Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

[veganblue]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4495775.stm

GM rice praised in Chinese study
By Roland Pease
BBC Science correspondent

Rice growers in Yunnan Province, south-west China GM companies promise higher yields from fields. Genetically engineered rice crops can cut costs for poor farmers and improve health, a new Chinese study says.

In the study, published in the Science journal, Chinese and US researchers studied the use of insecticides in small farm trials.

They compared normal strains of rice with varieties modified to have innate resistance to pests.

Chinese GM rice has been undergoing safety trials for nearly a decade now, but is not yet fully licensed.

One of the arguments against genetically engineered crops is that they benefit the seed companies, but not the farmers.

Health benefits

The authors of the new study disagree.

They found that Chinese farmers using rice engineered to resist insect pests made huge savings on insecticides, compared with their neighbours who had planted ordinary hybrid strains.

This had nothing to do with any specialist guidance the farmers received, because they were left to manage their crops as they saw fit.

As well as cutting costs, the researchers say, the farmers benefited from better health.

Pesticides in China are cheap and widely used, but poison an estimated 50,000 farmers a year, up to 500 fatally.

Dr Jikun Huang, who led the study, says he hopes it will help persuade the Chinese government to license the commercial use of GM rice.

If it does, the impact beyond China's borders would be substantial.

The world's largest country would be taking a lead in commercialising a major staple GM food developed in its own labs, which could transform the GM debate across the world.

[veganblue]

Report: Farmers are less sick from GM Crop (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=712015&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

Voice from the South - Opinion editorial
Fr. Emeterio Barcelon
Morality of GMO (http://www.mb.com.ph/OPED2005042933630.html)

GENETICALLY modified organisms (GMO) have caused a lot of emotional heat, often because of misunderstanding. Its potential is great to feed the 30 million people in the world who go to bed hungry. That remains a potential if not developed or blocked from development. There are negative effects of GMO but these have to be weighed against the beneficial. It is not just black and white. There are judgment calls. On this earth there are no perfect solutions.

The most widely used GMO, and most well-known is Bacillus Thuringensis implanted in the genes of corn. Bt corn as it is called is poisonous to the larvae of the stem borer. Eliminating the stem borer increases the yield of corn. It obviates the need to use pesticides against the stem borer that does considerable damage to the corn plant. An objection to Bt corn is that this will eliminate a certain kind of butterfly that results from those larvae. Weighing the conservationist concern against the increased production of corn, most will decide for the increased production. But it is true there is a loss of a butterfly species. There seem to be no other negative effects of Bt corn and yet there are rallies organized against it. Is it because of fear that there are unknown ill effects? Possibly, but not demonstrated so far to be existent. The good here outweighs the fears.

In the 19th century, the monk Mendel demonstrated that offspring of diverse but genetically compatible species are more often than not improvement on their parents. This is called the F1 vigor. The mestizo is often better that either parent. And the green revolution that saved Asia in the 1960s and 1970s from hunger was the result of this theory of crossing to produce better grain. The GMO is a step further. It takes the desirable genes and splices them into the chromosomes of the plant. Is it possible that interfering with the genetic map and composition of the animals and plants through gene modification will produce monsters instead of beneficial organism? I suppose the possibilities are there. We just have to be vigilant.

Genetic engineering can increase the production of food three times the present capacity or even more. But the large companies that are capable of doing this engineering are accused of greed. They are supposed to insert killer genes that make the seeds useful for only one planting and therefore the farmers have to buy seeds again and again from the greedy seed producers. Of course this is morally wrong but also business wise not viable in the long run. Their products will not be bought since other laboratories just as capable will come up with seeds that do not have these killer genes. Even without these malicious genes, F1 vigor dissipates and farmers are enticed to buy new seeds and not use seeds from the crop. This is a business decision of the farmers. They can still do seed selection from the produced hybrid seeds, although probably not worth their while. Another accusation is that seed variety is reduced and these species may be needed in the future. Some provision has been made to preserve varieties in the low temperature vaults of IRRI with its 10,000 varieties of rice alone kept in refrigerated state.

Finally, the objection that technology is not the magic bullet that will extinguish hunger is true. But it is or can be a big factor in eradicating hunger. More equal distribution of wealth is as important. There is often food where there is famine or hunger. The problem is that the poor or the hungry do not have the money to buy the food. However, technology can make food cheaper and more accessible to the poor. (emeterio_barcelon@ yahoo.com)

[Seaside]

Very interesting posts, veganblue. Thanks! ;)

[eve]

Thanks for your Ross Irvine quote - Here is another quote from him:
"Take the high moral ground; assume a position of moral leadership and - in the case of biotechnology - talk about addressing the problems of world hunger by adapting crops to some of the world's harshest growing conditions. Talk about biotechnology's contribution to food safety; tell the world that genetically modified foods are the next green revolution bringing boundless benefits to countless millions of people around the world. And tell politicians that when they support biotech, they are demonstrating much-needed moral and political leadership." say no more!

[Shisha Fiend]

The most widely used GMO, and most well-known is Bacillus Thuringensis implanted in the genes of corn. Bt corn as it is called is poisonous to the larvae of the stem borer. Eliminating the stem borer increases the yield of corn. It obviates the need to use pesticides against the stem borer that does considerable damage to the corn plant. An objection to Bt corn is that this will eliminate a certain kind of butterfly that results from those larvae. Weighing the conservationist concern against the increased production of corn, most will decide for the increased production. But it is true there is a loss of a butterfly species. There seem to be no other negative effects of Bt corn and yet there are rallies organized against it. Is it because of fear that there are unknown ill effects? Possibly, but not demonstrated so far to be existent. The good here outweighs the fears.

There are also fears about 'superbugs'. And damaging the ecosystem further than just the one species of butterfly. And plants GM'd for herbicide resistance can encourage spraying of MORE herbicides than would normally be used.

Personally my qualms about GMs are the environmental ones outlined above, also the economic concerns about third world countries becoming dependent on multinationals to provide their crops. This is already happening with things like rice dumping. I don't see why the GMs would be any better regulated. Also the amount of animal testing that goes into it. :(

I don't believe there are any risks to human health though, as far as I'm concerned all the testing proves conclusively that the food is safe.

[veganblue]

There are also fears about 'superbugs'. And damaging the ecosystem further than just the one species of butterfly. And plants GM'd for herbicide resistance can encourage spraying of MORE herbicides than would normally be used.

Hey Shisha. Are you referring to bacterial or insectoid super bugs? The way that either will develop into a superbug is when the selective pressure is high enough for some organisms in a population to exploit a resource with competitive advantage over other organisms; such as an insect that could survive a high does of Bt toxin with no ill effect. This would be devestating for the crop with the Bt toxin, but once you take away the selective pressure populations revert to the 'wild type'. This has been demonstrated with the HIV virus that changes due to selection via medications, but once the medication is removed, the population reverts back to one that is predominantly susceptible to the original drug. It has interesting implications for ecology extrapolations in other areas since the underlying mechanisms work in similiar patterns.

There seems to be little support for the original study that linked Bt corn pollen to monarch butterfly larvae deaths since in a wild setting the levels of pollen deposition would not have been as high as the lab demonstrated and the larvae would be more likely to move to lower areas of the plant where there is less pollen settling.

If you read the above posts you will note that the goal is a decrease in the use of herbicides and an added benefit is that in China, the farmers are experiencing lower levels of poison responses from the herbicide reduction. With good management, spraying a herbicide during germination gives the crop a head start over other germinating species and means that repeated spraying is reduced.

Where are you hearing that there is an increase in herbicide use as a result of using resistant varieties of crops?


Personally my qualms about GMs are the environmental ones outlined above, also the economic concerns about third world countries becoming dependent on multinationals to provide their crops. This is already happening with things like rice dumping. I don't see why the GMs would be any better regulated. Also the amount of animal testing that goes into it. :(

I don't believe there are any risks to human health though, as far as I'm concerned all the testing proves conclusively that the food is safe.

I completely understand the concerns about the political implications of the technology use. I think that is something that has to be monitored by the usual avenues and I myself have little faith in them but think that dedicated groups can make a difference in making fair changes but the pressure has to be constant and the information has to be accurate. If either of these things are missing then success is highly unlikely.

As usual, there is very little black and white in anything when you look closely - for or against GMO's, there are principles that must be discussed that are equally valid from both sides of the debate.

[Shisha Fiend]

Hey Shisha. Are you referring to bacterial or insectoid super bugs?

Either.


The way that either will develop into a superbug is when the selective pressure is high enough for some organisms in a population to exploit a resource with competitive advantage over other organisms; such as an insect that could survive a high does of Bt toxin with no ill effect. This would be devestating for the crop with the Bt toxin, but once you take away the selective pressure populations revert to the 'wild type'.

Perhaps. But what does that mean for the farmers and economies who have come to rely on the GM crops?


If you read the above posts you will note that the goal is a decrease in the use of herbicides and an added benefit is that in China, the farmers are experiencing lower levels of poison responses from the herbicide reduction. With good management, spraying a herbicide during germination gives the crop a head start over other germinating species and means that repeated spraying is reduced.

Where are you hearing that there is an increase in herbicide use as a result of using resistant varieties of crops?

In college. It makes sense to me. If your plants are resistant, what's the harm in spraying the whole crop? Perhaps this is incorrect. I can see spraying less would mean saving money on herbicides though, so would be profitable.


I completely understand the concerns about the political implications of the technology use. I think that is something that has to be monitored by the usual avenues and I myself have little faith in them but think that dedicated groups can make a difference in making fair changes but the pressure has to be constant and the information has to be accurate. If either of these things are missing then success is highly unlikely.

As usual, there is very little black and white in anything when you look closely - for or against GMO's, there are principles that must be discussed that are equally valid from both sides of the debate.

Yes. I do think there are likely to be environmental effects and we can already see global implications of the technology. :(

[eve]

Opponents of GM crops continue to outnumber supporters by four to one, with 56 per cent of the population against, and only 14 per cent in favour, according to a Mori poll. Among women the figures are more stark, at six to one, with 61 per cent against and only 10 per cent in favour. Opposition to GM goes across all political parties, social classes and income groups, the data shows: 56 per cent of Labour voters, 57 per cent of Tories, and 60 per cent of Liberal Democrats are against.

"The widespread extent of the opposition is surprising," said Philip Downing, Mori's head of environmental research. "Several years ago, when the row over GM was at its height, there was a clear majority against, and there still is." GM supporters see hope in the fact that 25 per cent remain undecided.

Supermarkets were forced to listen to the demands of their customers for GM-free food in the late 1990s. But despite consumers’ qualms, and that of some farmers and environmentalists, the GM juggernaut is rolling on. It’s the dollars that gleam in the eyes of Monsanto et al.

The cost to segregate & preserve identity of non-GM is too great for non-GM farmers. A 5km buffer zone proposed between GM and non-GM crops, was inadequate, according to J Newman of the Network of Concerned Farmers, who is a canola grower in Western Australia. Identity preservation is expensive, and Newman asks why those who don’t want anything to do with GM have to pay. GM companies claim their crops deliver effective weed control with smaller amounts of herbicide. But a report published by Northwest Science & Environmental Policy Centre in the US, says that in recent years, there has been an increased pesticide use by almost 23 million kilograms.

A New York scientist, Dr Barry Commoner, outraged leading biologists with a clam that GM crops represent a potential catastrophe. He says that the fact that one gene can give rise to multiple proteins destroys the theoretical foundation of the genetic engineering of food crops — that genes operate the same way and produce the same proteins even if transplanted into different species. It is assumed in genetic engineering that a bacterial gene for an insecticide protein, transferred to a corn plant, will produce just that protein and nothing else. But in that alien genetic environment, splicing of the bacterial gene can give rise to multiple variants with unpredictable effects on ecosystems and human health. He said: “The genetically engineered crops now being grown represent a massive uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic”. Greenpeace GM campaigner, Jeremy Tager, says that once GM organisms are released into the environment it will be impossible to undo, and that over time there will be unintended consequences.

It reminds us of problems such as that posed by use of fibro(?), where building workers in Australia suffered and continue to suffer the effects of mesothelioma, ten, twenty years later. Or the effects of smoking or passive smoking whose effects also turn up many years later. What if eating GM crops causes untold grief ten years down the track? As long as the multinationals continue to push GM onto farmers, and their puppets, oops, scientists and cadet scientists blow the GM trumpets, they aren't interested in what happens to consumers a decade on.

[eve]

Here's another view http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php

[ricky]

This url gives good views from George Monbiot: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/category/genetic-engineering/

[DianeVegan]

http://www.organicconsumers.org has many up-to-date articles and activist/boycott sites.

They will also send you an e-mail newsletter if you register.

[veganblue]

Thanks Dianecrna! It's a fascinating site! What they are saying appears to be true, but some of the more extreme claims are not supported with any evidence but are speculation - but seems a logical conclusion to some of the preceeding statements. I think that the authors *really* believe what they are proposing, but I can still say that I remain unconvinced. With a little change in emphasis, the articles lose their impact.

For example, http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/gmcorn050305.cfm, where they are talking about deceiving the public, it seems to be a bit of a beat up.


One characteristic of Bt10 that is not shared with Bt11 is its antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) gene that codes for resistance to ampicillin. When this fact surfaced a week after the US government and Syngenta assured the world that the two varieties were identical, it drew anger and outrage. According to Nature, this is “a difference that most experts agree is of some significance.” Failure to mention it was most certainly pre-meditated.

...So the Bt10 that does not carry the ampicillin marker and has not undergone field trials that meet the approval of the FDA (yet) is being grown. I can understand the potential for fears of the use of ARM if you don't know much about bacteria and antibiotics, but this is a Bt corn *without* the ARM. There seems to be a lot of 'ah-ha! we got you on this one!' without any *real evidence* of a problem, only conjecture.

Conjecture is fine - in fact encouraged!! But all I see is hype about techniques that seem potentially scary, a few unsubstantiated unrepeatable or badly created trials (feeding pollen to catterpillars in situations that would never be found in the wild) and a crop that was promoted but didn't work (african virus resistant potatoes).

What's going on?! These people are obviously intelligent and have taken the time to learn about what they are talking about and yet they are putting a negative spin on things that they should know better about!!

Absolutely, go after organisations that want to patent organisms or engage in blatantly monopolic ways; but making the public afraid? I am beginning to wonder if it isn't just a ploy to get money from the fearful masses to support the political ends - of which may be admirable; but disseminating misleading information seems counter productive.

It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next five years or so.

[DianeVegan]

I agree that there is some speculation without scientific backup on that site. However, I find extreme claims from so many mainstream sources as well (meat, dairy, egg industries, petro companies, government, drug companies, etc) that I usually read everything with a bit of suspended belief. I'm sure somewhere in between lies the truth.

[veganblue]

I agree that there is some speculation without scientific backup on that site. However, I find extreme claims from so many mainstream sources as well (meat, dairy, egg industries, petro companies, government, drug companies, etc) that I usually read everything with a bit of suspended belief. I'm sure somewhere in between lies the truth.

I couldn't agree more. Nutting out that truth is a goal of mine.

Last year I attended a public lecture on global warming *not* being the great disaster that it is spoken about in the media. He was a visiting professor from the eastern states and seemingly well respected. His presentation was very convincing, however, I did some research into it and the body of evidence that contradicted his presentation is so great that he was drowned out. Some of his claims were also seemingly a kneading of the data. Predicting global change is very complicated and with the recent reports of 'global dimming' masking the harsher predictions... sigh ...

I am going to a public talk by Dr Tim Flannery tomorrow. He has controversial ideas so it should be quite interesting. Back to thread - he may even have something to say about GMO's?

[eve]

below is from vegan doctor Vernon Coleman's website under Health http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm

"some simple facts about genetic engineering that may surprise you
* Farmers in India have, for hundreds of years, used a plant which possesses many valuable properties. Because of its value the plant has been 'discovered' and patented by an American company. It is now too expensive for most ordinary people to buy.
* Companies have applied for patents on human genes.
* Bubonic plague has been given genes which makes it better able to attack.
* Genetic engineers are planning to use the AIDS virus as a genetic engineering tool. Scientists claim that they will 'disable' the AIDS virus before using it to transfer genes from one species to another.
* Genetically modified material can be discharged into the environment as normal liquid waste.
* Genetically engineered foods may contain substances linked to the development of reproductive abnormalities.
* Seeds which are now protected by patents cannot be saved by farmers or smallholders (or gardeners) to be replanted the following year unless the farmer, smallholder or gardener pays a royalty to the company holding the patent. The Seed Trade Act makes it illegal to grow or sell non certified natural seeds produced by organic farmers. Genetic engineering agricultural policies seems designed to put organic farmers out of business and protect the interests of big seed-producing companies. Politicians are allowing the genetic engineers and their corporate friends to get away with this. There is, it seems, an insane willingness to accept all science without question and to regard progress as an excuse for anything.
* The dead bodies of animals used in genetic engineering experiments can be sold as meat for human consumption. Animals used in genetic engineering experiments may contain human genes.
* Bacteria in the soil turn atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia which can be used by plants to make amino acids and proteins. Around the world bacteria 'fix' around 200 million tonnes of nitrogen every year. Genetic engineering threatens this process. If these bacteria stop capturing nitrogen and turning it into protein we will be dependant on chemical companies selling chemical nitrogen fertilisers. Chemical fertilisers pollute drinking water.
* When a man's spleen was removed as treatment for his leukemia a doctor used the spleen to develop a new cell line which was patented.
* An American company has been given a patent on all human blood cells obtained from the umbilical cord of new born babies. In the past these cells were used without charge to treat other patients. In the future licence fees will have to be paid to the company which has the patent on these human cells. (How long before someone patents the gene for red hair and then claims a royalty from the parents of every red-haired child?)
* There are currently more than 300 applications for patents pending on animals.
* Genetically engineered plants frequently contain antibiotic resistant genes. These genes are included as 'markers' to identify the plants. But the antibiotic resistant genes can (and do) spread to other species. The UK has authorised the marketing of genetically engineered tomatoes which carry a gene for antibiotic resistance.

All this is being done on the understanding that by identifying and manipulating genes the genetic engineers (and the companies they work for) will be able to solve most (if not all) of the world's most serious problems (including hunger and disease).

But this is modern mythology.

The first live transgenic food to be introduced to the supermarkets (a tomato) was withdrawn. It was developed in California and didn't grow properly in Florida. A genetically engineered cotton crop didn't grow properly when first planted commercially in Texas because the weather was too hot. The crop didn't grow properly in Australia because it was too cold. And insects rapidly gained resistance to the built-in biopesticide.

Two varieties of genetically engineered seeds were withdrawn from the Canadian market (after 60,000 bags of seed had been sold) when it was discovered that at least one of the patented varieties contained an 'unexpected' gene."
There's much more for those interested.

[DianeVegan]

Thanks for that website, Eve. I hadn't heard of this doctor but I have read many of the things you listed from other sources.

[eve]

This is another interesting website Dianecrna - which gives the option to sign the Citizens' Objection to George Bush using the World Trade Organisation to force-feed us with gm food. http://www.bite-back.org/ and the international foe http://www.foei.org/

[DianeVegan]

Thanks for those links. I am always happy to join another fight against Bush and his policies! I don't know how it works in Australia and other countries, but here in the U.S., food companies are not required to state whether ingredients are GMOs. The only option we have is to buy organic (some companies now state non-GMO); so much for our right to choice.

I have found another website that has some information on GMOs. It is the website for the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in the U.S. If you click on Publications (upper right corner), it will direct you to many reports that you may view online.

http://www.ucsusa.org

[eve]

Thank you, and yes here in Oz, there are labelling laws whereby food companies do have to state if there are GMOs if there is more than 0.9 percent in the ingredients. Many companies now like to cash in on the growing number of consumers who are against gm, and those companies are happy to certify that the product is ge-free. Yes if something is organic, then doubtless it is also ge-free.

[eve]

Japan imports 11.6 million tonnes of fodder maize per annum, with 93% coming from US. Japan's fodder maize self-sufficiency is nearly zero, so a large-scale contamination incident could have a great impact on Japanese farmers.

Between 2001 and 2004, Bt10 was "accidentally" cultivated on about 37,000 acres in US, leading to a massive contamination of global fodder maize and maize product supplies. It is quite possible that Bt10 sweetcorn has also contaminated the human food chain.

Now 2 out of 5 tests so far reported positive. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) announced on 3rd June 2005 that unapproved Syngenta GM maize Bt10 has been detected in Tomakomai port, in an 822 tonne shipment of fodder maize from the USA. This is the 2nd discovery of unapproved Bt10 in Japan, following the first detection of 390 tonnes of contaminated maize on 26 May in Nagoya port.

Full story http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/japan060905.cfm

[adam antichrist]

What is meant by 'fodder maize'? Is that stockfeed?

Can anyone give anymore info on Bt10 ie why has it not been approved?

TIA

[eve]

fodder maize is maize that is ok for animals but not for humans. Bt10 is a GMO and makes the maize unsuitable for humans. There have been several "mistakes" or "negligence" when Bt10 maize has been imported from the US to Ireland, and to South America. The stuff was recalled, but well after the event. The EU doesn't allow Bt10 maize into Europe, not even for animals.

This is from an EU report: "The Member States today voted in favour of a Commission proposal to adopt an emergency measure requiring imports of corn gluten feed and brewers grain from the USA to be certified as free of the unauthorised GMO Bt10, as these are the imported products considered most likely to be contaminated.

EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou said: “This is a targeted measure which is necessary to uphold EU law, maintain consumer confidence and ensure that the unauthorised GMO Bt10 cannot enter the EU. Imports of maize products which are certified as free of Bt10 will be able to continue, but at the same time we cannot and will not allow a GMO which has not gone through our rigorous authorisation procedures to enter the EU market. This measure is designed to affect trade as little as possible.”

[veganblue]

Can anyone give anymore info on Bt10 ie why has it not been approved?

You might like to look here. (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=49622&postcount=131)

Bt10 does not have the marker gene that easily identifies it as a GM. The marker genes are used to identify the organisms that have sucessfully had the Bt gene spliced into the sequence since in the presence of the marker, the Bt gene should also be found very close on the sequence. This is not the case with Bt10 and hence it was not approved but was already released.

The antibiotic resistant marker absence is irrelevant to the production of the toxin that stops the insects eating the corn; but it does mean that it is more difficult to pin point without direct gene sequencing. The uproar might be about the fact that it is a GM, but apart from expression of the Bt toxin, it is hard to tell it apart from other corn varieties.

[Cryospark]

oh man what a trudge through garbage.....
These crops cross pollenate others.... that right there is enough to restrict these arrogant acts of playing god to the lab.....
Eliminating choice, you can see the problems with that can't you
I see veganblue and his fight them their own way activist quotes it sounds to me as if he is already doing it hypocritical as all hell and you side with such ppl, strange.
The GMO market 90% controlled by a company that makes terminating seed. These people you also side with this who is in control of things GMO.
Honestly someone on a vegan forum standing up for the application of DNA from wherether felt neccessary be it flora or forna, I have to ask what that's about.
This company preys on the poor. Is this what is air-lifted into war torn countries? by introducing these crops to the world outside your lab you are imposing yourself upon them. This is passive smoking and quite frankly it's stupid to support the use of such crops they are completely unwarranted. The crops already in play encourage the poisoning of the land (once again that should be enough right there), the thing is with such an argument you only need one point against such a thing this should inturn give you a hung jury because what this is, is murder of the natural order of things. Hasn't idiotic so called strenuously tested scientific embargo's such as this done enough to destroy the environment.
Interesting the corrupted believe they are helping when they play god, the closest to light it is generally the most blinded.
I suggest someone takes a step back
As idealistic as you think you are, this imposes itself on other's ideals I don't generally make a habit of siding with "hippy's" so to speak but I'll side with them against a bunch of "corporationey" powermongerers anyday thank you very much :)

You can't have an open mind, after you've already locked it and thrown away the key :cool:
Anyone a locksmith?

Ignorance to a concern will flock backing from the compassionate..hehe
Losing the technology is not something of concern here, scientists have nice laboratories. I wouldn't bother them if they didn't piss me off with this complete bs. Noone has the agenda of stopping the research, you might say that not allowing it into commerce will inevitably kill the research, sadly I have no compassion for this research, cry me a river. If there is such an interest in the technology it should sustain itself, if it can't then really it wasn't desired now was it.

Veganism to me suggests a belief in the way nature intended.
GMO is directly the opposite of that belief
Buying into arrogance and manipulation that will inevitably cause unbalance
Nature is about balance..... maybe some reflection is in order :p

[eve]

how true!