How do you feel about Genetically Modified foods?

[Hell in a Handbasket]

I have to say, i really know very little about the subject. I am aware that i've been eating them for probably all my life, and am in relatively good shape- but the idea really creeps me out.

[RoeBear]

1. Can you name one?

I can. And I'll tell you if you ask me.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

5. could you tell me?

i know that lots of veggies and other ag products are modified.

[RoeBear]

19. Round Up Ready

corn and soybeans come to mind.
They can be sprayed with Round Up with no ill effects. Makes for higher yields per acre.

And to whom ever said: "good old fashioned hybridization"

it's not the same thing as "Genetically Modified"

[DrWeird]

23. Plenty of natural plants are immune to Round-up.

Where do you think Monsanto got the idea?

[RoeBear]

35. Can you name one?

I can't.

[DrWeird]

48. Several kinds of morning glory. nt

[fat free goodness]

140. English Ivey is either immune

or very, very resistant. I've had no luck at all with roundup on it.

[fat free goodness]

141. Yes, I know it's spelled ivy, not ivey. Sorry.

[RoeBear]

148. You just earned a spot

on my 'ignore' list.

LOL- I just figured you were English

[DrWeird]

2. I'm all for them.

In fact, I can't think of the last time I haven't eaten something that wasn't genetically modified by human hands in some form or another, either via splicing or good old fashioned hybridization.

[Djinn]

44. splicing and hybridisation

are completely different to GMO's. Blending one type of tomatoe with another is one thing blending a fish with a tomatoe is another.

the methods by which things are "modified" is not quite the precise science a few chemco's would have you beleive, it is incredibly hit and miss and the effects are completely unknown.

If it was as harmless as is claimed then there would be no reason for Monsanto et al to have ROUTINELY falsified "scientific" data and to harrass and threaten whistle blowers.

Then there's the problem of someone "owning" the food chain - politically this is repulsive.

I'm no scientist so I can't detail this stuff properly - a real eye opener for me though was Seeds of Deception written by Jeffrey M. Smith (website at http://www.seedsofdeception.com/) it's written by scientists but not in a way that a non scientist intelligent person couldn't understand it.

I was spurious about the political ramifications before I read this and found out there's a hell of a lot of health worries too - and the citizens of the US have basically been used as worldwide guinea pigs because most of the rest of the world insists that their governments atleast pretend to have the interests of their constituents in mind.

[DrWeird]

66. trans kingdom genetic flow occurs rountinely in nature.

The old "tomato and fish" thing is a canard.

[Djinn]

81. not that quickly Dr Weird

there's a BIG difference

[bpilgrim]

101. thanks for the link

this kind of stuff is rarely discussed in the M$M

:hi:

peace

[Djinn]

103. it's a great book

even for a science moron like myself. it's not dumbed down as such but is readable and understandable even if your only interest in science at school was horticulture for extracirricular activities!

I have often wondered about this seeming to be a little discussed topic in the US, it's probably less prominent in Australia than in Europe but it really seems to be off the radar for most Americans which is odd given you guys eat more of it than anyone else!

[smoogatz]

3. I'm in favor of labeling

Like they have in France. I'd like to know whether the tomato I'm buying has camel genes in it or something--is that asking so much?

[Hell in a Handbasket]

43. that sounds like a good idea. I'd like to be able to know what i'm buying

:thumbsup:

[swag]

4. I have learned to accept rancid ectoplasm in place of mayonnaise.

[murray hill farm]

6. I also know very little about them...

but i have never had any problem with the idea. Farmers have always modified genetically their crops and animals by cross pollination and breeding...it just took longer to accomplish. So, this seems no different to me. I believe that if it is genetically possible for a thing to occur, it probably will naturally over time. this just seems like something that now, we can do, quickly...and to the benefit of mankind.

[DrWeird]

8. agreed.

Furthermore, it's better since it's rational, and not completely random like nature.

You know what gene's going into what.

[Djinn]

49. actually you don't

gene are "shot" into other genes and you can't actually put them where you want - some go where you didn't want them to.

It's an utter myth that it's "scientific"

[DrWeird]

63. You're referring to the "gene gun."

Which, if I'm not mistaken, became obsolete years ago.

Sure you can put them in the host that you want, and of course it's scientific.

[Djinn]

69. the gene gun isn't obsolete

and it is hit and miss - the long term effects are completely unknown - if it was all so innocent why the fraud on the part of the chemco's?

[Hell in a Handbasket]

11. right, but that seemed natural.

i was under the impression GMO's are chemically altered or something.

[Eloriel]

90. Wrong. Please educate yourself

Genetically modified organisms are NOT just your grandfather's "breeding" and hybridization programs.

Genetic modification involves combining species that would never, COULD never "breed" or cross-pollinate in Nature. It is insufficiently tested, wildly dangerous -- as in ya wanna wipe out our food supply entirely? (NOT impossible, IMO) -- and should never have been considered, let alone undertaken IMO.

I think it is the height of arrogance for these "scientists" and these "businessmen" at Monsanto and other places to imagine for one single minute that they know as much as Nature, let alone MORE than Nature. They are playing with our lives and the lives of everything on the planet. They do not have this right.

[BanzaiBonnie]

99. Again, as has aready been mentioned,

they are not the same thing.

[mcscajun]

7. I'm against them.

We've got no business genetically modifying Anything beyond creating hybrids of different types of the same fruit/vegetable. We do not have the competence to monkey around with nature that way. If agribusiness is going to insist on doing it, I want Labeling! If the tomato I'm about to reach for has a gene that doesn't come from any part of the tomato world, I'd like to know about it.

[Swede]

9. I'm okay with them.

The human race will need them in the coming years.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

10. ...what? why? nt

[DrWeird]

16. Overpopulation.

Peak oil. Lots of reasons.

[Djinn]

73. so all these companies would suddenly become

philanthropists? and give away their bounty? not really sure how peak oil comes in but in terms of population and the usual reason given, it's so easilly debunked it's not funny.

There's already more than enough food for every man woman and child in the world, it is concentrated in the hands of those who can afford it as it always will be. Having some freaky rice that has huge yields (and all independent tests show the chemco's have bullshited here as well) isn't going to help some piss poor farmer in the thirld world because he STILL wont be able to pay for it.

[DrWeird]

104. Well, sure, there's enough food now...

but will there be enough food decades from now when the population is far larger and fertilizer is far more expensive due to the scarcity of oil?

Probably not.

[Djinn]

111. and when that happens

the companies that own the seeds will suddenly come over all Ghandi like and forget about their one and only reason for existing?

not agreeing with you is kind of a weird experience - my usual replies to your posts are of the "bingo" kind :)

[Swede]

17. Hardier crops that grow with more or less moisture or heat.

The population is still booming,there are still starving people. It is immoral not to try increase crop production.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

18. i agree that its not immoral. i just hadnt considered the ramifications

that you mentioned.

[Cats Against Frist]

144. So anyway, I just watched The Omen Part 2 the other day....

;)

[ChairOne]

12. lol - it's been around for 1000s of years.....

... we've just got better tools for it now...

[G_j]

22. gee I didn't know the ancients planted fish genes in tomatoes too! -t

[DrWeird]

Tomatoes share probably 75% of their genes with fish.

And yes, genes can jump from kingdom to kingdom in a single generation. Where do you think scientists got the idea?

[G_j]

32. How to add a fish gene to a tomato

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/gm_genie/gm_science/index.shtml

[ChairOne]

41. Wow - unless it involves a petri dish, it ain't GM?

lol - and I suppose it ain't literature unless a fountain pen is involved?

As though *the end* and *the tools used* to achieve the end were indistinguishable. Well, I suppose some people have trouble distinguishing them - but that by no means implies that everyone else has that trouble...

[G_j]

45. simply put,

for 'hundreds of years' they were not crossing genes between SPECIES.

[DrWeird]

50. More like billions of years.

Did you read your own link? Scientists use bacteria that naturally gross genes between kingdoms, let alone species.

[G_j]

57. =

this is not a process that was even remotely possible for our ancestors as the post I replied to seemed to imply.

[DrWeird]

61. That's right, our ancestors didn't do it rationally.

Yet it still occurs naturally, which makes your point irrelevant.

[DrWeird]

46. Yes, that's my point.

That's essentially the same way nature does it.

[G_j]

51. and you have seen

fish mating with tomatoes? :wow:

[DrWeird]

53. Did you notice the bacterium in your link?

What do you think that's doing there?

[G_j]

65. yes

but this modification we are speaking about is not going to happen on it's own. In a billion years? well, we obviously won't be around to have this conversation.

[DrWeird]

67. It happens everday.

And it's been happening everyday for billions of years.

In fact, it's one of the key elements of the process of evolution.

[Djinn]

76. and it's always taken eons

and all the other co-related genes, proteins etc have had time to adapt.

That's a REALLY big difference.

I'm really surprised that so many people are ready to beleive this has ANYTHING to do with feeding people instead of making shareholders richer

[DrWeird]

107. No, it hasn't.

Right now, as we speak, there are untold numbers of genes from foreign organisms reverse transcripting themselves in host organisms. It's EXACTLY the same. Even the method that nature uses is duplicated in the laboratory.

It really suprises me that people can talk so much about a subject that they really have no understanding of.

[Djinn]

112. I'll admit I'm pretty useless in terms of scientific knowledge here

science and maths were never my thing, but knowing how companies work, why they work and particularly the ins and outs of massive PR campaigns (for which I now do penance), I'm curious as to why a perfectly harmless process needs to be so obfuscated.

Why has so much money been spent trying to silence critics, why refuse to label foods as GMO?

I don't think it's cynical to say that feeding the poor has not even crossed the minds of the board at Monsanto (I mention them because I know more about their history than the others but they're all the same)

[MadHound]

118. After reading your posts Doc, I must respectfully say,

That you're full of it. Yes, tomatoes share numerous genes in common with fish, but this doesn't mean that you can immediately get fish gene to jump to a tomatoe plant within a generation or two. First off, the two organisms would have to overcome physical limits. One can't move, one lives underwater. Even if these organisms found a way to hook up, how would a fish interject one specific gene into the DNA of a tomatoe? Mating is impossible, and having the fish smear its sperm all over the tomatoe plant is simply going to make a mess. Face it friend, such genetic swapping as you're talking about is impossible without human intervention.

In fact there are many ways that plants combine that wouldn't be possible without man. While cross pollination occurs naturally, processes such as grafting require human interference, as does genetic modification. GM isn't something that occurs naturally, nor is it normal. And for people who live with various allegies, GM foods are quite dangerous.

Please, go read some literature on the subject before you embarass yourself further. You're arguement for the "naturality" of GM food is patently false, and simply makes you look foolish.

[DrWeird]

124. I'm afraid you're quite mistaken.

Genes can and will cross in a single line between kindgoms, phylums, classes, etc. The way genetic engineers do it is to repeat the way nature does it, i.e. bacterial or viral vectors. The only real difference being, the artificial way genetic engineers take specific genes from specific donors and put them into specific hosts; where as in nature it's completely random.

I suggest you take your advice and do some reading of the literature. Not the loony pseudoscience stuff, but actual science texts; becuase everything I've said on this subject is really well known. In fact, it's freshman level biology, if not high school level.

[MadHound]

125. Oh this I've got to see!

Show me then! You've been talking this garbage all morning, show me where it says that a tomatoe can naturally pick up a fish gene through cross hybridization or any other method. Sorry pal, but that is something you are going to have to show some proof on.

[DrWeird]

127. I'm not going to do all your homework for you.

But here's a nice reference to get you started:

Syvanen, M. and Kado, C. eds. 1998. Horizontal Gene Transfer. (London, Chapman & Hall )

I'll be waiting patiently for that apology.

[MadHound]

134. You'll be waiting awhile then friend

For your claim fish and tomatoes can swap genes is patently false. Horizontal transfer apparently occurs in only related organisms, and apparently only in very small life forms, single cell to rudimentery multi-cell creatures. And only then, operational genes, as opposed to informational genes are transferred.

<http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3801>
<http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3801>

Thus your fantasy of a half fish/half organism occuring naturally are dashed. The only way that such fish genes can be hooked up with tomatoes is through human intervention.

Any other fantasies you would care to share?

[DrWeird]

142. Did you read your own link?

Or did you just not understand it?

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that many genes within eukaryotes and prokaryotes have been acquired by horizontal transfer"

Most horizontal gene transfer does indeed occur between prokaryotes. However, it can also occur trans domains, e.g. from fish to virus then from virus to tomato.

[Djinn]

139. that study does not show that DrWeird

which bit are you claiming shows that any kind of tomatoe/fish hybrid could occur naturally?

[DrWeird]

143. Well, it's not a study.

It's a massive review on the subject of horizontal gene transfer, it references many studies.

[Djinn]

147. and not one section of it

prooves what you say it does - this is obviously based on someone elses reading not mine because as admitted I'm a bit of a spaz in this area, but my Dad's a respected well published scientist who spent a few decades in molecular biology so I figure he might know more than me

[DrWeird]

128. dupe

dupe

[DrWeird]

129. dupe. nt

[G_j]

77. fine

then why not let it happen on it's own?

[DrWeird]

108. Because nothing beneficial to us would happen on its own.

The natural process is completely random.

[G_j]

113. well now I've heard it all

"nothing beneficial to us would happen on its own."

you are kidding, right???

[DrWeird]

130. Well, not on a reasonable time scale.

Again, the analogy falls to hybridization. Maybe random cross-pollination will produce a bigger, juicier tomato, but you're going to have to wait a long time for it to happen by itself.

[reallygone]

119. Worms

Humans share 75% of their genetic material with common garden worms. Not because we eat them, just because of evolution an common ancestors in the earliest periods.

[KT2000]

13. huge human experiment

GM foods were dumped on the market as fast as possible as part of a business plan devised by Arthur Anderson - fast so that people did not have time to object.

FDA determined that GM foods are exactly like their natural counterparts so no human safety testing need to be conducted.

The few safety studies that have been done have shown problems.
One done by Dr. Pusztai in England showed damaged immune systems, damaged thymuses and spleens, less developed brains, livers and testicles, proliferation of cells in the stomach. Pusztai found that what was causing the problem was the method used to inject the new DNA into the host DNA. This is standard method used.
The doctor's career was ruined and the study results were changed in England.

My personal feeling is that we do not know enough about the whole process to even be able to predict outcomes. But I really do not think that health is a concern. This is all about money and nothing more.

[DrWeird]

21. FYI, Pusztai was a fraud.

His studies were debunked, he lost his job.

[Djinn]

78. actually that meme has been debunmked several times

[KT2000]

109. Ha Ha - that is the corp/gov

spin when they saw what his results were. It will happen to any scientist who finds something wrong with GM foods.

One way they solved the problem though was to stop doing any other health studies.

[KT2000]

110. just have to correct

I said that I don't think health is a concern - I meant it is not a concern to the corporations.
I DO think it is a concern for all of us though.

[Walt Starr]

14. It's why I garden

That's what I think of that crap they're feeding us!

[Angry Girl]

58. We're thinking of doing the same

We can't do a garden plot but are considering planters. Even the veggies we get from the market now are suspect. And any produce south of the border is scary too because that's where the USA sells all the pesticides that are harmful enough that even the FDA said no....

Besides, I think the government is trying to decrease Americans's lifespans. Fewer people to give out pensions and social security to.

[Walt Starr]

62. Unfortunately, even heirlooms could be detroyed

GMO is contaminating so many strains these days.

[RoeBear]

92. I would be more concerned with

the pesticides than the GM crops FWIW

[Eloriel]

93. No either/or -- But BOTH are appropriate concerns

And in fact, esp. since some of the GMO modifications are to make the plants withstand the pesticides better. :-(

[Maple]

15. We've eaten them for centuries

and we are living longer healthier lives than ever before.

Ignorance breeds fear.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

20. right, but are they the same type of GMO's? ignorance may breed fear....

...but soundbites breed ignorance.

[DrWeird]

26. No, they're not exactly the same.

But the principle's the same, bring genes from other plants into the plants you have now, while retaining the desired traits. It's just the techniques have gotten far more effecient.

Yes, sound bites breed ignorance. So do fear mongering and pseudoscience.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

29. ok. is there any truth to the notion that undesired traits might also

occur? what bothers me is that if there WAS something wrong with GMOs, we'd probably find out long after it was too late.

[DrWeird]

30. There's always the possibility of anything.

Why that should prevent people from doing something is beyond me.

Luddites had the same fears about stocking frames.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

42. fair enough.

i'd hate to end up being wrong about something like this, though.

[Djinn]

80. except that the makers of stocking frames

(whatever they actually are) probably didn't hide research results, distort research, fake research etc

I dunno maybe I'm just a cynic but I just don't buy the GMO pushers having our best interests at heart

[ChairOne]

131. LOL - curious: explain to me exactly how Gmodding...

... food suppliers BENEFIT from mass deaths from their food?

Not that I have any trust of GModders's benevolence, mind you - just curious....

Unless they're gonna try to pull of a Tobacco-company-coup, I have trouble seeing what their options are...

[Djinn]

138. LOL curious - explain where I said they would?

I said the "feed the poor" argument is a total furphy as unless the poor can AFFORD GMO they wont be getting them.

Who said ANYTHING about mass death?? apatr from of course the death of biodiversity which is hard to dispute.

I've seen the inside of these companies, I've seen the "real" info and then the way it's spun (or hidden/destroyed) to the public.

Sorry having been there I can not trust them to be heavilly involved in the food supply. It's one thing in Europe and Australia/Canada where the government regulatory bodies still have a modicum of power but in the third world and in the US the citizenry are being used by guinea pigs and they were never consulted.

[G_j]

24. if you are going to talk about

ignorance, then try backing up your statement with science.

[DrWeird]

28. That's well known.

Fact: all major crops and livestock have been genetically manipulated via hybridization and animal husbandry.

Fact: Lifespan and health have increased dramatically over the past hundred years.

[RoeBear]

25. Well if we want to get rid of some ignorance try this:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml
GM Products: Benefits and Controversies
Benefits

Crops
Enhanced taste and quality
Reduced maturation time
Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
New products and growing techniques
Animals
Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
Environment
"Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
Conservation of soil, water, and energy
Bioprocessing for forestry products
Better natural waste management
More efficient processing
Society
Increased food security for growing populations
Controversies


Safety
Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Access and Intellectual Property
Domination of world food production by a few companies
Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries
Biopiracy—foreign exploitation of natural resources
Ethics
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Stress for animal
Labeling
Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts
Society
New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

[BanzaiBonnie]

102. We have not been eating

Genetically Modified Organisms for centuries.

I'd suggest those of you who don't know the difference between hybridization and GMOs, do some research.

[Donailin]

27. how do you feel about a patent on the worlds food supply?

because that's what it comes down to. and btw, if some of that monsanto pollen flies into your organic crop and happens to cross pollenate a few of your plants, the gummint will order you to pay monsanto ( the creators of the GM seed) for the cost of what it's worth.http://www.arkinstitute.com/2000/food_supply_update012002.htm

"An ill-wind blew across Percy Schmeiser's land in 1996. Today in his 70s, the third-generation Saskatchewan, Canada, farmer has been growing and improving his own canola (oil seed) crops for 40 years. Each year, he would save some of his harvested seed for planting the following year. Though some farmers in the surrounding area were growing Monsanto's patented, genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready canola, Schmeiser was not. He was growing his own, but the wind blew and bees flew, both apparently carrying grains of GM pollen from neighboring fields into Schmeiser's crop. Or maybe it was GM seed transported from surrounding farms that often blew off trucks traveling the roads adjacent to Schmeiser's land. No matter. Without his knowledge or consent, errant, patented Monsanto genes had apparently been incorporated into some of the Schmeiser family's 1997-harvested canola seed.

In 1998, the farmer planted over a thousand acres of his land with the seed he had saved from the previous year's crop. A hired Monsanto investigator analyzed samples of canola plants taken from Percy Schmeiser's land, and the company found evidence of its patented genes in the plant tissue. When Schmeiser refused to pay Monsanto fees for use of its patented herbicide resistance technology, technology he neither bought nor wanted, Monsanto sued him. According to a report on the trial (www.percyschmeiser.com), Monsanto sought damages for patent infringement totaling $400,000. This included about $250,000 in legal fees, $13,500 for technology fees, $25,000 in punitive damages and $105,000 in the profits Schmeiser realized from sale of his contaminated 1998 crop. "

[Hell in a Handbasket]

31. so there's a whole truck load of social and political issues on the table

as well...

[RoeBear]

33. That guy did get

screwed over, didn't he?

[DrWeird]

52. Sounds like he got what was coming to him.

Violate a patent, expect to get sued.

[Donailin]

68. riiiight. . .

and the fact that there's a patent on the world's food supply doesn't bother you?

Do you know how to think things through to their logical conclusion?
http://www.garynull.com/Documents/erf/NewThreatToIndigenousPeople.htm
And as an aside, monsanto has been trying for years to patent the dna of indigenous people in developing countries that have immunities to spcific diseases and cancers. Think that one through as well.

"Phillip Babich: Allison Campbell is with the Canada-based organization, Basmati Action Group.

Since the 1980s corporations and scientists have been fanning out across the globe collecting genetic information from indigenous peoples in the rain forest. Some of that data has been used to create pharmaceutical products. Products are also underway to collect DNA samples from indigenous peoples, to copy, study and preserve as an archive of genetic information. The most massive of these endeavors is known as the Human Genome Diversity Project. The goal of the project is to collect DNA samples from about 500 indigenous communities around the world over the next few years, in order to map the entire human genetic structure. Many indigenous communities oppose these projects. According to Debra Harry, coordinator of the Indigenous Peoples Coalition Against Biopiracy, some researchers are taking tissues and blood samples for DNA research under the pretext of medical care. Her coalition has been trying to track the Human Genome Diversity Project or H.G.D.P., but it’s been difficult to monitor because funding and protocols are still being worked out, even though research and sampling has begun.

Debra Harry: It’s been hard to track because one of the problems that we keep running into is that technically the H.G.D.P. can say that it is not operational, at least in North America, because they haven’t been full funded and are still working out of monolithical protocol for collections. But at the same time we see that the National Science Foundation has funded pilot projects which are doing collections for developing research protocols for approaches to native peoples. The other thing we’re finding is that collections taking place on a daily basis, out there in various communities around the world, and those projects may or may not be connected to the H.G.D.P., but they’re out there taking samples. They’re taking blood from people. And one of the things that we’re finding is that often times the human rights of people are violated in this process. Things as basic as gaining informed consent are completely ignored. Many times in what’s been documented is that researchers will go into these communities and take blood under the pretense of giving some medical health care, and never tell the people that they’re taking extra samples of blood for DNA gene-banking."
http://www.radioproject.org/archive/1998/9846.html

[DrWeird]

72. There isn't a patent on the world's food supply.

And no, it doesn't bother me.

[Donailin]

87. now i remember

you're the one who consistently argues for any and all corporations.

my apologies, i wont make the mistake of wasting my time with you again.

[DrWeird]

105. Well, no, I don't.

I just prefer knowledge, facts, and the scientific method in place of fear, ignorance, and zealotry. Probably because I'm a liberal democrat.

[chlamor]

96. Some info on Seed Patents and IPO's

Here are a few excerpts from an article I read today that seems relevant:
"The 2004 Seed Act has nothing positive to offer to farmers of India but offer a promise of a monopoly to private seed industries, which has already pushed thousands of our farmers to suicide through dependency and debt caused by unreliable, high dependency and non-renewable seeds.

As Monsanto had a hand in drafting the TRIPS agreement, it is not surprising that the Monsanto Amendments have also made their way into India’s patent laws.

As Monsanto had a hand in drafting the TRIPS agreement, it is not surprising that the Monsanto Amendments have also made their way into India’s patent laws.

However, Article 27.3(b) is under review. The Government should have insisted on the completion of the review, a commitment of the Doha Round, instead of changing India’s Patent Law. As a result of sustained public pressure, after the agreement came into force in 1995, many Third World countries made recommendations for changes in Article 27.3 (b) to prevent biopiracy. India, in its discussion paper submitted to the TRIPS Council stated:
To prevent competitors from selling seeds and to prevent farmers from saving seeds, Monsanto has now turned to the patent laws to get monopoly rights. The Monsanto Amendments of India's patent laws are a logical consequence of the clearance for the commercial planting of GMOs in Indian agriculture, as we saw earlier with the March 26th decision of the Indian government to allow Bt. cotton.

Patents on seeds are a necessary aspect of the corporate deployment of GM seeds and crops. When combined with the ecological risks of genetically engineered seeds like Bt. cotton, seed patents create a context of total control over the seed sector, and hence over our food and agricultural security."
To read the entire article go to:http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7249§ionID=56

[Solon]

126. How about putting some rules and regulations on the Patents then?

That is my biggest problem is the idea of patenting living organisms, for a very simple reason I might add. They do not require human intervention to reproduce, you do not need a 1st generation seed to be stolen from a Monsanto plant to violate the patent. Instead you could have a 4th or 5th generation seed carried by the wind and settle in your field, at that point, what are you supposed to do, and what rights do you have regarding that seed? If you are forced to destroy crops of the patented variety for contaiminating your land, then does Monsanto have to compensate you for the reduced yield in crop that year, or should you have rights to that crop just like any other strain, if its proven to be beneficial to you?

My problem isn't really the technological innovation or the frankenfood aspect, but what controls and restraints should be put on the food producing organisms themselves. Unlike lets say copyright violations from peer to peer networks, or things of that sort, patent violations of this sort do not require human hands to be in them at all. With let's say file sharing, you have to actively seek out and download, knowingly, files that are copyrighted in order to violate the law. That is not true in the general case with GM crops that are patented, simply because they can breed, not only among other strains, contaiminating them, but also among themselves, and it would be hard, if not impossible, to account for all of the seeds from any given season. Not to mention the biggest problem of the past 50 years that these GM crops do not address, Monoculture strains, which are a bad idea regardless of your feelings about these crops. All you need is one blight that has adapted to these Monocultures, and an entire season's worth of crop is destroyed, how can GM solve that little problem, its not like they can predict the future about other organisms.

Just like our overuse with antibiotics, these GM plants will only offer a small reprieve in pesticide and herbicide production, until evolution kicks in and parasitic organisms adapt to infest these new plants. Just like with antibiotics, we will enter a type of race between parasitic organisms and GM crops, the only problem is, how fast can we adapt to keep up? Particularly with bacterial and viral infections, the evolutionary rate is very high, but even in the case of damaging insects, increasingly they are becoming more resistant to our chemicals, why wouldn't they adapt to ingest GM plants as well?

I would say that if we are to proceed with GM plants for increasing production or using less fertilizer or the 'cides, then we should do it intelligently. For one, encourage genetic diversity where practical, with several different strains and variations on specific species of crops. Next, limit the patents to one generation, once the plants start spreading on their own, then they entered the public domain, too bad for Monsanto. Thirdly, more government oversight as to what is being done to these plants, with geneticists and ect as the observers. Roundup resistant plants are great, but do they actually increase the yield of the crop per season, or is it just marketing through genetics?

[Igel]

85. I think the final judgment was something like $13k--

the difference the judge found between what he got with the Monsanto contamination and what he would have gotten with non-Monsanto seed. Canadian dollars.

I can't be sure: it's annoying to wade through the underbrush of Percy Schmeiser stories.

He appealed; he lost.

[RoeBear]

94. 13,000 Canadian Dollars?

So like 20 bucks American?

[DrWeird]

36. The Canadian courts disagreed with that.

http://www.biotech-info.net/roush_schmeiser.html

Despite Schmeiser's claims of innocence, the courts found he was purposely planting Monsanto's seeds.

[Angry Girl]

34. GM food YOU have eaten

Well, 99% of us here, at least those who live in the USA, have eaten the stuff. There's a list of GM stuff you've probably eaten below.

According to http://www.food.gov.uk/gmdebate/aboutgm/108374

GM foods in the USA

The United States of America (USA) grows two-thirds of all GM crops and a wider range of GM crops than any other country. The first GM food to be approved in the USA was a type of tomato that had been modified to delay softening. It was approved for use in 1991, and came on the market in 1994. GM crops such as soya bean, maize and oilseed rape (known respectively as corn and canola in the USA) are used in a wide range of processed foods.

USED IN PROCESSED PRODUCTS
Canola (oilseed rape)
Corn (maize)
Flax (for linseed oil)
Cotton (for cottonseed vegetable oil)
Soya beans

FRESH FOODS
Cantaloupe
Radicchio
Tomato
Potato
Squash
Papaya
Sugar beet
Rice
Sweetcorn

And finally, examples of processed products likely to contain GM or 'GM-derived' material

Biscuits
Sauces
Food coatings, such as batter
Confectionery
Cereals
Tinned fish in oil
Chocolate
Ready meals
Margarine
Cooking oils

[Hell in a Handbasket]

38. wow.

how would one genetically modify batter?

[Angry Girl]

47. LOL!

Batter has flour in it.... Often it's corn flour. YUM!

[Hell in a Handbasket]

55. oh, yeah. duh...that makes sense.

can you tell i dont cook much?

[Angry Girl]

82. How would you? These foods are SCARY! :-) n/t

[Pepperbelly]

37. Those suck ass red tomatoes available during the winter are modified

to PISS ME OFF! Tasteless fucking pulp.

[libbygurl]

39. GM foods are NOT exactly the same as...

the centuries-old process of grafting and hybrid creation. When nature does it (on its own time), the changes are less drastic, and hybrids are more resistant as a general rule. They aren't exactly homogeneous--unlike the crops produced through gene manipulation, since the products are genetically homogeneous-the same at the DNA level-not a good thing for survival through changing environmental conditions. (Hence the term "hybrid vigor".) It isn't fool-proof, of course (note the blight that destroyed wheat in the middle ages-can't recall the name), since some pests will attack every stalk of, say, wheat, no matter the genetic makeup. What's worrisome is that we don't know exactly the health repercussions on the population consuming these GM foods in the long term. For one thing, some scientists (can't recall exact studies) say there's been an increase in celiac disease/gluten intolerance since GM wheat was introduced into the food supply.

I certainly favor LABELING of gm foods, similar to what's done in Europe. Consumers should know what they're getting, and choose to take it or not. I do not like not being told what it is I'm taking in.

Agree it's a lot about the money. Why can't they be transparent about what they're doing to our food supply, if it's completely safe?

[G_j]

40. Genetically Modified Organisms Threaten Indigenous Corn

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/julaug02desantis.html

Mexico

Genetically Modified Organisms
Threaten Indigenous Corn


By S’ra DeSantis

In November 2001, Ignacio Chapela and David Quist, scientists from the University of California at Berkeley, published an article in the scientific journal Nature revealing that indigenous corn in Oaxaca, Mexico was contaminated with DNA from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The biotech industry has been working ferociously to discredit this research. Many of the anti- Chapela/Quist editorials and articles have been directly traced back to Monsanto’s public relations firm. Pressure and criticism from a small group of influential biotech supporters caused Nature to withdraw the article in April 2002. Since this event, the biotech industry has reported that the genetic contamination in Mexico never occurred. Unfortunately, most of the mainstream media coverage in the recent months has focused on the controversy over Chapela and Quist’s research and has disregarded the ramifications this contamination will have. The introduction of DNA from genetically altered material could cause the native corn to lose its ability to produce and reproduce in its natural environment, destabilizing the economic livelihood of campesinos (small-scale farmers).

Most of the pro-biotech editorials and articles conveniently ignore the fact that two Mexican governmental agencies, the National Commission on Biodiversity (Conabio) and the National Ecological Institute (INE), sampled indigenous corn from 20 communities in Oaxaca and 2 in Puebla (states in southern Mexico). They found that 95 percent of these communities had a 1 to 35 percent contamination rate. This means that between 1 percent and 35 percent of the indigenous kernels they sampled contained traces of DNA from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In total, 8 percent of the 1,876 of the seedlings they tested were polluted by GMOs. At the Biosafety Conference in The Hague at the end of April 2002, Jorge Soberon, director of Conabio, declared this genetic pollution as the worst case of GMO contamination in crops ever reported in the world.

Corn: The Life-force

The campesino lifestyle depends on corn, which provides their nutrition, economic livelihood, and the basis for many religious ceremonies. In order to ensure the continued existence of the corn, campesinos must disperse the seed. Without human intervention, the cob would fall on the ground and all the kernels would compete with each other. After a few generations the corn would no longer be able to reproduce. Mexican campesinos maintain current varieties and facilitate the evolution of new varieties. These new varieties will evolve only if farmers remain the stewards of corn and the protectors of biodiversity. There are over 20,000 varieties of corn in Mexico and Central America. In southern and central Mexico, approximately 5,000 varieties have been identified. In one village in Oaxaca, researchers found 17 different environments where 26 varieties of corn were growing. Each variety has evolved to adapt to elevation levels, soil acidity, sun exposure, soil type, and rainfall. When more varieties are grown in close proximity to each other, the corn is less vulnerable to insect and disease epidemics.

..more..

[Maple]

91. Corn, the Life Force?

Posted on Thu, Nov. 13, 2003

Ancient farmers practiced genetic manipulation in creating modern corn plant, study suggests


WASHINGTON (AP) - Ancient Americans were changing corn genes through selective breeding more than 4,000 years ago, according to researchers who say the modifications produced the large cobs and fat kernels that make corn one of humanity's most important foods.

In a study that compared the genes of corn cobs recovered in Mexico and the southwestern United States, researchers found that three key genetic variants were systematically enhanced, probably through selective cultivation, over thousands of years.

The technique was not as sophisticated as the methods used for modern genetically modified crops, but experts said in a study released Thursday that the general effect was the same: genetic traits were amplified or introduced to create plants with improved traits and greater yield.

``Civilization has been built on genetically modified plants,'' said Nina V. Fedoroff of Pennsylvania State University.

Science: www.sciencemag.org Early Allelic Selection in Maize as Revealed by Ancient DNA

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/special_packages/7255322.htm?1c

[Eloriel]

97. Please, don't purposely help obfuscate the problem

There is NO comparison between "selective cultivation (by farmers) over thousands of years" and the genetic modification being discussed here. The kind of genetic modification being discussed here can't even occur at all over thousands of years.

Of course, the fascist corporations that want to control the world's food supply are very HAPPY to have people confuse hybridization and breeding programs with genetic modification -- but it's a lie at least as egregious as Bush's confabulation that his privatization has anything to do with a Social Security "crisis." IT'S A LIE.

Quit spreading the LIE by posting this nonsense without appropriate disclaimer.

[DrWeird]

106. Of course there's a comparison.

They're both unnatural artificial manipulation of an organism's genome to produce a desired effect. There's only minor differences in the mechanism. Frankly, modern gene splicing techniques are just plain more effective.

The kind of genetic modification we're talking about here, i.e. the transfer of a gene from organism into a complete different organism occurs all the time in nature. And it's random. So if something bad were going to happen from this kind of genetic modification it's far more likely to occur naturally than artificially.

[skids]

54. Don't "feel." Think.

There's a plus and minus side to every technology.

More often than not, which side we see depends on who uses the technology. Right now, I'm not too sure about the ethics of the companies that are using this technology:

1) Suing farmers for using polinated seed that blew from neighboring fields for patent violations is pretty evil. Doesn't matter if the farmer knew, the pollen blew onto his land. It's the companies problem if their product propagates itself, not his.

2) Pursuing the "terminator" gene that would sterilize the crops of farmers worldwide (to prevent #1 above) who did not buy their seed from them is just downright evil.

3) Not studying health impacts of some of the modifications enough is negligent.

4) Not studying the impacts of cross-breeding with non-GM crops enough before proceeding to market the product is environmentally negligent.

The risk (actually, the reality) that these companies use their product in a way that allows them to control, manipulate, and otherwise mess with the world food market is not small, considering the lack of ethics they regularly display.

Now, as to the general concept, in the right hands, GM has a huge potential for good. I don't buy the "natural is good" argument and never have. I'd rather walk down a grocery store isle, pick a bottle of pills at random, and pop one then walk into the woods, pick a mushroom at random, and eat it. Though I realize that comparison is hardly fair.

Try to keep in mind that, at any given time, mother nature could throw us a curve ball and produce a mutant tomatoes that gives us alzheimers or something, and we'd not know for decades. All food needs testing, both for health dangers and health benefits. This is a matter for science, not reactionism. If we bothered to fund pure science in this country, and let companies focus on producing rather than researching, then we'd be getting somewhere.

And if we made an effort to promote a food marketplace that encourages a diverse, changing diet rather than making the junk food the only thing cheap enough to survive on for the financially constrained, then we'd be doing something.

So, singling out GM is just picking a scapegoat. Aim at the base of the flames.

[DrWeird]

59. That's not science, that's reactionism.

1) sure, that's evil, if it were true. It's not. See above.

2) terminator genes don't sterilize other people's wild type crops. Since terminator gene crops don't reproduce, they can't spread. That's exactly why terminator crops were studied. Irrelevant anyway, since it was discontinued years ago.

3) Sure. Yet effects are studied.

4) same as 3.

[skids]

100. I know I shouldn't bother.

But 1), I know the farmer did it intentionally. I still think it was his right to do so.

2) They are trying to revive the terminator gene as we speak. And some of the techniques do sterilize neighboring crops: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NewTerminatorCrops.php

3) and 4) Not enough, and moreover, given what these comapnies have done in the past, with these products and others, I don't trust them to be the ones to do the studying.

Obviously you have a vested interest in this. Otherwise you'd treat this more even-handedly.

[Pepperbelly]

60. but if you do something like breed herbicide resistence into the crop

plants and then they cross breed with other plants, is it possible to cause herbicide resistent weeds?

[DrWeird]

70. herbicide resistant weeds are natural.

That's were scientists got the genes in the first place to put into crops.

[Pepperbelly]

79. I figured from salamanders maybe ...

:D

And I still hate those fucking big red mushy tomatoes that they grow in the winter time. :evilgrin:

[chlamor]

56. Horizontal Gene Transfer is a Danger-Small Farmers Will be Hurt

This is my first post and i hope it works out. There is a lot to consider with GMO's and most of the promises have been disproved it seems. There has been an incredible PR campaign with this also, carried out mostly by Hill and Knowlton a giant PR firm hired by Monsanto. If I remember right there was a veritable revolving door with the government, Monsanto and PR companies. Maybe someone has some info on this. Here's more from some pretty reliable sources. I also think that Puztai who taught at the Rowett Institute in Scotland was pushed out when he went public with his studies and it was discovered that Monsanto was contributing greatly to that Institute. here is some more info to consider:
"Molecular biologist Angela Ryan of the Open University cites evidence from a report commissioned by the Norwegian government into the risks of GMOs. The report explains that genetic engineering uses "vectors" which ferry the introduced gene into the host organism. These vectors are constructed from genetic parasites and viruses which are designed to cross species boundaries and ecological barriers. Many of them are able to invade and insert their DNA (genetic code) into the genetic material of any kind of cell - plant, animal, or human. As the vectors travel between different hosts, they may be able to pick up and transfer genes from, say, animals to humans. Disease-causing viruses may result that jump between species; genetic rearrangements and mutations may arise with unpredictable results. Most vectors also carry antibiotic resistance genes, which can leak out into the environment - possibly hastening the spread of antibiotic-resistant diseases."
http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/MaeWan/maewan_4.html

LOWER YIELDS

The University of Nebraska recorded yields for Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM maize that were 6-11 per cent less than those for non-GM soya varieties. A 1998 study of over 8,000 field trials found that Roundup Ready soya seeds produced between 6.7 and 10 per cent fewer bushels of soya than conventional varieties.

Trials by the UK's National Institute of Agricultural Botany showed yields of GM oilseed rape and sugar beet that were 5-8 per cent less than conventional varieties.


INCREASED USE OF HERBICIDES

The proponents of GM argue that the technology will lead to a reduction in the use of chemical weedkillers. But for the majority of GM crops grown so far, the evidence does not bear this out.

Four years worth of data from the US Department of Agriculture shows herbicide use on Roundup Ready soya beans is increasing.

In 1998 total herbicide use on GM soya beans in six US states was 30 per cent greater on average than on conventional varieties.

The Soil Association's US investigation found that `the use of GM crops is resulting in a reversion to the use of older, more toxic compounds' such as the herbicide paraquat.

The Delhi-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology found in a study of four Indian states that `not only did Monsanto's Bt cotton not protect plants from the American bollworm, but there was an increase of 250-300 per cent in attacks by non-target pests like jassids, aphids, white fly and thrips'. And researchers at Cornell University in the US found that the pollen from Bt corn was poisonous to the larvae of monarch butterflies.

5 GM CROPS WILL NOT FEED THE POOR

The idea that GM will end global poverty is probably the biggest of all the GM apologists' lies - the one used to accuse anti-GM campaigners in rich countries of not caring about the Third World. The truth is that the introduction of GM crops into the developing world will result in decreased yields, crop failures and the impoverishment of literally billions of small farmers.

DECREASED YIELDS

As already statedon page 36, there is no evidence that genetic modification increases yields. But, just to make the point, consider the following:

1- a US Department of Agriculture report published in May 2002 concluded that net yields of herbicide-tolerant soya bean were no higher than those of non-GM soya, and that yields of pest-resistant corn were actually lower than those of non-GM corn;

2- in September 2001, the state court of Mississippi ruled that a Monsanto subsidiary's `high-yielding' GM soya seeds were responsible for reduced yields obtained by Mississippi farmer Newell Simrall; the farmer was awarded damages of $165,742.


THE RUIN OF SMALL FARMERS

GM would force the two billion people who manage the developing world's small family farms to stop their age-old practice of saving seeds. Each year they will have to buy expensive seeds and chemicals instead. The experience of North American farmers shows that GM seeds cost up to 40 per cent more than non-GM varieties.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=432&category=32

[Hell in a Handbasket]

64. that's a hell of a first post...

i think my first was something to the effect of 'yeah, that's a good idea'.:hi:

[G_j]

74. thanks, this is well stated

"As the vectors travel between different hosts, they may be able to pick up and transfer genes from, say, animals to humans. Disease-causing viruses may result that jump between species; genetic rearrangements and mutations may arise with unpredictable results. Most vectors also carry antibiotic resistance genes, which can leak out into the environment - possibly hastening the spread of antibiotic-resistant diseases.""

..I think we're in over our heads here

[Angry Girl]

83. Great post! Welcome to DU!

Yeah, the "feed the poor" excuse bugs me the most. As if we couldn't do that right NOW, without GM food.

It's all about greed.... *sigh*

[superconnected]

135. the gm crops most often yield 1/4 to 1/3 less crops than non gm

They've failed to meet the three things they promised,

more crop, less pesticide and more nutritious.

[Djinn]

84. welcome to DU chlamor

and I'm with Hell in a handbasket - that's a fair first post - mine was probably "yeah me too"

For me the sticking points are that the benefits when checked independantly do not actually exist (or not to anywhere near promised levels), that companies who've already shown they have the social conscience of a dog caught short on a croquet lawn (who can tell I'm reading Stark for the 100th time) have control over it and the idea of companies owning patents not over simply PACKAGED food but seeds and the cycle of natural growth.

It's that fool me once thing - I'm not stupid enough to be fooled by them again

[Eloriel]

98. Thanks you, thank you, and WELCOME TO DU!!

And yes, it is a helluva first post. ;-)

[Democrat Dragon]

71. They're okay as long as

they don't add excessive nutrients to them. Ever heard of Vitamin C and Potassium poisoning?

and genetically modified food and animals should be contained to prevent them from leaking into the ecosystem.

[superconnected]

75. I don't have time to write a rant, but my answer is, I feel very bad

the people here should read up on franken foods and Monsanto.

[Angry Girl]

88. Funny how science is wrong when it comes to evolution and

global warming, but science is right when it pertains to GM food....

Also, it's interesting to note that the majority of the information I've found about GM food are from UK websites. The US websites are in the clear minority, almost as if this wasn't a huge issue....

There's lots of others (and Mother Jones at http://www.motherjones.com covers the GM angle quite often) but I like this site:

http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Bits/home.html

Don't forget to see these:
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/21.html

The Bush Administration, on behalf of the biotech industry, intends to force the European Union (EU) to drop trade barriers against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Their claim is that such a trade barrier is illegal under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and that the distribution of GMOs is a necessary part of the campaign to end world hunger. However, the reason behind U.S. governmental support for GMOs may have more to do with heavy lobbying, campaign contributions and the close relationships between government agencies and biotech companies than actual science and the war against hunger.
....
he person who wrote the GMO regulations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was a lawyer who “previously” represented biotech-giant Monsanto. After writing the FDA legislation, the lawyer returned to work for Monsanto.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2003/20.html

Scientists working for Swiss food giant Novartis have developed and patented a method for 'switching off' the immune systems of plants, to the outrage of environmentalists and Third World charities who believe the new technology to be the most dangerous use so far of gene modification.

[LSdemocrat]

86. The problem isn't the food, its how the seeds are marketed

Genetically modified seed makers, notably Monsanto, patent their seeds and forbid farmers from saving seeds for future years, requiring that they pay high monopolistic prices year after year for the crops, which offsets the benefits in terms of nutrition and pest resistance.

Genetically modified foods themselves are fine.

[Karenina]

116. Monsanto has taken over Iraq.

Iraqi farmers forced to buy seeds from Monsanto, must discard their own seeds

uploaded 27 Nov2004


Iraqi Farmers Aren't Celebrating World Food Day
Nov11 , 2004

As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations — including seeds the Iraqis themselves developed over hundreds of years. That is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. In a short time, Iraq will be living under the new American credo: Pay Monsanto, or starve.

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=10464&TagID=2

[superconnected]

133. gm foods are less nutritious and require up to 6 times the

pesticide amount.

When they were initially introduced they were toted as going to have far more nutrients, but they never met that claim. Instead studies have shown the vegetables to be less nutritious than non-gm vegetables.

One of the big things about gm crops is they require at least 3 times the amount of pesticides and sometime up to 6, which is interesting since the main companies fighting for GM foods are pesticide manufacturers.

The crops were also toted as requring less pesticides in the beginning, but that fell flat and many studies now say they not only require at least 3 times the amount, but that, that is going up as the pests are quickly growing immune to the pesticides.

[Vadem]

89. I say "Screw em!" What do we need them for? Regularly grown...

foods seem to be healthy and work, so why in the hell do we need genetically modified foods???????? They probably cause cancer and other horrid diseases!

