Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

GENETIC SCIENTIST WARNS OF RISKS OF GE

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 04:02 PM
Original message
GENETIC SCIENTIST WARNS OF RISKS OF GE
Edited on Sat Mar-31-07 04:34 PM by nosmokes
original-gmwatch


***EXTRACT: 'The only fact we can be sure of is that we simply don't know enough to risk the consequences.' - Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher
---

GENETIC SCIENTIST WARNS OF RISKS OF GE

28 March 2007 - Seoul – 'Genetic engineering is far from precise', warns Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher, consultant genetic scientist of Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific and also director of EcoNexus, a public-interest research organization based in the UK. 'There are a number of steps in the genetic engineering process and most of them are subject to various uncertainties. A single gene mutation can have serious effects .…yet genetic engineering is all about creating mutations… the outcome can be tremendous, and totally unpredictable and unexpected.'

Speaking on 'Genetically Engineered Food and Crops: Issues and Concerns from a Scientific Perspective' at the WORA Seminar entitled 'How to Secure the Safety of Rice' in Seoul today, Dr Steinbrecher expressed her disbelief that agri-business corporations could guarantee that genetically engineered (GE) food or crops are stable and safe when there are so many indications to show they are not.

'Besides negative ecological, social and economic effects of the genetic engineering of crops, from a scientific perspective, there are health impacts, contamination effects and many scientific uncertainties associated with genetic engineering,' continued Dr Steinbrecher.
~snip~
.
.
.
complete article including links to further resources here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yet we sanction those governments that wish to ban GMOs
and allow companies to sue farmers whose seed they've ruined with GE crops.

It's a strange new world, and not in a good way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nutshell- Pollution declines exponentially. GMO's REPRODUCE.
That's all anyone needs to know.

Even depleted uranium disappears. It takes a few billion years.

But GMO's have DNA, and they do not follow the rules of passive "stuff". They live a life of their own. And who knows what that is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. He said in just a few words
what everyone needs to know about GE. The uncertainties of this technology are just too great. China is very enthusiastic about it though. We have no idea what is leaving that country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. K & R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
6.  yes man , can't stop can he .
If it won't be a nuclear war or global warming then it will be GE crops and altered animals or some biological germ that will be the end on mankind as we knew it .

It's almost like you have a choice of how to go and none look to good to me . Do I want to vaporize , do I want to develope a third arm , do I want to burst out with an incurable skin disease and be isolated forever .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R



:popcorn:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Approval of GM Crops Illegal, US Federal Courts Rule
Approval of GM Crops Illegal, US Federal Courts Rule

In a surprising development that may well stump the further approval of GMOs, Federal Courts in the US have ruled against the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in three successive cases for failing to carry out proper environment impact assessment, making the original approvals of GM crops illegal.

It has been twelve years since the world's first GM crop, the Flav Savr tomato, was commercially approved, and hundreds more GM varieties were granted deregulation status. The global area of GM crops has reached 102 million hectares, according to industry sources <1>, though this has been strongly contested around the world <2> ( Global GM Crops Area Exaggerated , SiS 33)

The first case was on drug-producing GM crops. A federal district judge in Hawaii ruled in August 2006 that the USDA violated the Endangered Species Act as well as the National Environmental Policy Act in allowing drug-producing GM crops to be cultivated throughout Hawaii, and failing to conduct even preliminary investigations on environmental impact prior to the approval of planting. The plaintiffs were the Center for Food Safety, KAHEA (The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance) , Friends of the Earth, and the Pesticide Action Network, North America. The defendants were the US Secretary of Agriculture and administrators of the USDA.

From 2001 to 2003, four companies, ProdiGene, Monsanto, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (HARC), and Garst Seed, were allowed to plant corn and sugarcane genetically modified to produce experimental pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, hormones, cancer fighting agents and other proteins that are still under development and hence not yet approved.

The plaintiffs argued that USDA/APHIS broke the law in issuing these permits. Because these crops produce pharmaceutical products that are still at the experimental stage of development, their effect on Hawaii's ecosystem (especially Hawaii's 329 endangered and threatened species) is unknown. The experimental crops could cross-pollinate with existing food crops, and contaminate the food supply. Animals feeding on the crops would also become unwitting carriers of pharmaceutical products, causing even more widespread dissemination of these experimental drugs.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Approval_of_GM_Crops_Illegal.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Ah, what does he know
He's only dedicated his life to the subject.

And what about poor Monsanto, who are only trying to make an honest buck and being hounded all the way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yeah poor Monsanto. That dripping sound you hear is my left nut bleeding for them
Imagine the gall of some miserable, backward farmers to piss and moan and complain just because Monsanto polluted their non-GM crops with Monsanto's GM shit and then expected royalty payments for the privilege. How's a modern, multi-national mega-corporation to make a buck if they can't force their crap products down our throats whether we want them or not?


Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto

By Percy Schmeiser

SNIP

In August 1998 I received a lawsuit document from Monsanto. Up to that time I never had anything to do with Monsanto’s GM canola. I’d never bought their seed or gone to a Monsanto meeting. I didn’t even know a Monsanto rep.

There were a number of items in the lawsuit. First of all, they said I had somehow acquired Monsanto’s GM canola seed without a licence, planted it, grew it and therefore infringed on their patent. They went on to say that it was 80 or 90 percent contamination that I had in a roadside ditch and so on.

When we were sued my wife and I immediately realized that 50 years of research and development on our pure canola seed that was suitable and adaptable to certain conditions on the Prairies, climatic and soil conditions and especially diseases that we had in canola, could now be contaminated. We said to Monsanto at the time, "Look, if you have any of your GMOs in our pure canola seed you are liable for the destruction of our property and our pure seed." So, we stood up to them.

I think at that time there were two main issues. We lost 50 years of research and development and we felt that if farmers ever lose the right to use their own seed the future development of new seeds and plants suitable to their local climatic and soil conditions would be stopped. Those are the two main reasons we stood up to Monsanto.

http://commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeiser.shtml

http://www.percyschmeiser.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. "if farmers ever lose the right to use their own seed" - already happening in the 3rd world
http://1worldcommunication.org/scienceseriously.htm
"... Even the corporations are coming around to the view that "Food biotech is dead" <28>. One by one, Aventis, Monsanto and Syngenta have announced they will concentrate on genomics and marker assisted conventional breeding. Though meanwhile, they are still forcing the world, especially the Third World to accept GM crops.

But the whole world is in revolt. The governments of Thailand and Sri Lanka, among others, have banned GM crops and GM imports. In Indonesia, armed guards had to be sent to protect Monsanto's shipment of cotton seeds..."


Combine this with "terminator gene" technology, and you've got "killer profit"
http://www.uhuh.com/control/killercrop.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Bremer decreed in Iraq that farmers could not use their
own seed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
11. Horizontal gene transfer and genetic engineering
‘Sound science’ to the rescue

The misinformation and dis-information that led to Monsanto’s downfall are being perpetrated under the banner of ‘sound science’, starting with no less than the UK Royal Society, the core of the scientific establishment. Nineteen Fellows of the Society wrote to the papers accusing Pusztai of endangering ‘sound science’ in making public findings which have not been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal. The Royal Society then set up its own official review of Pusztai's unpublished work, declared it flawed, and warned that no conclusions should be drawn. The Society's Report(5) found no evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes (but fell short of saying the GM potatoes were safe). And even if Pusztai’s experiments had been properly done, it stated that the results were only relevant to rats and potatoes, and it would be unjustifiable to draw conclusions on whether genetically modified foods in general are harmful to human beings. If animal testing is deemed to have no relevance for human beings, that would invalidate much of standard toxicological testing!

