GM Crops! Can they feed the world?

[RAM]

This is a good deabte becuase somee say that they can and some say that they can't becuase they are a toll of Capatalism and are a diffrent green revolution from the first one!

[Ghost Writer]

What do you think has been feeding the world?

[crazy comie]

I think they can feed the world becuse they use less land than normal crops as well as not needing pesticides.

[Invader Zim]

What do you think of the moral question behind there use? It seams many people are unhappy about there use as they believe that they are dammaging to the enviroment etc.

[Moskitto]

the reason why they invent some GM crops (like soya) is so that they are immune to pesticides so that pesticides can be used on them. Not so that they don't need presticides.
They use far less labour in growing the crops but the same amount of land due to intraspecies competition.

[chamo]

The risks are that there may be only one type of each crop left. One type of carrot, one type of tomato etc. Ecology should have taught us that there needs to be more than one genetic type, for if the only surviving one was hit by disease or drought, then the whole crop would die, not just percentages of it. So scientists need to be careful how they clone the plants.

There are many benefits from GM food, it's just that they have the potential to be exploited by capitalist companies, who may not take care of how they grow them and such.

[IHP]

Feel free to correct me, as I don't know much about this but I heard that GM crops don't reproduce. After harvest your land is effectively useless.

Don't worry, I don't think this is gospel.

--IHP

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from i hate pinochet on 12:02 pm on May 29, 2003
Feel free to correct me, as I don't know much about this but I heard that GM crops don't reproduce. After harvest your land is effectively useless.

Don't worry, I don't think this is gospel.

--IHP

I dont think so, as one of the major issues with GM is that it spreads. The pollen from the GM crops fertilises none GM plants, making them GM, which causes massive dammage to the organic farming industry.

However i may well be wrong, i only vaugly understand it.

(Edited by AK47 at 12:10 pm on May 29, 2003)

[RAM]

I think that there is a moral case for these people to be helped and then to have freedom from the companies although that probally wom't happen!

[Pete]

They require too much fertilizer/pesticides too perfect conditions and are too expensive for the average farmer to use in the third world. Moving to forgotten foods like amarlyss (or soemthing like that, I don't have my notes with me) would be more effective since that plant can grow in extremely arrid places as well as in temperate zones. Start to cross breed that sucker and it needs little 'favourable conditions' and little fertilizer/pesticides so that even the poor farmer can greatly increase his yield!! The current GM plants are toys of the elite and bourgeoisie farmers.

[chamo]

They require too much fertilizer/pesticides too perfect conditions and are too expensive for the average farmer to use in the third world.

They don't need pesticides, that's the point. The seeds are expensive though, and it means the farmers have to buy from capitalist companies. On the news there was a third-world farmer who had bought the seeds, and he didn't have to spend as much on chemicals and fertiliser, and got a high yield. Some people in the third-world are welcoming to GM crops, and there are some who are against them. There was a school in protest of them, and they were growing their own organic crops. They said they didn't want the companies trying to run their lives and agriculture, and were sceptical of the benefits of GM crops.

[Moskitto]

Feel free to correct me, as I don't know much about this but I heard that GM crops don't reproduce. After harvest your land is effectively useless.

Don't worry, I don't think this is gospel.

--IHP


GM crops can reproduce, however companies which supply the seeds such as Monsanto do not allow farmers to keep some of the crop as seed grain so they have to buy new seeds from Monsanto.

They don't need pesticides, that's the point.

Monsanto developed GM soya so it was immune to Roundup (a pesticide) meaning roundup could still be used without damaging the crop, being GM does not make the crop not need pesticides.

[Nobody]

I am personally afraid that we still do not know the reprecussions of eating and growing these crops. I mean fifty years from now they could find out that a whole lot of people have birth defects or higher cancer rates becasue they consumed these crops. I feel more research is needed before we deem them safe for human consumtion. And don't get me started on the use of fruits to delieve medicince, WAY to many negatives to screw up the people and the environmnets

[Ghost Writer]

Genetically modifying foods and animals has been going on since the birth of civilization. Some would say that is the hallmark of such an advanced society, such as the Sumarians, the Egyptians, and the Mayans. Prior to the invention of genetic engineering, we had to use selective breeding techniques to genetically modify life forms like dogs, horses, and crops. To do this one must find which breeds do well under certain conditions and then hybridize those groups, or selectively breed those groups that are successful under certain conditions. This method is often time-consuming, as it relies on the process of eliminative induction.

Now that we have understanding of the gene sequence, and have techniques that will allow us to manipulate genes through gene splicing, we can bypass some of the experimental methods that have enormous research and development costs associated with them. If we know what conditions are to exist and what part of the genome will dictate a desired result, we can employ genetic engineering directly and optimize the performance of the product of interest, thereby increasing quality and quantity. Of course, the economic implications of this technology are tremendous, as we can eliminate some of the variables that result in losses.

A hallmark of the scientific experiment is the ability to control the environment. This issue of genetic engineering raises the age-old question of observation vs. experimentation. The experiment is, by definition, pro-active, as it requires control over nature, whereas, the observation is done by spectators of the natural world. Selective breeding lacks the kind of control necessary for it to be dubbed a pure experimental science, whereas, genetic engineering is highly experimental as independent variables can be controlled for by creating the genetic code necessary for optimum output in the dependent variable.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 9:29 am on May 30, 2003)

[Moskitto]

while I understand your point GW that "Genetic Modification" has been going on since the birth of civilisation (or at least agriculture.) In Laymans terms "genetic modification" normally refers to recombinant DNA rather than evolution and artificial selection.

[mentalbunny]

Well due to cross-pollination, genes from GM plants can be found in other plants, causing problems. Also many GM plants don't pruduce seeds so farmers have to buy more, but I don't know that much about the whole thing. I buy organic because I have the choice and I think it's better for the environment.

[Ghost Writer]

If you think you are buying organic foods, you are a moron. Right now, labeling of genetically engineered foods is not required. In fact, it is possible for companies to claim that they are selling you "all organic" food products, while selling you gentically engineered foods. Nothing would be fraudulent about calling most GM food organic, because genetically enhancing these food stuffs does not change the organic nature of the produce. We are still dealing with carbohydrates, and other organic compounds. Gasoline is an "all organic" compound. Would you be dumb enough to drink it, just because someone labels it "organic".

[Pete]

All "organic" means is that it was alive at one time.

[Ghost Writer]

If you are interested in some of the political issues surrounding GM food labeling, take a look at this link, published by Ag-West Biotech Inc. (http://www.whybiotech.com/html/Canada1-1-17-03.HTM)

Here is a story that provides an excellent example of how biotechnological engineering has saved Hawaii's papaya industry. (http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=1823) To be blunt, without biotechnology and its application in genetically engineering foods many more people would be starving in the world. I thought that even a liberal like MentalBunny would understand this facet of the industry. If you really are serious about eating only organic foods, grow your own garden. However, you won't even know if the seeds you used were somehow enhanced in the laboratory.

[Pete]

The problem with the current brand of GM foods though Ghost Writer is that the people that need teh food can not afford to buy it and are thus stuck in the poverty cycle and are having troubles escaping it. As I said before using the 'forgotten foods' and cross breeding (whcih you described) and selling these to poor farmers in the 3rd, 4th and 5th worlds would do much more good than harm.

[Ghost Writer]

Now you are trying to blaim the poverty of the third world on the agricultural industry. Nobody is stopping those nations from planting whatever crops they want. Perhaps the fact that many of them are starving has everything to do with their outdated modes of food production. It seems to me that they would be in a better situation if they used more biotechnological engineering to counteract some of the variables that are inherent in their respective regions. GM foods is just what the doctor ordered.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 1:40 am on May 31, 2003
If you think you are buying organic foods, you are a moron. Right now, labeling of genetically engineered foods is not required. In fact, it is possible for companies to claim that they are selling you "all organic" food products, while selling you gentically engineered foods. Nothing would be fraudulent about calling most GM food organic, because genetically enhancing these food stuffs does not change the organic nature of the produce. We are still dealing with carbohydrates, and other organic compounds. Gasoline is an "all organic" compound. Would you be dumb enough to drink it, just because someone labels it "organic".


