this, like some other debates, that the negative consequences are irreversible.

[Ele'ill]

The trouble is with this, like some other debates, that the negative consequences are irreversible.

That depends on which negative consequences you believe are irreversible and again the explanation for why those negative consequences are occurring has much more to do with the research, management and application of GMO in a for-profit setting.

[ComradeMan]

That depends on which negative consequences you believe are irreversible and again the explanation for why those negative consequences are occurring has much more to do with the research, management and application of GMO in a for-profit setting.

Exactly- but that's the situation as it is. We can't say something is acceptable just because a hypothetical possibility exists that it could also possibly be something else whilst in the meantime conveniently ignoring what is actually going on. If there were an unlimited supply of hardwood forests it would be okay to make hardwood furniture but there isn't.

The other problem with this GM stuff is that we just don't know yet. No medicine would (or should at least) be put on the market without extensive clinical trials etc to see what the adverse side-effects are, and when this happened in the past look at the consequences- the same for the effects of GM- we just don't know yet and when we will know it will be (perhaps) too late.

[Ele'ill]

Exactly- but that's the situation as it is. We can't say something is acceptable just because a hypothetical possibility exists that it could also possibly be something else whilst in the meantime conveniently ignoring what is actually going on. If there were an unlimited supply of hardwood forests it would be okay to make hardwood furniture but there isn't.

The other problem with this GM stuff is that we just don't know yet. No medicine would (or should at least) be put on the market without extensive clinical trials etc to see what the adverse side-effects are, and when this happened in the past look at the consequences- the same for the effects of GM- we just don't know.

Yes, the use of 'things' within capitalism all stem from profit motive. This is a problem with GMO, Chemicals (such as the 'oil dispersal' chems used by BP), 'Medicine' etc...

I am not opposed to these things- I'm opposed to how they're researched, managed and applied within capitalism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In echoing ComradeMan's last post, I agree that one of the deeper things that scare me are the potential side effects which have not occured yet. As the video in the OP states, 80% of the GM market is controlled by Monsanto -a corporation that, with the collusion of the US Military, has shown a history of not caring about the long term health effects of its products.



Operation Ranch Hand was a U.S. Military operation during the Vietnam War (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Vietnam_War), lasting from 1962 until 1971. It was part of the overall herbicidal warfare (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Herbicidal_warfare) program during the war called "Operation Trail Dust". Ranch Hand involved spraying an estimated 20 million US gallons of defoliants (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Defoliant) and herbicides (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Herbicide) over rural areas of South Vietnam (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/South_Vietnam) in an attempt to deprive the Viet Cong (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Viet_Cong) of vegetation cover and food, in possible violation of the Geneva Conventions (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Geneva_Conventions)


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

[Sadena Meti]

If there were an unlimited supply of hardwood forests it would be okay to make hardwood furniture but there isn't.

So we need to GM some hardy, fast-growing hardwood trees and start farming them. A redwood that grows (laterally) an inch a year.
(EDIT) 2" a year!

Don't fear the reaper... I mean science.

[Sadena Meti]

As the video in the OP states, 80% of the GM market is controlled by Monsanto

Yeah but the video doesn't provide hard evidence of that claim. I'm not playing "radical skeptic" here (I abhor radical skepticism as an argument tactic) but 80% is quite a claim. I'd want to see a Wikipedia article on that before I'd believe it. Because GM-ing is going on in a lot of countries, and I can't believe all the brain power is behind one company. GM-ing is not new. The first GMO was patented in... shit was it the late 80's or the early 90's? That E.Coli variant I mentioned earlier.

I doubt any company controls 80% of any global non-specialized industry (see all the qualifiers I put in there?). Except maybe Microsoft. Maybe the diamond cartels collectively.

Wikipedia says Monsanto provides the "technology" behind 90% of the world's genetically engineered seeds. Probably licensed technology, which means it's not their company producing them. But the source cited (Greenpeace no less) says something different. It says it provides 90% of the engineered seeds used in the US market! See how these things get distorted? 90% of the market that produces a fraction of the world's food.

(EDIT) I have just edited the Wikipedia page to correct the 90% figure. So don't be confused when you go there.

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually redwoods grow quite fast. Growing five to six feet a year, on average, they can reach over 150 feet within a decade or two.

