Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

[tails4wagging]

Age shows wisdom and experiance of life. :) . Some of us here are fiesty, and some of us here are sensitive. We are all different. We live in a wonderful modern technololical age ;) that enables us to communicate via airwaves, something my parents and grandparents would never be able to comprehend. My advise is enjoy it!!!!

[eve]

Thank you for that tails44wagging. We sure are different, and I certainly do enjoy this technological age. :)

[PinkFluffyCloud]

I am currently going through an Edgar Allan Poe phase - do you mind if I quote him, with regards to the GM debate?
No, okay, thanks (clears throat).......

SONNET - TO SCIENCE:
SCIENCE! true daughter of Old Time thou art!
Who alterest all things with thy peering eyes.
Why preyest thou thus upon the poet's heart,
Vulture, whose wings are dull realities?
How should he love thee? or deem thee wise?
Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering
To seek for treasure in the jewelled skies,
Albeit he soared with an undaunted wing?
Hast thou not dragged Diana from her car?
And driven the Hamadryad from the wood
To seek a shelter in some happier star?
Hast thou not torn the Naiad from her flood,
The Elfin from the green grass, and from me
The summer dream beneath the tamarind tree?

[Korn]

What is it about a GMO that you wouldn't want to eat it?
Why would I want to eat GMO-food when I don't need to?



Would you consider wearing a product that was made from GMO's - for example a plant the instead of producing just cellulose, produced silkworm silk fibres?
No. To use your example, why would I want to wear clothing that has any similarities to silk worms?


What is your opinion on flu vaccines developed via GM technology?I would never take a flu vaccine, especially not one developed with GMO technology. There are literally thousands of documents showing that un-natural products or processes that humans thought had no negative side effects to start with, actually causes harm inthe long run. There are so many examples, that I find it reasonable to believe that manipulating nature most likely will cause harm. Some people have the opposite view: they assume that processes that manipulate nature's way cause no harm until the harm is proven by statistics.

Also, if dramatical side effects possibly can cause harm, why run the risk? Do we really need tomatoes with thicker skin?


Would you eat a GM fruit if it contained B12? No way. If I would lack B12, I'd take B12 developed in a natural way, meaning in a way that we KNOW (as opposed 'assume') doesn't have any long term negative side effects on humans, animals, trees, air, water - or my neighbour's fruit trees.

[Korn]

We have no rules against 'posting comments simply to stimulate discussion' here... I guess some people want to 'stimulate discussion' in order to find out what they mean about certain topics? I think it's fair enough both to 'stimulate discussion' and to write that you don't like these kinds of posts.

For the future, if you feel a need to comment upon others' behavior in here, I'd personally prefer if you would PM the person in question directly (or possibly send me a PM.)

[Geoff]

I heard that the planting of GM cotton in Australia had greatly reduced the neccessity for pestcides, which sounds like a good thing.
I haven't researched GMOs so there could well be factors I haven't taken into account.

[Artichoke47]

Well, I stand by what I posted and the lack of respect in certain people's post and amount of respect in others' just exemplifies what I said.

[mysh]

Korn - you seem to be saying that you consider GMO inherently bad. If I may be so bold as to presume part of veganblue's gist, it seems to me he is suggesting a possibility that GMO may not necessarily be bad in and of itself, but rather that the way it is currently done is the problem. I mean, if a lab developed something through genetic modification, and spent 100 years on thorough longitudinal testing of this product, would that still be a bad thing?

Veganblue also seems to be asking, where is the line between GM performed by bees, and the many kinds of GM performed by humans.

[PinkFluffyCloud]

I think the Bee might say "why tamper with Nature", though I realise that just being human necessarily means that we don't always work with Nature, and vice versa.

[mysh]

If the bee cross-pollenates, so creating a new type of plant, does that qualify as tampering with nature, or is this nature simply because the bee did it?
If the latter, then what can humans (also naturally produced) do before the actions qualify as GM?