Actually all the organic food I buy has the Soil Association (http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf?Open) logo, and if that isn't safe i hate to think what the rest of the food is like.

GW, I would sort of agree with your last post but we have no idea what the long term effects will be and that worries me.

[Moskitto]

actually GW, GM foods have to be labelled in the EU where mentalbunny is from.

[Ghost Writer]

I forgot that MentalBunny lives in England. Here are the regulations for Great Britain (http://www.bl.uk/services/information/chapter4.html#bgp).

[antieverything]

Petey hit it right on the head. Most hunger in the world isn't caused by a lack of food but by a lack of money to buy food.

[Pete]

Malnutrition is wider spread than starvation, but GW the problem isn't underproduction in the agriculture industry but wrong production. In colombia fields are going to Cocoa and Coffee for the western world while people could be making staples so they could eat better. Or in the Philippines where pineapples and coconuts (I could look up the third main cash crop if you want me too) are being grown in the lushest areas where the peasant farmers are not making food that they can eat and are not making enough money to buy food that they can eat.

It is more international capitalism and economic imperialism that is responsible for food shortages and malnutrition than anything else. We rape them, we leave them.

[Moskitto]

I don't mind eating GM food, I just think people should have the choice, it's not like the genes can actually be absorbed into the body as whole genes.

[Pete]

The problem with that Moskitto is that the massive amounts of pesticides and feritilzers can seep into your body.

[Soul Rebel]

Personally i think its a really bad idea. Didnt you hear the about the devestation GM food had on farmers in India? They basically committed mass suicide due to the GM seeds they used. Heres the story: About 2 years ago American companies sent GM seeds over to Third World countries. These poor people were told that these seeds were great: that they would grow a ton of food, etc. They of course believed it and took the seeds. The planted them and their crops grew. However, when the time came to plant more the company would not give them any. They were told that they had to buy them now!!! And of course they couldnt afford it. So these farmeres tried to grow the crops they were originally growing. However, the land was damaged and so nothing grew. The farmers were desprete- they had to feed their families and pay their landlords, but they couldnt cuz they had no money because nothing was growing. So as a result many farmers ended up selling off their wives to their landlords and then committing suicide. Hundreds of farmers killed themselves because they were basically fucked over by U.S. companies and their GM crops.

As an environmentalist i also think it is a bad idea. I will only buy organic fruits and veggies because they are better for the earth, healthier, and taste better.

Seriously, its been proven and suggested many times: if everyone turned to a vegetarian diet, the world's starvation problems would be solved. There are many reasons for this: 1) it takes less land to grow veggies, soy, and fruit- so more could be grown and distributed 2) instead of using tons of grains and water to feed animals which are then slaughtered for human consumption, the grains and water would be used for human consumption 3) non-vegetarian diets are actually more expensive, meaning that those who are poor cannot afford meats and dairy that the rich and middle class eat. Meat and dairy are expensive and so not everyone can afford it. It is expensive because of the time and material put into the cattle. See what i am getting at?

[Moskitto]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 8:37 pm on May 31, 2003
The problem with that Moskitto is that the massive amounts of pesticides and feritilzers can seep into your body.


I generally wash my food before i eat it, as do most food manufacturers, and organophosphates and organochlorines are water soluble and most pesticides are species specific.

fertilisers are absorbed into plants and converted into organic products, such as proteins, eating plants grown with organic fertiliser is no different from a human point of view to plants grown with inorganic fertiliser.

[Moskitto]

Composted animal slurry have far lower concentrations of nutrients than inorganic fertilisers, they also have a higher risk of pathogen contamination due to the nature of it's production.

The organic definition seems to be that no "toxic" chemicals may be used, well guess what, Every chemical is toxic to some extent. Of course, they are allowed to use slightly more toxic chemicals like say Urea which breaks down into the even more toxic Ammonia, afterall it's naturally produced in the body, and insect pheremones, which are actually made in labs but they are made by nature, but they aren't allowed to use Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer which is stable and no where near as toxic as Ammonia, and is again made by nature, although admittedly for fertilizer it is made in labs, just like the insect pheremones hailed as organic technology.

[Ghost Writer]

Personally i think its a really bad idea. Didnt you hear the about the devestation GM food had on farmers in India? They basically committed mass suicide due to the GM seeds they used. Heres the story: About 2 years ago American companies sent GM seeds over to Third World countries. These poor people were told that these seeds were great: that they would grow a ton of food, etc. They of course believed it and took the seeds. The planted them and their crops grew. However, when the time came to plant more the company would not give them any. They were told that they had to buy them now!!! And of course they couldnt afford it. So these farmeres tried to grow the crops they were originally growing. However, the land was damaged and so nothing grew. The farmers were desprete- they had to feed their families and pay their landlords, but they couldnt cuz they had no money because nothing was growing. So as a result many farmers ended up selling off their wives to their landlords and then committing suicide. Hundreds of farmers killed themselves because they were basically fucked over by U.S. companies and their GM crops.

As an environmentalist i also think it is a bad idea. I will only buy organic fruits and veggies because they are better for the earth, healthier, and taste better.

Seriously, its been proven and suggested many times: if everyone turned to a vegetarian diet, the world's starvation problems would be solved. There are many reasons for this: 1) it takes less land to grow veggies, soy, and fruit- so more could be grown and distributed 2) instead of using tons of grains and water to feed animals which are then slaughtered for human consumption, the grains and water would be used for human consumption 3) non-vegetarian diets are actually more expensive, meaning that those who are poor cannot afford meats and dairy that the rich and middle class eat. Meat and dairy are expensive and so not everyone can afford it. It is expensive because of the time and material put into the cattle. See what i am getting at?

That's a really sad story. Would you mind providing a source? Otherwise, I will assume that you made it up.

[Soul Rebel]

No problem. I used it for a paper in my social problems class. I'll go through my papers tonight and pull it out and post it tomorrow.

[Soul Rebel]

Actually here's an article that talks about it. I normally dont go to sites like this because its not my thing- but you wanted proof. I'll pull out my other sources too.


Selling suicide - farming, false promises and genetic engineering in developing countries /05.99

• Genetically modified crops - Christian Aid's concerns /06.02

Summary

A battle is beginning to rage for control of farming in poor countries. In Brazil, farmers, landless people and officials are joining together to reject genetically modified (GM) crops. In India, where poor farmers are already vulnerable and some are driven to suicide, farming increasingly dominated by large corporations, will leave the poor further marginalised. Centuries-old ways of farming on which the poor depend are also threatened by new seed technologies. Ethiopia, a country virtually ignored by the giant agrochemical companies, contradicts the view that GM crops are anything to do with ending hunger.

Are GM crops the next in a long line of inappropriate products to be dumped on poor countries? Glibly promoted before international controls are in place as an answer to world hunger, few have paused to consider whether in fact the latest products of a long agricultural revolution will stop hundreds of millions going without enough to eat. Or whether, in practice, the newest offerings from corporate laboratories might, for largely unconsidered reasons, make matters worse. Christian Aid believes:


GM crops are irrelevant to ending hunger
the new technology puts too much power over food into too few hands
too little is done to help small farmers grow food in sustainable and organic ways
Mistakes in managing the world's food supply will carry a serious cost. Farmers in developing countries are already vulnerable to disasters and changes in price for what they grow and what they must pay to farm. Firstly, in 1998, as a foretaste of what might become increasingly common, a mixture of economic causes and poorly chosen modern plant varieties led to hundreds of farmers committing suicide in India. Secondly, one of the newest products of genetic engineering in agriculture, the 'terminator technology' or 'suicide seed', grows plants with infertile seed and is predicted by planners in the United States to be set to dominate world farming.

Christian Aid believes it will undermine hundreds of millions of farmers in poor countries who depend on saving seeds to plant the following season. Thirdly, the spread of intensive farming has presided over the mass extinction of plants and animals - the rich diversity of life which is the earth's life support system. Early planting of GM crops follows the same intensive model of commercial farming.

Hunger is a daily reality for over 800 million people in the world, yet its prime cause is poverty not food shortage. There is more than enough food to keep us all healthy. Yet, false promises about ending hunger mean a fundamentally flawed approach to farming could rapidly take hold around the world, because of the lobbying and marketing power of the companies involved. The new direction could be a one way road. Just a few years' planting of GM crops could knock more sustainable farming off track for good. An uncontainable GM system, once released, denies the right to choose other courses.

While companies claim GM crops will feed the world in fact they are largely irrelevant to ending hunger: around the world they are driven by commercial interests, not a concern to 'feed the world' or raise productivity. The real challenge is poverty eradication; land reform; water conservation; and increasing production by promoting mixed, low chemical-use farming which favours naturally improved and locally adapted plants.

People go hungry because they are poor and cannot afford food or because they do not have land on which to grow it: the last farming revolution failed the poorest and left many hungry because of rising gaps between rich and poor, and due to increasing control of land and the new seeds and chemicals by wealthier farmers and corporations.

A reckless concentration of ownership is taking place over how the world feeds itself, leaving the poor more vulnerable: no effective means exist to control emerging international monopolies: among many mergers and take-overs, Monsanto has bought into the major national seed companies of both India and Brazil; just 10 companies control 85 per cent of the global agrochemical market; industry is also integrating - Du Pont, one of the world's largest chemical companies, announced plans to buy the world's largest seed company, Hi-Bred International. (1)

Major corporations are planning to introduce the 'terminator technology' worldwide: every relevant major multinational now has, or is developing, 'genetically sterilised or chemical dependent seed' which fosters a farmer's dependence on agrochemical multinationals and ends their own vital ability to develop new crops; a dozen institutions have already obtained such patents - Monsanto is seeking patents in 89 countries, Astra/Zeneca in 77 countries. (2)

Biopiracy of poor country plants and animals could increase under the evolving international legal framework: designed to protect the products of United States biotech corporations, a modern form of the 'enclosures' is under way with the poorest left out, or forced to accept foreign control over their own living plant and animal heritage.

Farming based on GM crops threatens the world's genetic storehouse on which we all depend: at least three quarters of the world's food plant varieties have been lost, mostly due to commercial farming. (3) Common GM crops - the focus of huge expansion plans - work with herbicides designed to wipe out a wide range of plants. The only plants to adapt and survive will be superweeds.

GM crops currently not grown commercially in the UK are being promoted in developing countries: as early as 2001-2002, more land is projected to be planted with GM crops in the South than the North, while the crops are still banned in the UK for precaution. (4)

The recent international trade dispute over bananas could be a prelude to forcing GM crops on poor countries: disagreements could see international trade rules used to force poor countries to accept GM crops and food, taking away their right to choose.

Plans to expand the planting of GM soya in Brazil threatens one of the last major sources of the non-modified plant for the UK: consumers could be left with no choice but to have GM soya. Also, according to official government documents pressure from conventional soya plantations, is squeezing already threatened rainforest - the home of life-supporting genetic resources.

GM crops are taking us down a dangerous farm track creating classic preconditions for hunger and famine: ownership of resources concentrated in too few hands - inherent in farming based on patented proprietary products - and a food supply based on too few varieties of crops widely planted, are the worst option for food security. The new techniques also leave untouched growing gaps between rich and poor.

The five-year freeze campaign: Christian Aid has joined the call for a five-year freeze on genetic engineering in food and farming. The freeze campaign has the support of over 40 organisations ranging from the Iceland Foods retail chain to the Townswomen's Guilds. The call for a moratorium is based on the scale of public opposition, the inadequacy of current environmental and health and safety regulations, and the potential for negative effects on agriculture and food production in poor countries.

Debate over genetic engineering in our food system exposes an artificial ecosystem of power and private interest, dominated by rich countries, where the poor stand no chance to compete. Cautionary approaches, written into international agreements since the Earth Summit in 1992, should form the basis of our approach to the new technology. Unless care is taken we could end up selling suicide.

[Ghost Writer]

Christian Aid? Not exactly experts on the subject.

Perhaps you will take the Committee on Science Subcommittee on Basic Research chair, Nick Smith's, word for it. His report, Seeds of Opportunity, finds the following:

-The promise of agricultural biotechnology is immense. Advances in this technology will result in crops with a wide range of desirable traits that will directly benefit farmers, consumers, and the environment and increase global food production and quality.

-There is no evidence that transferring genes from unrelated organisms to plants poses unique risks. The risks associated with plant varieties developed using agricultural biotechnology are the same as those for similar varieties developed using classical breeding methods. As the new methods are more precise and allow for better characterization of the changes being made, plant developers and food producers are in better position assess safety than when using classical breeding methods.

-The threat posed by pest-resistant crop varieties developed using agricultural biotechnology to the Monarch butterfly and other non-target species has been vastly overblown and is probably insignificant.

-There is no scientific justification for labeling foods based on the method by which they are produced. Labeling of agricultural biotechnology products would confuse, not inform, consumers and send a misleading message on safety.

-Federal regulations should focus on the characteristics of the plant, its intended use, and the environment into which it will be introduced, not the method used to produce it. Regulations that capture selectively the products of agricultural biotechnology do not reflect the scientific consensus on risk, are overly burdensome, and stifle scientific research.

The report also contains six recommendations:

-Congress should ensure adequate levels of funding for basic research in plant genomics.

-Existing regulations at USDA and proposed regulations at EPA targeting the products of biotech are not science-based and should be revised.

-FDA should maintain its current science-based policy of regulation based on the characteristics of a food product, and not by the means by which it was created.
FDA should maintain its current science-based policy on food labeling. There is no scientific justification for special labeling of food products developed using agricultural biotechnology, as a class.

-The Administration should work to ensure that markets for products of agricultural biotechnology are not restricted by scientifically unsound measures. The U.S. should not accept any international agreements that violate the scientific principles and limit trade in, or mandate labeling of, a plant or food product based on the method used to develop it.

-The Administration, industry, and scientific community have a responsibility to educate the public on the long record of safe use of agricultural biotechnology products and research.

source: Smith Releases Report On Genetically-Modified Plants; 13-Apr-2000 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science; Nick Smith (http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/knowcenter.nsf/0/86DC44A733C05FBD86256AF6005264FA?OpenDocument)

Full Report: Commitee Print 106-B (http://www.house.gov/nicksmith/opportunity.pdf)

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 10:29 am on June 4, 2003)

[Moskitto]

what is your opinion on the use of sub-theraputic doses of antibiotics on animals to develop the resistance of the healthy bacteria naturally within the animals to the antibiotic?

[Soul Rebel]

[quote]Quote: from Ghost Writer on 11:46 am on June 2, 2003
Christian Aid? Not exactly experts on the subject.



Like i said i would never use something like that as a source, but i will post more.

Here's another one:

Protests Mount in India Against GE Cotton
SEEDS OF DEATH
Farmers in India Are Fighting to Ban Monsanto's GM Cotton

Srinand Jha is a New Delhi-based journalist.
From <www.tompaine.com>

As Americans continue to consume large quantities of genetically modified
foods, farmers across the globe are rising up to block biotech corporations
like Monsanto from pushing engineered crops into their countries.
After some setbacks fueled by public resistance in Europe and elsewhere,
Monsanto and other biotech groups are fast setting up shop in developing
nations. In India, the company is scrambling to persuade farmers that
genetically modified (GM) seeds, like Monsanto's Bt cotton, are better and
more profitable.

The company began Bt cotton field trials in India three years ago. Monsanto
says the cotton seeds provide a defense against pests. The seed relies on a
toxic bacteria gene to protect cotton crops from insects. In theory, the
seeds reduce farmers' costs by eliminating the need for pesticides. Monsanto
also says the seeds increase crop yield and have no adverse ecological
impact.

Indian farmers and environmental groups are not convinced. In recent months,
farmers have taken to the streets, waving signs and shouting anti-Monsanto
slogans. They staged protests at Monsanto experimental field sites and in
some cases burned trial crops. Farmers have also protested outside the
Indian Parliament and other government offices, and in front of the New
Delhi home of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

Meanwhile, Monsanto is waiting for the go-ahead from the Indian government.
In the last two years, in an effort to woo customers, Monsanto has sponsored
dozens of "farmer awareness programs," meetings to educate farmers about the
Bt cotton seed. The company has tried to involve local non-governmental
groups and has also floated the idea that loans may be available to Indian
farmers who want to try the seeds, once they are available commercially.
New Delhi-based economist Durganand Jha says that Monsanto's aggressive
push into countries like Bangladesh and India is linked to the "failing fortunes"
of the biotech industry in the United States and Europe.

Planting of genetically modified cotton and soy have shown recent modest
gains in the U.S., but planting of genetically engineered corn has dropped
20 percent, according to the Worldwatch Institute.

In Europe, public resistance has forced the mandatory labeling of all GM
foods. Meanwhile, in Brazil this year, farmers invaded and ransacked a local
Monsanto facility, uprooting corn and soybean plants. Monsanto abruptly
discontinued experiments with transgenic Bt cotton in Australia a few years
ago because of mass protests by farmer groups.

In Monsanto's search for new markets, India certainly has appeal. In the
past decade, Indian farmers have suffered devastating losses from government
dismantling of agricultural trade restrictions. Nationwide, thousands of
farmers have committed suicide because of crop failure and mounting debts,
according to numerous press reports. The Hindu, a prominent English-language
daily, reported last year that some farmers had sold their kidneys to pay
off debts. With so many farmers despairing, the ground is fertile for
Monsanto to move in with its "magical seeds," say members of Indian NGOs.
Nevertheless, Monsanto is meeting resistance.

Indian activists say there are economic and cultural factors -- as well as
scientific arguments -- for their opposition. Though Monsanto claims that
genetically engineered seeds would bring down cultivation costs, farmers
fear the opposite is true. A study by the New Delhi-based Research
Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE), bolsters farmers'
concerns. The study says farmers' expenses would rise by as much as nine
times if they switched from traditional seeds to Bt cotton seeds. This
includes an $80 technology fee per 2.6 acres charged by Monsanto. The
fee alone is prohibitive in a country like India with an average annual per
capita income of $450.

Genetically modified seeds -- unlike most cotton seeds -- can only be used
once. Not only does this force farmers to return each year to buy new seeds,
but the non-renewable concept does not sit well with the cultural ethos of
Indian farmers. A majority of the country's farmers are Hindus who believe
in the reincarnation of all living beings, including plants and animals. In
general, Indians have a deep and abiding faith in the "laws of nature."
"God willed it that I have seven sons, so I have them. There is a cyclic law
of nature that is at work everywhere. And we can tinker with this law only
at our own peril," says Biswanath Das, a small farmer from the eastern state
of Orissa. Das says he thinks no good can come from playing with the genetic
make-up of seeds or food.

"[Westerners] may have achieved some material progress, but they lack
'samskaras.' What they are doing now can only spell doom," he says.
Samskaras is a Sanskrit term for cultural/religious traditions or breeding.
Ashok Panigrahi, head of the Jaiv Panchayat, a grassroots organization
representing some 15 village groups in Orissa, agrees. "Seeds are not seeds
if they cannot regenerate. What Monsanto is peddling is an anti-nature
material -- things of destruction and death," he says.

Many farmer and environmentalist groups accuse Monsanto of attempting
to monopolize and colonize farming in the Third World. They worry that the
entry of trans-national corporations into India will lead to the monopolization
of the seed industry to the detriment of small Indian farmers. Already, about
10 companies worldwide hold 30 percent of the annual $23 billion commercial
seed trade, and genetically modified crops are virtually controlled by only four
companies: Monsanto, Switzerland's Syngenta, France's Aventis and the U.S.'s
DuPont, according to Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.

"If present trends are to continue, only a handful of companies will come to
possess control over the entire agricultural foundation of every society
within the next few years," says Afsar H. Jafri, of RFSTE.

Physicist and environmentalist Dr. Vandana Shiva is one of the leaders of
the burgeoning movement against genetically engineered crops in India.
Shiva, founder of RFSTE, has worked tirelessly to block Monsanto's biotech
expansion into India. She has traveled continuously around India's
countryside to build national awareness against the "scientific imperialism"
of agrochemical corporations. Last January, she and more than 100 farmer
groups sent a letter of protest to Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, warning
of the dangers of letting agrochemical giants into India.

Shiva has a suit pending in India's Supreme Court challenging the legality
of Monsanto's Bt cotton field trials and seeking to ban the seed. The suit
alleges that Monsanto violated the terms and timing of its field trial
permit. Shiva says, the sole governmental agency able to rule in bio-safety
matters -- the Indian Environment and Forest Ministry's Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee (GEAC) -- was bypassed in the process of granting
Monsanto clearance. The GEAC did grant permission for the Monsanto trials
eventually -- but with "retrospective effect" two years later in July 2000.
Monsanto's India director, Ranjana Smetacek, did not respond to specific
concerns raised by activists saying only, "The 25-fold increase in the area
of cultivation of biotech crops -- from 4.2 million acres in 1996 to 109.2
million acres in 2000 -- in 13 countries across six continents speaks for
itself." Responding to questions about the controversy in India, Smetacek
denies wrongdoing.

India's seeds business holds considerable commercial potential. That is what
makes the country so attractive, Shiva says.

"It is the promise held out by the lucrative Indian market, therefore, that
appears to be inspiring trans-national gene giants to make a beeline for
India," she says.

But if Shiva and thousands of Indian farmers have their way, the
multinational gene-giants may soon be forced out.







(Edited by SenoraChe at 7:00 pm on June 2, 2003)

[Soul Rebel]

And here is another:

Biotechnology and Suicide in India

Glenn Davis Stone
Washington U-St Louis
[email protected]

Ver 1.4, 12 July 2002

This is an expanded version of a commentary published in Anthropology News, Vol 43 No. 5, May 2002. The text is unchanged (save correction of a spelling error) but notes, references, and images have been added. All photos copyright G. D. Stone 2000-2001.


Were it not for the debate over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), few outside of India ever would have heard of the suicides. St Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Bill Lambrecht only found the story because he was covering the GMO controversy in India, and even then his paper ran the story under a headline about Monsanto’s problems (“India Gives Monsanto An Unstable Lab For Genetics In Farming,” Nov 22, 1998).1

Suicides
The Facts
Who: cotton farmers, particularly small and marginal ones. What: suicide, mostly by drinking pesticides. Where: the epicenter was Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh, although agrarian suicides were (and still are) occurring elsewhere. When: the worst was in 1998, when over 500 took their own lives in Warangal, but the suicides have continued, topping 1,000 in Warangal alone. But why?

This is the subject of sharp disagreement, largely because of GM issues. India is a key battle line in the global war over GM crops, and both sides interpret the Warangal suicides as supporting their position. Monsanto attributes the suicides to crop destruction by pesticide-resistant bollworms; they offer GM “Bollgard” cotton, which they have been trying to get approved for sale in India, as a solution. Vandana Shiva, one of the world’s top anti-GM activists, blames the suicides on globalization, purchased farm inputs and intrusive technologies; she contends that GM crops would worsen poverty and indebtedness by concentrating power, promoting ecologically unstable monocultures, and discouraging traditional seed-saving and exchange.2

Why Suicide?

For such competing interpretive claims, the stakes are very high: dozens of GM plants are at various stages of development and approval for use in developing countries, and public opinion often turns on striking and memorable stories. For Monsanto and Shiva, Warangal is a means of promoting polarized views on GM crops. Yet as an anthropologist who studies farmers in developing countries, I cannot see how Warangal can offer any lessons on biotechnology until the case is understood on its own merits.

I do not oppose GM crops in general; in fact, I recently took a leave to participate in the genetic modification of cassava. There are GM crops in development that probably can contribute to agricultural sustainability (more so than the overhyped “Golden Rice”). What I do oppose is the monolithic praising or condemning of GM crops, which is what we hear routinely from industry, green critics and even well-meaning public-sector biotechnologists who are poorly equipped to evaluate the larger contexts of their inventions.

Pesticide spraying
There are vital larger issues raised by agricultural biotechnology, but we should begin with farmers’ own views of the causes of the Warangal suicides, and ask what impact Bollgard might have. The proximate cause of the suicides is debt traps of which almost every farmer complains. Farmers are fronted inputs by dealers at exorbitant interest rates; the indigenous lenders have been chased off; and the new dealer/ lenders, from an outside ethnic group, overextend credit and use brutal methods of collecting delinquent payments. Some desperate farmers are influenced by the government policy of payments (around $2,200) to suicide victim’s survivors -- this indeed may influence the method of suicide, to make sure it is not construed as an accident.3 (This is a poignant contrast with American farmers’ practice of staging accidents, so their death will not be construed as a suicide and insurance payments withheld.) But why do crops fail? The farmers themselves stress the pesticide treadmill and spurious seed. Cotton pests
Pesticide Treadmill

Cotton is the classic “pesticide treadmill” crop. Warangal farmers spend heavily on pesticides that are applied desperately and indiscriminately to combat a plethora of increasingly resistant pests. Monsanto emphasizes the predations from the “American bollworm,” against which Bollgard is effective (it is modified with a gene from the “Bt” bacterium to produce proteins lethal to some lepidopteran insects). Monsanto’s India marketing director even has claimed Bollgard could have prevented the 1998 suicides.4 Unfortunately, the American bollworm is only one of many cotton pests in India, and the main destruction in 1997-98 was caused by Spodoptera, against which Bollgard is not effective.5 Pesticide sprayings will have to continue even with Bollgard. Preliminary studies in China and Mexico show the higher cost of Bt cotton initially is offset by reduced pesticide costs, 6 but those areas do not have Warangal’s problems with insects unaffected by Bt. In the short run, Bollgard may have as much potential to exacerbate debt traps as to mitigate them. In the long run, bollworms surely will develop resistance to Bt; the US practice of planting non-Bt refugia to prevent resistance is unworkable in India.

Spurious seed
Spurious Seed
Warangal crops also fail because of “spurious seed”—inferior cotton seed packaged as popular brands. Warangal farmers need much tighter regulation at the point-of-sale (the input vendors), but India’s regulatory focus long has been at the other end of the seed system (approval and certification).7 This year, unapproved and illegal GM cotton (apparently developed with stolen germplasm) was found growing in Gujarat, prompting “corporate fury” and great pressure to increase regulation of production and distribution of seed.8 If this comes at the expense of the point-of-sale regulation that Warangal farmers need, the spurious seed problem will only get worse.

These factors that the farmers themselves cite provide a good starting point, but there are much larger forces at work in Warangal, including the emergence of a global corporate agricultural oligarchy, the internationalization of gene patenting and the poorly understood process of agricultural deskilling (a focus of my own research).

The situation for Warangal farmers and their role in the global war of rhetoric is about to move into a new phase. In March 2002, Bollgard was approved for sale in India. By May, some Warangal farmers will be planting GM seeds in their fields; by this time next year, whatever has happened with the suicide rate, both Monsanto and Vandana Shiva will be claiming vindication. The truth about the effects of Bollgard will be more complex, and the first year will not tell the whole story. Moreover, the effects of Bollgard in Warangal should not be taken as an indicator of GM in general: just as local agrarian situations vary, so will the direct and indirect effects of different GM crops. I see more problems with Bollgard than with other crops being developed in India that are more consistent with agricultural sustainability (although most are coming from the public sector, rather than from the biotech corporations that spend fortunes touting them).

The Warangal case may be unusually distressing, but the struggles between the biotech industry and green activists to interpret problems in culture and agriculture in developing countries are becoming increasingly ordinary. The struggle involves a set of issues of importance in anthropology, and anthropological perspectives are sorely needed in the debate. 9


Notes

1. Other coverage in western media includes Karp 1998 and Vidal 1999. There has been considerable coverage in the Indian press (e.g., Iyer 1998).

2. Monsanto presses its case on its India website at http://www.monsantoindia.com, largely through reposting of selected articles from other publications. Examples on the website in Spring of 1999 included Sun-Sentinel 1999, Times of India 1999, and Farmers' View 1999. For examples of Shiva's use of the suicides see Shiva et al. 1999, 2002. For scholarly analysis of causes behind the Warangal suicides, see Sudarshan Reddy and Rao 1998, Parthasarathy and Shameem 1998, Revathi 1998 and Prasad 1999; Christian Aid 1999 also analyzes the issue. For an example of analysis of agrarian suicides in neighboring areas, see Assadi 1998 and Vasavi 1999.

[Addendum 12 July 2002: a significant study of agrarian suicide in neighboring Karnataka has been published by Deshpande 2002.]

3. However, the Chief Minister of the state of Andhra Pradesh recently ruled out such ex gratia payments on the grounds that they encouraged suicide (Hindu 2002). In March, when a procession of spouses of suicide victims marched on Hyderabad to try to get their ex gratia payments, they were arrested.

4. Quoted in Vidal 1999.

5. Based on farmer interviews; Sudarshan Reddy and Rao 1998; personal communication, Dr. Jala Pathi Rao (director of the Warangal Agricultural Research Station).

6. For China see Pray et al. 2001; for Mexico see Traxler et al. 2001. There are also preliminary reports on South Africa by Ismael et al. 2001 and Bennett et al. n.d.

7. Relevant discussion appears in Tripp 2001; Almekinders and Louwaars 1999; Tripp and Louwaars 1997; Tripp and Rohrbach 2001:159.

8. Jayaraman 2001.

9. Stone 2002 discusses anthropological aspects of the research needed on GM crops for developing countries; what follows is based in part on a synopsis of that discussion.
Seed systems. Marxist analysts see crop biotechnology as a mechanism of capitalist penetration through appropriation of the farmer's control over seed (Goodman et al. 1987; Kloppenburg 1988), and green activists have depicted Indian farming systems as running entirely on saved seed and reciprocal exchanges (e.g., Shiva 2000:8). Industry tends to treat seed provisioning as a system that is, or should be, totally capitalized. Actual smallholder Indian seed systems are more complex. Seed saving is vital in many situations, but it may co-exist with seed sale and even with seed purchase when it could be saved (Tripp and Pal 2001). Strategies for balancing the use value and exchange value of seed are part of what Richards (1989) calls the performance of agriculture.
Social life of GM seeds. There is already rapid spread of unregulated plants in developing countries; the illegal cotton in India and the controversial contamination of Mexican landraces are only two well-publicized examples. Some of the mechanisms of illegal seed transport, including agricultural labor migration, are problems in social ecology.
Agricultural skilling
Skilling and Deskilling. Anthropologists have stressed the vital role of skill in sustainable smallholder agricultural production (Netting 1993), and the importance of social channels for moving the information needed for "skilling" (Richards 1997). Corporate appropriation of elements of the production process may cause deskilling (Fitzgerald 1990; Vandeman 1995), this has certainly happened with pest control among Warangal cotton farmers. How GM crops will affect deskilling and skilling is as much a social question as an agronomic one.
Changing local economic relationships. GM crops may effect not only agronomy, but economic relationships in the countryside. For instance, preliminary reports show economic advantages to Mexican farmers adopting Bollgard, but also that the number of cotton gins has dropped dramatically and all remaining gins have become Monsanto clients, provide information on the farmers (Traxler et al. 2001). Each farmer signs a contract not only to prevent replanting but to control pest management strategies, acreage planted, and where the harvest is ginned. How such changes will affect smallholder operations in the future is an important question.
Affecting the research agenda. Although GM crops tend to be depicted as a monolithic good or a monolithic bad by combatants in the GMO wars (Stone 2002), there is actually enormous variety in the potential effects of various GM crops. On what information will priorities in plant transformations be based? Crops function not just as food but as construction materials, animal fodder, status symbols, ritual items, boundary markers, and statements of ethnic identity. Their roles are not only tied closely to characteristics of other crop plants and intricate details of work rhythms (Stone et al. 1990), but to migration, witchcraft, and gender (Stone 1997, Stone et al. 1995). How these perspectives can be integrated into crop biotechnology research is a crucial challenge facing the discipline (see Busch and Lacy 1983).


References

ALMEKINDERS, CONNY AND NIELS LOUWAARS. 1999. Farmers' seed production: New approaches and practices. London: Intermediate Technology Productions.

ASSADI, MUZZAFFAR. 1998. Farmers’ Suicides: Signs of Distress in Rural Economy. Economic and Political Weekly, April 4.

BENNETT, A. L., A. BENNETT, W. GREEN, C. DU TOIT, L. VAN STADEN, T. JOFFE, E. RICHTER, D. BRITS, F. FRIIS AND J. VAN JAARSVELD. n.d. Bollworm control with transgenic (Bt) cotton: First results from Africa. African Entomology, in press.

BUSCH, LAWRENCE, AND WILLIAM B. LACY. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Boulder, CO: Westview.

CHRISTAIN AID. 1999. Selling suicide - farming, false promises and genetic engineering in developing countries. Report by Andrew Simms at http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/99...ic/suicide1.htm (http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/9905suic/suicide1.htm).

DESHPANDE, R. S. 2002. Suicide by Farmers in Karnataka: Agrarian Distress and Possible Alleviatory Steps. Economic and Political Weekly 37:2601-2610.

FARMERS' VIEW. 1999. Enlarging The Gene Pool : Environmental protectionism over transgenic plants will harm Indian farming. January 26.

FITZGERALD, DEBORAH. 1990. The Business of Breeding: Hybrid Corn in Illinois 1890-1940. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.

GOODMAN, DAVID, BERNARDO SORJ AND JOHN WILKINSON. 1987. From farming to biotechnology: a theory of agro-industrial development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

HINDU. 2002. Naidu rules out ex gratia. 23 March.

ISMAEL, YOUSOUF, RICHARD BENNETT AND STEPHEN MORSE. 2001. Can farmers from the developing countries benefit from modern technology? Experience from Makathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. Crop Biotech Brief 1(5), ISAAA

IYER, LALITA. 1998. Killing men, not pests. The Week, 18 Jan. <http://www.the-week.com/98jan18/events4.htm>

JAYARAMAN, K.S. 2001. Illicit GM cotton sparks corporate fury. Nature 413:555-555.

KARP, J. 1998. Deadly Crop: Difficult Times Drive India's Cotton Farmers To Desperate Actions. Wall Street Journal, 18 Feb 1998.

KLOPPENBURG, JACK RALPH, JR. 1988. First the seed: the political economy of plant biotechnology, 1492-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

LAMBRECHT, BILL. 1998. India Gives Monsanto an Unstable Lab for Genetics in Farming. St. Louis Post-Dispatch 22 Nov.

NETTING, ROBERT MCC. 1993. Smallholders, householders: farm families and the ecology of intensive, sustainable agriculture. Stanford, CA: Stanford, University.

PARTHASARATHY, G. AND SHAMEEM. 1998. Suicides of Cotton Farmers in Andhra Pradesh: An Exploratory Study. Economic and Political Weekly 33(13):720-726.

PRAY, C.E., D. MA, J. HUANG and F. QIAO. 2001. Impact of Bt Cotton in China. World Development 29:1-34.

REVATHI, E. 1998. Farmers' suicide: missing issues. Economic and Political Weekly 33:1207.

PRASAD, C SHAMBU. 1999. Suicide Deaths and Quality of Indian Cotton: Perspectives from history and technology and Khadi movement. Economic and political weekly. 34(5):12.

RICHARDS, PAUL. 1989. Agriculture as Performance. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, edited by R. Chambers, A. Pacey and L.A. Thrupp, pp. 39-51. London: Intermediate Technology Public.

RICHARDS, PAUL. 1997. "Toward an African Green Revolution? An Anthropology of Rice research in Sierra Leone," in The Ecology of Practice: studies of food crop production in sub-Saharan West Africa. Edited by A. Endre Nyerges, pp. 201-252. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

SHIVA, VANDANA. 2000. Stolen harvest: the highjacking of the global food supply. Boston: South End Press.

SHIVA, VANDANA, A.H. JAFRI, A. EMANI AND M. PANDE. 2002. Seeds of Suicide: the Ecological and Human Costs of Globalization of Agriculture. Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi. (Revised edition of 2000 book by same name.)

SHIVA, VANDANA, ASHOK EMANI AND AFSAR H. JAFRI. 1999. Globalisation and Threat to Seed Security: Case of Transgenic cotton trials in India. Economic and Political Weekly. 34(10):601-613.

STONE, GLENN DAVIS. 1997. Predatory Sedentism: Intimidation and Intensification in the Nigerian Savanna. Human Ecology 25:223-242.

STONE, GLENN DAVIS. 2002. Both Sides Now: Fallacies in the GM Wars, Implications for Developing Countries, and Anthropological Perspectives. Current Anthropology 43(4), in press.

STONE, GLENN DAVIS, ROBERT MCC. NETTING AND M. PRISCILLA STONE. 1990. Seasonality, labor scheduling and agricultural intensification in the Nigerian savanna. American Anthropologist 92:7-24.

STONE,M.P., G.D.STONE AND R.M.NETTING. 1995. The sexual division of labor in Kofyar agriculture. American Ethnologist 22:165-186.

SUDARSHAN REDDY, A AND V. RAO (editors). 1998. The Gathering Agrarian Crisis: Farmers' Suicides in Warangal District (A.P.) India. Unpublished report available at <http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~stone/suicide.html>

SUN-TIMES OF INDIA. 1999. Monsanto's Bollgard: Poison or Panacea? Jan 3.

TAYLOR, N.J. AND C.M. FAUQUET. 1997. Transfer of rice and cassava gene technologies to developing countries. Biotechnology International 1:239-246.

TRAXLER, GREG, S. GODOY-AVILA, J. FALCK-ZEPEDA, AND J. ESPINOZA-ARELLANO. 2001. Transgenic Cotton in Mexico: Economic and Environmental Impacts. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Biotechnology, Ravallo Italy. Also in Economic and Environmental Impacts of First Generation Biotechnologies. Edited by Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, in press.

TRIPP, ROBERT. 2001. Seed provision & agricultural development. London:Overseas Development Inst.

TRIPP, ROBERT, AND DAVID ROHRBACH. 2001. Policies for African seed enterprise development. Food Policy 26:147-161.

TRIPP, ROBERT, AND NIELS LOUWAARS. 1997. Seed regulation: choices on the road to reform. Food Policy 22:433-446.

TRIPP, ROBERT AND SURESH PAL. 2001. The private delivery of public crop varieties: rice in Andhra Pradesh. World Development, in press

TRIPP, ROBERT, AND D. ROHRBACH. 2001. Policies for African seed enterprise development. Food Policy 26: 147-161.

VANDEMAN, ANN M. 1995. Management in a Bottle: Pesticides and the Deskilling of Agriculture. The Review of Radical Political Economics 27(3):49-55.

VASAVI, A. R. 1999. Agrarian Distress in Bidar: Market, State and Suicides. Economic and Political Weekly, April 7.

VIDAL, JOHN. 1999. The seeds of wrath. The Guardian, London Saturday June 19.


Glenn Davis Stone conducts research on political ecology and agricultural change. His current research on biotechnology involves comparative material from sub-Saharan Africa, India, Western Europe and the US.



There you go. You wanted proof that the story wasnt made up, about the devestation GM foods and crops have caused in India. Or do you still not believe me- that somehow many people made up the story to back up our arguments. Want me to keep posting more articles to prove to you that the story isnt made up?







(Edited by SenoraChe at 7:05 pm on June 2, 2003)

[antieverything]

Ouch...that's pretty good. But if I've learned anything from the days when he was still Norman, he'll just ignore a post that proves him wrong.

[tacoernie]

Quote: from Moskitto on 8:29 pm on May 31, 2003
I don't mind eating GM food, I just think people should have the choice, it's not like the genes can actually be absorbed into the body as whole genes.



ummmm, actually, they can. horizontal gene transfer occurs a lot in nature, and is more likely with ge, due to the inherent instability of these organisms, and is a process still little understood be science.
couple this with the use of antibiotic restiant markers, and the high level of gene transfer in bacteria, and we have the potential for a series of super bugs.

ge will not feed the world. we already produce around 1 and 1/2 the amount of food needed to feed everyone on a good diet, it is just inequality, greed and transport costs holding us back. also, the soil and health association of great britain found that crop yeilds have dropped by around 5%.
perhaps if it was pure motives driving these companies, then it might offer a solution, however, these guys are here for profit. monsanto makes the brunt of its profit through the sale of pesticide, so devolps plants that will take more round up, they are not trying to do away with it.
the idea that ge plants do not reproduce comes from the terminator gene, which would mean the substience farmers have to come back to the seed companies every year, and never achieve self sufficencey. however, to the best of my knowledge, this aspect of the technology has not been sold to the 3rd world.

what i feel is currently one of the dirtier practices involves the intellectual property laws. say i am a conventionakl farmer, and my neighbour is using roundup ready corn. if the wind blows the wrong way, and my feild becomes contaminated, with out my knowledge, and i go and spray roundup over it.... i am now breaking the law, by using the technolgy without paying for it. i never knew it was there, but monsanto can, and will come and sue me for breach of patent.
this seems a little unfair.

i find that physicains and scientist for the respopnsible application of science and tech (psrast) tends to explain the need for containment well, though i havent been to their page www.psrast.org for a while

[Ghost Writer]

For all those people who are economically inclined, here are three studies that quantify the human payoff of transgenic products. From salmon production to cottonseed, we are seeing higher yields. Therefore, items taken for granted by the wealthier nations will become increasingly more available to those in the third world, leading to cheaper prices for all, and a better quality of life for future inhabitants of this planet.

1.) The Payoffs to Transgenic Field Crops: An Assessment of the Evidence; Michele C. Marra, Philip G. Pardey, and Julian M. Alston - North Carolina State University; University of Minnesota; University of California, Davis (http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v5n2/v5n2a02-marra.htm)

2.) Unacknowledged Health Benefits of Genetically Modified Food: Salmon and Heart Disease Deaths; Randall Lutter and Katherine Tucker - AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies; Tufts University (http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v5n2/v5n2a04-lutter.htm)

3.) Production and Marketing Characteristics of Adopters and Nonadopters of Transgenic Cotton Varieties in California; Marianne McGarry Wolf, John Gelke, Michelle Lindo, Philip Doub, and Brian Lohse -
California Polytechnic State University (http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v5n2/v5n2a05-wolf.htm)

Of course, the leftists here do not understand how higher productivity leads to improvement of the human condition. They always claim that this result only effects the producers, or the owners of the land and capital, which by nature of their greed never fail to hide their returns from the starving mouths of the world. If the impact in economic terms does not convince you of the benefit to the world, lets look to a man who honestly deserved the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize that he was rewarded, Norman Borlaug. (http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1970/press.html) This is one time where I can see justification for the person who was bestowed this award. Actionbioscience.org conducted an interview with this man in November 2002. They questions asked dealt with this topic, which is of great interest to the starving people of the world. I thought that this man's views, which should be respected by those who claim to hold an ideology that promotes a system of higher social justice, would be of interest to those following this discussion. He won the award for helping to generate higher wheat yields in countries like Mexico. Traditionally, the issue of peace and hunger has been inter-twined, and this is why a man of this nature would be given the award.

Source: Biotechnology and the Green Revolution
Interview with Norman Borlaug, Ph.D.
An actionbioscience.org original interview (http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/borlaug.html)

My favorite part of this interview is when Borlaug stated:

"Most people in the "western" world are urbanites and they don't know what it takes to feed the world. These people can afford to buy expensive "organic" food and to criticize genetically modified food. They pressure governments to ban genetically modified foods and that could be disastrous for developing nations."

Here is some information about Norman Borlaug, provided by actionbioscience.org:

"Norman Borlaug, Ph.D., father of the "Green Revolution," received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his lifetime work helping feed the world's hungry. Dr. Borlaug currently divides his time as a Senior Scientist at the Rockefeller Foundation and as a Distinguished Professor of International Agriculture, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, at Texas A&M University. He also serves as ex-officio consultant on wheat research and production problems to many governments in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. His numerous civic and scientific awards include the 1977 Presidential Medal of Freedom and the 2002 Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences USA. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences USA, has said of Borlaug: "Some credit him with saving more human lives than any other person in history." Dr. Borlaug received his Ph.D. in plant pathology from the University of Minnesota in 1941."

Read Norman Borlaug's Nobel lecture, The Green Revolution, Peace, and Humanity. (http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-lecture.html) It has a very interesting history of the evolution of agriculture, and an excellent critique about food disparities between developed and developing nations. It was in this lecture that he wrote:

"They [the urbanites] know that food comes from the supermarket, but only a few see beyond to the necessary investments, the toil, struggle, and frustrations on the farms and ranches that provide their daily bread. Since the urbanites have lost their contact with the soil, they take food for granted and fail to appreciate the tremendous efficiency of their farmers and ranchers, who, although constituting only five percent of the labor force in a country such as the United States, produce more than enough food for their nation.";

He concluded his lecture with an idea that applies to the topic of conversation that we are discussing:

"Then, by developing and applying the scientific and technological skills of the twentieth century for "the well-being of mankind throughout the world", he may still see Isaiah's prophesies come true: "... And the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose... And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water..."

And may these words come true!"

Norman Borlaug, from what I have read about him, is a great man with lofty goals for the world. He is an idealist, yet he understands the practical use for the technology we are discussing here. Any self respecting leftist should read this lecture, as it provides excellent motivation for feeding the developing nations, in the interest of achieving a lasting peace. Although his views can be regarded as liberal, and peace loving, the points he makes can not be denied. This is an individual who seeks to better the outlook for all humanity, indiscriminately. I would place him on the small list of liberals that I appreciate. The difference has everything to do with the fact that this man is logical, and does not exhibit the idiocy that I have grown to expect from those on the left. In short, the man makes sense, and does not possess the fraudulent stench of those on the left end of the spectrum.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 10:37 am on June 4, 2003)

[Moskitto]

DNA is digested, it does not maintain A-G-C-C-G-T-A, it becomes 2 As 2 Gs 2 Cs and an A floating around.

Bacteria can exchange genes using plasmids

[mentalbunny]

In theory GM sounds great, doesn't it? Something that increases yields, helps poor farmers and the whole world. In reality I'm not sure what will happen, but if corporations like Monsanto are in charge I'm definitely not backing it, I just don't trust them to really help people, it's basically about the money. I may be wrong bu that's what it looks like and I'm wary of that. If GM crops would produce seeds and be guaranteed that they don't affect the environment then I'd say great, but we don't know about that, so I'm skeptical.

[LOIC]

GM crops are a danger. We don't know the side effects on human beings and on environment. One thing if for sure, I will avoid to eat such a shit as long as I could.
And it's a way for few big corporations to control the agriculture of the whole world.
If you want to feed the world, you don't need GM crops. You just have to distribute food equally. There is enough food for everyone but the current problem is that a part of the world is starving while the other part is suffering from obesity.
So all these lies about Gm crops who will feed poor people are just disgusting.

[Ghost Writer]

Here are two different interviews with Jim Maryanski, the Biotechnology coordinator at the FDA, which explain the U.S. Food and Drug Agency's policies regarding GM foods. Both are very informative, and virtually mirror what I have been saying about these products. I hope that some of you will read the interviews, in order to learn how America's biggest food safety bureaucracy plans to keep us safe from the "Frankenstein" foods.

1.) PBS interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/interviews/maryanski.html)

2.) FDA Consumer magazine interview (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00191.html)

To elaborate on the regulatory duties described by Maryanski, I will provide a summation of the guidelines provided by the FDA regarding foods derived from new plant varieties, including those generated through rDNA techniques. First of all we shall look at the general policy regarding these food stuffs given in a 1992 policy statement by the Department of Health and Human Services, FDA (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biocon.html).

The FDA recommends a set of consultations for developers of new plant varieties. This is not mandated, but is strongly suggested to alleviate troubles that may arise when the FDA does a mandatory review of the product. Most companies take this approach, as it will help them to design the correct studies to be applied prior to marketing.

Furthermore, in 2001 the FDA proposed regulation that would require companies to submit a scientific and regulatory assessment to the agency, 120 days before market release. Of course, the consultation process is still regarded as optimal.

Bioengineered crops have been considered as regulated articles under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/biotech/) (APHIS), under the United States Department of Agriculture. Full disclosure of the product is needed for APHIS to determine the classification of the product. Protocol for the regulatory process is determined by the classification given. Different types of products undergo different amounts and types of scrutiny. For example, items that have to do with pesticides undergo additional regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As far as the labeling of bioengineered food goes:

The "FDA has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding."

Therefore, nothing in the 1992 policy statement regarding new plant varieties deals specifically with the labeling of GM foods (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/biolabgu.html). Previous guidelines for the agency requirements for food labeling are still found under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In general the agency only concerns itself with the material substances of the food, and has no concern about the various methods employed to generate that food. When the rDNA techniques change the overall composition of the food, is it required to label the product, or when there are significant allergy concerns.

The FDA takes the view that it is the producer who is responsible for marketing products safe for consumption. However, they take their regulatory role seriously, and take adequate steps to ensure compliance under the current law. Much like the pharmaceutical industry, which often has to wait years for FDA approval of a new drug, products developed for food consumption must first prove they are safe as a consumer product. Therefore, many of the bioengineered food products being discussed are years away from the supermarket shelf. On the other hand, many of these foods have been approved and are currently being consumed the public. For example, today’s consumers are actively purchasing the Flavr Savr tomato, which delays softening and spoilage of the tomato. This is an excellent example of what biotech has to offer the food industry. Not to mention, it has a taste that can't be beat.

As you can see, I am a strong advocate of the biotech industry, as well as the regulatory agencies that protect the consumer from products that may otherwise be placed on the market in a hasty drive for profit. Both institutions are as American as free-market economics. The point here is that one balances the other, for the sake of the citizens who live under the American democratic system. One of the main obstacles of the regulatory agency is finding a way to perform this role without hurting the market principles that have fostered the innovative spirit of American industry. God Bless America!

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 10:32 am on June 4, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

"GM crops are a danger"

How so?

"it's a way for few big corporations to control the agriculture of the whole world."

How so?

"There is enough food for everyone"

Really? Can you prove the liberal lie that there is enough food in the world to feed everyone, and that everything would be A-okay if everyone simply shared their food. Why should companies, which sink time and money into R & D, and use their capital to produce food, not be compensated fair market value for the goods they produce? Why would you expect them to give it away free of charge, and go broke in the process. If that were the case, the whole world would certainly starve, as food producers went bankrupt, leaving no incentive for someone to replace them in the market.

[LOIC]

Ghost Writer, GM crops are a danger because no one knows the side effects of this technology.
You can't feed people with something if you don't know if this thing is safe for human beings or not. It would be totally irresponsible. Moreover, the impact on environment(ants, for example)is unknown too.

Gm corps are a way for big corporations to control the agriculture of the world because GM corps are a complex technology.So, only few big firms will be able to produce it. And when GM corps will be used, they are going to spread and soon you will have no choice: every vegetables will be Gm corps so the corporations who produce it will have a monopoly because every farmer in the world will plant GM corps(because they will have no other choice).
That's another problem about Gm corps: you have no choice.

Why should companies, which sink time and money into R & D, and use their capital to produce food, not be compensated fair market value for the goods they produce? Why would you expect them to give it away free of charge, and go broke in the process. If that were the case, the whole world would certainly starve, as food producers went bankrupt, leaving no incentive for someone to replace them in the market.

Some people are dying from starvation just because they are poor. I can tell you that I don't give a fuck about the money spent in R&D. Some things are much more important than money and free trade.

[Soul Rebel]

Ghost Writer- it is not a liberal lie that there is enough food. It is very much true- that there is enough food. The problem has never been that there isnt food- the problem has always been how food is distributed and used. I have mentioned this before in another post i made on this thread. Studies have repeatedly showed that a vegetarian diet would solve the worlds starvation problem. Yes, i know that some people like you would never go for this, but its a step that must be taken. By eating meat we continue to support the worlds starvation problems. Heres how: rather than using the large amounts of grain and water to feed people, it is used to feed the cattle and chickens that only a few people can afford to eat. Second- it takes more time and land to raise the cattle and make dairy products than it does to grow veggies and soy products. If the focus of food was on these products (veggues and soy) more people would be eating. Third- because of the time and land it takes to take care of the animals and make dairy products the food is more expensive, which leads to many problems. Not everyone can afford these products and there are less products for these people to buy that dont concentrate on meat or dairy. Veggies and soy would be a lot cheaper to grow and a lot cheaper to buy for consumption.

[Anonymous]

The Myths of Vegetarianism

(excerpt)

MYTH #1:

Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's natural resources.

Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It is also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger because livestock are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The solution to world hunger, therefore, is for people to become vegetarians. These arguments are illogical and simplistic.

The first argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth's dry land is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals and that land is currently being put to good use (1).

The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital contributions that livestock animals make to humanity’s well-being. It is also misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be diverted to feed humans:

"Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.

"There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human rather they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies." (2)

Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating (3). It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.

What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were abandoned in favor of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity turning towards vegetarianism?

"If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for meat in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.

"The result would be very predictable -- there would be a mass exodus from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly." (4)

In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat. Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of artificial fertilizers, one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to produce (5).

As far as the impact to our environment, a closer look reveals the great damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy farmer and researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if “veganic agricultural systems were to gain a foothold on the soil, then agrochemical use, soil erosion, cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill health would escalate.” (6)

Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:

"Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of the environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of wheat in ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain sterile 5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the soil and water sources, monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. World rice production in 1993, for instance, caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing breeding grounds for mosquitoes in the paddies. Human contact with ducks in the same rice paddies resulted in 500 million cases of influenza during the same year."(7)

There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods, whether of plants or animals produce harm to the environment. With the heavy use of agrochemicals, pesticides, artificial fertilizers, hormones, steroids, and antibiotics common in modern agriculture, a better way of integrating animal husbandry with agriculture needs to be found. A possible solution might be a return to “mixed farming,” described below:

"The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems." (8)

The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (9). Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of “battery farming” and points to future solutions by saying:

"Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. [see myth # 13] and salmonella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems." (10)

It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practiced, damages the environment. Nor does it appear that world vegetarianism or exclusively relying on agriculture to supply the world with food are feasible or ecologically wise ideas.


http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm

[Soul Rebel]

D.C- thats a bunch of crap. I went to the link you provided and its a bunch of crap. All those myths are crap. Myths about vegetarianism and veganism (which i practice) have been created by the meat and dairy industry. These two diets are the healthiest- if done right (just like meat eating can be ok if done right). Meat eating and dairy consumption has been shown in numerous studies to lead to many diseases and health problems.

As for the environmental aspect, myth number 1 is crap. Studies have proven that veggie diets can solve starvation problems- because you can grow and afford more. It has become pretty obvious- just look at the world we live in today. People consume meat and dairy products at high rates and starvation still exists. Also to say that veggie growing would ruin the earth is crap. That is why there is rotation- to prevent this. I grew up on farm land in spain so i know what i am talking about. It is lack of care that destroys the land.

[mentalbunny]

Well until I see some real evidence I don't know what to think. I guess I just don't trust the big corps like Monsanto, but then who would?

[Ghost Writer]

Hey peacenicked. What are your thoughts on this subject?

[RAM]

I saw this thing in the US where they had some problems after a good start!