Genetically modified crops

[loveme4whoiam]

I just read pedro san pedro's thread about biosecurity protocols (I thought the thread was going to be about DNA-scanning locks or something :lol:) and thought I'd start a new thread rather than hijack his.

We are pro-genetically modified foods right? I'll not pretend to know anything about GM foods expect what I've picked up from news features, but wouldn't these be beneficial to everyone? I mean, if we can modify a grain crop to grow in low-water environments, we could cut the food problems in Africa to next to nothing.

The protests I have seen against them have mainly been on the grounds of "its wrong to play God", so I guess no-one should have a problem with them on that score :D. Is there any (real) reason why GM foods are bad?

[pedro san pedro]

The protests I have seen against them have mainly been on the grounds of "its wrong to play God"

this has been one of the biggest obsticles that the GE-free movement has had to overcome - the belief that they are a bunch of luddites and crazy religo's. this is not the case at all - they are people that understand science well, and, rather than trying to stop the technology has a whole, are arguing that GMO's do have the potential to cause a lot of harm, so the science should proceed with caution.

it is recognised that GMO's are inherrently unatural - we are producing organisms that could never have occured naturally - and are very unpredictable - in what traits they will show, how they will affect human health and how the environment will be changed by their introduction into an ecosystem. it is also seen that GMO's have already had adverse effects on health and environment - importantly, effects that were not predicted. the ge-free moevment recognises that the release of an organism into the environment is an irrereversible action - as can be shown with many examples of introduced pests, so any harmful effects that GMO's might produce will be long lasting.

however, the movemnet recognises that there are many immediate benefits to be gained from the technology - particulary in mediacl areas. it is for these reasons that the movents goal has never been to stop the technology - rather to contain. "keep it in the labs, not in the fields" has always been a popular slogan. it is worth noting that all the main medical outputs of GE can be produced within a labrotory environment, and that there has never been a full risk assessment completed looking at the potential gains vs risks of release into the environment.



I mean, if we can modify a grain crop to grow in low-water environments, we could cut the food problems in Africa to next to nothing.


it is also very important to note that the agriculture side of the technology is not being developed for altrustic reasons - but rather to make companies like monsanto money. then name monsanto may ring a bell - they are ther same company that produced agent orange - their current big thing is round-up. it is monsanto's goal not to help feed the third world, but to sell more round-up and protect their intellectual property in the face of expiring patents. monsanto currently produces around 90% of all GE crops globally.

these goals are reflected in how the technology is being applied - a vast majority of GE crops are engineered to be resistant to pesticides or herbicides. this means that a lot more toxins are able to be applied to crops - and, in turn, to the soil and waterways - and is reflected in the rapid rise in 'acceptablel levels of toxins allowed in foods by the US government.

that GE can feed the third world has always been a popular line with those that have promoted the technology - despite the fact that these sentiments fly in the face of the
same companies actions. the development of 'terminator gene' technology is a perfect example of this two-facedness. terminator genes prevent a crop from reporducing - meaning that a farmer has to return to the seed company every year to purchase more seeds, thus driving up their costs. while this technology has been abandoned, companies now force farmers into contracts that see them paying royalites to companies every year - effectively having the same effect as terminator technology. this is particulally felt by subsistance farmers, who have traditionally saved seeds and who have very low profit margins.

the UK soil and health foundation found, in a 2001 report, that GE crops in the states were typically producing a much lower yeild than conventonial crops (and that field biodiversity was reduced in 2/3 of crops). this, coupled with increased costs to farmers associated with GE, is a fairly strong indicator that the technology won't feed the third world. according to WHO figures, humanity currently produces around 1 and 1/2 times the amount of food needed to feed everyone on the planet. it is not a lcak of food, but rather waste, inequality and high transport costs that cause hunger.

[omegaflare]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 11 2006, 02:25 AM

The protests I have seen against them have mainly been on the grounds of "its wrong to play God"

this has been one of the biggest obsticles that the GE-free movement has had to overcome - the belief that they are a bunch of luddites and crazy religo's. this is not the case at all - they are people that understand science well, and, rather than trying to stop the technology has a whole, are arguing that GMO's do have the potential to cause a lot of harm, so the science should proceed with caution.

it is recognised that GMO's are inherrently unatural - we are producing organisms that could never have occured naturally - and are very unpredictable - in what traits they will show, how they will affect human health and how the environment will be changed by their introduction into an ecosystem. it is also seen that GMO's have already had adverse effects on health and environment - importantly, effects that were not predicted. the ge-free moevment recognises that the release of an organism into the environment is an irrereversible action - as can be shown with many examples of introduced pests, so any harmful effects that GMO's might produce will be long lasting.

however, the movemnet recognises that there are many immediate benefits to be gained from the technology - particulary in mediacl areas. it is for these reasons that the movents goal has never been to stop the technology - rather to contain. "keep it in the labs, not in the fields" has always been a popular slogan. it is worth noting that all the main medical outputs of GE can be produced within a labrotory environment, and that there has never been a full risk assessment completed looking at the potential gains vs risks of release into the environment.



I mean, if we can modify a grain crop to grow in low-water environments, we could cut the food problems in Africa to next to nothing.


it is also very important to note that the agriculture side of the technology is not being developed for altrustic reasons - but rather to make companies like monsanto money. then name monsanto may ring a bell - they are ther same company that produced agent orange - their current big thing is round-up. it is monsanto's goal not to help feed the third world, but to sell more round-up and protect their intellectual property in the face of expiring patents. monsanto currently produces around 90% of all GE crops globally.

these goals are reflected in how the technology is being applied - a vast majority of GE crops are engineered to be resistant to pesticides or herbicides. this means that a lot more toxins are able to be applied to crops - and, in turn, to the soil and waterways - and is reflected in the rapid rise in 'acceptablel levels of toxins allowed in foods by the US government.

that GE can feed the third world has always been a popular line with those that have promoted the technology - despite the fact that these sentiments fly in the face of the
same companies actions. the development of 'terminator gene' technology is a perfect example of this two-facedness. terminator genes prevent a crop from reporducing - meaning that a farmer has to return to the seed company every year to purchase more seeds, thus driving up their costs. while this technology has been abandoned, companies now force farmers into contracts that see them paying royalites to companies every year - effectively having the same effect as terminator technology. this is particulally felt by subsistance farmers, who have traditionally saved seeds and who have very low profit margins.

the UK soil and health foundation found, in a 2001 report, that GE crops in the states were typically producing a much lower yeild than conventonial crops (and that field biodiversity was reduced in 2/3 of crops). this, coupled with increased costs to farmers associated with GE, is a fairly strong indicator that the technology won't feed the third world. according to WHO figures, humanity currently produces around 1 and 1/2 times the amount of food needed to feed everyone on the planet. it is not a lcak of food, but rather waste, inequality and high transport costs that cause hunger.
You make very interesting points, and I do agree (right now, anyways) that it should be "kept in the labs and not in the fields", it is something that is worth going into. As we speak, corporations are decoding the human genome to find out what exactly each of our genes does and what they control. Is it not worthwhile to TRY and figure out (after rigorous testing, of course) a way to make a strain of corn that will grow in low water conditions?

[Severian]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 10 2006, 08:25 PM
this has been one of the biggest obsticles that the GE-free movement has had to overcome - the belief that they are a bunch of luddites and crazy religo's.

This belief is widespread because it contains a fair bit of truth.


it is recognised that GMO's are inherrently unatural - we are producing organisms that could never have occured naturally

Corn also "could never have occurred naturally". Neither could pugs, poodles, and Pekingese. So what?

You start by denying you're anti-technology, and in the next breath you're saying somethings "unatural" as if that's bad.


- and are very unpredictable - in what traits they will show, how they will affect human health

No, they're not. Genetically modified organisms have been producing medicines since the 1970s, and foods since the...1980s, I think. Nobody has ever died them, and there's no evidence whatsoever behind the various scares promoted by the anti-GMO groups.


it is also seen that GMO's have already had adverse effects on health and environment - importantly, effects that were not predicted.

If this was true, you would've given an example.


t is also very important to note that the agriculture side of the technology is not being developed for altrustic reasons - but rather to make companies like monsanto money.

True. Of course that's true of all technology. The answer is not to oppose the technology, but to oppose capitalism.

It's also true of the protectionist measures levied by the European Union, banning the import of GM crops - they're designed to protect the profits of EU agribusiness, including EU seed companies which don't think they can keep up with Monsanto and other U.S. companies in this technology.

The recent WTO decision against EU protectionism should be welcomed. I might point out Third World countries like Brazil are among those hurt by these measures.


a vast majority of GE crops are engineered to be resistant to pesticides or herbicides

On the other hand there's Bt corn, which is engineered to produce a natural pesticide and not need spraying. Odd that self-proclaimed environmentalists would oppose it...but many do.


according to WHO figures, humanity currently produces around 1 and 1/2 times the amount of food needed to feed everyone on the planet.

While this is true, it does not eliminate the need for Third World countries to increase food production.

Potentially GM tech is a means they can use, not just Monsanto, in order to achieve this. Cuba is among the countries pursuing GM research.

Cuba developed a strain of tobacco genetically modified to be resistant to mold - and ran into the problem of European anti-GM protectionism! As a Cuban scientist pointed out, it's pretty ridiculous to worry about speculative GM health risks in that case, when the known risks of tobacco smoking are so high. And yet....

[Andy Bowden]

Cuba is promoting GM food?

What about all the reports on Cubas move to Organic farming, on a large scale? :unsure:

[coda]

They should label the GM foods that are being sold in the stores.

[loveme4whoiam]

As I said I started this thread in pretty much ignorance of GM crops. I think that pedro san pedro is right about rigourous testing being required before being used on a large scale, but at the same time I completely agree with Severian - we should oppose the capitalism behind GM tech, not the tech itself.

Having reread your end paragraph about why GM crops will not help feed the third world, I believe that this is because of capitalist obstacles rather than any real problem with the tech. And yes, you are definitely right about the waste of food (I used to work at McDonalds, you do not want to know about the level of waste that company creates), but then this is also a product of capitalist thinking. I still see no big reason why we should oppose GM crops, as long as they have been fully researched (and, of course, as long as they are not used to further exploit people).

[Severian]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 11 2006, 06:33 AM
Cuba is promoting GM food?

What about all the reports on Cubas move to Organic farming, on a large scale? :unsure:
Badly overhyped by those who see organic farming as some kind of principle. (As opposed to what it really is under capitalism - a marketing gimmick.)

Cuba's move away from agricultural chemicals is practical - partly driven by the high cost of acquiring 'em after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Partly driven by balancing their advantages and disadvantages on a case-by-case basis.

They use chemical fertilizers and pesticides when they judge it appropriate - and genetically modified crops on the same basis. Cuban scientists have also developed a genetically modified line of tilapia, but given EU anti-genemod protectionism "don't want to be the first to release a transgenic fish into the environment."

A letter from a famer opposing organic farming hype about Cuba (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6531/653151.html)

Article following up on that (http://ww.themilitant.com/2001/6531/653150.html)

[Iepilei]

GMOs don't concern me.

[Atlas Swallowed]

I am against them not on any religious grounds but because of potential dangers to the enviorment and health. Wonderful companies like Monsanto have been patening seeds and sueing farmers for regrowing them.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/seedfees103004.cfm

Article on harmful effects of GM modified food.

http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm



Large corporations that do not give a damn about health or enviorment and only care about proffit are the greatest benrficiary of GM modified crops. I think they are too dangerous to screw with and the results could be catostrophic for the worlds food supply. Natrual cross breeding is effective and poses much less danger to the enviorment.

[Typhoon]

We had a GM industry researcher come visit us, I am a member of a beekeeping society so we have a bit of an interest in these things. Also being a biochemist GM is what im going to be doing a fair bit of should i pass the exams.
Although I never forgot the fact I was listening to what was basically a sales pitch, I was rather impressed with the speaker and he answered everyones "GM will destroy us all" questions well.
As long as GM is conducted in a clinical manner then I see very little harm coming from the technology, after all as someone has said you would be suprised at what is produced today via GM organisms today, diabetic insulin being a top example but there are loads more.
To be fair after reading the 50 harmful effects of GM, im not that worried, its all a lot of if/buts and mabys which should hold the technology back if its being regulated correctly.

[STI]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed
Wonderful companies like Monsanto have been patening seeds and sueing farmers for regrowing them.

That isn't a problem with GMOs, that's a problem with the private ownership of GMO technology (patents and copyrights on certain genes). So then it's just capitalism that's the problem.


I think they are too dangerous to screw with and the results could be catostrophic for the worlds food supply.

Funny you should bring that up, because, if not for GMO technology, the world wouldn't be able to support its current population in the first place.


Natrual cross breeding is effective and poses much less danger to the enviorment.

Yes, it's effective, but it's not as effective. And that difference is all the difference in the world.

[pedro san pedro]

Funny you should bring that up, because, if not for GMO technology, the world wouldn't be able to support its current population in the first place.

bollocks!! i hope your've a link to back up that claim


That isn't a problem with GMOs, that's a problem with the private ownership of GMO technology (patents and copyrights on certain genes). So then it's just capitalism that's the problem.

indeed - how the technology is progressing is very worrying. Canada has recently been pushing to remove the defacto memortorium on terminator technology.... a type of genectic engineering that stops plants from reproducing, thus forcing farmers to stop saving seeds and purchase more every year. what a wonderful thing to sell to subsistance farmers!

[Ol' Dirty]

(suck.)

[Janus]

I think that genetically modified crops have and can have a positive impact on our society. Increased crop yields have helped with hunger and poverty problems as can be seen in the Green revolution. However, there are two main problems with it and none of them concern religion.

First of all, genetically modified crops are less resistant than native crops to bugs and diseases. This can cause major long-term problems especially if there is major dependency on g.m. crops.

Second of all, g.m. crops are usually breed to be infertile which allows the distributors to make a large profit. It can also worsen the problem above since there is a limited seed supply.

Unless these problems are addressed, I don't think that we should depend too heavily on g.m. crops.

Many of our crops are modified in some way such as through domesticization. Currently, we are modifying plants in many ways whether to filter poisons or increase our yields. I believe that it is by these processes that humans can live symbiotically with nature.

[MysticArcher]

First of all, genetically modified crops are less resistant than native crops to bugs and diseases. This can cause major long-term problems especially if there is major dependency on g.m. crops.

EDIT: totally misread this part

I don' really believe that, since a good modification should be based on existing crops adapted to the area. Adding an extra gene or two shouldn't significantly affect fitness - if the pest the gene is supposed to make protein against isn't around no protein gets made, it's called gene regulation.


Second of all, g.m. crops are usually breed to be infertile which allows the distributors to make a large profit.

Yes, so called terminator strains are the only drawback I can see to modifying organisms. It wouldn't actually be that hard to remove depending on the method they used.

If it were me, I'd just insert an odd chromosome with vital genes on it, the odd number of chromosomes messes up your gamete production and drops your fertility through the floor.

The solution is to reinsert those important genes somewhere else and cut up the odd chromosome with an endonuclease (some retroviruses do this to hack up the host DNA and replace it with their own)

At this point of course the only safeguards against such a technique are bourgoise legislature and the competition of corporations and we know how well those work.


Many of our crops are modified in some way such as through domesticization.

Unfortunately no amount of domestication/selection will take the gene from an ice fish and put it in an ear of corn

[Janus]

How is that a problem?
That was a problem in Indonesia during the Green revolution. The modified crops were not resistant to a certain bug that practically wiped them out. The problems was only controlled due to massive pesticide use that unfortunately also wiped out the bug's predators.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:56 PM

How is that a problem?
That was a problem in Indonesia during the Green revolution. The modified crops were not resistant to a certain bug that practically wiped them out. The problems was only controlled due to massive pesticide use that unfortunately also wiped out the bug's predators.
But the "Green Revolution" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_revolution) occured in the 1960s and 1970s, before the use of genetically-modified crops...so what are you talking about, and is your point really about genetic engineering at all? Or is it part of a Luddite opposition to all technology in agriculture, including hybrid seeds?

I'd like to challenge all the opponents of "genetically modified organisms" to point to one specific example of anyone's health or the natural environment being harmed by them.

[Atlas Swallowed]

I could not find any instances. My position has changed somewhat. Long term effects still has me concerned and that kind of technology in the hands of large argriculture corporations is also a big concern.

[Janus]

But the "Green Revolution" occured in the 1960s and 1970s, before the use of genetically-modified crops...so what are you talking about, and is your point really about genetic engineering at all? Or is it part of a Luddite opposition to all technology in agriculture, including hybrid seeds?
I was simply raising a concern about modified crops. Read my first post, I support it.


I'd like to challenge all the opponents of "genetically modified organisms" to point to one specific example of anyone's health or the natural environment being harmed by them.
First of all, I am not a technophobe. I would also like you to point out where I actually opposed genetically modified crops as part of my so called "Luddite opposition" to it.

[Janus]

But the "Green Revolution" occured in the 1960s and 1970s, before the use of genetically-modified crops...so what are you talking about, and is your point really about genetic engineering at all? Or is it part of a Luddite opposition to all technology in agriculture, including hybrid seeds?
I have to admit that I made a mistake in assuming that hybrid crops, which were used in the Green Revolution, were genetically modified crops. Contrary to what Severian believes, I do support genetically modified crops as long as there are no safety concerns. As with all technology, there should be more inquiry before there is any full dependence on it.

[Severian]

That's more my point...not so much your attitude towards GM itself, but whether that extends to all kinds of agricultural tech.

For some people, it does. Probably you got that anti-Green Revolution bit, directly or indirectly, from some of those people, who tend to be pretty anti-tech.

That Wikipedia article mentions Vandana Shiva as a leading critic of the Green Revolution, so I'll take her as an example.

All systems of modern industrial farming, whether they be the Green Revolution, chemical agriculture or genetic engineering, assume that the millions of living beings which live in the soil and make it fertile can be killed.
....
Industrialization is desacralization. Industrialization is a project of hubris....

So all these people who have a blanket religious opposition to industrial "desacralization" then come up with various other reasons, which are not their real reasons, and which may have no relationship to any real fact.

Just as people who oppose abortion on principle - "killing babies" - come up with all kinds of fake medical data to make abortion sound medically unsafe.

These people are good at sounding progressive - even though their basic agenda is by-definition reactionary, to roll back to a preindustrial past. So other, well-meaning people pick up their falsehoods and repeat 'em thinking they're good coin.

The reality is that the Green Revolution, during the 60s and 70s, greatly increased food production in India.

[Janus]

Probably you got that anti-Green Revolution bit, directly or indirectly, from some of those people, who tend to be pretty anti-tech.
Like I said, I'm not a technophobe. I support the Green Revolution and genetically modified crops. I simply pointed out that there were some negative side effects of the Green Revolution. Besides, to stop producing hybrid crops now would have a disastrous effect on the world population.


So all these people who have a blanket religious opposition to industrial "desacralization" then come up with various other reasons, which are not their real reasons, and which may have no relationship to any real fact.
The points that I put up were supported by scientific evidence. I understand why you're frustrated at some of these people who do have a "blanket religious opposition to it".


"Industrialization is desacralization. Industrialization is a project of hubris"
:lol: Primitivist and a true technophobe.


The reality is that the Green Revolution, during the 60s and 70s, greatly increased food production in India.
Of course, and in other Asian nations as well.

Sorry about posting about the Green Rev. though, I simply assumed that hyrid crops were a type of genetically modified crops.