[Sadena Meti]

Actually redwoods grow quite fast. Growing five to six feet a year, on average, they can reach over 150 feet within a decade or two.
I was pulling figures out of my ass. Just thinking about the rings on the trees, a 1" ring would be impressive.

Apparently not:

Another widespread misconception is that it takes hundreds of years to grow coast redwoods. The fact is that coast redwood is an extremely fast growing tree that can reach heights of 170 feet in 50 years on good California sites. Under ideal conditions radial growth can be up to one inch per year.

OK, so change my order to 2" a year!

[Revolution starts with U]

Make that 5 decades lol. In my defense, it's been months since my trip out there :lol:
Still, they grow that big rather fast.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yeah but the video doesn't provide hard evidence of that claim. I'm not playing "radical skeptic" here (I abhor radical skepticism as an argument tactic) but 80% is quite a claim. I'd want to see a Wikipedia article on that before I'd believe it. Because GM-ing is going on in a lot of countries, and I can't believe all the brain power is behind one company. GM-ing is not new. The first GMO was patented in... shit was it the late 80's or the early 90's? That E.Coli variant I mentioned earlier.



Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds have transformed the company and are radically altering global agriculture. So far, the company has produced G.M. seeds for soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton. Many more products have been developed or are in the pipeline, including seeds for sugar beets and alfalfa. The company is also seeking to extend its reach into milk production by marketing an artificial growth hormone for cows that increases their output, and it is taking aggressive steps to put those who don’t want to use growth hormone at a commercial disadvantage.

Even as the company is pushing its G.M. agenda, Monsanto is buying up conventional-seed companies. In 2005, Monsanto paid $1.4 billion for Seminis, which controlled 40 percent of the U.S. market for lettuce, tomatoes, and other vegetable and fruit seeds. Two weeks later it announced the acquisition of the country’s third-largest cottonseed company, Emergent Genetics, for $300 million. It’s estimated that Monsanto seeds now account for 90 percent of the U.S. production of soybeans, which are used in food products beyond counting. Monsanto’s acquisitions have fueled explosive growth, transforming the St. Louis–based corporation into the largest seed company in the world.
...
After Monsanto’s investigator confronted Gary Rinehart, Monsanto filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Rinehart “knowingly, intentionally, and willfully” planted seeds “in violation of Monsanto’s patent rights.” The company’s complaint made it sound as if Monsanto had Rinehart dead to rights:

During the 2002 growing season, Investigator Jeffery Moore, through surveillance of Mr. Rinehart’s farm facility and farming operations, observed Defendant planting brown bag soybean seed. Mr. Moore observed the Defendant take the brown bag soybeans to a field, which was subsequently loaded into a grain drill and planted. Mr. Moore located two empty bags in the ditch in the public road right-of-way beside one of the fields planted by Rinehart, which contained some soybeans. Mr. Moore collected a small amount of soybeans left in the bags which Defendant had tossed into the public right-of way. These samples tested positive for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready technology.

Faced with a federal lawsuit, Rinehart had to hire a lawyer. Monsanto eventually realized that “Investigator Jeffery Moore” had targeted the wrong man, and dropped the suit. Rinehart later learned that the company had been secretly investigating farmers in his area. Rinehart never heard from Monsanto again: no letter of apology, no public concession that the company had made a terrible mistake, no offer to pay his attorney’s fees.

“I don’t know how they get away with it,” he says. “If I tried to do something like that it would be bad news. I felt like I was in another country.”

Gary Rinehart is actually one of Monsanto’s luckier targets. Ever since commercial introduction of its G.M. seeds, in 1996, Monsanto has launched thousands of investigations and filed lawsuits against hundreds of farmers and seed dealers. In a 2007 report, the Center for Food Safety, in Washington, D.C., documented 112 such lawsuits, in 27 states.

Even more significant, in the Center’s opinion, are the numbers of farmers who settle because they don’t have the money or the time to fight Monsanto. “The number of cases filed is only the tip of the iceberg,” says Bill Freese, the Center’s science-policy analyst. Freese says he has been told of many cases in which Monsanto investigators showed up at a farmer’s house or confronted him in his fields, claiming he had violated the technology agreement and demanding to see his records. According to Freese, investigators will say, “Monsanto knows that you are saving Roundup Ready seeds, and if you don’t sign these information-release forms, Monsanto is going to come after you and take your farm or take you for all you’re worth.” Investigators will sometimes show a farmer a photo of himself coming out of a store, to let him know he is being followed.

Lawyers who have represented farmers sued by Monsanto say that intimidating actions like these are commonplace. Most give in and pay Monsanto some amount in damages; those who resist face the full force of Monsanto’s legal wrath.

...

Pilot Grove, Missouri, population 750, sits in rolling farmland 150 miles west of St. Louis. The town has a grocery store, a bank, a bar, a nursing home, a funeral parlor, and a few other small businesses. There are no stoplights, but the town doesn’t need any. The little traffic it has comes from trucks on their way to and from the grain elevator on the edge of town. The elevator is owned by a local co-op, the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator, which buys soybeans and corn from farmers in the fall, then ships out the grain over the winter. The co-op has seven full-time employees and four computers.

In the fall of 2006, Monsanto trained its legal guns on Pilot Grove; ever since, its farmers have been drawn into a costly, disruptive legal battle against an opponent with limitless resources. Neither Pilot Grove nor Monsanto will discuss the case, but it is possible to piece together much of the story from documents filed as part of the litigation.

Monsanto began investigating soybean farmers in and around Pilot Grove several years ago. There is no indication as to what sparked the probe, but Monsanto periodically investigates farmers in soybean-growing regions such as this one in central Missouri. The company has a staff devoted to enforcing patents and litigating against farmers. To gather leads, the company maintains an 800 number and encourages farmers to inform on other farmers they think may be engaging in “seed piracy.”

Once Pilot Grove had been targeted, Monsanto sent private investigators into the area. Over a period of months, Monsanto’s investigators surreptitiously followed the co-op’s employees and customers and videotaped them in fields and going about other activities. At least 17 such surveillance videos were made, according to court records. The investigative work was outsourced to a St. Louis agency, McDowell & Associates. It was a McDowell investigator who erroneously fingered Gary Rinehart. In Pilot Grove, at least 11 McDowell investigators have worked the case, and Monsanto makes no bones about the extent of this effort: “Surveillance was conducted throughout the year by various investigators in the field,” according to court records. McDowell, like Monsanto, will not comment on the case.

Not long after investigators showed up in Pilot Grove, Monsanto subpoenaed the co-op’s records concerning seed and herbicide purchases and seed-cleaning operations. The co-op provided more than 800 pages of documents pertaining to dozens of farmers. Monsanto sued two farmers and negotiated settlements with more than 25 others it accused of seed piracy. But Monsanto’s legal assault had only begun. Although the co-op had provided voluminous records, Monsanto then sued it in federal court for patent infringement. Monsanto contended that by cleaning seeds—a service which it had provided for decades—the co-op was inducing farmers to violate Monsanto’s patents. In effect, Monsanto wanted the co-op to police its own customers.


http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?currentPage=1



In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences (http://www.biolsci.org/), analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study (http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11), which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/three-approved-gmos-linked-to-organ-damage/), "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."
Monsanto (http://www.monsanto.com/products/techandsafety/fortherecord_science/2010/monsanto_response_de_vendomois.asp) has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."

The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/three-approved-gmos-linked-to-organ-damage/), "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html?view=print

Fuck them.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah but the video doesn't provide hard evidence of that claim. I'm not playing "radical skeptic" here (I abhor radical skepticism as an argument tactic) but 80% is quite a claim. I'd want to see a Wikipedia article on that before I'd believe it. Because GM-ing is going on in a lot of countries, and I can't believe all the brain power is behind one company. GM-ing is not new. The first GMO was patented in... shit was it the late 80's or the early 90's? That E.Coli variant I mentioned earlier.

I doubt any company controls 80% of any global non-specialized industry (see all the qualifiers I put in there?). Except maybe Microsoft. Maybe the diamond cartels collectively.

Wikipedia says Monsanto provides the "technology" behind 90% of the world's genetically engineered seeds. Probably licensed technology, which means it's not their company producing them. But the source cited (Greenpeace no less) says something different. It says it provides 90% of the engineered seeds used in the US market! See how these things get distorted? 90% of the market that produces a fraction of the world's food.

(EDIT) I have just edited the Wikipedia page to correct the 90% figure. So don't be confused when you go there.


http://www.markenfirmen.com/english/book.htm (http://www.markenfirmen.com/english/book.htm)
Strangely the books are not availabe (as of yet) in English.


See also:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Dumping_of_toxic_waste_in_the_UK

http://films.nfb.ca/monsanto/film.php

http://archive.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm