Damning Verdict on GM Crop (World's Most Comprehensive Field Trial)

[chlamor]

Damning verdict on GM crop

Final report on world's most comprehensive field trials says oil seed rape varieties would harm wildlife and environment

Paul Brown and David Gow
Tuesday March 22, 2005
The Guardian

The long-awaited final results of the GM trials for Britain's biggest crop, winter oil seed rape, show that wildlife and the environment would suffer if the crop was grown in the UK, in effect ending the biotech industry's hopes of introducing GM varieties in the foreseeable future.

The government, which has been keen to introduce GM crops, now has the results of the world's most comprehensive crop study, demonstrating that the GM varieties currently on offer would be detrimental to the countryside. Bayer CropScience, the company that owns the patent on the GM oil seed rape being tested, said afterwards that it was not going ahead with its application to grow the crop in Europe.

<snip>

Yesterday's results were particularly significant because winter-grown oil seed rape occupies 330,000 hectares (815,000 acres) of British fields and is the largest single crop, and the one from which farmers make most money. The main finding was that broadleaf weeds, such as chickweed, on which birds rely heavily for food, were far less numerous in GM fields than conventional fields. Some of the grass weeds were more numerous, although this had less direct benefit for wildlife and affected the quality of the crops.


<snip>

Les Firbank, who was in charge of the trials, said: "These weeds are effectively the bottom of the food chain, so the seeds they produce are vital for farmland birds, which are already in decline. There were also fewer bees and butterflies in the GM crops. All the evidence is that it is the herbicide that makes the difference to the wildlife." Mark Avery, of the RSPB, said: "Six years ago, before the farm-scale trials, we were told that GM crops were good for wildlife and good for farmers' profits. Now, against all expectations, we are told they are bad for both. It is bad news for the biotech industry."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1443004,00.html

[drthais]

1. okthis drives me nutz

it is not 'oil seed rape'
it is RAPE SEED OIL!!!!!

good grief!

[enki23]

10. probably best just to call it canola

.

[sandnsea]

12. Thank you

That does make more sense. I've never heard of either, but 'oil seed rape' just didn't sound right at all.

[Mairead]

16. I don't think that's quite true

The oil is rape-seed oil, but the plant is oil-seed rape.

[hootinholler]

17. The oil is rape seed oil, but, in this case

They are speaking of the rape plant itself, being grown for the oil market, so it's proper to state it that way. Just as you can grow corn for oil, those fields can be said to be planted with oil seed corn. It sounds funny, but it's proper. Dropping oil from it makes it sound less funny.

-Hoot

[daleo]

2. They tested it first? How novel.

"Six years ago, before the farm-scale trials, we were told that GM crops were good for wildlife and good for farmers' profits. Now, against all expectations, we are told they are bad for both. It is bad news for the biotech industry."

Actually, I believe this finding (bad for farmers as well as the environment) has been reproduced in other places.

[DemBones DemBones]

46. See my posts 43, 44, 45. nt

[jimmy47nyc]

3. I cant understand why,

hemp is not grown abuntantly.There are many uses for hemp,fabrics paper ethanol fuels.Hemp needs no pest/herbicides.Grows anywhere,needs no special care,has been a staple product since George Washington.The oil and paper industry saw hemp as a competitor and in 1937 became illegal under"the MARIJUANA TAX ACT" of 1937.In spite of the ban during WW2 our government urged farmers to grow hemp on hundreds of thousands of acres.Hemp was truly an unsung hero of WW2.Many raw materials badly needed were grown from a renewable source.We could again have renewable products enviornmentally friendly fuels.Any discussions?

"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere",George Washington 1794':smoke: :smoke: :thumbsup: :hi: :dem:

[jbnow]

15. Don't get me going

The hemp issue drives me nuts. Better put it makes me realize the government is nuts. We have this renewable crop that doesn't deplete the soil or need poisons to grow. Besides the fabric, paper and fabric you mention it can also be made into construction material and the nutritional value is astounding.

For nutrition alone it would be worth cultivating...the perfect ratio of Essential Fatty Acids, digestible edistin protein, vitamins, especially E... You can get it in cereal and spreads in the rest of the world and here any under bush it's become illegal to even have on chap-stick!

It would be worth it for construction materials alone as well! It is stronger, insect resistant, waterproof, non-flammable. It can be press or particleboard, concrete,can be roofing, insulation, carpet.
The strength and flexibility makes it a great choice, the best choice, for disaster prone areas that have earthquakes or hurricanes.

Stronger, more lasting paper and fabric and all those things you know.

Gee, maybe they don't know the poison cotton growing is to the environment or that trees take a long time to grow or that developing brains actually need EFA's. It has to be the industries they are protecting. People aren't going to grow pot to smoke in the middle of hemp fields unless they are more stupid then bush, you don't want to cross pollinate with industrial hemp, you won't get high.

It is truly unbelievable that we ignore this amazing natural resource. bush is indifferent to the environment and supports big corporations and all, but what was Clinton's excuse?

As far as that goes what is the nation's excuse? It seems like if they really understood the difference it makes we'd rise up and insist on it. But then I don't do anything about it either except complain fiercely when the subject comes up.

[LiberallyInclined]

24. Industrial Hemp could eradicate outdoor marijuana cultivation...

Hemp can be grown outdoors in all 50 states- If industrial hemp were added to crop rotations across the country, the pollen it put into the air would endup denegrating most attempts at outdoor pot growing...

PLUS-
it would reduce the amount of pesticides and fertilizers that need to be used(both of which are petroleum derivitaves) and it would save fuel used to drive farm vehicles- because of it's root system, less deep-tilling would be necessary.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Great news when least expected! This is simply the best. Thanks, chlamor.

Hope it's not too late to start reversing the damage done here, once we get a mentally healthy, responsible Democrat in the White House, or a majority in Congress, or some damned thing!

Welcome to D.U. to jimmy47nyc. :hi: :hi: :hi:

[jimmy47nyc]

Judi...

thank you for the welcome.I am an avid pot smoker who is well aware of the many uses for HEMP.For 159 years Hemp was King but big corporations,Paper and Oil saw the potential competition from legal HEMP and in the dark of night,slipped into an omnibus bill were provisions for outlawing marijuana,"the Marijuana Tax Act" of 1937.Four years later government relaxed those laws because of the many products created from HEMP which were badly needed for the war effort.
Marijuana buds would be the gravy of legalizing HEMP.High Times magazine estimates their are 30 million smokers in this country.In addition legal weed would create 1,000,000 badly needed jobs with the promise of millions of more jobs with creative entrepreneur es.Our government is out of step with this issue.
Judi,again i say thanks for the welcome.....
:hi: :hi: :hi: :Dem: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :loveya:

[canberra]

5. am I missing something?

but I don't get what is so damning here.

It says the GM crops use less herbicide, and there are less weeds in the GM fields. Isn't this a good thing?

So there are fewer butterflies in the GM crops - doesn't this also therefore mean fewer caterpillars eating the crops?

[Psephos]

6. No complex story has only one side

Any time a new variable is introduced into a complex system, there will be myriad effects. Some good, some bad; judgment of what's good or bad depends on who's passing judgment. GM crops are a new variable in the agriculture system, and seem to generate a lot of belief-based, rather than evidence-based, commentary.

Here's a shortcut to figuring out whether someone's argument is based on belief or evidence: they ridicule you if you dare ask any questions, and they adamantly believe there is only one side to the story.

"Golden rice", a GM version of rice that produces vitamin A, can cut millions (not an exaggerration) of childhood blindness cases in rice-dependent populations. Some versions of GM corn express the natural insecticide BT (from Bacillus thuringiensis), the choice of organic farmers. Weevil- and drought-resistant GM cotton has almost doubled the income of small farmers in China and South Africa. In general, GM crops require fewer chemicals be applied to the field, and that the field need not be plowed so often, which cuts CO2 emissions from aerobic soil organisms. Proteins containing essential amino acids can be coaxed from food plants that normally produce none. Etc., etc.

Yet, GM crops are no panacea. Engineering and testing them is expensive and time-consuming. Furthermore, the record of human-injected change into natural systems is spotty, to say the least. (Not that farm monoculture is much of a natural system, anyway, but I digress.) One must only think of the cane toad problem in Australia for a handy example of the Law of Unintended Consequences in action. The notion that we may inadvertently do something unexpected and even catastrophic through genetic modification can not be ruled out, despite the rigorous gauntlet of testing new GM varieties go through before being approved for market.

That said, there's no evidence in any peer-reviewed study so far that shows direct human harm from GM crops. None. OTOH, there's a hell of a lot of evidence of good. Not the least of which are the literally millions of lives at stake. The Frankenfood scare mob wants it both ways: they urge us to cut world hunger, but insist we feed today's (and tomorrow's) populations with yesterday's technologies. I look at some of yesterday's technologies - heavily dependent on chemicals and environmentally-unfriendly techniques - and find the risks of GM to be probably worth the rewards.

This is, of course, only my opinion. There are two sides to this story, and one must hear and weigh the risks and rewards of both sides to make the best judgment.

Peace.

[Silverhair]

7. Excellent Post!!!!

Informative and very well reasoned.

[canberra]

8. thanks

Good analysis, I agree with you.

We need to carefully test GMOs but decisions should be based on the science, not on ideology.

[Nadienne]

9. I have only one problem with GMs

or maybe it's really a problem with Monsanto: Genetic diversity. Natural seeds have different genes. Let's say some corn-destroying insect moves into corn-land. GMOs are all the same; they will all get destroyed. Non-modified, genetically diversified corn is not all the same. Some of the crops can be salvaged and, if not sold as grain, collected as seeds for next years' crop. Monsanto will have to test and research and re-invent the wheel.

Maybe if Monsanto did things differently... It would be a pity to have centuries of evolution erased so that Monsanto could have its monopoly.

[KittyWampus]

42. You Hit The Nail Headon. GM's Are Attempts At "Master Race" Plants

essentially, hyper-control of Nature removes Nature's capacity to adjust in times of need.

[depakid]

11. Well, that's mumbo jumbo

The bottom line here is there ARE NOT two equal sides to every story-

(universal health care vis a vis the fragmented US system was where you made that argument before- and didn't get satisfactory results).

And even where there are two or more sides, when complicated systems are at play, where threshold effects and unforeseen interactions can throw ecosystems into disequilibrium (from which they may NEVER recover) the SMART approach is to apply the precautionary principle- and use known safe alternatives, rather than get greedy and try to squeeze that last drop of marginal revenue out of the equation.

You don't say (like industry insists to protect its profits) that scientific uncertainty means you can't take management actions (like alternatives assessment) to stop potential hazards from proliferating (and GM crops could be a major hazard- and the magnitude of the risk to ecosystems AND the human food supply is so immense that it can't be understated).

That's just inviting disaster.

Once certain thresholds are crossed- or once these genes have proliferated- and plants can and do cross pollinate broadly among families, it's too late- the damage is done- and as often as not- it's irreversible. You can see the results of that type of decision by looking at what happens with invasive species.

Just think what would have happened if we listened to Monsanto and terminator genes had broken out (and they would have).

You are also being disingenuous when you state that "no evidence in any peer-reviewed study that shows direct human harm from GM crops."

TAs you may know, this statement is commonly cited by industry groups looking to capture the global food market through the aggressive use of intellectual property laws- these aren't people out there trying to fight famine with by breeding super grains like triticale or promote nutritious, native crops like amaranth or quinoa. That's not their primary motive.

However- BE WARY- that statement- even if it were true wouldn't 'prove' that GM foods are safe (many probably AREN'T SAFE).

All it shows is the difficulty inherent in designing good and ETHICAL studies of human exposures to potentially harmful substances in food crops. (some of the same difficulties arise in studying exposure to harmful household chemicals and pesticides).

Plenty of scientific studies exist and (as the poster may or may not be aware) a good many of them were reviewed by Pustzai in a famous 2001 article in the journal Science, excerpted here: Here

Pustzai et al. have an updated paper online, for anyone who's interested:

Genetically Modifies Foods: Potential Human Health Effects

In addition, here's a response to the above comment on beliefs- some beliefs are true- because they've been tested and replicated. Over and over. Stating that there are "two sides to the story" is exactly what Krugman notes that the media does constantly when it's whoring:

"If the administration said the Earth was flat, the headlines would say 'Shape of the Earth: Views Differ."

All that does is lend credence to absurdity- and IMHO, the BIGGEST problem in the US today is that people aren't publicly riduculed for saying making preposterous or downright dishonest statements.

Even in cases where there is some uncertainty- it doesn't make any sense at all to give equal weight to "both sides," especially if one side's position comes with potential for great harm.

If one approach (or chemical use) is known to be reasonably safe- and another, new one may not be the odds are that bad things will happen.

And- as many know- that's the current regulatory structure in the US- and that's why people get poisoned by chemicals (that later on have their registrations pulled) -but only AFTER they have killed, maimed and caused birth defects.

In the case of oil seed rape- which is what the Guardian is talking about, this plant is a Brassica- it interbreeds with wild mustards and all sorts of plants on English farms. No telling what that will do- plus, researchers will tell you that GM tend to show increased promicuity- so even the expected effects seen in one or two generations may amplify dramatically over the years- yet another reason why the appying precautionary principle makes sense- and the other side of the story- going forward come hell or high water- is asking for trouble.

[sandnsea]

14. Good post too

"In addition, here's a response to the above comment on beliefs- some beliefs are true- because they've been tested and replicated. Over and over. Stating that there are "two sides to the story" is exactly what Krugman notes that the media does constantly when it's whoring:

"If the administration said the Earth was flat, the headlines would say 'Shape of the Earth: Views Differ."

So true. Or they have somebody on representing a view of 5% of the people and present it in an equal time manner.

We're going to be sorry about these GM crops I think. I read a piece about the natural corn in Mexico and how important it is for finding cures to disease. And that GM seeds had gotten down there. Playing around with our food source is just asking for trouble, not to mention corporate control.

[NickB79]

26. How exactly would a terminator gene have "broken out"?

"Just think what would have happened if we listened to Monsanto and terminator genes had broken out (and they would have)."

Um, if the gene renders the seed sterile, how does it "break out" and spread? The plant is incapable of reproduction. I haven't see my neutered and spayed cats "breaking out" and having litters of kittens, either with themselves or other cats.

[NickB79]

27. Dupe

nt

[Psephos]

48. Very helpful post

You've provided a nearly perfect example of what I was talking about.

On an earlier response to me (on the health care thread you mentioned) you appeared out of the blue to denounce me as a "flat Earther looking for evidence so OBVIOUS to anyone who's EVER studied the matter that it's like proving the Earth is round!" (Your punctuation.) I didn't even state an opinion there. I had only asked for information sources.

This time, however, I do have an opinion.

When I post, I am sincerely glad to hear different points of view, to argue the finer points of an issue, to be exposed to different ways of thinking...and to defend what I believe. One thing I am not glad to hear is sneering, belittlement, or people putting words in my mouth, and then reacting as though I said them.

"Wrongs are often forgiven, but contempt never is. Our pride remembers it forever."
- Lord Chesterfield

I'm calling you out, Depakid. Argue passionately, but argue against ideas, and not the people who have them. I've seen several instances where you were mean and dismissive to people you disagree with, and I'm not just talking about on this thread.

I agree with many of your points here. But your ability to persuade me is hampered when you pretend there are no counterarguments.

The whole point of my post was to say there are good arguments on both sides, and cite a few examples informally. I even cited the "invasive species" example of the Australian Cane Toads, but you blew right past that, along with the other arguments I cited against GM, and then went on to talk about the problem of invasive species. Did you even read what I posted? You responded as though I had written a passionate polemic solely in favor of GM. You go on to say that only evil corporations are conducting studies on GM, and that the reason there are no studies showing human harm is because said corporations are suppressing the literature. That's not true. I have friends at Michigan State who are conducting exactly that kind of research, under an NSF grant, and similar work is going on at ag colleges across the country. Corporations do not control peer-reviewed journals. Scientists control them, and most of them are published by university presses or nonprofit science organizations.

I have cautiously concluded that GM is probably worth the risk, but I made sure to state that as an opinion. Others, who weigh the risks differently, or who consider the potential alleviation of hunger or poverty less convincing, might reach different conclusions. I respect that. As long as they offer those conclusions back to me civilly, I might even abandon my conclusions and be convinced of theirs. Which, as I recall, is the whole friggin' point of being in a discussion forum in the first place.

If you let your politics decide your science, complex issues melt into simplicity. Belief-based judgment does not require the corroboration of evidence; instead, it acts as a filter for evidence, admitting all that fits, and blocking all that doesn't. Does anyone recall the story of the Soviet biologist Lysenko, who allowed his political belief in the inheritability of acquired characteristics to filter his science? Literally hundreds of thousands of people died, and many more were made miserable, by the failures his "science" brought to Soviet agriculture. Depakid does not think there are two sides to this story because s/he is blocked by beliefs from seeing critical evidence. You don't have to be a Jeebus freak to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is all about having a text that tells you in advance all that's true, and all that isn't.

"He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak."
- Michel De Montaigne

Yes, there's a good chance that GM will create problems...maybe a very good chance, maybe not. We have some techniques of assigning a number to those risks, and should do so. Nuclear power creates lots of problems, too, but nowadays those problems look more manageable compared to burning more and more oil and coal, and heating up the atmosphere. Nothing is without its tradeoffs.

We had a choice in November between a candidate who puts beliefs ahead of evidence, and one who values pragmatism. One who sees the world in black and white, with only one side to the story, and one who sees the shades of gray, and more than one side to the story.

Seeing more sides to the story is not the same as giving equal weight to different points of view. That's a straw man ten feet tall. The Krugman example is unintentionally ironic, because, although I usually side with Krugman, one thing bothers me: I can tell you in advance of reading his column exactly what his positions will be. He is so predictable that I can't cut him as much credibility as I'd like. Economics is known as the "dismal science" for a reason. Of all the quantitative sciences, it has the lowest prediction reliability rate. In short: its theories need a lot of work, because they can't predict the future (or even the past) very well at all. The fundamental principle of a scientific theory is: can it predict results, and can it be repeated with the same results? So, in this notoriously unreliable science, Krugman always has the right and only point of view? Would that it were so...but then, he wouldn't be a newspaper columnist any more, would he? Yes, I love him. But I love him more than I trust him.

Others who are interested in the phenomenon of the fundamentalist approach to comprehending the world might find value in a little book by longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer (he was reliably left, by the way). It's called The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. A more recent work worth looking at (no, make that: full of dazzling revelations) is Daniel Goleman's Vital Lies, Simple Truths. If you've ever wondered how and why belief systems interfere with comprehending reality, you will love this book. This doesn't apply just to the external world, but the internal world where we fool ourselves, and fool ourselves again. Think about some of the more painful episodes of your own love life...or the difference between how you saw the world at 20 and how you see it now. (BTW, Goleman's the same guy who later wrote Emotional Intelligence - another fascinating and insightful book.)

To be a progressive requires that we progress.

Peace.

[recidivist]

13. Well said.

I am always baffled (and often irritated) by people who launch into overheated polemics without stopping to at least acknowledge the points made on the other side.

For example, if you are going to get indignant about urban sprawl or the stagnation of wages on the lower rungs of the U.S. economic ladder, you are logically compelled to at least address the question of immigration, which drives both problems. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about the answer, but you do have to at least address the question if you want to be anything more than a ranting loon.

By the same token, many (probably most) of the people who get indignant about GM foods will also, in the blink of an eye, tell you that we should reduce fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide use. Those are major bioag goals, but the critics won't connect the dots. And it gets worse: many of the critics seem to prefer watching poor people in Africa starve to allowing them to be "tainted" by consuming an engineered food crop. And this is supposed to be the "progressive" position? I don't think so.

[hootinholler]

19. On the less pesticide issue,

Have you heard of "round-up ready" corn? It's GM and in wide planting in the US. The drill is to spray a field with round-up, killing all plants and then plant the corn with a seed drill. The corn grows because it's modified to tolerate the round-up herbicide. Two obvious benefits are reduced erosion (no tilling), and cleaner product (especially silage).

Anecdotally, as a hunter, I've watched the pheasant population plummet since the introduction of this technique. Granted the ring-neck pheasant is a transplanted specie (native to China, tasty and fun to hunt), but if it has this effect on them, what about quail, dove and rabbits? What about other non-sport specie (song-birds, etc)?

One of the major problems noted in GM rape plants is the cross-polination of natural varieties, which has been observed at least in Canadian trials. The long term effects of this is not currently quantifiable, which in my mind argues for maybe this ain't such a great idea until we know more.

-Hoot

[PaulaFarrell]

22. has that 'golden rice' even been brought into production yet?

Like you say, there's two sides to every story. The opposite to the story of this wonderful rice is that it has taken millions of dollars to develop which could be spent right now giving vitamin A to at-risk children. What's more the reason they are so at risk is due to dreadful malnutrition, and I have read that only a handful of yams is all that's needed daily to prevent Vitamin-A deficiency blindness. Basically, children in many parts of the world live on a diet of rice. What's really needed is education (regarding nutrition and the way to grow vitamin crops) and availability of fresh fruit and vegetables - somthing that will only diminish if large-scale use of this rice drives even more subsistence farmers off the land (GM crops aren't cheap). Plus even if the perfect food could be concocted, is it really right that children all over the world are surviving daily on rice, just rice? This solution doesn't address the basic issue of malnutrition, but, at great cost, works on ONE of the symptoms.

The children would still need to synthesize the vitamin A from the rice, which they would be able to do only poorly when suffering from malnutrition (sorry, no details on this, I'm at work at the moment, but I do have an article about it at home), so the rice might not even work for the most malnourished.

As for the lack of published data on human health risks - this is generally because it is the biotech companies doing the testing, and they are known to suppress studies with results they don't like. If they had found negative results, I'm sure we wouldn't know about them. The few EPA studies done are small-scale and based on the assumption that, no matter what sort of genes are inserted, the plant is still exactly the same (they seem to want it both ways). There has been at least one batch of fatalities involving GM tryptophan from Japan. It may be that the crops in existence are all safe, but as the biotechers experiment with more and more combinations, it's almost inevitable that human reactions will occur. There have already been experiments transferring gens from nuts to other plants, which could trigger nut allergies in unsuspecting people. Yet there is no mechanism in place to ensure adequate testing of GM crops on both people and th environment. Basically, we are living in a giant experiment without even being consulted about it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

33. You are

absolutely right. I have never *ever* read such shameless bullshit on any thread, and so pompously peddled, as I have have on this thread by the defenders of GM crops.

It will be a very sad day, indeed, when even third-world farmers have to pray, "Our Father.." for their daily bread to Monsanto. What we spend on pet food in the West would feed the third world to the point of gluttony. It's the will on the part of the movers and shakers concerned that is missing. Fat chance, when they allow their own people to live and die on the streets in their millions.

Scientists have no idea what occurs at the quantum level during this truncation of millions of years of evolution into our Frankensteins' time-frame. And British MPs are not taking any chances, either. Even though they don't mind what happens to the rest of us.

[chlamor]

25. Golden Rice is a hoax-Creates Vitamin A Deficiency and other problems

All of GM crops are a dangerous fraud brought to you by polluting land grabbing corps. I could post for hours on this issue.

The reason there is vitamin A deficiency in India in spite of the rich biodiversity a base and indigenousknowledge base in India is because the Green Revolution technologies wiped out biodiversity byconverting mixed cropping systems to monocultures of wheat and rice and by spreading the use ofherbicides which destroy field greens.

The problem was not particular deficiencies in the crops themselves, but problems with poverty and loss of biodiversity in food crops. These problems are aggravated by the corporate control of agriculture based on genetically modified foods. By focusing on a narrow problem (vitamin A deficiency), the golden rice proponents were obscuring the larger issue of a lack of broad availability of diverse and nutritionally adequate sources of food.

Here from one of many articles about the golden rice "miracle". It would cut exactly zero child blindness cases and you would have to eat pounds of the stuff each day even if the claims were true. However it is quite the opposite.


Article:
Traditional breeding methods have been unsuccessful in producing crops containing a high vitamin Aconcentration and most national authorities rely on expensive and complicated supplementation programsto address the problem.  Researchers have introduced three new genes into rice, two from daffodils andone from a microorganism.  The transgenic rice exhibits an increased production of betacarotene as a precursor to vitamin A and the seed in yellow in colour.  Such yellow, or golden rice, may be a useful tool to help treat the problem of vitamin A deficiency in young children living in the tropics.

<snip>

The problem is that vitamin A rice will not remove vitamin A deficiency (VAD).  It will seriouslyaggravate it.  It is a technology that fails in its promise.Currently, it is not even known how much vitamin JA the genetically engineered rice will produce.  Thegoal is 33.3% micrograms/100g of rice.  Even if this goal is reached after a few years, it will be totallyineffective in removing VAD.Since the daily average requirement of vitamin A is 750 micrograms of vitamin A and 1 serving contains30g of rice according to dry weight basis, vitamin  A rice would only provide 9.9 micrograms which is
1.32% of the required allowance.  Even taking the 100g figure of daily consumption of rice used in the

<snip>

In order to meet the full needs of 750 micrograms of vitamin A from rice, an adult would have to consume 2 kg 272g of rice per day.  This implies that one family member would consume the entire family ration of 10 kg.  from the PDS in 4 days to meet vitaminA needs through "Golden rice".

<snip>

It is also untrue that vitamin A rice will lead to increased production of betacarotene.   Even if the target of 33.3 microgram of  vitamin A in 100g of rice is achieved, it will be only 2.8% of betacarotene we can obtain from amaranth leaves 2.4% of betacarotene obtained from coriander leaves, curry leaves and drumstick leaves.

Even the World Bank has admitted that rediscovering and use of local plants and conservation of vitaminA rich green leafy vegetables and fruits have dramatically reduced VAD threatened children over the past 20 years in very cheap and efficient ways.  Women in Bengal use more than 200 varieties of field greens.

Over a 3 million people have benefited greatly from a food based project for removing VAD by increasing vitamin A availability through home gardens.  The higher the diversity crops the better the uptake of pro-vitamin A.


http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html

While the complicated technology transfer package of "Golden Rice" will not solve vitamin A problems in India, it is a very effective strategy for corporate take over of rice production, using the public sector as a Trojan horse.





 



 










 

 

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. I think it's you people who hear

mostly one side of the story.

According to the British newspaper, the Daily Mail, gastric diseases increased among Americans by 50%, since GM foods first went on the market.

Also, while our Government has refused to stop field trials of GM crops, they banned GM food from their restaurants at Westminster, a long time ago. (Politicians hypocritical? Surely not....)

It mirrors another health controversy here concerning forcing parents to have a triple MMR jab, a (combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine) or none at all. Unfortunately, autism seems to have manifested itself in children who have the MMR jab, despite government denials. Few people believe the Government or its scientists on health matters any more, after the outbreak of mad-cow diseas in the country). Surpise, surprise. Tone and Cherie have refused to state whether their own children were given an MMR jab.

But as regards organic and non-organic food, this appeared in our newpapers a fortnight or so ago. It makes very interesting reading:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/4277977.stm

[DemBones DemBones]

43. Your reference to "The Frankenfood scare mob" betrays your bias.

There are many concerns about GMOs beyond whether they directly harm human health, as you no doubt know.

Just to mention one, when companies patent a new GM crop plant, they make it impossible for many to afford to plant it, and they prosecute any farmer found growing it "illegally." Companies like Monsanto send spies out to determine if farmers not yet buying their GM seed have a few GM plants growing in their fields of non-GM crops. Naturally enough, if a farmer's neighbors are all growing GM crops, they'll produce pollen containing the patented gene, and, since pollen is carried by wind and by pollinators (usually insects such as bees), GM plants will grow up among the farmer's non-GM crops, because the GM genes are dominant over the non-GM genes. If they look like the non-GM plants, how is the farmer to realize his fields have been "invaded" by GM "weeds"? He'd have to test every plant in his fields. . .

This happened to a Canadian farmer who had been saving seed from his own crops and experimenting to improve his crops, as well as saving money by not having to buy seed every year. A Monsanto spy found a few of their patented GM plants in his fields and Monsanto was then able to confiscate all his crops, all his stored seeds from fifty years of farming, and get the courts to impose a heavy fine against him. The farmer's name is Percy Schmeiser and the case is far from over.

Let's review: Monsanto's GM plants invaded his fields (through wind-borne pollen and/or wind-borne seeds, canola seeds being very small) and Monsanto was then able to confiscate his crops and all his stored seeds and sue him. It couldn't get any worse for him, right? Wrong. He found subsequently that the only plants that came up in his fields were the GM plants, which Monsanto created.

"After Monsanto's pollen contaminated the seeds that he had spent 40 years to develop, Schmeiser removed his entire canola crop and bought new non-GM seeds to replant his fields. To his shock, he discovered that a new crop of Monsanto's GM canola plants had re-germinated in his fields. When unwanted "volunteers" crop up in fields, the typical way the farmer deals with the problem is to apply herbicides. But these second-generation Monsanto seeds had been engineered in the lab to be "Round-up Ready" - i.e., designed to survive applications of Round-up herbicides (also made by Monsanto)."

"Monsanto's argument was that the creation of "Round-up Ready" crops would make it possible to kill any competing weeds, allowing their seeds to thrive. In practice, Schmeiser realized, what it means is that Monsanto has created a chemical spray guaranteed to kill any crop it doesn't "own." This also means that Monsanto has made it nearly impossible to eradicate any of its patented crops once they have been released into the environment."

It seems obvious to me that Monsanto and the other big agricultural-business conglomerates intend to put individual farmers out of business. How this will benefit the starving people in third world nations is questionable at best.

[Psephos]

47. Umm, yeah, given that I state flat out that I am offering my opinion

Was there something not clear about that?

Frankenfood is not my coinage, btw. It's actually a term applied by those who are against GM.

If you prefer a euphemism for scare mob, what would you suggest? I could, if I were being peevish, just as easily say it shows your bias that you pick one phrase out of a four hundred word post, and ignore everything I said against GM. But that would mean I buy into the idea that bias is bad. I don't. Bias is just another word for point of view, and everyone has a point of view. Hopefully, we arrive at our points of view by evaluating neutral facts, and drawing a conclusion. Unfortunately, sometimes politically passionate people get the order of that mixed up.

In my opinion (this is not a fact, just my point of view), despite obvious risks, GM seems to offer hungry and poor people a better shot at alleviating some problems. That's why I deplore the suppression tactics some opponents of GM have employed...and why I used the mob phrase. To my way of thinking, the GM-Is-Evil trope, if wrong, literally takes food out of hungry mouths. In science, all hypotheses are allowed to compete to see which is best. In politics, only approved hypotheses are allowed to compete. I prefer the former over the latter.

Regarding your post about Monsanto, I think there's a simple answer. Don't buy Monsanto Round-Up Ready seed. Or even further, actively call them out on it, spread the word, and raise a ruckus. No company has a GM monopoly, and the best research is being done in university labs, anyway. There are plenty of competitors in the agritechnology sector.

As regards GM, I don't have a problem if you have one opinion, and you shouldn't have a problem if I have another. We each provide an opportunity to the other to trot out our best arguments. In my perfect world, we do this under the precepts of civil discourse - and just to be clear, DemBones, you were pretty civil.

Peace.

[PaulaFarrell]

20. not good for the environment

so pretty damning - especially in a country which spends as mcuh money as England does trying to protect birds and butterflies

[oneighty]

28. Less weeds

The article goes on to say the seeds from the weeds are vital for farmland birds already in decline; (Insect eaters,pollinators) And fewer bees; (Pollinators) and butterflies; (Pollinators).

I am all for progressive farming but should we to it at the expense of life that makes our world beautiful? It would be better I think to reduce world population through attrition and birth control. (Zero population growth)

Before you say any thing if one is never birthed one will not be aware of it.

180

[dbt]

18. Well, DUH.

Once again, humanity's love affair with Science has done Goddess-knows-what amount of damage to Mother Earth. Six years' worth of slavish devotion to the Scientific Method have yielded the very results that some people predicted (for free) at the outset of this experiment.

Now the horse (a Pale Horse, at that) is out of the barn.

[patricia92243]

21. Does anybody really think a few dead birds will stop a big money crop?

The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

[BiggJawn]

23. No worries, they'll just bring it over here and grow it.

Work out some deal with Monsanto to get access to Monsanto's fields...

[JohnyCanuck]

29. Which Scientists Can You Trust?

Michael Meacher is a former UK Environment Minister. This is an edited version of Michael Meacher's keynote address to the Green Network Conference, Science, Medicine and the Law, 31 January to 2 February 2005. It is published on the web site of the UK based Institute for Science in Society www.i-sis.org.uk

Note to mods: The Institute of Science in Society gives permission to repost their web site articles in full for non profit purposes as long as appropriate credits and links are given.

Which Science or Scientists Can You Trust?

Michael Meacher told a public conference on Science, Medicine and the Law in the strongest terms that we need independent science and scientists who take the precautionary principle seriously and sweeping changes are needed in science funding and scientific advice to the government that ensures the protection of independent science
Which scientists?

Nobody disagrees that debate over whether we should go ahead with new technologies should be conducted on the basis of science, but which science? Independent science or industrial science? Let me test out a few examples on you.

Fifteen years ago a lorry driver accidentally tipped 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate into the public drinking supply in north Cornwall – nearby residents and local doctors are convinced they were poisoned; but two Government enquiries found no evidence. Whom do you believe?

There are childhood leukaemia clusters in villages down the Cumbrian coast – local residents and independent scientists think it is the consequence of chronic exposure to low-level radiation from nearby Sellafield; but the Department of Industry (DTI) and British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) think it is nothing to do with local nuclear power stations – their best explanation is that it is caused by high levels of inward and outward migration. Whom do you believe?

Mark Purdey, a Somerset farmer turned epidemiologist, has produced detailed evidence to show that BSE was caused by farmers spreading Phosmetz, an organohosphate (OP), over the backs of cattle as a prophylaxis, but the Government's MRC Toxicology Unit - funded by the pharmaceutical company Zeneca - apparently refuted this theory. Which company held all rights over the production of Phosmetz? Zeneca. Whom do you believe?

Gulf War Syndrome has been a persistent disabling, and sometimes lethal, condition since the first war in Kuwait in 1991. Both UK and US soldiers and their independent scientific advisers are convinced that the soldiers were poisoned by the OP insecticides that they were liberally sprayed with. But the MOD and chemical companies insist there is no evidence for this. Whom do you believe?

Well, if you have any doubts, look at what has actually happened in the past when Government, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, have often finally been forced to back track from entrenched positions that they always said were supported scientifically.

Science can quite often get things wrong.
Which science?

Government biologists initially refused to accept that power stations in Britain or Germany could kill fish or trees hundreds of miles away in Scandinavia; later the idea of acidification caused by SO2 was universally accepted.

Government scientists originally did not agree that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were destroying the ozone layer; but during the 1987 negotiations on the Montreal Protocol the industry – ICI and Du Pont – abruptly changed sides, and ministers and scientists soon fell into line alongside them.

The Lawther working party of Government scientists roundly rejected any idea that health-damaging high levels of lead in the blood came overwhelmingly from vehicle exhausts, only to find that after lead-free petrol was introduced, blood-lead levels fell 70%.

The Southwood committee of BSE scientists insisted in 1990 that scrapie in cattle could not cross the species barrier, only to find by 1996 that it did just that. And there are many more examples.
Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle

The only way to deal with these problems is by applying the precautionary principle. Perhaps the classic formulation of the precautionary principle was at the Rio Summit in 1992 principle 15: “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

That principle survived renegotiation attempts during the Johannesburg Summit in September 2002, and was reaffirmed in the Plan of Implementation that resulted from the Summit.

Why has this not been adopted by scientists and policy-makers? There can be only one reason: cynicism of not disturbing powerful political and economic interests.

It is highly disturbing to realise how long it takes for poisonous chemicals to be banned after scientific evidence emerged that they were harmful.

* Benzene was demonstrated as powerful bone marrow poison in 1897
* Acute respiratory effects of asbestos was identified 1898
* The ability of PCB to induce chloracne was documented in 1898

But it was not until 1960-70s that significant progress was made in restricting damages caused by these agents.
Independent scientists vilified

Efforts were made to discredit independent critics, as in the case of Richard Lacey and Mark Purdey in BSE, & Arpad Pusztai in GM food, and too many other examples.

Data and reports have been regularly suppressed or publishers intimidated, as in the Great Lakes chemical case.

The Southwood Committee on BSE believed a ban on the use of all cattle brains in human food chain might be justified, but considered that politically unfeasible.

There was also incompetence: the Department of Health was not informed by MAFF (the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now disbanded) about the emergence of new disease (BSE) until 17 months after MAFF was first alerted.

Pervasive mistrust of science and scientists

No wonder that there is a pervasive mistrust of science and scientists. But the roots for this go deep.

First, the Rothschild revolution under Thatcher made the funding of science much more subservient to business interests. Over the past two decades, getting finance for scientific inquiry inimical to the commercial and political establishments has become increasingly difficult. The science is owned by a tiny number of very large companies and they only commission research which they believe will further their own commercial interests. And when that turns out not to be the case, as when research turns up results which may be embarrassing to the company, they are most often dubbed “commercially confidential” and never published.

In addition, companies have learned that small investments in endowing chairs, sponsoring research programmes or hiring professors for out-of-hours projects can produce disproportionate payoffs in generating reports, articles, reviews and books, which may not be in the public interest, but certainly benefit corporate bottom lines. The effects of corporate generosity - donating millions for this research laboratory or that scientific programme – can be subtly corrosive. Other universities regard the donor as a pote ntial source of funds and try to ensure nothing is said which might jeopardise big new cash possibilities. And academics raising embarrassing questions (as they should) - such as who is paying for the lab; how independent is the peer review; who profits from the research; is the university's integrity compromised? – would soon learn that keeping their heads down is the best way not to risk their career, let alone future research funding. The message is clear: making money is good, and dissent is stifled. Commerce and the truth don't readily mix.

A second reason why there is such pervasive mistrust of science and scientists is that the scientists staffing the official advisory committees and Government regulatory bodies in a significant number of cases have financial links with the industry they are supposed to be independently advising on and regulating. A recent study found that of the five scientific committees advising ministers on food and safety, 40% of committee members had links with the biotechnology industry, and at least 20% were linked to one of the Big Three – Monsanto, AstraZeneca, or Novartis. Nor is that an accident. The civil servants who select scientists for those bodies tend to look for a preponderant part of the membership, and particularly the chairperson, to be ‘sound', i.e., can be safely relied on not to cause embarrassment to the Government or industry if difficulties arise.

Third, the culture of spin and intimidation is far more pervasive than should ever be allowed. The shocking sacking and vilification of Dr Arpad Pusztai, when he produced GM research results inconvenient to the Government, bio-tech industry and the Americans, was no doubt, deliberately intended as a warning to others if they stepped out of line. And the threats and insinuations made clear to the only two independent scientists on the UK Government's GM Science Panel, Dr Carlo Leifert and Andrew Sterling, demonstrates all too clearly how viciously the Establishment will fight to safeguard its own interests.

And on spin, how many times have we heard the false argument that is still regularly deployed by ACRE, the Government's main GM advisory committee, when it announces that, “there is no evidence that this GM product is any greater risk to human health than its non-GM counterpart”. In fact they have not sought such evidence directly, merely relied on the biotech companies telling them that their GM product was ‘substantially equivalent' to its alleged non-GM analogue.

Fourth, science is not, and never has been, a value-free search for the truth. It is a social construct influenced by a variety of rules, peer group pressures, and personal and cultural expectations. It is developed, like all human thought, from preconceived built-in judgements, assumptions and dogmas, the more powerful because they are often unconsciously held.
So what is to be done?

What all this means is that science can only be fully trusted if it is pursued with the most rigorous procedures that guarantee total independence and freedom from commercial and political bias. That is far too often not the case today. The implications for policy are clear.

One, if the Government truly wants independent research, it has to be prepared to pay for it, not lay down, as it has, that 25% of finance for publicly funded research should come from private sources, thus forcing the universities into the hands of corporate sponsors.

Two, the Government should also require that no member of its advisory committee or regulatory bodies should have any current or recently past financial or commercial link with the industry concerned.

Three, contributors to scientific journals should be required to make full disclosure of current and prior funding sources, so that any conflicts of interest can be exposed and taken into account.

Four, we need above all a Government with the political gumption to stand up to the United States and those demanding calls from the White House, to stand up to the biotech companies, and to stand up to big business, and make clear that there will be no succumbing to dominant political /economic interests, e.g. no growing of GM crops in this country until proper, systematic, independent, peer-reviewed research, which is totally absent at present, has been carried through and made public which demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whether GM foods are safe or not.

We should never forget the words of Winston Churchill, who said “Science should be on tap, not on top”.
This is an edited version of Michael Meacher's keynote address to the Green Network Conference, Science, Medicine and the Law, 31 January to 2 February 2005, Royal Institute of British Architecture, London, UK, which will be published in issue 26 of Science in Society ( www.i-sis.org.uk )

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WSoSCYT.php

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. Wow!

I knew he was into it, but what an article. Meacher is surely a politician in a quintillion.

[DemExpat]

49. Thanks for the article and link.

DemEx

[meganmonkey]

30. Good!! More evidence to back up instinct

I think most people with any sense and understanding of nature and agriculture instinctively know that GM crops are not a good idea. In theory the arguments for them sound good, but in reality it is pretty f*cked up. And this is one more piece of evidence.

Don't let anyone convince you that GMOs are the way we will feed the hungry across the world or any of that bullshit. GMO's benefit the behemoth agribusiness and biotech companies who already own WAY TOO MUCH of this world's food supply. They are messing with some serious shit with these GMOs. There are way too many unknowns and consequences (intended or not) in the widespread use of GM crops.

---rant off---

[Toucano]

31. Nominated for the greatest page.

This is an important story.

[chlamor]

35. Why don't biotech Cos. accept liability if there's nothing to worry about?

As for GM happening in nature, so does death, but that doesn't justify murder. Radioactive decay happens in nature too, but concentrated and speeded up, it becomes an atom bomb.

Read here from Mae Wan Ho:
GMDNA and natural DNA are indistinguishable according to the most mundane chemistry, i.e., they have the same chemical formula or atomic composition. Apart from that, they are as different as night and day. Natural DNA is made in living organisms; GMDNA is made in the laboratory. Natural DNA has the signature of the species to which it belongs; GMDNA contains bits copied from the DNA of a wide variety of organisms, or simply synthesized in the laboratory. Natural DNA has billions of years of evolution behind it; GMDNA contains genetic material and combinations of genetic material that have never existed.

Furthermore, GMDNA is designed - albeit crudely - to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes. Design features include changes in the genetic code and special ends that enhance recombination, i.e., breaking into genomes and rejoining. GMDNA often contains antibiotic resistance marker genes needed in the process of making GM organisms, but serves no useful function in the GM organism.

The GM process clearly isn't what nature does (see "Puncturing the GM myths", SiS22). It bypasses reproduction, short circuits and greatly accelerates evolution. Natural evolution created new combinations of genetic material at a predominantly slow and steady pace over billions of years.

There is a natural limit, not only to the rate but also to the scope of gene shuffling in evolution. That's because each species comes onto the evolutionary stage in its own space and time, and only those species that overlap in space and time could ever exchange genes at all in nature. With GM, however, there's no limit whatsoever: even DNA from organisms buried and extinct for hundreds of thousands of years could be dug up, copied and recombined with DNA from organisms that exist today.

<snip>

After years of denial, some European countries began to carry out 'event-specific' molecular analyses of the GM inserts in commercially approved GM varieties as required by the new European directives for deliberate release, novel foods and traceability and labelling. These analyses reveal that practically all the GM inserts have fragmented and rearranged since characterised by the company. This makes all the GM varieties already commercialised illegal under the new regime, and also invalidates any safety assessment that has been done on them (see "Transgenic lines proven unstable", SiS 20 and "Unstable transgenic lines illegal", SiS 21). As everyone knows, the properties of the GM variety, and hence its identity, depend absolutely on the precise form and position of the GM insert(s). There is no sense in which a GM variety is "substantially equivalent" to non-GM varieties.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/dangerous062204.cfm

[chlamor]

36. Only a $50 mill/yr PR=(BS) Campaign has duped US public-All Lies

There is absolutely nothing,nada, zilch that is beneficial or even in doubt about GM crops. Only a MASSIVE PR blitz has confused the American public. Here is just a drip:


"I was shocked to see what they wrote," he says. What shocked him the
most was the part that read, "In Africa, rice plants are genetically transformed
to produce vitamin A, preventing millions of African children from going
blind." Margulis had been quite clear in explaining to Frontline producer
Kathleen Boisvert: those were the very buzzwords and images used by the
biotechnology industry today to promote its technology and derail its
critics. The problem with that "save-the-world-while-making-a-buck"
statement? It is based on a lie.

Margulis hammered out a quick reply to the email. "Is this really from your
release? Is Frontline aware that there is no Vitamin A rice growing anywhere
outside of a few greenhouse plants, none of which are in Africa?" he asked.
Boisvert seemed surprised at first, but later, apparently after conferring
with senior producers, she replied: "Yes, you are viewing the official press
release for Harvest of Fear. The first paragraph lists examples that the
biotech industry is claiming as future applications/benefits of GE
technology."

<snip>

Of course, there is nothing totally new about the genetic engineering
industry using paid flacks to put its best foot forward. Every industry and
product promoter has taken the same route. Automobiles, tobacco, nuclear
energy--the bigger the sell, the harder the push. But biotech has been
particularly effective in its behind-the-scenes work, earning itself
headlines that read: "Engineered Catfish Could Be Bigger, Healthier," and
"Scientists Can Produce GM Crops That Combat Disease." The "Golden Rice"
cover story in Time magazine last summer may be the industry's biggest coup
to date. Its headline blared "This Rice Could Save a Million Kids a Year."

"The golden rice story has been a lie repeated a thousand times," says
Cummins from his office in Little Marais, Minnesota--a long way from the
well-heeled headquarters of the Council for Biotech Information, which he
and his colleagues constantly challenge. Golden Rice, he says, has become
the poster child for genetic engineering. While the article in Time
trumpeted the virtues of bringing beta-carotene to children to help them
sharpen their eyesight and strengthen their resistance to infectious
diseases, the facts speak a much different story.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/propaganda.cfm

[chlamor]

37. Cauliflower Mosaic Virus is Viral "Promoter" in GM foods-Yum & Cancerous

For example, intact human polyoma virus injected into rabbits had no effect - it could not jump the species barrier from humans to rabbits - whereas injection of the naked viral DNA gave a full-blown infection. Naked viral DNA is in practically all GM plants in the form of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV), used as a production aid or "promoter" in genetic engineering. If taken up by our cells, this naked viral DNA may reactivate dormant viruses, generate new viruses, and cause cancer.

A GM "wonder" drug recently caused serious infections in patients who took it. Six people died and many more are sick after taking Enbrel, a rheumatoid arthritis drug developed by the U.S.-based Immunex Corp. Plants are often genetically engineered with genes from viruses to resist virus attack. Such plants show increased ability to generate new, super-infectious viruses by:

i) horizontal gene transfer - transference of genes from one individual to another, of the same or different species, by methods other than simple cross-breeding: for example, by an individual from one species eating an individual of another species

<snip>

This suggests that the viral promoters engineered into practically all GM plants may also use horizontal gene transfer and recombination to generate new viruses. Once formed, the new viruses will spread by insects to other plants, unleashing widespread disease epidemics.

It has been argued that horizontal gene transfer has always operated in nature, so GMOs do not pose a new threat. However, horizontal gene transfer has been relatively rare in our evolutionary past, both because natural species barriers prevent gene exchange, and because the host organism recognises the foreign DNA by its protein coat and deactivates it. Genetic engineering greatly accelerates the rate of horizontal gene transfer as well as enlarging its scope. It creates large numbers of arbitrary combinations of genes from different species and their disease-causing agents, and uses sophisticated means to overcome species barriers. It is foolhardy to be complacent about releasing great quantitites of arbitrary combinations of viral and bacterial genes into the environment.

http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/MaeWan/maewan_4.html

[Hamcracker]

38. Nobody is basing their vote on crops, not even Democrats.

[meganmonkey]

39. What does this have to do with votes?

I'm confused by what you mean... :shrug:

[chlamor]

40. The politics of food-Can't eat votes

Abstract politics is pointless-And sadly the Lingua Franca of American politics.

Food First!

[Judi Lynn]

41. GM Food Kick!

[DemBones DemBones]

44. Here's more on Monsanto's attempt to ruin a Canadian farmer

who wouldn't go GM like his neighbors. (He's not an organic farmer, he just preferred to save money by saving seed from his crops, not buying seed from anybody.)

(Look upthread for mys first post on Percy Schmeiser, farmer, vs. Monsanto.)


"Five years ago Canadian law enforcement officials seized Schmeiser's entire canola crop (also known as rapeseed, Brassica napus) from his 1,030-acre farm in Bruno, Saskatchewan, after Monsanto filed a legal complaint. Monsanto said Schmeiser violated their patent rights on the company's genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready canola by growing it without paying for the seed and without signing a technology use agreement. While Schmeiser agreed some of his fields contained Monsanto's GM canola, he said they were contaminated the previous year by pollen from a neighbor's fields and by seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a nearby canola processing plant. The very tiny seeds move easily with wind, bees or birds."

"In a conversation with Tierramérica, Schmeiser said he simply planted seed saved from the previous year, as has been his practice in 50 years of farming. Careful seed selection had given him some of best yields of any farmer in his area. He was unaware that some seeds collected in 1997 contained Monsanto's proprietary genetics and as proof points out that he did not spray Roundup on his 1998 crop. However, in 2001 a Canadian court ruled that it didn't matter how the GM seed ended up in Schmeiser's field or if he benefited from it. Simply growing and harvesting it was a violation of Monsanto's patent rights. Fines and penalties were levied for around 143,000 dollars.

Since then Monsanto has asked for nearly 716,000 dollars more to cover their court costs and has liens on all of his property and assets Schmeiser said. "It's an absurd situation, akin to someone dumping junk on your land and then accusing you of stealing it," says Brian Helweil, agricultural expert with the non-governmental Worldwatch Institute, based in Washington. "The outcome of the Schmeiser case will set an important precedent for other countries," says Peter Rosset, an agroecologist and co-director of FoodFirst/Institute for Food and Development Policy, an organization that promotes food as a human right. "It would be terrible for farmers if Schmeiser loses," Rosset told Tierramérica.

<snip>

It has been a costly battle thus far, topping 214,000 dollars in legal fees. Monsanto "used every legal trick to prolong this and make it more expensive," says Schmeiser who says he has spent 140,000 dollars of his own money, the rest has come as contributions. "When I lost that really scared the world farming community and donations started to pour in."

<sbip>

"Monsanto will lose either way the case turns out," says Helweil. If Schmeiser wins, it means Monsanto cannot stop farmers from saving seeds. If he loses then Monsanto must take responsibility for its seed and the genetic contamination it is causing.

http://tierramerica.net/2003/0825/iarticulo.shtml

************

I hope that Helweil is correct that Monsanto will lose either way the case turns out because if they are going to be given the power to take away a farmer's right to save seeds from his own crops, they should be made to take responsibility for the genetic contamination they are causing with their GM seed.

As Helweil also said, "It's an absurd situation, akin to someone dumping junk on your land and then accusing you of stealing it."

[DemBones DemBones]

45. Still more about Monsanto trying to put non-GM farmers out of business

Darrin Qualman, spokesman for Canada's National Farmer's Union (says)

"Contamination by transgenics is big problem all over western Canada"

"One farmer's fields in Swift Current (Saskatchewan) of premium non-GM canola were completely contaminated this year. An organic farmer is about to lose his organic certification for the same reason."

<snip>

There's a tremendous reluctance among farmers to report that they have unwanted GMOs in their fields," says Qualman. After Schmeiser lost in 2001, no one is clear about what farmers' rights and responsibilities are and there is a fear that "somehow you might owe Monsanto money".

"Monsanto has built a culture of fear here", agrees Schmeiser.

One of Monsanto's tactics he says is to send threatening letters to farmers saying they might be illegally growing the company's GM crops. If they pay the company 10,000 or 20,000 dollars, then they won't prosecute. "It's bioterrorism," says the farmer.

(It's also blackmail!!!)


Two Saskatchewan organic farmers are fighting back. They filed a class action lawsuit in 2002 against Monsanto Co. and Aventis SA on behalf of the more than 1,000 organic farmers whose farms represent about one million acres (405,700 hectares) in the province.

The legal action is seeking compensation because they have lost their markets for organic canola because of contamination by the GM canola and pollen.

The lawsuit is also aimed at halting Monsanto's plans to introduce GM wheat in the region in 2004 or 2005.

http://tierramerica.net/2003/0825/iarticulo.shtml

[lovuian]

50. GM foods are not going to make it in Europe

thankfully they are not stupid!!!