[chlamor]

95. GMO's The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge

I hope this post isn't too long, but I think this article linked below, written by Vandana Shiva is relevant to this discussion. She wrote an amazing and thin book titled , Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. It explained alot of this stuff so the lay person could cut through the PR. Here is some of what she says: "Since the beginning of farming, farmers have sown seeds, harvested crops, saved part of the harvest for seeds, exchanged seeds with neighbours. Every ritual in India involves seeds, the very symbol of life’s renewal."
and this:
"In 2004 two laws have been proposed – a seed Act and a Patent Ordinance which could forever destroy the biodiversity of our seeds and crops, and rob farmers of all freedoms, establishing a seed dictatorship.
New IPR laws are creating monopolies over seeds and plant genetic resources. Seed saving and seed exchange, basic freedoms of farmers, are being redefined. There are many examples of how Seed Acts in various countries and the introduction of IPRs prevent farmers from engaging in their own seed production.
Under pressure from World Bank the Seed Policy of 1988 started to dismantle our robust public sector seed supply system, which accounted for 20% of the seeds farmers grow. Eighty per cent of the seed prior to globalisation is the farmers’ own varieties, which have been saved, exchanged and reproduced freely and have guaranteed our food security.
Further the compulsory registration of seed combined with the power of seed inspectors to enter and search premises (which now mean farmers’ huts and fields), the power to break open any container and any door is tantamount to creating a ‘Seed Police’ to terrorize farmers who are conserving biodiversity and practicing a sovereign self-reliant agriculture.
The 2004 Seed Act has nothing positive to offer to farmers of India but offer a promise of a monopoly to private seed industries, which has already pushed thousands of our farmers to suicide through dependency and debt caused by unreliable, high dependency and non-renewable seeds."

"As Monsanto had a hand in drafting the TRIPS agreement, it is not surprising that the Monsanto Amendments have also made their way into India’s patent laws."

"As Monsanto had a hand in drafting the TRIPS agreement, it is not surprising that the Monsanto Amendments have also made their way into India’s patent laws."

"To prevent competitors from selling seeds and to prevent farmers from saving seeds, Monsanto has now turned to the patent laws to get monopoly rights. The Monsanto Amendments of India's patent laws are a logical consequence of the clearance for the commercial planting of GMOs in Indian agriculture, as we saw earlier with the March 26th decision of the Indian government to allow Bt. cotton".

"Patents on seeds are a necessary aspect of the corporate deployment of GM seeds and crops. When combined with the ecological risks of genetically engineered seeds like Bt. cotton, seed patents create a context of total control over the seed sector, and hence over our food and agricultural security
IPRs are a significant instrument for the establishment of this TNC totalitarianism." Read the entire article at:
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7249§ionID=56

[rman]

114. one word: "Monsanto"

Aside from possible health- and environmental issues (and aside from the fact that "selection" as we've been doing for ages isn't the same as "engineering"), there's the issue of corporations claiming certain genes (both engineered and non-engineered) as intellectual property, which is then used to monopolize the food market (google: monsanto GE, also google: monsanto GE iraq). Monsanto is a prime example of such a corporation (where GE isn't the only case where Monsanto is engaging in foul play - google: monsanto milk).

[EFerrari]

115. Does that require actual cooking or can I just nuke it? n/t

[Mr.Green93]

117. Gregor Mendel is a Food Criminal

Don't eat those peas.

[Mother Jones]

120. The bio-tech industry has NO business controlling the worlds food supply

Not to mention that this crap isn't properly tested before being force-fed to us.

Greenpeace has alot of info for you on the subject. The little research that has been done has shown Monarch butterflies are dying and/or becoming sterile by living off GMO corn fields.

Support organic growers and protest GMOs with your $$.

[cattleman22]

121. GMO foods are the most thorougly tested foods in history

No other foods have had as much scientific testing as have these foods.

[chlamor]

122. Please Post Results of Tests You Know About

There have been some tests with problems shown in virtually every instance. Another problem is that the tests are often done by the manufacturers/promoters of GMO's rather than by an independent scientific body. One of the big sticking points is that the test results, if the tests are even being done, are claimed to be "proprietary information" and unavailable for public scrutiny.

[rman]

137. also the most exploited

forcing GE seeds on 3rd world farmers who are no longer allowed to save seeds for the next season.

[AngryAmish]

123. A great boon for mankind

Many so-called enviromentalists make amazingly racist remarks about this subject.

[LeftyMom]

132. I worry about the loss of biodiversity

and strains that can be grown in traditional methods. Without oil we won't be able to keep up the current industrial agriculture system and we'll need many varieties of seeds that do well in different soil types and climates. If things keep up we'll have lost many varieties of corn and canola to genetic contamination from crossbreeding with windblown GMO varieties.

It really sucks for farmers who lose thier organic certification due to gene contamination from upwind GMO fields, which is a big problem with corn in the states and canola in parts of canada. Ancient varieties of corn grown in rural mexico are contaminated even though it's illegal to grow GMO crops there, so the government has to destroy fields to keep the contamination from spreading. All so Monsanto can sell more Roundup.

[Silverhair]

136. Are all you anti-GMers also against my insulin?

Granted, my insulin is not a food, but I do put it into my body by injection. Without it I would already be dead. Do you want me to be dead so you can have a feeling of being at one with nature?

For those who are not aware, until GM came along, diabetics had to inject pig insulin, which was very expensive due to the short suppy of it. Then a bacteria, (Or was it a yeast? I don't feel like googling at the moment.)was modified by putting a human gene into it so that the bacteria now produced human insulin.

Yes, a corp has a patent on that new life form, but I don't mind. They have cheap insuling available and thereby prolonged the lives of millions of diabetics.

So, should I give up insulin because it is from a GM source?

You can guess what my answer is!

[superconnected]

146. perhaps if you knew more about gm

I'm sure your insulin is fine. However the curruption in our food supply may not be okay.

There's more depth to it than you seem willing to look at.

[sendero]

150. Pulhease..

.... my wife is an insulin-dependent diabetic since childhood. Comparing the use of genetic engineering for the creation of drugs and foods is ridiculous.

GE was required to create/manufacture certain drugs, in foods it provides only a small marginal increase in production along with almost incalculable risks.

Foods containing GM product should have to be labelled as such, I have every right to decide if I wish to eat them or not. As usual, the Right Wing who claims the Free Market will make the best decisions has their heads up their hypocritical asses on this issue as on many others.

[superconnected]

145. terrific link on GM

http://community-2.webtv.net/essentialhealth/BIOTECHNOLOGY/

[sendero]

149. I think they are a solution..

.... looking for a problem - and that in the long term they are going to cause more problems than they solve.

[MHalblaub]

151. America first!

We will wait and see what happens on the big test side called American.
Many thanks from Europe!

Bye the way. In Germany a farmer can sue surrounding farmers for using GM food when plants with this modifications are found on his field.