[PinkFluffyCloud]

Well, to my mind it is different because the Bee is not consciously changing anything, is he? Whereas humans only usually do things for their own greedy motivation.
Also, imho, 'Nature' is a combination of 'natural' occurences, whereas Science is pre-meditated and often self-serving - but I do see the point being made!! ;)

Btw, Mysh, I blame you for my new found Bee fanaticism!!!!! :D

[veganblue]

What a glorious quote PinkFluffyCloud! I enjoyed it immensely. It seems to speak of the crushing of romanticism by the critical weight of analysis. It speaks of the immaturity of science against the passage of ancient processes, and so beautifully.

I take Korn's point that GM is a science virtually untested by time and the natural processes of trial and error; if it ain't broke - why fix it? So far the use of GM has primarily been to further the interests of the funding organisation; not be a benefit in it's own right. This is something that I take great issue with. However, does this make the technology inherrently wrong.

If placed alongside the nuclear debate, there are some marked similarities; both have the potential for great good; both in increasing resources, medical uses and reducing environmental impact (reduction in CO2 output / reduction in the use of pesticides). On the otherhand both have an almost equal potential for destruction of the world as we know it. GM is more subtle maybe but the longterm outcome could be as devestating, including the testing of these techniques as well as unforseen accidents.

With this in mind maybe it is best to leave all as it is and find other ways of doing things since historically we have made big mistakes and our capacity for making mistakes has outstripped both our capacity for 'fixing' things as well as the planets ability to absorb our errors.

I am advocating stepping forward very carefully with great consideration and taking the reins away from institutions with purely financial goals.

GM occurs naturally everyday across the planet outside of laboratory settings as a process of damage to genetic material by UV-B radiation, background radiation, localised radiation, viral activity, certain naturally occuring and man-made chemicals (commonly referred to as carcinogens), and errors in cell division. The vast majority of these errors in the genetic code are deleterious and are fixed, removed by cell death, or removed by organism death. It is mostly a completely random process. Without this process there would not be the diversity of life we enjoy today (albeit is rapid decline) and it is not a benevolent process. The technology for human effected GM is a more precise process but certainly is still extremely coarse when compared to the desired outcome. The differences between the natural process of GM induced diversity and human caused diversity is that not only are we able to create combinations that while possible - are unlikely, we also can imprecisely predict the eventual survivorship of the new organism and its impact on the planetary biota.

This is where the hazard lies since it is nearly impossible to recall GMO's. With such great potential for disaster, the case for caution is a very strong one.

Regarding bees, they are working within the parameters of what can be found in nature - and are a dispersal system as is wind etc. They will select plants that meet their needs and effectively farm them, but what will be considered unnatural is the active selection for a particular gene that exists in another organism and is highly unlikely to have formed in the plant genome without being 'selected against' due to deleterious effect. What would be interesting is a good working defeinition for 'natural'.

If the silk protein that is formed by silk worms were found to be 'naturally' occuring in a plant nd could be extracted to form a thread - would anyone object to using it as we do cotton or hemp?

[eve]

I heard that the planting of GM cotton in Australia had greatly reduced the neccessity for pestcides, which sounds like a good thing.
I haven't researched GMOs so there could well be factors I haven't taken into account.
Hi Geoff, below is a precis of a report on the geneethics.org website: It's from a US report by a former Exec Director of the Board on Agriculture of the US National Academy of Science for 7years; Dr Charles Benbrook represents an authoritative voice on agricultural science.

