Hazards of Genetic Engineering 208
pos writes "Genetic Engineering can have effects that the companies that research them do not check. These effects can also be used to gain agucultural dependance on genetic engineering. Seeds of Destruction smells like a fishy way of gaining market share in the agriculture industry. Here's a quote:
'For decades, Monsanto and other agrichemical companies have relentlessly promoted farming systems aimed at making farmers dependent on synthetic chemicals. With the enthusiastic support and complicity of USDA, the plan worked beautifully.' The problem is, I can't even boycott because the US labeling system is so bad. "
Genetically Modified Crops (Score:5)
1) The GM crop becomes dominant, and supplants the natural variant. Given its enhanced resistance to pests, blight and other "natural predators," the crop grows like a weed, and it becomes a problem to kill off the crop where it is unwanted.
2) A GM crop which has been modified to produce no fertile seeds causes the natural variant to become sterile as well. The crop dies out, apart from GM seeds created in the laboratory, and with patent protection ensuring that no one can create even a modified crop with the defect removed in order to restore fertility, the corp. effectively owns that entire crop.
I have no problem with the science of GM crops, and I think that outcome #1, while perhaps having unfortunate short-term effects, is nevertheless subject to the forces of natural evolution. Outcome #2 is far more concerning, and ought to be considered more carefully. In particular, we need to seriously reconsider patents in general, and on such things as genes in particular. Since genes are not an "invention" but a natural discovery, they should not be the subject of patent whatsoever.
Farmers don't reuse seed... (Score:1)
One thing you have to remember is that these days very few farmers use their own seed. Almost all of them just buy it. This is due to hybrids that don't breed true and simple economics.
i lived behind a monsanto plant... (Score:1)
knows what else.
It's a sad day when a vegan isn't safe from synthetic components in his/her food.
Thanks, Monsanto. My eyes don't burn since I've moved out of St. Louis.
I guess not (Score:1)
Solient Green (sp) (Score:1)
Good point, but... (Score:1)
The point here is that each advance of civilization brings with it new dependencies within society. Yes, we will become dependent on genetic engineering for the standard of living we now (and will) enjoy. But then, I'm just as glad that medical science has made it possible for my children to live without the 'opportunity' to contract polio, diptheria, measles, and 10 other kinds of horribles. I don't see anyone whining about missing out on smallpox.
I for one am just pleased as punch that there are those scientists and businesses out there making it possible to increase the potential yield of an acre of arable land.
a few things about GM (Score:4)
I want some 'real' research (Score:1)
Basically the article is full of the same old mantra's we've heard since forever. I remember an article in Nature on the same subject, but it wasn't peer reviewed I belief. Does anyone have any solid information on the subject?
My personal uninformed opinion (I can have one, I gonna be a politician), is that geneticly modified anything is bad, since we have no idea of the long term effects GM has on our ecosystems. I wonder if we even know of the short term effects it has. Before you can alter somebodies code, you first have to understand it. If ya don't, don't fiddle with it to see what it does, or at least do it in a controlled environment.
Re:Farmers don't reuse seed... (Score:2)
This is not the problem at all. (Score:3)
There's a difference between progress & blackmail (Score:4)
The strategy of requiring Monsanto-patented adjuncts (fertilizers, pesticides) for use with Monsanto-patented seeds is the worst kind of dirty pool. It's like Microsoft's (aborted) strategy of making it nearly impossible to install another company's browser as well as MSIE.
Regardless of how good, bad or dangerous the tech is, the fact remains that Monsanto's business practices represent a real threat to farmers and those economic interests that depend on agribusiness.
OTOH, Monsanto sure knows how to build a nice oversized wheel of gouda [mcs.net].
We already have too much food (Score:2)
Genetic variety is more of the answer than sterility and monoculture and organic food would be the best thing to pop into your tummy.
Monsanto is concerned with the profit of Monsanto, nothing else.
Sterilizing the seeds doesn't increase yield (Score:1)
Re:Genetically Modified Crops (Score:1)
Re:Good point, but... (Score:1)
Soylent Green (OT) (Score:2)
If I lived under those conditions I'd be eating natural meat every day. They say it's a tender meat, and sweeter than pork.
Little green crackers... what a horrible waste.
oops ("growers" doesn't seem quite [appropriate]) (Score:1)
Re:I want some 'real' research (Score:1)
[1] Michael Pollan, "Playing God in the Garden," NEW YORK TIMES October 25, 1998, pgs. 44-51, 62-63, 82, 92-93.
[2] David Pimentel and others, "Ecology of Increasing Disease," BIOSCIENCE Vol. 48, No. 10 (October 1998), pgs. 817-826.
[3] THE ECOLOGIST magazine devoted its most recent issue to Monsanto; see "The Monsanto Files; Can We Survive Genetic Engineering?" THE ECOLOGIST Vol. 28, No. 5 (Sept./Oct., 1998), pgs. 249-324. E-mail: ecologist@gn.apc.org
ironicly, this was at the bottom =P
Labelling (Score:2)
Sadly, the Canadian government took a similar stance about product labeling, but I believe they didn't allow the use of BGH.
Dana
Re:I guess not (Score:1)
Hate to say it, but someone has to. Shit is natural, as is cyanide and other various poisons. Cyanide for example is present in the seeds of apples, something that is natural that can kill you (when in appropriate dosage is consumed). Therefore saying that because it is natural does not mean it is good.
And besides, personally I hate brussel-sprouts and those are natural. They taste bad to me, and I would rather eat a genetically altered brussel-sprout that tastes good.
-Will
Where is the line? (Score:1)
but what is Genetically Modifying a crop? If you take cells and start messing around with them and build up a plant that is, say immune to a local parasite, then sure, that's a GM crop.
but how about if you cut down all the plants that are not bearing fruit well, but leave the ones that are? one might argue you are simply accelerating natural selection, but the overall genetic makeup of the crop is being modified - the "weak" ones are being removed. by such reasoning, evolution is genetically modifying crops, albeit extremely slowly - if darwin's theory of evolution holds, what are humans but genetically-modified apes?
most of the "fear" seems to come from the impression that some loony in a white coat is tampering with food, in order to increase a company's profits. while i'm sure monsanto and others would be keen on this, it doesn't seem to hold much water past media sensationalisation.
genetically modifying crops is only one stage further than spraying fertiliser on a crop. its purpose is to increase the yield, health, and quality of the food - something which is good for everyone.
we made the mistake with fertilisers and similar products - many were used without proper testing, research, and thoughts for the environment. anyone remember DDT? what we must NOT do is make the same mistakes again.
thus research must continue - knowledge is _everything_. by implication it must be forced out of private enterprise's hands, and into an open, non-profit organisation - open-sourced, effectively, until it is known and understood to its full extent. best case - we find something we can use to benefit ourselves and the environment. worst case - we find we can't improve it, so we drop it. but at least we *know*, which is better than doing it unknowingly.
Fross
Re:Genetically Modified Crops (Score:1)
More info:
Killer bee attack in Mexico [discovery.com]
AgNews on Killer Bees [tamu.edu]
Desertusa Attack of the "Killer Bees" [desertusa.com]
Fleming's Bee page [crl.com]
Rule of the technocracy ... (Score:1)
- 50% of the world are still impverished
- a large majority don't even have a phone
- computers are useless because they can't read
- baby boomers waiting for the massive transfer of wealth and anticipate living off the tax-sweat of the next generation of the young
- can't afford health care much less the exotic drugs the pharmaceuticals charge to recoup R&D (plus hefty margin) costs (nothing like a captive market)
- still waiting for the US to pay off its $6 trillion dollar debt while addicting third world nations and various corrupt governments to a consumer lifestyle they can't afford
Yes, it's nice getting 6 figure salaries designing the next smart sweatshop sneaker and worrying about biobabble. I'd like to point out a little newspaper article that caught my eye when a reader ask her son (serviing in the East Timor Peace Keeping Forces) what the people over there would appreciate as a present from her and he replied that for the Timorese, Xmas is a sacred period for celebrating with kin and giving thanks for their delivery, not the credit-draining consumerism exercise it is here in the US. For what merit is technology without the moral sense to apply it wisely? Too often we see the glitter of a holy grail without realising the price. DDT, nuclear research, exploration spread exotic weeds, monocultures, derivative based capital flows, all had consequences beyond those intended by their creators. I just hope the Internet makes the human race as a whole a lot more prepared for the next technology wave than historical economic evidence. In particular read up on the past [westga.edu] just to see how economic development has been derived from the struggles of various self-interests (of which OpenSource is yet another saga). Read up on books like Carl Sagan's "The Demand Haunted World" just to realise how much the average citizen is fascinated by superstition (its scary when more people believe in a live Elvis than a dead God). Will biotech be any different? Hopefully we will have developed a better sense of moral ethics by then to guide our decision making.
LL
agucultural? (Score:2)
-- my completely offtopic $.02 because I've been working on just such a thing all day.
As for a relevant point, I'm also disappointed with the quality of genetically engineered food. (me too
Re:This is not the problem at all. (Score:1)
genes or chemicals, your pick (Score:1)
Re:We already have too much food (Score:1)
But, I believe that our thought is more so that our country doesn't become agriculturally dependent on any other countries. For instance, in the case of widespread chemical or biological warfare, we could produce all the food we need internally.
Tom
"Seeds of Destruction" is bad journalism (Score:2)
The seed company cannot nearly be as evil as this article insinuates, and the author cannot nearly be as noble. Just as I wouldn't believe any article written by the seed company, I would not believe this article either.
we really need a new system.... (Score:1)
This particular example illustrates how "solving" problems under this get rich quick system works. The development process at Mosansto problably went something like this:
1: Scientists realize that Bt kills potato bugs
2: Scientists add Bt gene to potatoes
They obviously didn't consider the potential effects of their decisions, or what other, less drastic, measures could be taken. I think everyone would be better off in following the custom of one of the NY Native American tribes (Oneida i think) that requires tribal leaders to sonsider seven generations in the past and seven generations in the future when making decisions. People need to consider the effects of their decisions instead of doing what is easiest or will make the most money.
-Brian
Most distressing... (Score:1)
A scenario above talks about the possibility that a commercial sterile variant outcompetes the natural variant. [i.e. more farmers use it, as it can't reproduce for itself.] The natural variant is thus eliminated. Big deal, right? We have superior crops. But the natural evolutions ends. New genetic development grinds to a halt, since the plants never reproduce. So?
1. New diseases and pests will be devastating. All individual plants will have the same vulnerabilities. Entire crops in an infected region will be lost.
2. The standard genome of a Monsanto WheatPlant(tm) 4.2 will be known to all the world. Wanna guaranteed way to wipe out your traditional ethnic/political/religious/economic enemy? Hit their food supply where it hurts, with 100% success ratio.
The Green Revolution (Score:2)
bees (Score:1)
Re:I want some 'real' research (Score:1)
The lines were drawn hundreds of years ago (Score:2)
No it isn't. That's like saying it's one step further than watering the plants.
Monsanto isn't doing this for the good of everyone, that's the part you miserably fail to see.
We already grow enough food to feed everyone a couple of times over. Introducing pesticide into my food does not increase it's quality.
Take a look at fresh food. It's grown to appeal to your eye not your digestive system.
I humbly advise all of you to read up on farming and land use issues. Try "This Land is Our Land" by Marion Shoard, Published by Gaia Books Ltd, 20 High Street, Stroud, Glos GL5 1AS, UK: Tel 01453 752985
Re:Sterilizing the seeds doesn't increase yield (Score:1)
The plants were sterilized due to pressure from eco groups to prevent the GM plants from getting into the wild.
Monsanto would sell the same amount, because western farmers don't re-use seeds anyway
Re:We already have too much food (Score:1)
Not too sure about that one.
It's still to artificially control the food prices because big business owns food not Billy Bob Corn Grower and his dog.
Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic (Score:4)
Think about it. In the mid-1800's the advent of the steam engine, or "loco"-motive would certainly (and eventually did) spell doom for the frontier...and without the existence of the frontier, the American economy would flounder into oblivion, thus signalling the end of the "American Way of Life."
...or not.
Then it was the introduction of barbed wire ("devil's wire") that would spell certain doom for cattle ranchers. If there were no cattle ranchers, nobody would raise dairy products and urban areas would be without a significant source of food.
...or not.
Let's not forget the advent of the American Industrial Revolution...which allegedly made tasks so simple (and laborers so replaceable) that learned trades would become obsolete and the entire American society would be at the evil whims of greedy corporations.
Ok, so maybe that one did come true. ; )
Other technological advancements that would supposedly spell doom: automated-computer assembly lines (e.g. auto manufacturers), atomic energy, laser technology, and the internet (remember THAT one?).
But it seems that we've always been especially susceptible to claims when technology is suspected of tainting OUR food.
Perhaps we forget that techniques, which are now standard to nearly every farmer (such as selective breeding and hybridization, which was originally labelled as "genetic manipulation", or "playing God") were originally considered taboo.
Bottom line: We as a societal whole have backed ourselves into this corner. If farmers don't begin looking to technological advancements in crop production, our food supply is going to be incredibly short in the next few years, if the world population keeps growing at its current rate. In fact, if it weren't for existing technological advancements, we would right now be in the middle of a global famine!
The US has taken upon itself the task of feeding the entire world. In fact, entire countries are at our mercy for grain supply (Japan, for instance), so if our crop production doesn't continue to improve (with, if I may add, less farm land each year due to increased urbanization) not only will we experience a food shortage, but so will many other countries who are not agriculturally dependent!!
Something else to consider: according to this article, the EPA had approved of many of the so called Genetic Engineering prodedures. Anybody who has dealt with the EPA knows that if there ever was a paranoid and anal-retentive Government agency, it was the EPA.
They yearn to shut down industries who don't meet acceptible norms in the realm of "environmental protection". I'm willing to trust their judgement on this one.
I do agree, however, that people should still be given a choice, and should at least have a choice of "organic" or "synthetic".
I just think that the evils of this new technology have been greatly over reported and exaggerated.
Re:There's a difference between progress & blackma (Score:1)
Context is missing -- as usual for major media (Score:2)
Every plant contains pesticides, being the end-result of millions of years of a continuing evolutionary arms race between eaters and eaten.
Every plant we eat has been selected to be maximally offensive to some eaters (bugs) and minimally offensive/maximally tasty to others (cows,
I don't see much problem until they transfer potential allergens into foods. A single peanut gene in potatos, and they will have so many law-suites
That is, unless the gov steps in with regulations. Usually, a company can't be sued if they are following gov regs. Since regulators always end up slaves of regulatees, Ralph Nader has killed more people than GM ever could alone.
Lew
Seems dated (Score:1)
Note that the references in G Null's article are dated Oct '98 and earlier.
It seems that the article referred to in this post is substantially outdated.
Boycotting? (Score:2)
Requiring labeling is stupid. Bear in mind that the average consumer would not realize what label x meant, but would only assume that being "x free" is a good thing. Acme Lard could claim to be "Vitamin Free", and with marketing, this could be perceived as a good thing. (!) Thus, labeling only leads to more consumer confusion.
While Monsanto's "seeds of destruction"
are abhorrent (I've heard of it before this story), I firmly believe that market forces will force schemes like this to fail. As previously pointed out, many farmers depend on a recycling of seeds. Because of this, they will not and cannot buy Monsanto's kamikaze seeds-and so the scheme will fail.
Biotech is a new market. Give capitalism a chance to work before calling for new regulation. Ultimately market "evolution" will weed out the crappy ideas: both crappy morally and crappy economically.
-Merlyn42
This technology could save millions of lives. (Score:3)
Love it.....Just Love it. (Score:3)
A Monsanto official told the NEW YORK TIMES that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job," Angell said.
I build a gizmo. This gizmo is substantially important that many people purchase one. This gizmo has a faulty wire defect causing an explosion large enough to destroy a 3 mile radius. I (the manufacturer) know the gizmo has the defect, but I don't care. My interest is in selling as many as possible. It's the FCC's job to make sure the gizmo is safe. I make the product, but it's not my responsibility to make sure it's safe? Bullshit. As the manufacturer, I have a certain *obligation* to be DAMNED sure this thing is safe. If it's not, people will stop buying them, the government conducts an investigation, my company goes under, and I'm screwed. Doesn't anyone realize this? (Of course not. And our government doesn't care. They just put their blindfold back on and get back to work.)
Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potatoes will have major effects on U.S. agriculture, regardless of their human health consequences (if any).
Of course. As they so eloquently put: "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible."
To tighten the noose on farmers, Monsanto has a new technology in the pipeline, called "the Terminator."[...]The Terminator is a group of genes that can be spliced into any crop plant, sterilizing all of the plant's seeds. Once Terminator technology has been widely adopted, control of seed production will move from the farmer's field to corporate headquarters and farmers will become wholly dependent upon corporations for seeds.
Good, but what assurance do I have that this shit isn't going to render me sterile? The company could care less, so who's going to tell me this is safe to eat? What about my kids? When I have kids, this will probably be "widely adopted." Does that mean *they* might be sterile?
(By the way, couldn't this constitute a monopoly?)
Monsanto says that its genetic manipulations are providing the "operating system" for running a new generation of plants.
BUZZWORD BINGO!!! I vote Linux. My vegetables better not be running Windows.
A computer operating system, like DOS or Windows or Unix, is fully understandable (!) by the programmers who wrote the code. On the other hand, the genetic code was written by the Creator and no human --or group of humans --understands even a small fraction of it.
This seems to be like placing a Chimp in a Nuclear Reactor control room. Sure, he doesn't understand the ramifications, but that big red button SURE LOOKS PRETTY.
The TIMES says that, to create its New Leaf Superior pesticidal potatoes, Monsanto has had to introduce the Bt gene into thousands of potatoes to get it right because often the introduced gene ends up in an unexpected place in the potato's DNA, creating a plant that doesn't have the right pesticidal properties, or one that is an outright freak.
Picture the poor bumb rummaging through these people's dumpsters. He's not too happy right now. (Judging by the company's disregard for human life, they probably had a sign that said "EDIBLE" on the dumpster. "Look, Doctor! Free case studies!")
We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another," Lewontin said.
Does "Rude Shock" worry anyone else?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Help. (Score:3)
I have built an atomic bomb. I should not have to vouchsafe that it will not detonate. My interest is in creating the most powerful atomic bomb possible. Assuring its safety is the NRC's job.
What can one do about this other than scream one's head off? Really, if anyone has an answer, please tell me.
DISCLAIMER: I have not really built an atomic bomb.
The line is in front of us! (Score:1)
Re:Labelling (Score:1)
In Need of Regulation (Score:2)
First, this dependence on synthetic chemicals has some benefits. Monsanto makes Round-Up, a herbicide, and sells Round-Up resistant crop seeds. Round-Up is a pretty harmless, as far as (herb/pest)icides go. It degrades quickly, has a very specific biochemical target function, and binds in soil (so no runoff).
Other things, like constitutive expression of natural pesticides, are unbelievably idiotic. This could cause serious problems, killing off a variety of (unintentional) insect life and breed resistantance within ten years.
Also, genetic engineering is inevitable. We won't be able to sustain current farming practices at a sufficient volume to feed the world's growing population. Water sources are drying up and soil is being ruined rapidly. Genetically modified plants to overcome this will be necessary.
And finally, genetic modification is not a completely new thing. Humans have been mucking with the genetic development of domesticated species for more than 10,000 years. Inserting new genes isn't all that different from directed cross-breeding and the selective pressure applied by earlier farmers. We're doing (roughly) the same thing now, just at a hyper-accelerated pace.
We can't stop modifying plants now, but we should be far more careful and there should be very strict guidelines to regulate these modifications. The biggest problem, by far, is the USDA; it's a joke organization with no resources and no spine. It can't handle the responsibilites, and this industry is largely unchecked (thanks to some key lobbying, too, I'm sure). The best thing that could happen is actually political. Congress needs education, and the EPA, FDA, USDA, and related organizations should be merged into one well-funded and very powerful agency.
Of course, it's unlikely to actually happen. The most likely outcome will be unchecked genetic modification, driven primarily by the agricultural industry's astounding ignorance and short-sightedness, leading to massive environmental problems. If history is any indication, they will simply rely on (aka abuse) science to fix/postpone the major problems for them, allowing us to continue on our crash course towards a barren, life-less planet (until the next wave of extraterrestial microbes rides in on a asteriod, that is).
The Real Enemy (Score:1)
Re:we really need a new system.... -- ridiculous (Score:1)
First, you can be very sure the Monsanto scientists looked at LOTS of possible effects.
Second, you can be absolutely sure Monsanto nor anyone/everyone else CANNOT look at all possible effects. - Nonlinear equations --> chaos + computational complexity guarantees this.
So, given that we can't predict the future because of the 'prediction horizon' imposed by chaos + computational complexity, do we stop all progress?
They couldn't, in fact, consider effects 7 generations into the future 200 years ago either, and that was a much simpler age.
Sorry, the world is an uncertain place, and global rules about what to do or not to do just make things worse. No regulation, with feedback from the market (including the legal system if you screw up and hurt people), beats regulation by gov any day of the week.
Europe has lots of problems with unemployment, etc because of its excessive caution/regulation.
The future is not predictable in any detail. We have to live with this, and no doubt many of us will die from one freak un-intended effect or another of some technology or another. Generally, many more of us are living much better lives as a result of other effects, intended and un-intended.
Uncertainty is -- Get used to it.
Lew
Wrong title? (Score:1)
Genetic Engineering (Score:1)
Right now in the US we have major headaches from exotic species like cheat grass, tamarisk and kudzu.
Cheat grass is a major problem where I live because it is replacing the natural prarie grasses, with the result that we have grass fires every year instead of every 10 or 15 years. Tamarisk is replacing our natural stream-side vegetation and greatly increasing the rate at which streams lose water to evaporation. Both of these plants evolved naturally in a different ecosystem and are now replacing our local species. It is effectively impossible to stop this process.
My greatest fear for genetically engineered plants is that somebody will produce a plant with even worse properties than cheat grass or tamarisk, release it into the environment and create major headaches for everybody. Since a DNA-based technology can replicate itself unaided, we might well find it as impossible to stop as cheat grass. Since genetically engineered DNA is not subject to the usual evolutionary constraints, there seems to be no limit to the potential for noxious properties.
Re:We already have too much food (Score:1)
Now over-indulgance (50% of Americans are considered obsese) is another problem for which the health/fitness/diet industry is eternally grateful. On the other hand, it's rather curious that in places like Singapore you get weight-gain pills. As for the poor countries, especially Africa with its endemic wars and droughts, the best thing we can do for them is still giving gratuitous advice or inappropriate technology but to reduce our tarrifs/subsidies (no matter how painful it may be in the short-term) and let an agricultural market driven export economy develop that can utilise their comparative advantages (e.g. palm oil in Malaysia, rice in Thailand, coffee in Timor/Brazil, etc).
LL
History of Monsanto (Score:1)
Re:we really need a new system.... -- ridiculous (Score:1)
contradiction (Score:1)
Re:Most distressing... (Score:1)
This theory is baloney. Almost all commercial crops are monocultures that are not allowed to reproduce. Many non-engineered crops (like navel oranges and seedless) are in fact sterile clones.
These have exactly the same vulnerabilities that genetically engineered crops do.
Re:Genetically Modified Crops (Score:2)
And even if this happened, so what?
In much of the world, farmers normally save seed from one season to plant in the next. Lets say farmer 1 does just that. Farmer 2 decides to buy Monsanto's seeds with Terminator. Farmer 2's crop crosses with farmer 1's crop, so that unbeknownst to farmer 1, the seeds from his fine crop are mostly sterile.
Guess what happens to Farmer 1 next year when he plants mostly sterile seed! In a country where food production is lucky to be about 90% of need, it only takes a few cases of that to cause a famine.
I sincerely hope that if such a thing ever does happen, the starving people grab the nearest Monsanto rep and roast him on a spit.
That doesn't even get into the fact that genetically engineered organisms have unstable makups, and could re-combine in unpredictable ways. What if the terminator gene recombines oddly (a transposition for example), and produces a carcinogenic crop?
The fact is, the human race has co-evolved for a very long time with the various foods we eat. We are well adapted to eat them. While we have cross-bred and hybridized various food plants for centuries, none of that is as radical a change as genetic engineering is producing. It is entirely possable that Monsanto is creating a terrible health problem and nobody will find out for a decade or two. By then, their crops will be ubiquitous at this rate.
The hell of it is, with Monsanto's big money, and government's rubber spine, we the consumer don't even get to choose for ourselves wether or not we eat GM foods.
Re:Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic (Score:1)
Wrong term (Score:1)
Re:The lines were drawn hundreds of years ago (Score:1)
>No it isn't. That's like saying it's one step further than watering the plants.
according to the point i was making, yes it is. it is altering the crop's environment. as an extrapolation of this view, genetic modification of crops could be viewed as "selective evolution". my point is simply that GM food isn't necessarily "wrong" by its very definition - there may be some good in it, and bad in it, but we have to research it and find out.
>Monsanto isn't doing this for the good of everyone, that's the part you miserably fail to see.
i am more than aware of this fact, thank you. i was, however, not addressing the current commercial situation, but of the ethical question of genetic modification in general, as explained in the rest of my post.
>We already grow enough food to feed everyone a couple of times over. Introducing pesticide into my food does not increase it's quality.
there are still areas of the world affected by famine. on the other hand, there are areas where there is a huge surplus. the reasons for the distribution (or lack thereof) may be political, or whatever, but the fact still remains that hundreds of thousands, of not millions of people, die every year of starvation.
to give an example, if research lead to a set of GM plants being developed that were able to withstand the greatly increased heat, lack of water, or other circumstances that prevented crops from growing in these affected areas, wouldn't that be great? it could help avert future famine.
i for one am fully against leaving research like this in the hands of private investors and their companies, such as monsanto, as i stated before. i do believe that this is an area which has the potential to hold benefits, if approached and treated properly. hence research should be conducted into it, and by some organisation not concerned about its own profits!
the research should be not simply to see what we CAN do, but what the ramifications are, and possible consequences. i'm sure the very first time farmers started to use animal waste as a fertiliser, people were against that in principle. hopefully research into GM will show us something which is as beneficial with no side-effects to ourselves or the environment.
Fross
Re:"Seeds of Destruction" is bad journalism (Score:1)
Now there are those who claim that the destruction of the buffalo was a deliberate act of economic warfare rather than rampant greed, so that may not be a fair example, but people have a long history of using resources to destruction, and I believe that to the "guiding minds" of a corporation, the environment in which they operate constitues their resources.
Consciously evil? Perhaps not. It's quite likely that this can all be justified on a cost ledger (where only thos costs charged against the corporation appear). Effectively evil? I can't even manage to question that one. It's too obvious. If you don't like "Seeds of Destruction" (I've never read it), then carefully read Science News for six months or so. You'll find ample evidence. (The Scientific American takes longer, as it's a monthly.)
Re:Genetically Modified Crops (Score:1)
Re:Most distressing... (Score:1)
crops (like navel oranges and seedless) are in fact sterile clones.
Granted. And it is also true that these sterile variants have not displaced their breeding counterparts. The possibility only exists in the extreme case that a single supplier's seeds are used in preference to all others. There is also no shortage of wild plant individuals not maintained by farmers whose environments will not be infringed upon by non-breeding plants whose growth is restricted by human design. The danger exists only in the case of staple crops (like wheat, corn, rice, etc.) whose growers tend to buy *large* amounts of identical seed. In oranges, you have too much human preference involved [what's best for juicing, and so forth] to have only one type available. Not so of feed corn.
Likely? Maybe not. Just scary.
Re:Rule of the technocracy ... (Score:2)
For what merit is technology without the moral sense to apply it wisely?
So, you're implying that the Timorese are 'better' because they 'apply technology wisely, and morally'? Whereas, the US doesn't? Well.. If that's the case, then hook me up on a train to the nearest country that applies technology at random, because I would way rather live in the US than in East Timor.
I don't know, personally, I think you're looking at this from a way-too-narrow perspective. You're going 'hey, that sounds so nice... they value things in Timor.. I wish we did that..', etc... (Maybe not, but it kind of sounds like it)... But if you take a step back, you'll probably realize that our society is better, in a quality-of-life sense. Yeah, we fuck up. And yeah, maybe we'll fuck up so significantly that it'll kill us all. But so far, technology has been a boon (to those of us pursuing it). I live in Canada, and honestly, there is no place in the world that I would rather live.
Forget Western Bias and READ THIS. (Score:1)
The writers of this article are criminally misleading - because they completely neglect the use of genetic engineering of agricultural crops outside Europe and North America. Places where you cannot impune technological progress simply by claiming it is being "forced on us by those evil corporations". Places where all the arable land is in production, and grain is NOT fed to cattle. And where it is estimated that a 20% increase in crop yields would relieve huge pressures on the environment, break the cycle of sustenance level poverty and provide a buffer against the potential of food shortages and famines.
It's fine to yap about crazy theories of corporate greed and misfeasence of government in an attempt to push an anti-technology agenda, and beat up on the whipping boy of the moment, which seems to be Monsanto. But if you do so you have to examine the cases where it is NOT being driven by corporations, and ask why?
These critics are very conveniently neglecting the use of genetically engineered crops outside the North Atlantic. Anyone who REALLY wants to appreciate the picture of what is going on here needs to look at a broader view, and include organizations like the Phillipine based International Rice Research Institute, and it's programs to introduce genetically engineered rice into Asia. The Rice Institute isn't doing this for money - it's a non-profit. The Rice Institute isn't doing this to enslave farmers into its corporate model, nor any of the other self-interested motivations that the anti-genetic engineering neo- Luddites are complaining about. [cgiar.org]
If it were just corporate interests, that would be one thing. But it isn't. The move to genetically engineered foods is in fact a phenomena the is truly global and is motivated by a lot more than the profit motives that are accused in the polemic of this topic.
People need to really THINK, and get out of their chavanistic attitude that America and Europe are equal to the world when they try to assess the impact of a fundamental technology such as this.
The pages at the IRRI are also very illuminating in other ways - because they give some REAL information as to what is going on with food production in the world's most densly populated areas - where ALL arable land is in maximal production, and the grain produced is NOT being used to feed cattle.
People who throw out statements like 'we grow enough food already' and 'all we have to do is stop feeding grain to animals' are sadly mistaken.
It's not the potato that worries me... (Score:2)
It's the bugs which develop an immunity to the potato and are now resistant to BT. Bt is the best pesticides on the market today, far better than some of the others which can cause nerve and brain damage to the farmers which spray their crops. Whether we like BT or not, without BT America's farmers will suffer another potato famine, similar to or worse than the potato famine of Ireland.
The problem with the BT-potato is that farmers are supposed to rotate their crops - a certain amount of their crops are supposed to be a regular potato designed to fool mother nature. But most of them don't. To my knowledge, there is no regulation to make sure farmers plant the proper quota of non-BT potatos.
So what does this mean? It means mother nature will have this much more incentive to create a BT-resistant bug, which will go and destroy a large portion of America's potatos, whether or not they use BT-genetically bred potato, or just the BT spray. And it will take us years to catch up with the BT-bug plague, years which will destroy potato farming as we know it.
Just my $0.02
Time Scale (Score:1)
Technology and evolution have time scales so far out of whack that one should most correctly consider evolution as standing still. The only obvious exceptions occur in the realm of microbes, and that's basically because of the large number of independantly reproducing entities. And they won't keep up for long (they are already generally being outpaced, with but a very few exceptions).
This being the case, if someone starts planting crops next to your crops, the pollen WILL be shared between them. This is not a case of natural evolution. This is more like a PCB spill. The nature of the plants that you grow will change to reflect those that your neighbor planted. If he plants a crop that goes sterile after one generation, that's what you get next year. This is one reason why variations in the crops were traditionally regional rather than familial. A single family couldn't keep a variety isolated enough for long enough to establish a stable variant. A valley, however, acted as a natural barrier against the pollen of other varieties. (etc.)
Re:Soylent Green (OT) (Score:1)
Love it!
JLK
Monsanto, schmanto (Score:1)
"Monsanto thinks only of itself." Of itself, yes. Only of itself, no. Someone thinks it's worthwhile enough to spend money on, no?
"Farmers don't re-use seed." They do. Just not hybrids, like the big bags of purple corn kernels covered with lots of good stuff.
"Everyone will starve otherwise." They're starving now.
"We already have too much food." Yes. We don't distribute it well.
"People shouldn't eat chickens." I don't like getting my protein from peanut butter because it sticks to the roof of my mouth.
"Population growth." Needs to stop.
"Someone's making money." From your tone of voice, I assume it's not you.
"The bugs will multiply." Then we'll eat them.
"Why aren't we more like the Europeans?" I thought we were trying to get out of there.
"Mother nature can't keep up." So the world will be covered with potatoes. What's your point?
Roundup Rules!
Re:"Seeds of Destruction" is bad journalism (Score:1)
That was the reason for my post.
Re:Farmers don't reuse seed... (Score:1)
And if we thought people telling us how many times we can view a movie, or how we can run out software, is scary, having a large company control our food is even worse.
Re:we really need a new system.... (Score:1)
But, I wonder, how could a shaman successfully predict seven generations into the future. Have any writings from 1750 accurately predicted current social and technical conditions? Not even Nostradamus. Anyone care to make predictions on what social and technical conditions in the year 2250 will be like?
It has become chic (PC) today to attribute to Indian cultures an environmental respect that never really existed. It is the new urban mythology. They didn't 'live as one' with the land. They hunted several species to extension. They burned off forests to create more grazing land for their prefered food source. They raided other tribes and took slaves. In short, they behave like people everyone, acting for their own advantage and survival.
Re:Genetically Modified Crops (Score:1)
> The problem with GM crops is the possibility of
> cross-contamination of similar, but non-GM
> crops.
Do you mean physical contamination of a field of one crop variety with a members of another variety? Or are you talking about the offspring of a cross between the two?
> 1) The GM crop becomes dominant, and supplants
> the natural variant.
Do you mean that if GM and non-GM varieties of the same crop were grown in the same field, then the GM crop would dominate and choke out members of the non-GM variety? I'm not sure why a farmer would do that, but if it did occur and the GM crop did prevail in the environment for which it was designed, what's the problem? There's Natural Selection in action for you.
Or do you mean that farmers will choose the GM variety over the other, until the non-GM variety just doesn't exist? This is also unlikely, since there will always be people who choose not to grow GM crops, for a variety of reasons. But again, if this were to happen it would just be another example of the naturally superior variety being most successful. This of course has nothing to do with genetic engineering of foods.
> 2) A GM crop which has been modified to produce
> no fertile seeds causes the natural variant to
> become sterile as well.
If a GM plant and a non-GM plant manage to cross-breed, any offspring which inherit the appropriate combination of sterility genes will of course be sterile. However, all crossed offspring which don't inherit the appropriate genes, as well as all offspring from regular breedings between non-GM plants, will breed just fine. The only way you could completely eliminate the normal, fertile plants would be to prevent them from pollinating each other (or self-pollinating in many cases) and subject them to conditions in which GM plants can survive but every single non-GM individual dies before it can reproduce. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
> Since genes are not an "invention" but a
> natural discovery, they should not be the
> subject of patent whatsoever.
Naturally, all genes present in all organisms on earth are technically there to be "discovered" and are not owned by anyone. But the reality of the situation is that *immense* amounts of time, labour, and money go into the research projects which fund these discoveries. This money, in particular, has to come from somewhere, and currently the way this is done is to create products using the newfound knowledge which cannot be automatically replicated by competitors. The economic success of these new (and hopefully improved) varieties will fund future research. I know this system will probably offend a lot of Open Source sensibilities but I personally don't see any viable alternatives.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to admit that genetic engineering of crops, and biotechnology in general, has implications and potential consequences which must be taken very seriously. I'm just so sick of the misinformation and FUD that seems so rampant in the media these days.
The third world brings these problems on. (Score:2)
1. To create a stable nation you need a stable government
2. To have a stable government you need a stable population of at least semi-happy people.
3. To have semi-happy people you have to have basic necessities such as clean water, food, and medical care.
4. To have all of the things in 3 you need to have the infrastructure to support it and that usually means having 1 and 2 sometime in the past.
5. All of these forces combined allows for the creation of technology which allows more of 1-4 to occur.
When little countries think that they want to create a new country they effectively eliminate 3-5 for a while. This then allows for a decrease of lapse in 1 and 2.
I get a real kick out of some of these arguments that all these "evil" corporation are doing "really bad things". I live in a world where basically people are given one of several choices they can increase in their power or allow it to stagnate and then slide backwards. In the last decade I have been hearing more of these little arguments that sound like perfect mimics or something some pot smoking hipie would have said. I guess I think that people should be thinking about things that will allow them to get jobs and make money. I guess since I am not living in some third world country and don't have the luxry of taking a machete to my neighbor's head to steal his withered turnips dosn't make practal concerns any more non useful.
I have studied and looked at things about these corporations and have seen what appears to be some rather nice improvements especially in getting people fed. If people are fed then perhaps they can survive better and not have to fear death or lives of lonliness and such. A great deal of my schooling was based in the 1990s in terms of actual data and most of my opinions were made in the 80s about such key issues. Americans are not the great satan nor are they inherently evil. But you have to wonder about effectiveness on certain key issues. If I spend all of my time trying to help all of these displaced/helpless/victims of corporations/victims of the evil Americans/insert your favorite post-modern phrase here.
I have read several thousand publications, I have close friends and relatives and other acquantainces who have traveled extensively and thourally to all sorts of places. Guess what the consensus of all these great learned men and women some of whom were holders of prestigeous awards and even a couple of the Noble Peace Prize holders. No once even thinks that the world is comming apart at the seams. This is not the x-files and conspiracies are very exposable because there are many differing and large gaping moles now adays.
Re:Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic (Score:2)
Here's a conspiracy theory for you: a whole industry of techno-doomsayers has an incentive to paint lifesaving technologies as deadly in order to sell dumb books to gullible people. When their predictions of disaster don't materialize (are you reading this, Paul Ehrlich?) they get off scot-free. Yet thousands, even millions, may have died because technologies they criticized never got developed, or got developed late. Is this less evil than the depredations of those horrible Big Corporations? Phillip Morris is being sued for feathering its nest through lies and misrepresentations. Why should technology critics get a pass? How about liability for loosing toxic memes?
Re:This is not the problem at all. (Score:2)
Even if by some freak unforseen consequence GM crops yielded more food how do you propose that this food get into the hands of the starving masses. The US govt has HUGE silos of wheat they buy from farmers who produce too mauch and can't sell on the open market. Same with dairy and meat products. Who is going to donate their extra crops to Africa? Who is going to pay to ship them there? who is going to distribute them? Nobody that's who. We stockpile food while others starve this is the way of the world. Today people are starving because of greed, economics, and politics not because there is not enough food to go around. In a few years that might change though.
Re:There's a difference between progress & blackma (Score:1)
nobody "controls" the market
one different corporations have larger market shares, but this is not control
and in any case, you are ignoring the definition of what a monoploy is
try not to confuse your moral outrage with superior knowledge
you don't have a monoploy on thought or analysis
p.s. this really should be private, get an account with an e-mail on it, even a hotmail
Re:Rule of the technocracy ... (Score:2)
Well, we could impoverish ourselves, and bring everyone down to the same level. We could do what we do now, and give the worst situations a little help. Or, we could actually help poor people around the world, by making birth control a mandatory condition for receiving any aid (after all, why pay people to produce more starving babies?), encouraging private industry to develop in "developing" nations, and demanding certain social standards (not feeding soldiers in the middle of a civil war, making sure that people come before cattle, and not supporting dictatorships).
a large majority don't even have a phone
So? Why not concentrate on helping them pull themselves up to a level where they can afford them?
computers are useless because they can't read
Then they need education, not computers. Walk before you run.
baby boomers waiting for the massive transfer of wealth and anticipate living off the tax-sweat of the next generation of the young
Is grandma on SS really a "technocrat"?
can't afford health care much less the exotic drugs the pharmaceuticals charge to recoup R&D (plus hefty margin) costs (nothing like a captive market
Again, if someone thinks that tribal infighting is more important than feeding their family, I see no reason why I should help them. If drug companies didn't make a profit, they wouldn't be able to stay in business, let alone conduct often-fruitless research. Do you think that every time a drug company spends 10 years researching something, any usefull product results? We only hear about the successes, because they are rare.
still waiting for the US to pay off its $6 trillion dollar debt while addicting third world nations and various corrupt governments to a consumer lifestyle they can't afford
What, exactly, is so "addictive" about American lifestyle? Are people ODing on Dockers and Levis? Are native tribes in the Amazon dying because they can't find a Gap to shop at? If people around the world didn't want to be like Americans, they wouldn't buy our stuff, and we wouldn't bother trying to sell it to them. You know, if someone can't afford something, they don't buy it. That's why McDonalds and Pizza Hut haven't taken over Russia -- most people can't afford it. Are they any worse off for that? If so, am I any worse off because I can't afford $500 to blow at a good resturant?
For what merit is technology without the moral sense to apply it wisely? Too often we see the glitter of a holy grail without realising the price.
DDT,
Which is working to eliminate malaria and yellow fever around the world, mostly in those can't-afford-a-cellphone-and-computer countries that you mentioned earlier. Maybe you should ask them to go back to dying from mosquito bites, and see what they think about it.
nuclear research
Which has led to the demise of quite a few oil and coal-powered electrical plants. I don't know about you, but sulphur dioxide isn't exactly one of my favorite flavors.
We have the moral sense to use technology wisely, and we do. True, not everyone gets the same things at the same time. There isn't any way to ensure "fairness" -- the closest you can get is to make everyone poor. If we spend all of out time and efforts trying to put a computer on every desk and a phone in everyone's hand, we'll never gain anything, for anyone.
Scientific research, funded mostly by private industry, has brought more advances to the poor and downtrodden than anything else. In this case, the glitter of the biotech holy grail is possibly the end of hunger and disease -- no small goal. When the human genome is finally decoded, when the Sahara blooms again, it will be because of those evil, greedy technocrats. Damn them.
interdependence (Score:2)
But increasing interdependence is woven into our social and evolutionary fabric. Most of us wouldn't have made it to adulthood without modern medicine. We have become dependent on numerous agricultural techniques and species. We rely on electricity, water, and other "everyday technologies".
On the whole, this isn't bad. While people from an agrarian society 500 years ago might be shocked if they heard about and understood our dependence on just-in-time grocery delivery, we don't mind. Future generations won't mind the additional dependencies created.
However, the web of patents, ethical questions, ecological uncertainties, and policies surrounding biotechnology and bioengineered crops should make us tread cautiously. Do we really want to create dependencies on a few large agribusinesses? Are we certain that the current GM foods are really safe for the long term? Do we understand the social and economic consequences? Much simpler agricultural techniques (damming, irrigation, etc.) have turned out to be harmful and unsustainable, and it seems almost certain that we don't yet understand well enough the consequences of genetically modified foods.
In the long run, biotechnology will be beneficial in agriculture and it will create interdependencies that people will live with happily, just like with live happily with our current interdependencies. In the short run, however, I think we need to tread more cautiously.
Re:Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic (Score:2)
Directed != Engineered (Score:2)
All the foods you mention were directed
by humans, but this is refering to the
creation by humans of a food item
(sure, they're re-using genes, but still...)
I'll use a math analogy...
Think of all the genes, etc., vectors.
The sum combination of these is a vector space.
All directed evolution stays (relatively)
in this space, and can be accounted for.
This means that for the most part,
no mutation will occur which is SO drastic that
the environment cannot address it's effect,
and form a balance.
But consider GE: it basically amount to,
(in the math analogy) throwing in a vector
parallel to all the others. It exists outside
the vector space, and all equations that held
true for that space may, or may not, get f***ed.
(sorry for the language). Likewise, GE
may or may not harm the environment.
But it may or may not be equipped to handle
it, unlike in the above example. If it can't,
it will destruct.
So certainly, directed evolution is different
than GE in this sense, but what is wrong with
GE, if it helps? Nothing, I would say,
except that if the ecosystem can't quite deal
with it, it can only hurt in the long run.
Maybe it can do some good, but almost all GE,
such as Monsanto's, is financially motivated,
not "for the good of all", as is almost all
research nowdays (at least indirectly).
I have nothing against strawberries,
but how about the GE that resist certain
pesticides, etc? One could ask the converse:
why not use naturally-based pesticides,
which they are already immune to? The answer
is (kinda) obviously money. And anyway, the
insects aren't there to eat everything, they
are there to _regulate the strawberries_.
Sigh...rant I about more?... yes...
One more thing, the idea of a Terminator Gene,
and the implications of it and cross-pollination
which have been mentioned earlier in the comments:
It seems to me that the implications of such
seem to parallel the idea of a computer virus
sent to destroy competeing software...
oh, I don't know, to sum things up:
1. I just don't like it.
2. I'm not happy here (earth).
No other options though.
Happy Y2K, 2038, etc... how we do love our
apocalypses.
-Slackergod
Yet another "all technology is good" reply (Score:2)
Think carefully, because like it or not, humans are NOT the masters of the Earth. If we fuck it up, there isn't any backup Earth waiting a couple of "parsecs" over to move to to try again. The decision to go ahead and implement a "great" new technology simply because it has short term promise is INSANE if it is not fully thought out, explained and then supported by the majority of people who are bound to be affected. Claiming those of us opposed to GM foods are ignorant because we hesitate to embrace every new thing is not enough, it does not put you on a moral high ground from whence you can cast your judgements from. If we are wrong and you know it, LET'S SEE THE MATERIAL! I want to learn why my misgivings are wrong!
I think it would be wise to take extreme caution when dealing with any unproven technology that has such massive and potentially far reaching implications as does genetically modified foods. For example, perhaps I have not kept up, but I have not seen any significant research into the long term effects of wide spread GM food use by either humans or animals. If there are some, I'd love to get some references so I can look them up and learn some more about it.
If we save a hundred million people now using GM foods, but a couple billion die 20 years from now because of unseen consequences, have we won?
Re:Farmers don't reuse seed... (Score:2)
Quite true. I wonder how many of those farmers from India buy seed from big companies though... It's probably less then the number of US farmers who buy seed from those big companies.
Are Genetically-Modified foods kosher? (Score:4)
For those who are Jewish, there may be religious and ethical problems with eating GM foods. GM "foods" are frequently created by snipping a section of DNA out of one organism and inserting into the genome of another.
Given:
- The chapter Leviticus in the the Old Testamant in the Christian Bible contains a prohibition against mating different kinds of animals, and
- The rules in Leviticus are often similar to Jewish law
then it is possible that GM foods may not be clean to eat because they're created by a means which may be illegal under Jewish law.I hope someone who's Jewish and knowledgeable about such things can comment on this.
Re:I want some 'real' research (Score:2)
Life is a modular system. Just because you add, say, a bacterial toxin gene to a plant it doesn't mean that it's going to take over the world--in the same way that adding one program to your 386 is not going to make it outperform an Athlon across the board.
Keep in mind that life has been adapting for a long time and therefore is already pretty close to optimal for natural conditions. It isn't that close for weird conditions, such as are found in your average heavily fertilized agricultural monoculture. Our peculiarly adapted things have a long and glorious history of faring horribly in the wild. (Note the lack of packs of wild poodles overruning the world.) GM allows us to make peculiar adaptations even faster than before.
Rather than being scared of GM in general, then, we have to examine each and every proposed application and consider how that might have an impact. Including pesticides in food is questionable, for some of the reasons the article mentioned. Removing enzymes responsible for breakdown in ripe fruits seems a bit more reasonable.