Pusztai’s findings were not the first to suggest GM foods might not be safe. Many scientists have been warning of different hazards inherent to the genetic engineering technology(6). Even the British Medical Association issued its own Interim Report in May, 1999, calling for an indefinite moratorium on GM crops and products, and for research to be done on the hazards of GM foods including new allergies, spread of antibiotic resistance genes and effects of the genetically modifed DNA in the GM crops (see later). The UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor agreed with a demand for a moratorium on commercial release until at least 2003(7). To top all that, research at Cornell University in the United States found that milk-weed leaves dusted with GM-maize pollen engineered with a bt-toxin from the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, killed 44% of the larvae of the Monarch butterfly after 4 days, whereas no mortality occurred in larvae fed non-GM pollen(8). The public have good reasons to reject GM foods.

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

1. Horizontal gene transfer and genetic engineering

1.1 Horizontal gene transfer refers to the transfer of genes or genetic material directly from one individual to another by processes similar to infection. It is distinct from the normal process of vertical gene transfer - from parents to offspring - which occurs in reproduction. Genetic engineering bypasses reproduction altogether by exploiting horizontal gene transfer, so genes can be transferred between distant species that would never interbreed in nature. For example, human genes are transferred into pig, sheep, fish and bacteria. Toad genes are transferred into potatoes. Completely new, exotic genes, can therefore be introduced into food crops.

1.2 Natural agents exist which can transfer genes horizontally between individuals. These are viruses, many of which cause diseases, and other pieces of parasitic genetic material, called plasmids and transposons, many of which carry and spread antibiotic and drug resistance genes. These are able to get into cells and then make use of the cell's resources to multiply many copies or to jump into (as well as out of ) the cell's genome. The natural agents are limited by species barriers, so that for example, pig viruses will infect pigs, but not human beings, and cauliflower viruses will not attack tomatoes. However, genetic engineers make artificial vectors (carriers of genes) by combining parts of the most infectious natural agents, with their disease-causing functions removed or disabled, and design them to overcome species barriers, so the same vector may now transfer, say, human genes, which are spliced into the vector, into the cells of all other mammals, or cells of plants.

1.3 Typically, foreign genes are introduced with strong genetic signals - called promoters or enhancers - to boost the expression of the genes to well above the normal level that most of the cell's own genes are expressed. The most commonly used promoters are from plant viruses which are related to animal viruses (see below). There will also be selectable "marker genes" introduced along with the gene(s) of interest, so that those cells that have successfully integrated the foreign genes into their genome can be selected. The most commonly used marker genes are antibiotic resistant genes originally isolated from bacterial plasmids and transposons, which enable the cells to be selected with antibiotics. These marker genes often remain in the genetically engineered organisms.

1.4 One viral promoter which is in practically all transgenic plants is from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV), which is closely related to human hepatitis B virus, and less so, to retroviruses such as the AIDS virus. The CaMV promoter can drive the synthesis of these other viruses; it is active in most plants, in yeast, insects and E. coli. As all genomes contain dormant viruses, there is a potential for the CaMV promoter to reactivate them. Its strong promoter activity causes introduced genes to be overexpressed, and may also have effects on host genes far away from the site of foreign gene insertion. The promoter from another virus - the figwort mosaic virus, is similar to CaMV in many respects, and therefore equally hazardous. Recombination between the figwort and CaMV promoters in the same plant is bound to take place with untoward consequences for the crop plant, and also in creating new, broad host range viruses.

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/horizontal.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
12. Kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
13. 'It is very encouraging when sciecne cathces up with common sense' - Peter
Edited on Sun Apr-01-07 11:06 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
Melchet, of the Soil Association, as research confirms that organic food is good for us. (For the bees, too, I dare say).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
16. Oops! Sexist assumptions at DU. . .

Dr. Steinbrecher's first name is Ricarda, which I thought was a woman's name. In the second paragraph, my assumption was confirmed: "Dr. Steinbrecher expressed her disbelief. . ."

Just a gentle reminder from a woman scientist that science is not exclusively a male preserve. O8)

Please encourage your daughters to study math and science beyond the minimum required. You can't rely on guidance counselors or teachers to encourage girls to take higher level math and science courses and the culture still encorages girls to underachieve. Remember the talking Barbie doll that said "Math is hard!" ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
17. This is the plan starve millions
and take control of the food system
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-01-07 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kicking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC