Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

[eve]

You're always singing the praises of GMOs, veganblue - are you getting sucked in at your uni?

Last year's report by the Cotton Research & Development Corporation (CRDC) found a 45% reduction in chemicals sprayed onto Bt cotton for caterpillar control, compared with the conventional crop - a net saving of less than 15% over the whole cotton crop - not the 80% claimed.

Cotton is not an environmentally friendly crop. Yet a large cotton industry is planned in fragile environments right across Northern Australia, based on false promises of big reductions in synthetic chemical use on Bt varieties. Monsanto is now also licensed to sell Roundup tolerant cotton that can be sprayed more often and at higher doses with Roundup weed killer.

Who benefits most from GE cotton? Monsanto owns the patented Bt and Roundup tolerance genes and charges $200/hectare for Bt cottonseed. That price is set to increase when two Bt genes and the Roundup gene are stacked in one seed. Yet Australian growers (through CRDC) and taxpayers (through CSIRO) who funded most of the research on Bt cotton get minimal returns. Almost as many growers lost money on Bt cotton as made a profit, last year.

Insects may also thrive on Bt toxins. Scientists at Imperial College London reported in March that Bt tolerant diamondback moth caterpillars were fed cabbage leaves - normal and treated with Bt toxin. Those on the Bt-treated leaves grew 56% faster and bigger. They "are able to digest and utilise" Bt toxin and may use it as "supplementary food" so: "Bt transgenic (GE) crops could therefore have unanticipated nutritionally favourable effects, increasing the fitness of resistant populations."

I believe the Northern Territory are standing up to Monsanto and will not grow cotton there, though it is grown in NSW, and I believe in Qld.

[veganblue]

You're always singing the praises of GMOs, veganblue - are you getting sucked in at your uni?

Hopefully I am able to keep an open mind to both sides of the debate, preferrably without breaking into song :D

I am interested in GM technology since there is nothing permanent about genes and it is merely a technology that is going to become common place in the future.

How it is used concerns me; if there is a resource such as a big field of green leafy cotton that very few insects will consume, the one that *can* will be at the greatest advantage and will multiply immensely. This is basic evolutionary theory; that natural selection works on populations not individuals.

There will never be a world without monocultures that are attacked by some sort of organism, as whatever the obstacle, there is an organism that will step into the gap of the last 'pest' and have a field day.

I am hoping for a day when agriculture is measured on a maximal cropping scale and not the 'squeeze as much out of the land with minimal effort' that is currently employed.

With the pressure of reduced oil reserves I am beginning to think that we won't be given the option.

[Seaside]

Genetic science is fascinating, and I can understand how some people think it will be the answer to malnutrition and starving amongst the world's poor. The trouble is that while the scientists are interested in discovery, large corporations are interested in "what's the profit potential in it?" and "how can we warp this wonderful discovery into something that will serve our interests at the expense of everyone else?" as well as "how can we pull the wool over people's eyes as to our true motivation while we're doing it?" I'm sure Monsanto would like the world to believe that they are interested in providing a more nutritious rice to the people in the third world. As far as I can see their true motivation is to make the world's entire food supply a patentable item, and therefore their own legal property, and to force everyone to become dependent upon Monsanto alone for their daily bread.

Other companies do the same thing. There is no profit to be made on natural substances because they are not patentable. Here in the USA the FDA is paid by Nutrasweet to control other non-caloric sweeteners and prevent them from driving Nutrasweet out of business. The FDA would like to outlaw stevia, a safe, natural plant extract that sweetens without calories. The best they can do is to require that marketers of stevia call it an herbal supplement, and they must stock it in the herbal section of the store, rather than in the sugar section, with all the other sweeteners. (I'm looking at my bottle of stevia right now, and nowhere on the label does it say that stevia is a no-calorie sugar substitute. It says "Don't sweeten your coffee, supplement it!") The FDA provides the same "service" to pharmaceutical companies, and wants to eliminate the use of natural herbs in health care. Herbal products are not allowed to make any health claims on their packages thanks to the FDA. They are not patentable, so the pharmaceutical companies cannot become rich from their sale, or they would be using them. The goal of big business is to make profit, not to help people. Arthritis drugs are the largest source of income for drug companies. Do you think they want to cure it and put themselves out of business? Does Monsanto really care about improving rice for the world's poor when they are suing farmers for copyright infringement when the pollen from GMO crops contaminates the farmers' crops?

In the right hands genetic science could be a good thing. Nuclear science could have been a good thing, too. It was never the intention of the pioneers of nuclear physics to create bombs that would destroy the world. But that's exactly what happened. :mad:

[Shisha Fiend]

Veganblue, it just concerns me, all this GM stuff, having studied the balance of ecosystems and stuff in the previous unit. You know, like it looked as if a species was dying out so they took measures to get it repopulated- and that completely fucked things up, because all that was really happening was the up-down pattern of the predator-prey relationship... I can't remember the technical terms, I learnt them for the exam and don't need them any more! ;)

The thing is if we keep modifying things in this way, where the mutation has not occurred naturally and the whole process has worked with natural selection and happened more gradually, I just worry about what it's going to do to the ecosystems.

xxx

[veganblue]

The thing is if we keep modifying things in this way, where the mutation has not occurred naturally and the whole process has worked with natural selection and happened more gradually, I just worry about what it's going to do to the ecosystems.

xxx

I worry too, about some of the negative impacts that GMO's could have. It is hard to predict, especially with something that is living, changing and moving.

Ecosystems are never completely static; some are regularly changing and as a result of changes in population dynamics, climate, resource access, competition etc, that species are put under pressure and either the population changes or dies out.

The current rate of change that we are seeing at the moment is outstripping the ability of many organisms to adapt; hence extinctions. GMO's may be one of those; especially if we are creating organisms with unprecedented abilities to survive (drought tolerant, insect resistant, better able to compete for nutrients...). I am primarily thinking about plants in this instance.

I think that there is an amazing potential for good in this also, but think that time will show us whether we have been wise in our use of this knowledge or incredibly fool hardy.

[Shisha Fiend]

The current rate of change that we are seeing at the moment is outstripping the ability of many organisms to adapt; hence extinctions. GMO's may be one of those; especially if we are creating organisms with unprecedented abilities to survive (drought tolerant, insect resistant, better able to compete for nutrients...). I am primarily thinking about plants in this instance.

I think that there is an amazing potential for good in this also, but think that time will show us whether we have been wise in our use of this knowledge or incredibly fool hardy.

Yes, but by then it might be too late. Look at DDT, that was supposed to be fantastic when it was developed. Sometime in the 70s a ban was placed on any GM activity and lifted after two years because they thought 'it's okay, it's only going to be with microorganisms, we were getting paranoid'- then it just took off till we're at the stage where animals are being genetically engineered too, and there doesn't seem to be any control or any limit. It's like people are thinking 'we can do this- so we will' without really considering the consequences. That's how it seems, anyway. The biochemical industry is one motivated by money, after all, not any real concern for possible long term effects.

[veganblue]

DDT was a powerful lesson. The current cane toad situation in Australia is another - even more so since it involves the spread of a living organism. Within the science community there is great awareness of these issues now; there can be no question that science has changed. We have had the green revolution and the concept of ecology and know that we are having major impacts on the planet. The funding of science has changed also, putting the reins into the hands of commercial interests and that gives me concerns. It does not naturally follow that the techniques are inherently bad, but that the funding motivations behind them must be observed and questioned.

I don't think that you can put a blanket label of GM is wrong onto the technology. I am personally interested if plant tissues could be 'encouraged' to express B-12. The technique is really quite simple; imagine B-12 in flour, soy, green leafy vegetables? Would this not be a good thing?

[veganblue]

Does Monsanto really care about improving rice for the world's poor when they are suing farmers for copyright infringement when the pollen from GMO crops contaminates the farmers' crops?

From a different angle, I heard the opinion recently that the farmers being sued actively promoted the selection for the Roundup Ready (RR) crop and then were guilty of selling the seed as RR.

While loathe to stand up for a big company like Monsanto, I am reminded that there are several sides of the story and hard to tell which one is the correct one from here.

In Brasil, GMO's have been prohibited (till recently I think) and they have a lively market in Europe as being GMO free. The farmers have been buying their seed from across the border in Argentina where GM is allowed and then selling to Europe as GM free. The last time I heard, 40% of Brasils crop is GM - that was at the time of the prohibition being lifted...

[eve]

From a different angle, I heard the opinion recently that the farmers being sued actively promoted the selection for the Roundup Ready (RR) crop and then were guilty of selling the seed as RR. While loathe to stand up for a big company like Monsanto, I am reminded that there are several sides of the story and hard to tell which one is the correct one from here.
Well you could have fooled me. Where did you hear the opinion?

In Brasil, GMO's have been prohibited (till recently I think) and they have a lively market in Europe as being GMO free. The farmers have been buying their seed from across the border in Argentina where GM is allowed and then selling to Europe as GM free. The last time I heard, 40% of Brasils crop is GM - that was at the time of the prohibition being lifted...
Do you have proof? I must say that the GE people certainly have a trumpet blower in you!

[Shisha Fiend]

I don't think that you can put a blanket label of GM is wrong onto the technology. I am personally interested if plant tissues could be 'encouraged' to express B-12. The technique is really quite simple; imagine B-12 in flour, soy, green leafy vegetables? Would this not be a good thing?

Yeah, that would be good, and no, you can't put a blanket label. But at the moment there is no regulation (though they were trying for a ban on human cloning, maybe that has been passed) and really GM is seen as all one. Yes it could be good if used wisely and responsibly, but whenever people are out to make money, I really don't see that happening. I think a blanket ban on any further development is needed until actual laws have been put in place regulating the extent to which GM technology is used and the purposes for which it is used.

xxx

[veganblue]

I think a blanket ban on any further development is needed until actual laws have been put in place regulating the extent to which GM technology is used and the purposes for which it is used.xxx

A blanket ban would stop the development of the technique so that the potential would not be known and therefore could not be discussed. If you don't research then where do you put the limits of the technology? It is one thing to imagine the possibilities and then put limits upon them but some of the steps to beneficial outcomes may never be realised due to earlier steps being circumscribed.

Laws are made by people that are advised, people that have to be responsible to the population also. Sometimes the advice is poor, sometimes the popular opinion is based upon spiritual belief - look at Bush for example. He would make decisions on scientific matters for a political end. I am not fool enough to think that he makes his decisions based upon a coherent and logical spiritual philosophy. Even if he did; would it have a place in the realm of the physical touchable testable world?

I understand what you are saying, but I am also suggesting that a ban would cease discussion and the stimulus for progression in this field.

Science is mainly *pro* the development of GM technology, the government here is also cautiously for it, industry (agriculture etc.) is also hopeful. Where is the objection centred? In the minds of the vocal populace. While wariness is good - it's a reason to learn more. Decisions based upon fear need to be viewed cautiously and there is a fear in the community; is that fear justified however?

[veganblue]

Do you have proof? I must say that the GE people certainly have a trumpet blower in you!

I am curious as to what sources have made you so fearful, eve. I wanted to know what the science is about and am learning. The opposition to GM arguments have some flaws that are fatal as far as my trust in them. Touting the use of anti-biotic resistance as markers in creating GMO's as releasing bacteria with antibiotic resistance into the world sounds like the creation of monsters but it's not. It's blatant scaremongering at it's worse. I now *know* why they do it, how they do it and how it is not the danger that I previously thought.

If you are interested, I can explain it.

I am yet to come across examples of GM technology that have had a negative impact and pose a threat. If you know of any I would be very interested to find out more and try to understand the nature of the threat. To date the worst problem that I could predict is the formation of superweeds that march across the landscape like the cane toad currently is.

[veganblue]

Well you could have fooled me. Where did you hear the opinion?

There has been some information in the media about the ongoing court cases
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/war.htm
Evidence in the trial suggested Schmeiser saved seed from plants which he had sprayed with Roundup from one specific area of his canola fields in 1997 and then seeded more than 400 hectares in 1998 with that particular seed.

In the Ryczak case, not only does Monsanto claim he obtained the seed from his father, it also claims the farmer sold the seed to other parties and made a profit.

Ryczak who farms near the village of Springside just west of Yorkton did not return phone calls about the lawsuit.


Are you eating genetically modified food? (http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/03/24/genetic.foods.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest)
Survey: Most are but few know much about it

Thursday, March 24, 2005 Posted: 11:35 AM EST (1635 GMT)

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- Can animal genes be jammed into plants? Would tomatoes with catfish genes taste fishy? Have you ever eaten a genetically modified food?

The answers are: yes, no and almost definitely. But according to a survey, most Americans couldn't answer correctly even though they've been eating genetically modified foods -- unlabeled -- for nearly a decade.

[eve]

Are you for real? You'd like to see examples of GM technology that have had a negative impact and pose a threat? For one, are you familiar with the works of Vandana Sheva? Familiarise yourself vegan blue, you may learn something.

In India, and in other developing countries, where farmers have traditionally exchanged plant seeds with each other, they can no longer do so. Why? Because they have been tricked, persuaded, whatever, to take on GE plants that promise the world. Now they not only have to pay Monsanto annual licence fees, as well as buy new seeds every year (because Monsanto seeds, known in the trade as 'terminators' won't grow a second time). Moreover these poor farmers are compelled to buy Monsanto's fertiliser (RR) so the plants will grow.

Some people in the west, thought it very strange and ungrateful when the US offered free seeds to famine-stricken farmers in some African countries, and the farmers turned down the offer. Why? Because they had enough nous to know that once these seeds entered their earth, there would be no turning back.

BTW veganblue, what prompts you to describe me as fearful? And no thank you, please don't explain anything, as I am more familiar with what goes on than you think. Actually one of my sons is a law professor who specialises in intellectual property, with the emphasis on biotech, and he also keeps me up to date.

And what about the massive contamination of Mexican maize, so important to their economy. As to what Percy Schmeiser is supposed to have done, read the section on this page relating to him. http://www.etcgroup.org/search2.asp?srch=GMO

May I suggest that instead of your offer to explain to me, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the ETC website, as it is the leading organisation on this whole topic.
http://www.etcgroup.org/about.asp

[veganblue]

Thankyou for the link. It is an interesting read and the campaigns are various.
I have to say that I make the distinction between the political and legal aspect of GM technology, and the actual technique itself. It seems that the technique should be held distinct from the activities of farmers and governments or multinational companies without souls.

The fighting is about "how" the technology is applied and who gets to use it and who gets the greatest return, but the effect is an attempt to censor the technique all together. It does not seem to be that the products are the problem. but the various parties using them.

[eve]

Who gets to use it? Who do you think gets to use it? Do you intend to vie with the likes of Monsanto? GeneEthics.org say that GE crops are not the boom industry that Bayer and Monsanto (and veganblue?) would have you believe. The data from the industry-backed International Service for the Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications (ISAAA) annual review (see: www.isaaa.org) shows most of the GE crop industry stalled years ago. For instance, it shows commercial GE crops are NOT a global industry. 98% are grown in just 6 of the world's 218 countries. The USA, where gene technology was invented, grows 59%; Argentina 20%; Canada 6%; Brazil 6%; China 5%; and Paraguay 2%. That’s 93% of GE crops in the Americas. And GE crops are just 1.6% of global agriculture - smaller than the area of organically grown foods.

The US Center for Science in the Public Interest http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/withering_on_the_vine.pdf also recently reported that, "For years, ‘industry’ predicted that genetic engineering would spawn a cornucopia of healthier crops, more-healthful oils, delayed-ripening fruits, and many other more nutritious and better-tasting foods. However, the number of GE crops going through the regulatory review process (in the USA) dropped sharply between the late 1990s and the early 2000s ..." The report also found that “the products reviewed (by regulators) in the 2000s have mostly been crops with the same or similar genes as the first generation of GE crops commercialized in the late 1990s, such as insect-resistant or herbicide-tolerant versions of the crops soybean, corn, cotton, and canola." GE crops have not lived up to their promises and are not a growth industry.
The area of GE soybean in South America is increasing but it causes great environmental and social disruption. In contrast, the global areas of GE corn, canola and cotton stalled in 1999 and have grown very little since. North American growers are so disappointed in GE crop performance that all major farm groups opposed Monsanto's plans to commercialise GE wheat. In 2004 the company cancelled its GE wheat R&D program – a big setback for the GE industry as Monsanto owns well over 90% of all commercial GE crops.

Just something to think about.

[eve]

In the first modification of its kind, Japanese researchers have inserted a gene from the human liver into rice to enable it to digest pesticides and industrial chemicals. The gene makes an enzyme, code-named CPY2B6, which is particularly good at breaking down harmful chemicals in the body. Environmentalists say that no one will want to eat the partially human-derived food because it will smack of cannibalism.

The above are a couple of sentences from an article in today's UK Independent. Full article at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=632444

What next?

[veganblue]

The data from the industry-backed International Service for the Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications (ISAAA) annual review (see: www.isaaa.org) shows most of the GE crop industry stalled years ago. For instance, it shows commercial GE crops are NOT a global industry. ...And GE crops are just 1.6% of global agriculture...

Just something to think about.

I had a look at the link to ISAAA that is quoted above. It seems to me that the suggestion that biotech crops have stalled doesn't seem to be accurate.
The following is taken from here (http://www.isaaa.org/kc/bin/ESummary/index.htm) and there is a table that shows the area of crops sown to GE crops from 1996 to 2004.

ISAAA Briefs No. 32-2004: Executive Summary
Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004

Global Status of Biotech Crops in 2004

* 2004 is the penultimate year of the first decade of the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) or transgenic crops, now often called biotech crops, as referred to consistently in this Brief. In 2004, the global area of biotech crops continued to grow for the ninth consecutive year at a sustained double-digit growth rate of 20%, compared with 15% in 2003. The estimated global area of approved biotech crops for 2004 was 81.0 million hectares, equivalent to 200 million acres, up from 67.7 million hectares or 167 million acres in 2003. Biotech crops were grown by approximately 8.25 million farmers in 17 countries in 2004, up from 7 million farmers in 18 countries in 2003. Notably, 90% of the beneficiary farmers were resource-poor farmers from developing countries, whose increased incomes from biotech crops contributed to the alleviation of poverty. The increase in biotech crop area between 2003 and 2004, of 13.3 million hectares or 32.9 million acres, is the second highest on record.

(from the executive summary pdf (http://www.isaaa.org/kc/CBTNews/press_release/briefs32/ESummary/Executive%20Summary%20(English).pdf) , on page 7;

"In 2004, 5% of the 1.5 billion hectares of all global cultivable crop land was occupied by biotech crops".

The suggestion that the GM rice (that has a nucleotide sequence that codes for the production of an enzyme that is capable of deactivating or chelating compunds that could be harmful) is in anyway containing human liver is astounding. It seems that this is being used purely to stimulate more fear amongst the population that don't understand biology.

It is fascinating science using a simple idea that would have required many years of complicated science to get the gene inserted into the rice in the right position and then hope that the gene is turned on and expresses the protein in sufficient quantities to be of any use.

As soon as the public accepts that genetic sequences are not immutable or set and the differences between all living things are not as great as meets the eye, the better.

There are bacteria and virus' that regularly insert themselves into cells and splice their own genetic material into the host genome. The human genome is full of viral DNA - but they mostly don't do anything. To a large extent, it is a random process and can be deleterious to that cell; that cell is killed and swept up by macrophages. If not in a germ cell (egg or sperm) it will not be part of the next generation. If it *is* in a germ cell, the likelihood of that developing into a fully functional organism are slim; that it would be beneficial? even slimmer.

GM takes advantage of these natural processes in a controlled and directed manner to be able to select specific genes, cut them out and incorporate them into the germ cell of another organism in a position that will not be deleterious but potentially beneficial according to the purpose of the study.

...would you be so kind as to pass the rice?...

[englishvegoboi]

I agree with most of your sentiments veganblue but I do however believe that we should not encourage the production of GM foods. Remember scientists can only answer the questions that they choose to ask. They do not have all the answers and many scientists are cautious about GM production. The reasons that many people provide for supporting GM food are based on alleviating world hunger etc. As you know, the real solution to world hunger is reducing meat consumption and protecting agricultural land through sustainable farming techniques, not providing multi national companies an excuse to profit from a serious global problem.

I know I have over simplified a complex issue but I was in England in the early 1990's when scientists were saying that mad cow disease could not spread from animals to humans and my parents were around when scientists gave the all clear for DDT. Scientific discourse is important but it is one of many discourses that should be considered with reagard to issues of this nature.

Thats my opinion anyway. Sorry to babble on.

[eve]

I agree with you englishvegoboi, but it seems that sadly veganblue is blinded by science babble.

[veganblue]

I agree with most of your sentiments veganblue but I do however believe that we should not encourage the production of GM foods. Remember scientists can only answer the questions that they choose to ask. They do not have all the answers and many scientists are cautious about GM production. The reasons that many people provide for supporting GM food are based on alleviating world hunger etc. As you know, the real solution to world hunger is reducing meat consumption and protecting agricultural land through sustainable farming techniques, not providing multi national companies an excuse to profit from a serious global problem.

I know I have over simplified a complex issue but I was in England in the early 1990's when scientists were saying that mad cow disease could not spread from animals to humans and my parents were around when scientists gave the all clear for DDT. Scientific discourse is important but it is one of many discourses that should be considered with regard to issues of this nature.

Thats my opinion anyway. Sorry to babble on.

Hey englishvegoboi! I see what you are saying; that 'science' is not infallible and has the potential to do great damage but I wonder if that is reason enough to dispense with all the good that we all benefit from everyday. I would suggest that 'mankind' is not infallible and that everything that he/she does has the potential for remarkable failure including the use of carefully analysed techniques that *may* have wider implications that we cannot know about.

'Science' is merely a word to describe the intensive study of the nature of everything around us. It would be reasonable to suggest that you would ask a geneticist about genetics and not a geologist or a plumber, for example. (I wouldn't get a geneticist to fix my plumbing either!).

I have met a group of three Adelaide scientists that have started a group that is devoted to the concerns about GM developments. I think that this is very worthwhile and important, but I do object to the dissemination of deliberately misleading information. I was initially convinced that these scientist in the anti-GM coalition were correct but now that I know more about the science; some of there information is blatantly wrong - but a lay person would not know that. Not many lay people care to find out either and trust more in the scare message than any assurances - this is because the public is of necessity, wary of new developments and has been stung before.

Due to the disasters of the past it is important to consider the principle of "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should" (courtesy of Jurassic Park :)) No one has all the answers but is that a reason to stop asking? The kinds of science we are talking about is expensive and only worth doing because the projected benefits are worth the short term costs in research. GM *will* continue because the case against it is full of mis-information and is based upon unfounded fears - it is a historically recogniseable pattern. This of sailors that write on maps "Here, there be dragons" due to fears of sailing into the unknown. Once upon a time the world was flat and the earth was the centre of creation. Careful observation (science) seperates the fact from the fiction as the fact will always remain.

Did you realise that the creation of GM's is supposed to work *with* sustainable systems and promote biodiversity, conservation of soil structure by reducing tillage and preservation of arable lands (creating new arable lands is also on the cards) and reducing the amounts of chemicals used in agriculture?

GM will not be the answer to world starvation - it is a complex issue that largely involves political, environmental and social constraints, not simply development of new crops and farming techniques. There *is* research being done on organic farming methods (something close to my heart) and sustainable practices - but nothing is going to form a simple single solution so looking at *all* options is important. Reducing (ending) the dependence on meat is part of the answer (imho), educating the public is also incredibly important as any changes are subject to the whim of the population. This is how it should be but it is subject to the available information and if there is misleading or clearly incorrect information clouding the debate, that serves no one any benefit, and could possibly do harm in the long term.

There will always be people that are fearful of new things; caution is good but it would seem to me that learning as much as possible with an open mind is preferrable. Science babble it may seem to some, but that would suggest a really good time to learn more about a complex issue.

For a comprehensive resource page of links go to http://www.afaa.com.au/ and click on links - which include links to geneethics and greenpeace to be able to see an alternate position. It also gives links to many documents that help unravel the issues involved in GM.

I am disturbed that the geneethics front page has inaccurate information, which was posted above by Eve. It provides a link to the ISAAA but misrepresents the information there. Maybe most people don't bother to look a little deeper but not only does this cloud the issues but it makes an organisation such as geneethics look foolish which for me, detracts from their message and makes me doubt that I can trust their assessment.

I treat *all* sources with a healthy scepticism, but errors like these are fatal to what could have been a worthwhile organisation.

[englishvegoboi]

Did you realise that the creation of GM's is supposed to work *with* sustainable systems and promote biodiversity, conservation of soil structure by reducing tillage and preservation of arable lands (creating new arable lands is also on the cards) and reducing the amounts of chemicals used in agriculture?

I believe that there are two main issues of discussion in terms of GM food production. The first is whether or not gene technology is ethical and the second being the politics of GM food. I’ll start by addressing the politics.

I am sure that there are scientists who are working towards ensuring that gene technology is used to promote sustainability but there are many organisations that are using gene technology to increase their profitability with scant regard for the environment. Take for example Monsanto who have developed the roundup resistant soybean. This enables farmers to saturate their crops with pesticides without the risk of killing them. This has nothing to do with ensuring the long-term quality of the soil and I am sure that you wouldn’t want to eat soy products sourced form intensively sprayed beans. Therefore I believe that it is dangerous to associate GM with sustainability without looking at the wider picture. Furthermore, we do not need to create new arable land. There is already enough arable land on this planet to feed the entire world. The fact that people are starving is due to politics and human greed. Relying upon technology to solve our problems is another way of justifying our ecologically destructive existence. Many people I know don’t worry too much about the environment because they have this naïve belief that science will make it all all right. This is pretty scary in my eyes. GM agriculture cannot solve anything that cannot be solved by other means. Ok it may mean that if we want to survive the next millennium, the human race will need to take a long hard look itself and so be it. It is about time we get out of our comfort zone and start facing some home truths.

In terms of whether or not it is ethical to genetically modify crops, I believe that it is not. No scientist can account for the long-term impact of inserting DNA from one species to another, no matter how informed they say they are. Any scientist who claims that he or she does, is in my eyes arrogant and potentially dangerous. It is a risk we do not have to take. So why take it? I am not talking as a layman on this subject. I have spoken to scientists and an epidemiologist quite extensively on this subject and they are also extremely cautious on the subject.

I do however respect your opinion Veganblue but I think that we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

[eve]

babble, babble, scientific babble - thanks for the link to afaa which is Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited, an alliance supported by:
- Avcare
- Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC)
- National Farmers’ Federation (NFF)
Well they would say all that wouldn't they?

[englishvegoboi]

Did you realise that the creation of GM's is supposed to work *with* sustainable systems and promote biodiversity, conservation of soil structure by reducing tillage and preservation of arable lands (creating new arable lands is also on the cards) and reducing the amounts of chemicals used in agriculture?

I believe that there are two main issues of discussion in terms of GM food production. The first is whether or not gene technology is ethical and the second being the politics of GM food. I’ll start by addressing the politics.

I am sure that there are scientists who are working towards ensuring that gene technology is used to promote sustainability but there are many organisations that are using gene technology to increase their profitability with scant regard for the environment. Take for example Monsanto who have developed the roundup resistant soybean. This enables farmers to saturate their crops with pesticides without the risk of killing them. This has nothing to do with ensuring the long-term quality of the soil and I am sure that you wouldn’t want to eat soy products sourced form intensively sprayed beans. Therefore I believe that it is dangerous to associate GM with sustainability without looking at the wider picture. Furthermore, we do not need to create new arable land. There is already enough arable land on this planet to feed the entire world. The fact that people are starving is due to politics and human greed. Relying upon technology to solve our problems is another way of justifying our ecologically destructive existence. Many people I know don’t worry too much about the environment because they have this naïve belief that science will make it all all right. This is pretty scary in my eyes. GM agriculture cannot solve anything that cannot be solved by other means. Ok it may mean that if we want to survive the next millennium, the human race will need to take a long hard look itself and so be it. It is about time we get out of our comfort zone and start facing some home truths.

In terms of whether or not it is ethical to genetically modify crops, I believe that it is not. No scientist can account for the long-term impact of inserting DNA from one species to another, no matter how informed they say they are. Any scientist who claims that he or she does, is in my eyes arrogant and potentially dangerous. It is a risk we do not have to take. So why take it? I am not talking as a layman on this subject. I have spoken to scientists and an epidemiologist quite extensively on this subject and they are also extremely cautious on the subject.

[veganblue]

Fight GM activists at their own game
Thursday, 28 April 2005

Advocates of genetically modified foods have been advised to mimic the activists fighting to stop their introduction in Australian agriculture.

The lesson came from president of Canadian firm ePublic Relations, Ross Irvine, who has held seminars across Australia on countering activists such as the green groups who oppose biotechnology and GM crops.

Mr Irvine released a paper from the Public Media Center at the seminar, which states that dealing with activists is difficult because they operate differently to other structures in society.

"The difficulty with many activists is that they have unrealistsic goals, indulge in false prophecy and are prepared to make their ends justify their means," the paper says.

"They have no hesitation in exaggerating and telling lies to the public through the mass media."

It claims activists employ sweeping generalisations, selective use of information and outright errors of fact.

"In the long run this is probably self-defeating, but in the short run it gives them massive media coverage."

The paper says activists make good use of the internet and form networks with many speakers, which is different to the traditional method of public relations of a minimum number of speakers under a tightly-controlled communication regime.

The networks have many nodes or fronts on which they attack an issue.

For biotechnology or GM, these include the environment, economics, health, politics and democracy.

"The best response by industries targeted by the activist networks is to fight fire with fire," the paper states.

"Structured organisations are not sufficiently flexible to fight networks of activists on their own grounds - it takes networks to fight networks."

SOURCE: Farm Weekly, April 28 issue.

It is an interesting development. I fully support the work of activists in saving vegetation, protecting animal rights, stopping nuclear testing and preventing the pollution of the environment... but in the case of GM I really cannot see the case being made as having anywhere near the validity.
I am concerned about the increasing opposition to activists and what kind of long term impacts that may have on other areas of activism.