Re:Help. (Score:2)
Monsanto is taking ordinary vegetables, which are about as unlike nuclear weapons as possible, and modifying them slightly. While it's possible that those modifications might make the food dangerous, I'm pretty sure that's not Monsanto's intent. I am also sure that if Monsanto knew that a certain modification was dangerous, they would stop using it, or suffer the legal consequences. Regardless of what their PR guy says, Monsanto would of course be liable if they knowingly sold a dangerous product.
There's a difference between saying "It's not my responsibility to decide if this product is safe," which seems to be Monsanto's position, and saying "We will claim that this product is safe irrespective of any evidence to the contrary."
Your interpretation of Monsanto's position, on the other hand, seems to be "Let's see how many people we can kill with our vegetables!" Making baseless (implied) accusations is a good way to get people to "scream their heads off", but I think a rational consideration of the situation is more appropriate.
Prohibiting Labels != Requireing Labels (Score:2)
However, when they were forbiding labeling, that was a very scary and wierd thing. If Ben & Jerry want to state that their stuff is BGH free, why should our government stop them? That benefits no one but the BGH producers. What right does the government have to forbid truthful disclosure of ingredients and production methods?
There is no way that anyone can know what the long term affects, if any, will be. The technology simply hasn't been around long enough to know for sure. Some people feel the risk is negligable, others would prefer to use natural products (for some, such as rastas, it could be a religious nessecity), some people will enjoy the lower prices that this technology is supposed to bring, others would rather not support the GM companies. No matter what, if a vendor is willing to discose honest information about the production methods, the consumers have a right to hear it.
Re:Help. (Score:2)
Please understand, I have no objections to genetically engineered foods. And I strongly doubt that Monsanto intends to make dangerous foods. What concerns me is the cavalier attitude of their PR guy towards liability and that it may represent the company.
"It's not my responsibility to decide if this product is safe," which seems to be Monsanto's position
That's exactly my concern. It is their responsibility, just as it is the responsibility of a gun owner to take reasonable precautions (e.g., not leaving it publicly accessible) to prevent misuse of his gun.
I think your interpretation of my interpretation is far from the mark. Their position seems to be, "We'll do as we please (the rights of others be damned)." It doesn't seem to be, "Let's damn the rights of others." My implied accusation is one of criminal negligence, not attempted murder.
I did rationally consider the situation, and came to the conclusion that at least their PR guy seemed perfectly willing to act in a reckless manner that could endanger the life of every one of their customers. On the basis of that conclusion and given that I do not know what to do about the actual, daily, widespread violations of individual rights, I am very upset, angry, and sad. If I knew what to do, I'd do it; but I don't, so I screamed my head off (at least metaphorically) and then posted to slashdot asking for advice.
Re:Help. (Score:2)
The idea is that GE can set off a chain reaction just as deadly. The problem is that we are all afraid of, and respect, nuclear power because we (a government) already used it to blow a couple of cities up. We didn't understand the bomb when we tested it and there was no way the researchers could know that it wouldn't destroy much more. We were willing to take the chance due to the circumstances. In this case we (a company working toward it's own interests) could be setting off a chain reaction of environmental effects.
The reason I posted this article, is that I saw it the same way I view Linux. Big company trying to use it's money and power to control and develop a monopoly. BTW, here's my original rant [slashdot.org]. (I was pretty pissed off.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
Re:Genetically Modified Crops (Score:2)
You Can't Cross a Sterile Breed
That's the thing, the terminator isn't exactly sterile. The terminator gene is inserted into the plant, and remains dormant through it's life cycle. When the seed from the plant germinates, the terminator is expressed, and causes production of an herbicide so thet the newly germinated seeds die. That's where the problem lies.
Re:Objective proof and references? (Score:2)
references from an objective (read non environmentalist source) source that sites some field in Kenya where farmers 1 and 2 actually experienced the evil things from happening.
Since it hasn't been 'deployed' yet, that'd be a bit difficult. What I presented is an all too likely scenario of potential harm. Monsanto has never shown any evidence that this scenario can't happen. Since they are the ones who want to introduce this new thing into the environment, the burden of proof is supposed to be on them (especially since they are the sole beneficiary of the technology). If it were a new pesticide or industrial chemical, they WOULD be required to provide a study (not as rigorous or detailed as one would like, but nevertheless, a study).
So in that light, I ask, is there any proof that this technology that is meant to benefit ONLY Monsanto will cause no harm in the environment or food supply? I personally don't want to be one of their lab rats.
Petition for labelling (Score:2)
... I've heard US congress people say that they'd push for better food labelling if that's what the US people wanted. Why don't you start asking for it?
If I go to the store and buy some spreadable cheese product, I get told on the package if it contains cheese or not. Americans don't. That scares me, at least.
Re:Genetically Modified Crops (Score:2)
GM could let us make this mistake even faster.
Re:How do GM strains differ from others (Score:2)
Re:Colonialism rears its ugly head (Score:2)
Re:Farmers don't reuse seed... (Score:2)
Every animal expands population in the presence of food surplues. And every increase in production has brought about a fall in prices that keeps the farmer in the same economic position.
Re:genes or chemicals, your pick (Score:2)
That hardly counts as less chemical use, does it?
Re:Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic (Score:2)
Even putting that aside, unsustainable agricultural methods only delay, not prevent, population overtaking food production - and by allowing population to grow in the meantime they could create a greater disaster.
Re:Please get your facts straight (Score:2)
Hence, it is almost impossible for an entire field to become cross-pollinated and produce sterile offspring, as you suggest.
You are correct that the entire field scenario is unlikely. The problem is, many of these farmers are just getting by now, combine a bad season with cross-polination, and it could be the difference between marginal success and failure. In any event, it's a risk that farmer 1 did not have a choice in.
To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely nothing about genetically modified DNA that makes it inherently less stable than "regular" DNA.
The DNA itself IS just as stable, but it's position and expression is not. The problem lies in the methodology, and has been a big hinderance to some work in genetic engineering. The 'glow in the dark' tobacco (luciferin gene spliced in) was an experiment to try to determine the circumstances which lead to the problem. In particular, the Terminator takes advantage of the situation in order to produce the 1st generation seed, yet have the second generation non-viable.
No we haven't. Co-evolution is a process driven by natural selection, not the artificial selection which we use on crops.
I was not referring to the breeding process, I was referring to the MUCH (orders of magnitude) longer period before we started breeding the plants (in pre-history). I agree that co-evolution stopped once breeding and cultivation began.
All new technologies have the potential to pose health and safety risks, but this is no reason to avoid all exposure to new technologies.
Agreed. The problem is, I don't see much evidence of conscientious testing or of any standards to enforce. There is also the question or risk/benefit. In the case of terminator, the farmer and consumer get the risk, and only Monsanto would see a benefit. To me, that is unacceptable. In other cases where the equasion is more balanced, it is reasonable to cautiously move forward. The past suggests that agribusiness cannot be counted on to adequately test or to provide sustainable solutions. The USDA is simply going to have to do better (though their past record isn't all that encouraging either, at least they don't have a direct vested interest).
Re:Yet another "technology is evil" scare tactic (Score:2)