Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 311

Thread: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

  1. #51
    tails4wagging
    Guest

    Default

    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!!!!

  2. #52
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

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

  3. #53
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    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?

  4. #54
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote veganblue
    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.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  5. #55
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    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.)
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  6. #56
    Geoff
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  7. #57

    Default

    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.

  8. #58
    mysh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Space Coast (Florida)
    Posts
    204

    Default

    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.
    No Gods, No Masters.

  9. #59
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  10. #60
    mysh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Space Coast (Florida)
    Posts
    204

    Default

    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?
    No Gods, No Masters.

  11. #61
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    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!!!!!

  12. #62
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default Wow! Great concepts everyone! Warning - prolix :p

    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?
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  13. #63
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Quote 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.
    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
    Eve

  14. #64
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    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.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  15. #65
    Geoff
    Guest

    Default

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

  16. #66
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    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.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  17. #67
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    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.
    Eve

  18. #68
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    Suprise, Suprise, another lie!!

  19. #69
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  20. #70
    Kevster
    Guest

    Default

    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."'

  21. #71
    feline01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    ?
    Posts
    874

    Default

    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???

  22. #72
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Sadly, feline01, most people will remain in ignorance.
    Eve

  23. #73
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    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!).

  24. #74
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    The latest alert from Crusador on ge foods is worth a read:
    http://www.thehealthcrusader.com/pgs..._31_5719.shtml
    Eve

  25. #75
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    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???

  26. #76

    Default

    Quote 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???


    Feline 01,

    I have that book. I heard the man who wrote the book as he came into our local food store, talk about it & promoting his book.

    K4J

  27. #77
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Quote 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???
    To me, the best thing to do is avoid any foods that come from the US, as just about all their soybeans are GM, and it goes into just about everything. Also, check out the ingredients listing on whatever you buy in packets, especially avoiding 'soy protein'.

    There are also lists available giving the items that are GM. Greenpeace has a "True Food Guide: How to shop GE-Free". In addition to the Greenpeace listing, the listing of foods that are either GM, or containing animal products, is available at http://www.bryngollie.com - which is possible to print out on two A4 pages. It is E Numbers - Click on Printable List (on the left column).
    Eve

  28. #78
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    I do try to always do the above, Eve, but what we can we do in protest about this issue, to show our concern outwardly?

  29. #79
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Hi PFC, in a way it is like how we boycott the meat, dairy, fish, and egg industries, by being vegan. Eventually manufacturers had to provide food such as soymilk that contains no dairy, and imitation egg powders and tofus. Perhaps the same will apply to GMOs, when supermarkets see that people are not buying GM foods, they stop purchasing goods containing GM ingredients, then Monsanto will give up - as indeed that company has given up in some areas.
    Eve

  30. #80
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    I see that Syngenta, the global gene giant that ranks first in agrochemicals and third in seeds, has a patent pending in 115 countries that, if approved, would give it a multi-genome monopoly over at least 40 plant species. Meanwhile the ETC Group (pronounced "et cetera") has written to the European Patent Office (EPO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) demanding that the patents be rejected. The ETC Group reveals that Syngenta's public image as the "nice" multinational belies its actual activities, as it is muscling its way toward control of dozens of plant species. If Syngenta is granted this patent, it will make Monsanto look like Santa Claus!

    According to a study prepared by Dr Paul Oldham at Lancaster University (UK), the scope of Sygenta’s massive patent application is virtually limitless. Its claims extend to key gene sequences of 23 major food crops annexed to the FAO Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Dr. Oldham's analysis is available at http://www.cesagen.lancs.ac.uk/docs/genomics-final.doc

    They never give up searching for more and more profits do they?
    Eve

  31. #81
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    In the Health Crusader newsletter, there's a link to an interesting report:
    http://www.thehealthcrusader.com/pgs...2_4_3214.shtml
    Eve

  32. #82
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Remember Percy Schmeiser? He's the Canadian farmer who was sued by Monsanto for patent infringement when the company's patented, ge canola seed invaded his farm - unwanted and unwelcome. A victim of genetic pollution and a champion of Farmers' Rights, Schmeiser courageously fought Monsanto all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court.

    Percy spoke today at a UN meeting in Bangkok - harshly criticizing his government's efforts to promote commercialization of Terminator seeds (plants genetically-modified to render seeds sterile at harvest time).

    A Canadian government proposal to unleash Terminator was leaked to the
    ETC Group on the first day of a UN meeting in Bangkok, February 7-11. The news stunned farmers' organizations, govt delegations, and civil society worldwide. Ottawa's instructions to the Canadian delegation in Bangkok called for an all-out push for field-testing and commercialisation of sterile seed technologies, effectively un-doing the precautionary, de facto moratorium on Terminator seeds adopted by governments in 1998. Even worse, the Canadian delegation was instructed to "block consensus" by govts attending the meeting if it didn't get its way. This does not bode well for the G8 meeting of world leaders in July in Scotland where Canada will propose to introduce nanotechnology on the G-8 agenda.

    Canada hasn't been working alone in Bangkok. The UN meeting was crawling with representatives from the biotech industry including Monsanto, Delta & Pine Land, Crop Life International, PHARMA (pharmaceutical manufacturers), the International Seed Federation and more - who lobbied against current restrictions on development of suicide seeds. New Zealand and Australia also backed the position of industry and Canada, while a fleet of US govt representatives observed from the sidelines. (The US govt is not
    a Party to the Biodiversity Convention.)

    But disaster was averted due to key interventions by the govts of Norway, Sweden, Austria, the European Community, Cuba, Peru and Liberia, on behalf of the African Group. These govts managed to delete the most offensive wording. The final text and recommendations reaffirm earlier decisions, amounting to a continuing, but fragile, de facto moratorium on Terminator. The issue now bounces to another CBD advisory body (the Working Group on 8(j)) in March 2006.
    Eve

  33. #83
    Astrocat
    Guest

    Default

    If, on the other hand, there are traces of GE soya, or GE rice, then I definitely wouldn't eat it, even though that may also be vegan.
    I must hijack this topic temporarily to reply to this -

    "Any intentional use of GM ingredients at any level must be labelled. But there is no need for small amounts of GM ingredients (below 0.9% for approved GM varieties and 0.5% for unapproved GM varieties that have received a favourable assessment from an EC scientific committee) that are accidentally present in a food to be labelled."
    (http://www.food.gov.uk/gmfoods/gm_labelling - 9th February 2005)

    I also had found a page about a week ago which had an exposee of processed food products, which showed that the majority contained "accidental" GM ingredients within the above limitations on quantity - which implies to me that the big companies have more accidents than poor fortune alone would account for.
    If i find that page again (i had another look for it just now, but can;t find it) then I'll post it up for all to see.

    Foods prepared from GM ingredients, additives and processing aids, but sold unlabelled at the point of sale for immediate consumption - e.g. restaurants, hotels and take-aways - are also exempt from labelling requirements.

    Stuff like cheese, flesh or eggs which contain GMOs (ie via the contaminated food which the animal was fed) don;t need to be labelled, neither does vegetarian cheese produced using the most common (GM-ed) vegetarian enzymes.
    But, obviously vegans don;t need to worry about that


    - the above link outlines the regulations comprehensively

    It seems that the only true way to rely on corporations and food industries to provide food while avoiding eating GM stuff is to but organic produce and prepare and cook the food at home, rather than buying convenience food or eating out.
    Of course though, this is everyone's personal gamble to make.

  34. #84

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,689

    Default

    I don't know a lot about GMOs - they seem kind of scary.

  35. #85
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Less than one percent GMO is not all that 'microscopic', especially if it is a food that one eats frequently, and there is no ruling about labelling yet. Although there are plenty of products that say "GM-free", I've yet to see a label that states there are GMOs present. The labelling restrictions are apparently coming into force this year, next year, sometime ...
    Eve

  36. #86

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,689

    Default

    Does anyone know how fruit and veg is affected by gmo?

  37. #87
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    I am not entirely sure about the numbers of GMO's growing in Australia - I know that the South Australian Gov't has approved a 'not for sale" crop planting in SA which basically means that the pollen is a free element and the seed will be sold to farmers once the moratorium is lifted.

    Round up (glysophate - a weedicide) ready soy crops are showing not only that they don't have a greater production but because they are tolerant of roundup - more is being released onto the crop and there are already glysophate resistant weeds that have the same effect on the crop as before in reducing maximum yeild. There is an associated reduction in soil biota as the roundup levels are increased, making the soil less fertile and requiring greater artificial fertilisation.

    On the otherhand they are trialing a rice that has narcissus genes and a few others that concentrates iron and has co-factors for increased absorbtion - this is to be grown in poorer countries that suffer iron deficiency. I am not sure how the trial has gone so far.
    Last edited by veganblue; Feb 23rd, 2005 at 10:41 PM. Reason: Moved from another thread to avoid that one going off topic.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  38. #88
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Syngenta's "stay ripe" banana is genetically engineered to ripen slowly. A GMO papaya is a fruit already available on grocers' stands, and GM squash is also already on store shelves. Still in the product pipeline is a GMO tomato engineered with a yeast gene to improve juice quality, and scientists are also tinkering with strawberries, lettuce and other fruits and vegetables.

    "There is a lot of stuff out there," said Lisa Dry, a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

    Syngenta's efforts to introduce its transgenic wheat are expected to meet problems as anti-biotech groups are lined up against the product. Syngenta halted field trials in Germany recently after biotech activists destroyed the firm's test plots there.

    Here's another url on the topic. http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/multime...1/544204/0/364
    Eve

  39. #89
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    For a detailed summary about GM technology. Green Peace Genetic Modification Campaign.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  40. #90
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Dr Mae-Wan Ho and Prof Joe Cummins of the Institute For Science in Society call for an urgent regulatory review of the most widely used herbicide, glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine), known commercially as Roundup (Monsanto) in the light of new scientific evidence. New research findings raise serious concerns over its safety, and should be sending shockwaves through proponents of GM crops made tolerant to the herbicide, which now account for 75% of all GM crops in the world.

    Worse still, the most common formulation of the herbicide is even more toxic than the herbicide by itself, and is made by the same biotech giant that created the herbicide tolerant GM crops. Broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate has been frequently used both on crops and non-crops areas world-wide since it was introduced in the 1970s. Roundup is a combination of glyphosate with other chemicals including a surfactant (detergent) polyoxyethyleneamine that enhance the spreading of the spray droplets on the leaves of plants. The use of Roundup has increased in countries growing Roundup- tolerant GM crops created by Monsanto.
    Eve

  41. #91
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Last night my DNA was being amplified in the lab.

    For a prac we use the same technique that is used in identifying DNA found at the scene of a crime. In this prac, tiny swabs of cheek lining cells were used and extracted so that the DNA comes out of the cell and it can be mixed with a polymerase (a DNA replicating enzyme) from a deep sea bacteria. The section of the DNA we are looking at is from the smallest chromosome (No. 21). It's pretty cool stuff.

    We are also modifying bacteria by inserting a few sections of DNA into viable bacteria cells and seeing how they grow on antibiotic treated plates. The ones we inserted antibiotic resistance into will grow and hopefully next week we will be able to seperate pure cultures.

    I once was told about how scientists put anitbiotic resistance into bacteria to identify them and now I understand why. It seems like a crazy thing to do but it is perfectly understandable now and not going to release some horror into the world that has antibiotic resistance. Rather glad that one is cleared up !!!
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  42. #92
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Don't know the point of your posting, veganblue, does it have any relevance to Roundup?
    Eve

  43. #93
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Quote eve
    Don't know the point of your posting, veganblue, does it have any relevance to Roundup?
    Sorry Eve, I am posting in the GMO thread about GMO's that we are making as part of our practical.

    The bacterium we are using is now a genetically modified organism as we inserted the DNA sequence coding for amphocillin resistance to be able to determine that we are creating a pure culture.

    The GMO debate is marred by poor understanding of the terms and proceedures that take place in the field of genetics as well as in day to day living.

    The linked article you might find interesting. It is well referrenced and basically says that the use of Round-up Ready soy will only lead to increased use of the herbicide and weeds with glysophate resistance.

    Of particular interest is the point that RR soy should not be grown in the middle east due to the risk of gene flow.

    C3H8NO5P
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  44. #94
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Thanks for the article; I read it a few years ago and found it most valuable. You'd think it would be obvious that if RR doesn't affect the GE crops farmers are growing, that they will saturate the land that contains other crops. In other words, the outcome is that they use more RR than ever before.
    Eve

  45. #95
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default Golden Rice

    For some information about the high iron rice that I keep going on about, I just found a link.

    The news didn't look very good back then but they have not only created an improved version, they have released the rights to the work they have done - so that any lab can work on it - opposite to Monsanto.

    The idea is that the rice is higher in iron and beta-carotenes which improves absorbtion and hopefully will assist poorer communities.

    This was on the news today so I will post if I hear anything further.

  46. #96
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default ...further on Golden Rice links in the news


  47. #97
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default GMO Mustard plants to clean up contaminants

    Environmental Science and Technology online

    Technology News – February 9, 2005
    GM plant field-tested for enhanced soil remediation

    For many years, scientists have used plants along with bulldozers and earthmovers to clean up toxic waste sites. New research posted to ES&T’s ASAP website (es049035f) reports the first field trial of a genetically modified (GM) plant used to remediate contaminated soils.

    The GM mustards were much larger and healthier than wild-type plants grown in selenium-contaminated soil.

    “People have known about phytoremediation and how to genetically modify plants, but this is the first time anyone has brought these two together,” says study author Norman Terry, a professor of plant and microbial biology with the University of California, Berkeley.

    Lena Q. Ma, a professor of biogeochemistry of trace metals at the University of Florida, says that this paper pushes the boundaries of phytoremediation research. Her lab discovered a fern that naturally hyperaccumulates arsenic (Nature 2001, 409, 579), and she adds that genetic modification of wild plants is the next logical step.

  48. #98
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default Re: GMO Mustard plants to clean up contaminants

    Yes the fish in the strawberries is well known, in fact my son sometimes wears a t-shirt that shows a piece of fruit with a fish through the middle!
    Eve

  49. #99
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default GM and farmers in South Australia

    Quote Shisha Fiend
    There are other less drastic things going on too, but to me it all seems totally pointless. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the food was perfectly okay before GM. Why bother? It really does seem like 'playing god' to me. xxx.
    As part of university and also in part representing animal interests (on the quiet) I attended a young farmers forum that discussed GM technology as part of the days sessions.

    What was very interesting was that the farmers were not adverse to the technology on the whole. They are keen since gene sequencing is used in tracing changes in breeding crosses, whereas GM offers the opportunity to bring in gene sequences from other species; in this case an antarctic grass that can resist extreme dryness. This characteristic is being researched to develop a barley that can withstand long periods of drought and be used in farming otherwise arid lands.

    The more I learn about it, the more I wonder what the fuss is about.

    In Australia we have Bt cotton which is a GMO. The leaves express a protein that therefore kills insects that eat too much of the leaf. This crop does not require the vast amounts of pesticides that non-GM cotton currently requires. As far as I know, there is no toxin produced in the actual cotton fibres.

    There seems to be a great deal of hype surrounding this debate; and a lot of it doesn't bear up under the weight of scrutiny.

    It was suggested that Greenpeace (being a corporate body formed and paid to wage environmental activist campaigns) is using and feeding the fear of GM technology as a fund raising exercise!

    I like a *lot* of what Greenpeace does, but I wonder about the truth in this matter.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  50. #100
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default Bt corn

    http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Entom...rops/ef130.htm

    Bt corn and monarch butterflies

    Bt corn and mycotoxins There are futher links at the end of this article.

    I seem to remember a big uproar about threats to the Monarch butterfiles but is seems that the fear is unfounded.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

Tags for this thread (If you see one or more tags below, click on them if you're looking for similar threads!)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •