Bush wants EU to eat gen-modified food

[Birdfolly]

Yes they might be more susceptable to disease, but its a policy if anything on a farm is infected to destroy everything there so it's not like that would make a difference anyway. And besides, it's not like plant disease is a huge problem these days. You can't exactly spread foot and mouth or mad cow to wheat and rice.

So do you think that a plant disease epidemic spreading through farms that grow the same Monsanto seed would not be a huge problem? Hello? Food shortage? When there is diversity, even within one farm from field to field and year to year, yield and resistance naturally stay high.

Did you ever think that the seed monopolies might benefit greatly from such a "problem". I would never want to leave such an important thing as the world's crops in the hands of a few corporations no matter how good they are at GM.

by Vandana Shiva:

"The fabrication of the data by Monsanto on Bt. Cotton India is an example of the promotion of an unnecessary, untested, hazardous technology through pseudo science. While yields of GM cotton fell by 80% and farmers had losses of nearly Rs. 6,000/acre. Monsanto used Martn Qaim (University of Bonn) and David Zilberman) University of California, Berkeley) to publish an article in Science to claim that yields of Bt. Cotton increased by 80%. Qaim and Zilberman published the paper on the basis of data provided by Monsanto from Monsanto's trials not on the basis of the harvest from farmers fields in the first year of commercial planting.

The fabricated data that presents a failure of Bt. Cotton as a miracle hides the fact that non-target insects and diseases increased 250-300%, costs of seed were 300% more and quantity and quality of cotton was low. This is why on April 25, 2003, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Government of India did not give clearance to Monsanto to sell Bt. Cotton seeds in Northern India."

[ken124578]

I have no problem with GM crops pre s

[SurlyPIG]

Why is plant disease all of a sudden an "epidemic" (lol)? And there are ways to greatly increase the biodiversity of crops that conventional agriculture never even thought of.

And since when is a GM crop less resistant to disease? That's a ludicrous assumption. When biologists modify the crops, they don't just tamper with natural resistances for the sheer hell of it, they leave it alone or even enhance it. It is possible to identify genes that increase an organism's resistance to certain diseases, you know.

Again, the decision to use GM seeds and eat GM products is not yours, the decision of some committe or anyone else's to dictate. It should be up to each individual farmer and each individual consumer to decide for themselves - end of story.

[Anathema]

The issue shouldn't even be up for debate. In 2000 both the EU and the US signed the Montreal protocol, under wich we have every right to hold back GM improts as we see fit.

By the way, when the Montreal conference took place, the EU wanted to have every GM product labeled to alert customers, but the US was strongly oposed, and even today no agreements for labeling requirements have been made.

[nemafakei]

"And since when is a GM crop less resistant to disease?"

"And who cares about biodiversity?"

The thing is, ACE, if all the crops are genetically ideatical, if one particular disease happens to be potent against that particular variant and occurs within a GM population, the chances are that most of that year's (and perhaps later years') crop of all that genotype will fail.

And if an entire country loses all its wheat crop, then there's trouble.

Secondly, more 'redundant' parts of the crop are genetically enhanced, and these parts are often those targeted and used by disease. Imagine if you had 10 appendices. No-one altered any resilience genes, they just made you a bigger target.

[Acriku]

Would the same thing not happen to a non-GM food, say a disease comes in and targets the corn fields. Most of that corn will be victim to that disease, while some may be resilient to it - but not always. They can engineer the food to be resilient to any known disease, and if another comes, they engineer for that. It's a progressive process. But new diseases destroying crops doesn't happen much. The thing is, the benefits outweigh the criticisms and the potential for GM foods include solving world hunger.

[Egeides]

No. You don't just use a magic wand and get protection for a specific disease, not more than you can do it to AIDS. In nature, each disease will only attack a part of the individuals: with less diversity, it attacks everything more easily. And you can't protect from everything.

About feeding the world, even if you'd get 200% more, the price to buy it may also be 200%...

Acriku, please answer to what I wrote earlier to this present message.

[Acriku]

Egeides...

But Monsanto, which makes genetically modified crops, says that contrary to popular belief, genetically modified does not automatically mean less diversity.

"There are 1,000 varieties of soybeans that contain our roundup ready gene, for example," said Monsanto spokesman Gary Barton. "Critics would want you to think they're all the same. But the farmer has more choice than he knows what to do with."

About feeding the world, even if you'd get 200% more, the price to buy it may also be 200%...

That's an economic issue, and in a capitalist society the more you have of something the less it costs.

Genes are multi-functional sometimes. So changing one gene will change many functions. You may have found that these gene gives more resistance, it may also have some other effects. Exactly like the problem we have cloning cattle: what is done also modifies some secundary elements that have effects unknown at first. Perhaps in 30 years we'll be able to clone conveniently, but for now, studies are required.

Genes that may be pleiotropic (where genes have multiple effects) of course are researched and examined on what it does to the plant. They don't gene-modify food and put it on the next truck to the supermarkets, they get it approved before selling. You don't seem to understand the amount of research that goes into this.

[Ice_Cube]

I have no problem with GM crops pre s

[ken124578]

read the title of the topic ken. Bush and America are the same thing as Bush has America in his palm.

That explains why there were thousands of ANTI war protestors roaming the streets in america. ::)

btw. that also answers the rest of icecube's post.

[Caid Ivik]

America, please FUCK OFF. Thanks.

Long live the Old Europe!

[nampigai]

Caid not everything the US does is right.

[Timenn]

There is no way you can find out what else happens if you modify the genes.

Take DDT, everyone thought it was great. But still now people are suffering from the harm it done.

So it can be with modifying genes. You don't know what it does else.

[SurlyPIG]

DDT saved millions of lives used as an anti-bacterial agent in WWII. Soldiers were literally bathed in DDT. How is it harming people? It harms birds, but it won't harm humans unless they consume it.

[Egeides]

BOY!!! ACE, in all this thread, each time you talk it's as if you didn't knew a thing about what science said about it...

Hey, if birds eat DDT, who do you think eats the birds? Where do you believe the DDT goes? Do you know DDT was officially condemned, and why?? Do you know the effects it can have on biodiversity/biology?

It's not because it has one good effect that globally it's good. GMOs as DDT or anything else.

[Timenn]

And it is right if it harms birds??! >:(

[Phage]

http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=2098 : for a quick and dirty support of what I say.

GM foods are some of the greatest potential inventions for mankind. The only real threat to it seems to stem from radicals who hate the system, religious groups that think man is "playing god" and extreme naturists who see it as unnatural. To this end most "scientific" sounding arguments against GM foods are ad hoc.

For example a green peace representative stated that GM foods are not tested at all. In fact this man was Green Peace's director of examining GM crops (Charles Margulis) states they are not tested at all for safety.

However leading scintists on the issue such as Terri Lomax

http://www.osucascades.edu/faculty/lomax/

and Norman Borlaug (Nobel prize winning agronomist who's technology has helped feed almost a billion that would otherwise starve) have pointed out that not only are GM crops safe, they are tested even more so for safety then regular crops.

The response? Well Green Peace doesn't trust the tests, since it doesn't trust the FDA. Very ad hoc. (I wonder then why they trust the FDA when it says breast milk is better then formula or regular foods are safe though).

In any event the issue is obvious an ideological/cultural one, not a scientific or safety one.

Now people point to potential dangers of GM crops, but all those are unlikely. First off the idea of modifying a few genes that lead to harmful effects for those that eat it, an effect similiar to a poison is very rare. That in evolution would be equivalent to a beneficial saltation, a big leap forward for the organism that creates some sort of beneficial effect. And saltations are rarely ever beneficial.

Secondly people complain of the need for variation but modern day crops are already biologically similiar and succeptible to disease due to thousands of years of artificial selection, this is why Ireland suffered the Potatoe Blight which killed millions. Obviously keeping crops the same does little to increase biodiversity or security from this while GM can do so. GM in fact can be used to create more biodiversity and security stemming from it then exists at present.

Others state that GMO's force people to continue uying the crops since they cannot reproduce, which begs the question of how the company then reproduces them in a cost effective manner.

Lastly some people state that they cannot distinguish between GM and "regular" foods and are hence eating GM. Nothing bad has happened to these people but they still keep talking about the "potential harm" of GM foods.

But like I said the arguments are ad hoc, their real reasons are religious/ideological and reaction. They just generally have a problem with technology, with bio-engineering and hence with GM crops.

This is why even though they have no solid evidence that GM crops are dangerous, they still wish to outlaw them or make it for billions of people in third world countries to recieve these fast growing/productive crops that could help feed many a great percentage of their population. This is why they are ultimately allowing millions to starve.

Even if the crops were more dangerous then regular, for many it'd be eitehr starvation or a *possibility* of having a negative reaction. However the fact that evidence for any *potential danger* is so flimsy, but the proponents so adament to me shows an alternative agenda which displaces that of progress and human life.

[Phage]

Timemn:

There is no way you can find out what else happens if you modify the genes.

Take DDT, everyone thought it was great. But still now people are suffering from the harm it done.

So it can be with modifying genes. You don't know what it does else.

Well you don't assume something is harmfful from the onset. Any food or any product, even those in regular use today may lead to "potential harm" which in undetected. Some of it is even known to lead to harm but not illegal: fattening foods, sweets, alchohol.

The fact is though positing that simply because there is one case where technology created a chemical whose danger was undetected, that all GM foods are now dangerous is both a hasty generalization and superfluous.

Simply put after the GM crops have passed the tests and are consumed without harm, the burden of proof is now on you to show that they are dangerous. Not on the GM supporters to prove they don't have any "hidden" dangers, which are easy to invent and almost impossible to disprove.

And it is right if it harms birds??!

Sure is if it then helps save or feed humans. Would you let youself or one of your loved ones starve to death to save a few birds? If not why demand others have to?

Also all crops and farms demand in some way pests be killed. How else do you think they manage to survive...birds, insects and rodents don't just avoid them just to be polite you know.

[Egeides]

GM foods are some of the greatest potential inventions for mankind. The only real threat to it seems to stem from radicals who hate the system, religious groups that think man is "playing god" and extreme naturists who see it as unnatural. To this end most "scientific" sounding arguments against GM foods are ad hoc.

If only these persons would be against GMOs, well I wonder if you believe there's alot of scientifics in this category, cuz I saw alot of dissent about this in the scientific community.

For example a green peace representative stated that GM foods are not tested at all. In fact this man was Green Peace's director of examining GM crops (Charles Margulis) states they are not tested at all for safety.

My arguments do not rely on Greenpeace's stability ;)

There's not only Greenpeace into this!! Do not only name the radicals, there's ALOT of other people, like there is often in debates.

However leading scintists on the issue such as Terri Lomax

http://www.osucascades.edu/faculty/lomax/

and Norman Borlaug (Nobel prize winning agronomist who's technology has helped feed almost a billion that would otherwise starve) have pointed out that not only are GM crops safe, they are tested even more so for safety then regular crops.

Nuclear is more tested, and it doesn't mean it's safer. About leading scientists, well there are some against, some for it... The scientific community is divided, as I said. I'm basing myself on scientific magazines.

The response? Well Green Peace [...]

All this isn't based on Greenpeace: they aren't even the bulk of the anti-GMOs, just the most active they always are.

In any event the issue is obvious an ideological/cultural one, not a scientific or safety one.

Not obvious at all when we see the scientific community instead of looking Greenpeace.

First off the idea of modifying a few genes that lead to harmful effects for those that eat it, an effect similiar to a poison is very rare.

You can't say this when it's on the market since only a few decades and used widely since only little time. It's not what is said by everyone at all.

That in evolution would be equivalent to a beneficial saltation, a big leap forward for the organism that creates some sort of beneficial effect.

Not if an error is made (this technology is brand new and results are still not sure) or if the diversity goes down.

Secondly people complain of the need for variation but modern day crops are already biologically similiar and succeptible to disease due to thousands of years of artificial selection, this is why Ireland suffered the Potatoe Blight which killed millions. Obviously keeping crops the same does little to increase biodiversity or security from this while GM can do so. GM in fact can be used to create more biodiversity and security stemming from it then exists at present.

Until now, they never EVER made anything I know about that ADDED diversity. Some crops, even without a normalisation to what is considered good already are too much the same (like bananas). Diversity is to be improved.

Others state that GMO's force people to continue uying the crops since they cannot reproduce, which begs the question of how the company then reproduces them in a cost effective manner.

Easy, they sell crops each year. Did I understood your sentence right?

Lastly some people state that they cannot distinguish between GM and "regular" foods and are hence eating GM. Nothing bad has happened to these people but they still keep talking about the "potential harm" of GM foods.

And it's not up to you to decide if I'm gonna take the risk or not. My choice.

About having no serious evidence that crops are dangerous, it's the opposite: we don't have any solid evidence they are NOT. It's a religious/cultural matter? Well I'm based on science yet, so where am I classed: religious or cultural??

Even then, it wouldn't be to someone else to decide of others' cultural/religious values.

[SurlyPIG]

BOY!!! ACE, in all this thread, each time you talk it's as if you didn't knew a thing about what science said about it...

Hey, if birds eat DDT, who do you think eats the birds? Where do you believe the DDT goes? Do you know DDT was officially condemned, and why?? Do you know the effects it can have on biodiversity/biology?

It's not because it has one good effect that globally it's good. GMOs as DDT or anything else.

You have a lot of nerve saying that to me. I know exactly what science says about DDT. Obviously you don't.

Birds rarely consume the DDT directly. All the huff over DDT stems from a book called "Silent Spring" in which the author notes one adverse effect of DDT in birds of prey consumed up the food chain. Smaller animals consume DDT from plants when it is used as a pesticide. Their eggs are progressively thinner and more fragile making it difficult for the birds to reproduce. Most notably was the frenzy over the endangered peregrine falcon and its safety being threatened.

Who eats the birds? LOL. Unless you like to barbeque bald eagles during the summer, there's not a chance in hell you'll consume DDT from a bird. Might have consumed minute amounts of it from fruit when it was used as a pesticide, but hey that's why we wash fruit.

Caving under public pressure from a bunch of bleeding hearts, the US (biggest manufacturer of DDT) banned not only the use of DDT as a pesticide, but the production of DDT as a product.

Every year, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in Africa die of malaria annually. Even tiny amounts of diluted DDT can kill the insencts that carry the disease, and many other fatal illnesses, with absolutely no side effects.

You know I don't know why all of you neo-Communist-types pin your assumptions on me. I was merely stating a fact about DDT and look at all the presumptions...If DDT harms wildlife, go right ahead and ban its use as an agricultural pesticide. I'm all for it. It upsets the balance of nearby wildlife. But to complain to have it pulled from production while it could save millions of people is barbaric.

Hundreds of thousands of people in Africa, most of them children, are dying of malaria every year because paranoid environmentalist foreigners want to enjoy watching rare birds. Assholes!

[nampigai]

As I recall DDT had an impact on fish as well. Furthermore many species of insects said to be building up resitance toward DDT, because of the exctensive use of the toxic.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Hmmmmm, Bush is getting crazier with the day.

What's next?

Europe must swear allegiance to the flag of the united states ?

Or wear hats with "Bush Uber Alles"

It's truly ridiculous how he demands this of EU.

But everything on his time, soon he'll be exposed... :D

[Warlord Ripskar]

GM foods are some of the greatest potential inventions for mankind. The only real threat to it seems to stem from radicals who hate the system, religious groups that think man is "playing god" and extreme naturists who see it as unnatural. To this end most "scientific" sounding arguments against GM foods are ad hoc.

Naturists? :O Naturalists surely ;)

[Egeides]

ACE: I wasn't referring espescially to DDT, but even more to GMOs... It wasn't meant as an insult, but you said lots of stuff you said was from science while the debate was on the opposite side. You can't have the same source I had or otherwise you wouldn't say that. The problem is: I had varried sources. Besides, your Bald Eagle probably dies some day and it goes back to the soil, which goes to plants and so on. It's just free in nature.

And anyway, losing biodiversity, like Bald Eagles, still seems as a problem to me.

[Acriku]

GM foods are some of the greatest potential inventions for mankind. The only real threat to it seems to stem from radicals who hate the system, religious groups that think man is "playing god" and extreme naturists who see it as unnatural. To this end most "scientific" sounding arguments against GM foods are ad hoc.

Naturists? :O Naturalists surely ;)

I think he meant environmentalists, another word for naturists.