His latest technical report, drawing on 9 years of US Dept of Agriculture data, confirms that the claim of GM proponents that the use of GM crops in the US has led to a major reduction in pesticide use is quite simply a lie. The data shows that overall GM crops have led to an increase in pesticide use involving millions of pounds.
The HTML link takes you to the Abstract
http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper7.html

The PDF Link takes you to the 53-page report.
http://www.biotech-info.net/Full_version_first_nine.pdf

EXCERPT: GE corn, soybeans and cotton have led to a 122 million pound increase in pesticide use since 1996. While Bt crops have reduced insecticide use by about 15.6 million pounds over this period, HT crops have increased herbicide use 138 million pounds. Bt crops have reduced insecticide use on corn and cotton about 5 percent, while HT technology has increased herbicide use about 5 percent across the three major crops. But since so much more herbicide is used on corn, soybeans, and cotton, compared to the volume of insecticide applied to corn and cotton, overall pesticide use has risen about 4.1 percent on acres planted to GE varieties.
Source: GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org

[Korn]

With this in mind maybe it is best to leave all as it is and find other ways of doing things since historically we have made big mistakes and our capacity for making mistakes has outstripped both our capacity for 'fixing' things as well as the planets ability to absorb our errors.
Yes, experimenting with GMO might create irreversible results. By the time it's 'tested by time and the natural processes of trial and error', Genetically Modified Organisms might be so widespread and live a life of their own that there's no way the scientists that possibly find bad side effects can undo the harm that has been done...

And, while talking of other ways of doing things; the whole GMO discussion somewhat reminds me of the cosmetic surgery debate, in the sense that just like while there for sure is much more important work to do for surgeons (that in many countries have got their education paid py public money) than to increase someones lips or breasts, for sure there are much bigger and more important challenges for our society and it's scientists than to develop GMO food. The hunger problem is not caused by lack of GMO'd plants.

[Geoff]

I thought that I'd be wrong. I'll just go and sit in the corner and suck my thumb :(

[veganblue]

I wouldn't worry Geoff - GM is full of promise but as yet unrealised in any useful manner. There has been many reports of what it is supposed to do but the outcomes are as yet show benefits.

There is discussion of a 5 gene addition to rice that is loaded with iron and complimentary factors to increase absorbtion. The idea was to assist cultures dependent on rice as a staple, in increasing their nutritional intake. There is a cloud over this one also - but it has been created.

[eve]

Australia's GM free status a 'polite fiction' - is the heading of an abc on-line article.
Concerns have been raised about GM cottonseed oil being included in food products in Australia. Indefinite or temporary bans are in place in most Australian states to prevent the growing of GM food crops.

Entomology expert Rick Roush, from the University of California, says that GM cottonseed oil is used in fast food preparation and sold as vegetable oil, which makes a mockery of the GM-free claims of some states. "It's really a polite fiction to claim that cotton is not a food crop because roughly 40 per cent of our cooking oil comes from cotton". About 90 per cent of cotton farms in NSW and Queensland cultivate GM cotton.

GM cotton, which has been cultivated in Australia since 1996, is the only GM crop in commercial production.

GM canolas have been approved for commercial production in Western Australia, South Australia, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania but those states have either imposed moratoriums on canola, or declared themselves GM-free.

[PinkFluffyCloud]

Suprise, Suprise, another lie!!

[PinkFluffyCloud]

Just been to Tesco, my local supermarket. I was checking the Homous, and nearly went for the 'Reduced-Fat' one, but saw it contained GM Maize. :mad:

[Kevster]

New Labour Government strikes again......

'Minister to abolish GM scrutiny body

Champion of consumer choice falls victim to rift

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Wednesday December 29, 2004
The Guardian

The environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, is to scrap an advisory committee after it repeatedly placed obstacles in the way of government plans to introduce genetically modified crops.
The commission established by the government to monitor ethical and social issues linked to GM crops is to be disbanded after its members insisted that conventional and organic farmers should be protected from contamination by GM crops - and be compensated if safeguards fail.

With the results of the latest GM trials due in February, Mrs Beckett, already known to be hostile to the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, is expected to announce its demise early next month, before it can cause further difficulties.

When public hostility to GM crops was at its height four years ago, the government defused the row by creating a commission to discuss the social, ethical and economic issues surrounding their introduction in the British countryside.

They put in charge Professor Malcolm Grant, the provost of University College London, and appointed a wide range of members, from opponents of GM crops to staff of biotech companies.

With the government, urged on by the scientific community, apparently sold on the idea of making Britain a world leader in biotech, the efforts of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission were largely ignored in Whitehall. This was partly because it seemed impossible, given the diverse membership, that the commission would agree on anything.

But the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and other pro-GM forces in the government, particularly Tony Blair, had not factored in the persuasive powers of Prof Grant, who managed to produce three influential consensus reports.

For the government, the most difficult of those emerged a year ago when the commission insisted the consumer should have the freedom to buy non-GM British food.

Although Defra says no final decision has been made, the committee has been told to complete all of its work as quickly as possible and make no plans for after April 1. Privately, members have been told the organisation is to be abolished.

Mrs Beckett, who proposed to the cabinet last February that the government should go ahead with GM crops, is believed to be in favour of proceeding as quickly as possible. The commission's reservations have long been an obstacle.

The latest test results on winter oilseed rape, the biggest potential GM crop in Britain, have not been published but the Guardian has learned that, unlike previous trials, they do not show serious detriment to the environment. The spring-sown varieties were ruled out 12 months ago because they damaged nature more than conventional crops.

Mrs Beckett has seized the opportunity to abolish the commission after an independent review of its first four years of operation concluded it should be replaced by a similar body with a wider remit. This is to accommodate changes in the EU's common agricultural policy which scrapped subsidies for maximum food production in favour of wider social and environmental priorities.

The commission has made life difficult for Mrs Beckett because it wants strict rules to protect farmers who do not want to grow GM crops, and restitution if unforeseen environmental damage occurs as a result of GM crops.

It demanded wide separation between GM and conventional crops to prevent cross-contamination, which would render conventional crops unsaleable to supermarkets. It recommended a compensation scheme for conventional and organic farmers, underwritten by the government. The government refuses to accept responsibility and says this must fall on the biotech industry, which also rejects the idea.

In the UK, permission to grow oilseed rape commercially will not be given imme diately because trials have not taken place to prove that the seeds provide a consistent and viable crop. This process takes two years, so the first crop could not be planted commercially until 2007.

A Defra spokesman said: "Because we have not made a formal announcement about the future of the commission, people are suspicious of what we are going to do. We are consulting with stakeholders, like English Nature."

The hostility between Defra and the commission is acknowledged in the independent review. It says relations with other sponsoring departments are good, but "strained" with the department running British agriculture.

The squabbling became so intense at times that Defra officials were excluded from meetings of the commission.

Sue Mayer, director of Genewatch UK and a commission member, said: "If the commission is abolished as planned with no other body picking up the social, ethical and economic dimensions of the GM debate, then the government will be failing the public again."'

[feline01]

I highly recommend the book, Seeds of Deception written by Jeffrey M Smith especially for any Americans interested in the GMO debate. Mr. Smith has written a fascinating yet terrifying book covering everything from the lack of testing of GMO foods to the flip-flopping of lawyers between the major corporations like Monsanto to high-ranking positions in the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) in order to get GM technology approved. Scientists who have spoken out against genetic modification have been systematically silenced, their careers destroyed and their research thrown away. How is anyone to know the real truth if the government is hiding it???

[eve]

Sadly, feline01, most people will remain in ignorance.

[PinkFluffyCloud]

I wonder what we can do about this GM thing, it worries me sick.
Are 'Earth First!' still active - I think I will check them out, I would like to do something positive - other than just growing/eating my own foods (soon, soon!). ;)

[eve]

The latest alert from Crusador on ge foods is worth a read:
http://www.thehealthcrusader.com/pgs/excalibur/article_2004_12_31_5719.shtml

[PinkFluffyCloud]

I really don't need convincing, the GM thing (along with any type of 'cloning') scares the **** out of me.
What I need to know, is, what can I do about this???