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

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.

[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?
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/...p?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 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 , 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.

[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

Voice from the South - Opinion editorial
Fr. Emeterio Barcelon
Morality of GMO

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/cate...c-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.

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
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

[eve]

how true!