So what will be for dinner tomorrow?
Emergency! Pathogen New to Science Found in Roundup Ready GM Crops?
|
So what will be for dinner tomorrow?
Emergency! Pathogen New to Science Found in Roundup Ready GM Crops?
That would be Tom Vilsack, Obama's Sec Agriculture who used to fly around in a Monsanto corporate jet while governor of Iowa ,and named “Governor of the Year” by the Biotechnology Industry Council.Good luck with that...
It would be much better if we saved the cow manure ,and grew the corn in it so we all can get a good case of e coli.
There are isolated cases like this in the GM industry much like there are in the pharmaceutical industry .Only after approval are the unintended consequences known.
Still ,I caution against Ludditism. GM crops will be a major part of the food supply going forward. GM beats the hell out of crop spraying that pollutes everything around it. What affect did sprayed pesticides have on the cattle... and how was that passed on to human consumers ?
Tom you can complain about luddites all you want but I am glad we don't grow GM crops here. We don't want Monsanto controlling our agriculture
You don't have a complete moratoria on all GM . Somehow canola made it past the ban. Also GM foods are imported there . You have labelling requirements which are OK by me. Give consumers the choice.
Hello Q:Quote:
In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA's participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.
I know little about politics. I know less about farming. What I noticed though, is that the author of the letter asks for an END to DE-regulation. Apparently, he thinks government REGULATION would have PREVENTED this occurrence from happening...
Ever since Ronald Reagan, there has been a trend toward LESS government regulation.. I don't notice that it made us more productive, wealthier, or safer. In fact, I notice stories about the Wall Street bankers who ripped us off, and chemical companies who went off half cocked... If where we're at today is the RESULT of 30 years of deregulation, then it's time to reverse that trend..
There is a PLACE for government regulators. I DO recall tom being quite satisfied knowing his meat supply is safe. That's so, NOT because of the meat packers, but because of the GOVERNMENT.
Excon
Or it could be that in the so called good old days incidents of food poisoning went unreported more often.
But what you imply is a red herring . You are correct in stating that I am in favor of regulations regarding food safety. Historically it is a proper role of government .Further you have no evidence that regulations over food safety have been weakened .
I'll go even further... the new super regulations passed by the lame duck session will prove to be just another nail in the coffin of the small family farm industry without having any substantial increase in overall food safety in this county. I've said it before and I'll say it again , OVER regulation has little benefit... BUT the unintended consequences are that the small players in the industry cannot afford to comply and either get bought out ,or go out of business .The net effect is that consumers have less choice ,In this case... they are forced to consume big Agri products like Monsanto's .
I am not in favor of is over reaction to incidents that destroy industry like we saw when some spinach was tainted with e coli . We should have a little perspective. Does GM food do more harm than good ? I think it does more good ,and will do even more in the future. GM will provide an abundance of food and has the potential to wipe out world wide hunger.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Couple things. It's true, I have no evidence... But, the author of the letter does, and I just cited him.
We're on the same page as far as regulation is concerned. UNDER regulation has downsides just like OVER regulation does.
excon
The author may have a point about the Roundup ready grain. Prudence would dictate that further research is needed to determine if that is the cause.
But I suspect the author also has an agenda that he can exploit with this . My guess is that it wouldn't be long for the author to extent his moratorium on all GM crops. Also ;this is not a matter of over or under regulation. This is an isolated case and an isolated product that needs further investigation.
I would consider this a reasonably balanced article:
Genetically Modified Foods :: Environmental Facts :: Young People's Trust for the Environment
My main issue is that the risks are simply unknown. Here in the UK surveys have repeatedly shown that 95% of the public want to see GM foods labelled, yet this isn't happening. I don't relish being a guinea-pig in a mass scale experiment without my consent.
There is already some evidence that the build in insect resistance might just be a little too good. With world bee popultions already struggling can we really risk wiping out pollinating insects?
GM food might give us plentiful healthy food. It might also just leave us with none.
By all means let's try and find out. But roll it out wholesale before we know?
Fair enough . I'm all in favor of proper labelling giving consumers a choice.
I'm not saying rush in. But is there any evidence that the decision to allow commercially grown Roundup resistance grains was rushed ? There is a decade + experience with Roundup corn and soy and this is the first evidence of anything negative. Meanwhile the use of Round up has allowed farmers world wide to use no till methods of planting that has done much regarding the problem of soil erosion of productive land.
It is really of basic of human argiculture. Humans have tinkered with genetics since the days of Gregor Mendel.Every domesticated farm animal is the result of human tinkering with the genetic makeup of the animal.
Edit... just read the article you linked and it covered many of the points just made. I can see where there would be a caution in exposing your productive lands.
Trials perhaps but GM canola is failing. The way I hear it the seed is sterile after three years needing Monsanto to provide a fresh batch. The labeling is keeping them from being widely adoptedQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You might not be saying rush in Tom, but that's not the message coming from Obama.
The Moderate Man: Obama OK's GM Alfalfa
Also, this is hardly an isolated case of problems with GM.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jul/25/gm.food
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/mop1e.htm
Yup I already identified his point man as a shill for agribusiness. The funny thing is the drones here will continue to believe he's some real reformer .
Well Tom I expect they don't call that plant rape for nothing. What does Obama know or care about alfalfa after all it's animal food. Don't like chemical companies Tom they cause too many problemsQuote:
Originally Posted by QLP
Clete ,that's business. Suggest Aussie agribusiness come up with their own version of a seed that can grow in your deserts and still germinate year after year.. You think they could do that and remain in business ?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I have a bigger picture in mind... eradication of hunger through science. The fact that farmers need to purchase a fresh batch of seeds seems like a secondary concern.
Maybe we need an even bigger picture in mind. The crux of the problem, too many people to feed from the resources available.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No matter how clever scientists think they are there has to be a limit to how much food this planet can sustainably produce. Yet still the inexorable rise in human population. Pehaps there's another solution.
Oh wait, where's the profit?.
Spoken like a true Malthusian . What segment of the population do you think should be eradicated ?
I'm not suggesting population eradication lol. My ideals certainly don't follow those of Malthus, however he had one pertinent tenet that the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence. I sincerely believe we should do all we can to alleviate hunger.
I'm merely pointing out that heralding GM foods as the end to world hunger may be a little naïve in the long term. I very much doubt that eradicating world hunger is Monsanto's chief priority regarldelss of what it's PR machine spews out.
With large sections of the world suffering from hunger whilst other significant populations suffer from obesity problems there is much that could be done now if there was a real political will.
You may have lofty ideals about the good that GM foods could provide, but I don't see that as being top of the agenda for either the GM food companies nor the politicians that put the interests of big business above the potential welfare of their citizens and that of the planet.
If we really want to deal with world hunger we have to start asking some difficult questions. How can we share the resources we have? How do we face the problem that with the best will in the world those resources are still going to be finite?
Accepting the reality that there is only so far we can stretch what is available does not preclude trying to do so. However, the very reason we have to face up to this long-term reality is because we don't want to reach the point where population growth is checked purely by food availability.
Tom seems we have been doing that successfully for a long time otherwise our agribusiness wouldn't be as successful as it is. We have many agricultural research stations and the last thing we need here is american ideas of agriculture, just inappropriate for our climate and soils.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No Tom the need to purchase fresh seed from a conglomerate is a concern. Seed should be freely available by growing it, not a plant that is sterile without a laboratory. I don't care about resistance to disease, that can be breed for anyway, nor do I care about resistance to Roundup. I know that will kill anything given time and opportunity, use it myself to control weeds, nor do I agree with a conglomerate being able to patent genetic material
This is a very important point.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops | Mail Online
Why not ?They put up all the resourses to develop it .Patents have a shelf life that expire . But why shouldn't the reap the benefits of what they sow ?Quote:
nor do I agree with a conglomerate being able to patent genetic material
Besides you are ignoring a very good reason for seeds that produce sterile plants.. Have you considered that eliminates the concerns people have about cross pollination ?
If that is what is accomplished then why shouldn't they profit from it. I am amazed at how often I encounter this notion that profits=evil .Quote:
I very much doubt that eradicating world hunger is Monsanto's chief priority regarldelss of what it's PR machine spews out.
They are developing seeds that grow where others don't . They are being developed to be pest resistant ,herbacide resistant,disease resistant ,cold tolerant ,and in the case of rice ,modified to provide a better nutritional value for the peoples of the world where rice is the staple.Blindness due to vitamin A deficiency can be eradicated with the use of 'golden rice 'that is high in beta carotine .
by the way... golden rice was developed by a non-profit organization that would like to provide the seeds free. However ludditism from Europe scared off investors so the grants for the research were not renewed.
Europe where resistance is perhaps highest in the world has had major food scares with mad cow disease ,and dioxin and pcb tainted crops from Belgium . None of these were the results of genetic tinkering by Dr Frankenstein.
More abundant yields will mean fewer acres needed for agriculture ,and the other modifications will mean more food can be grown locally reducing the need to transport .
There are other uses for GM too besides food production .
GM Poplar trees have been developed to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil.
GM has the potential to eliminate hunger and malnutrition ,and help preserve the environment compared to traditional farming that requires more acreage herbacides and insecticides .
By all means proceed with caution and do everything possible to ensure safety . But the potential benefits far outweigh the risks .
How does me commenting on the fact that eradicating world hunger is not Monsanto's prime motive equate to profit = evil? There are plenty of drug barons raking in a healthy profit. Have I no right to comment on their methods and motives? And no, I'm not equating Monsanta to a drug baron, I'm pointing out that profit motivation is rarely altuistic, so lets not paint the GM companies as being saviours of the world. Profit is made at the expense of others. When that expense is the money in their wallets freely given, in return for a product or service they want, which will not come with unacceptable and often undisclosed risks, it is absolutely fine. The question here is what is the true cost of Monsanto's profits?
Did you bother to read my link on the thousands of Indian farmers being pushed into extreme debt and poverty because of reliance on seeds that 'deliver benefits ordinary seeds don't?' I think they might disagree with your list of benefits.
Are GM seeds really delivering what was promised?
AMERICAN FARMERS COPE WITH ROUNDUP-RESISTANT WEEDS (GM CROPS AND SUPERWEEDS) The PPJ Gazette
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsfailed.php
Just how good are the benefits of golden rice?
The Golden Rice - An Exercise in How Not to Do Science
Weeds that are Roundup resistant has nothing to do with GM . That's just natural genetics doing what it does. Lucky for them they now have Round up resistant corn as an option . Or are you saying that farmers should no longer use pesticides ? I don't in my garden ,but I spend a lot of manual hours keeping my small veggie garden weed free. My small plot of land feeds my family with some food seasonally .However ,I still depend on commercially grown produce for most of my consumption.
What I'm going to write next will sound heartless. But this is just a fact. Once upon a time there was a thriving business for blacksmiths who forged shoes for horses . Then technology advanced human travel and the need for their work pretty much vanished. They were 'displaced' and needed to find something else to do for a living . Luddism as I recall originated in England . Unfortunately thus ever was. Old makes way for the new.
My father in law learned CAD drafting only to see it become obsolete before he could even make much productive use of the knowledge.
Now I can feel for the Indian farmer and I can understand the American farmer complaining an end to their way of life . But that does nothing to stem the advance of technology.Higher yield on less acreage and is the challenge the world faces with a growing population . GM biofortification is part of the solution .Yes some people get displaced . But humans overall are better off.
I'm saying what is the point in investing in crops engineered to withdstand roundup if roundup isn't working anyway.
'Soybeans, corn and cotton that are engineered to survive spraying with Roundup have become standard in American fields. However, if Roundup doesn’t kill the weeds, farmers have little incentive to spend the extra money for the special seeds.'
I doubt the Indian farmer or the American farmer would be complaining about their loss of livelihood if the products were delivering what has been promised.
So regardless of whether the benefits are materialising, and regardless of what problems are emerging, it's progress?
Could you show me how humans overall are better off?
Tom let us deal with a couple of these firstly roundup. This product is fine for its intended purpose knocking down grass and weeds in order to prepare the soil, saves on tillage but to have to modify crops so they are not affected by it, suggests inappropriate use and the attempt to monopolise markets to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Objection to GM crops is not the same as objection to technology. GM crops are provided by the same people who gave us DDT, Agent Orange and Bophal. They have, in my opinion, shown too little responsibility to be allowed to stuff about with plant genetics. The problem in India demonstates that lack of responsibility, they have set up a system which enslaves by way of debt and for what, to feed the Indian people, no, to enrich the multinational (read american) chemical companies.
What I say is this, if americans want to stuff with their own food supply, go ahead, but I would like to wait a generation or two to see the results in their population before adopting it here. This does not make me a laddite. I drive a car, not ride a horse, but a generation ago my father drove a horse and sulky, never owned a car. Was he worse off, no. Not all change is progress. Not all technology is good, sixty years on we are still trying to rid ourselves of thermonuclear devices.
Consider this; we have now embraced digital technology and all it will take to wipe out our civilisation is one well aimed large solar mass ejection.
The silly ban on DDT has caused the deaths of perhaps 20,000,000 people in the 3rd world. Oh wait.. that's right.. we need that population control.
DDT was not Monsanto (Swiss scientist Paul Hermann Müller, who won the 1948 Nobel Prize for discovering the insecticide properties of DDT)... neither was Bopal(Union Carbide) or Agent Orange(Dow).. Zero for 3 . Your blanket indictment of an industry proves my point about luddism. What other chemical and biological applications would you ban ? There is no going back to the 18th century no matter how much you'd like to.
How much of the world population was killed in the decade of the 1940s before the introduction of the nuke? Don't you think that the nuke factor actually prevented a similar conflagration ?Quote:
Not all technology is good, sixty years on we are still trying to rid ourselves of thermonuclear devices.
Yes that's possible ;and an Earth killer asteroid could be a weapon of mass extinction . We would not be exchanging ideas on this forum without our embrace of the technology.Quote:
Consider this; we have now embraced digital technology and all it will take to wipe out our civilisation is one well aimed large solar mass ejection
What you and I both are in favor of is the responsible use of the technology . What I see in genetic manipulation of produce (which again has been going on since Gregor Mendel ) is great potention being realized. You see it as a great threat. We agree that adequate controls need to be in place. I think many of them are in place despite the handful of examples where unintended consequences have developed (something common with the advance of techology. You say you drive a car. That means that you accept all the inherent risks involved ).
It is not unusual for products once deemed safe to be recalled . That happens often in the pharmaceutical industry. Does that mean you would wait a generation to see if a drug really is effective ?
Critics claim that restricting DDT in vector control have caused unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Estimates range from hundreds of thousands,to millions. Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children." (Wiki)Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I presume this is what you refer to?
Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 US ban (with the erroneous implication that this prohibited use of DDT in vector control).
In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. The program was initially highly successful, eliminating the disease in "Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific" and dramatically reducing mortality in Sri Lanka and India. However widespread agricultural use led to resistant insect populations. In many areas, early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased. The program was successful in eliminating malaria only in areas with "high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission".
In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968 then in Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the United States in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. Vector control use has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.
Many of the political leaders and aid agencies took on the mantle that DDT is bad and refused to fund programs for its use in tackling malaria not because it had been banned for this use but because it was a political hot potato.
So we come back to the old chestnut of responsible use. As usual the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.
Then of course WHO did a political U turn on the use of DDT to combat malaria.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | WHO backs DDT for malaria control
With DDT no longer used as an agricultural pesticide the problems with resistance are likely to be greatly reduced.
However, I wonder about the safety of spraying this in someone's home:
http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/DD/DDT.html
Have WHO got the balance right yet? Time will tell.
Nope I don't use Wiki as a single source.
Source :National GeographicQuote:
Soon after the program collapsed, mosquito control lost access to its crucial tool, DDT. The problem was overuse—not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their crops. The spray was so cheap that many times the necessary doses were sometimes applied. The insecticide accumulated in the soil and tainted watercourses. Though nontoxic to humans, DDT harmed peregrine falcons, sea lions, and salmon. In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. "The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."
Malaria - National Geographic Magazine
Dr. Robert Gwadz, Researcher, Malaria Molecular Biology, Laboratory of Parasitic Disease, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health, USA
Medical scientists call proposed DDT ban unethical - by Dave Gorak - Environment & Climate NewsQuote:
Banned from use in the United States 27 years ago, DDT remains the most effective pesticide in preventing the spread of malaria, which every year kills nearly 3 million people, most of whom live in poor, undeveloped countries. According to the World Health Organization, which last year launched a Rollback Malaria campaign, 300 million to 500 million new malaria cases are identified every year.
Malaria has made a dramatic comeback in certain countries in part because many nations, pressured by environmentalists, no longer use DDT for agricultural purposes.
You call it a'political u-turn' .I call it a reaction to the best evidence.
I don't see what point you're actually trying to make here.
I agree with the ban on DDT for agriculture.
There was no ban on DDT against malaria, as your quote says.
Both Wiki and your source, the national geographic, cite the orignial quote about 20 million deaths by Robert Gwatz. This has been largely discredited since it took no account of the fact that without the ban on agricultural use the growing resistance to DDT was making it increasingly less effective against malaria. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, "it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."
And why was DDT hard to procure for malaria? Partly because of politicians simply branding it a dirty word - as I said they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm not knocking WHO's decision to start promoting DDT as a means to combat malaria again, if it is the best means of fighting malaria we currently have. However, WHO have made it a priority to replace DDT in the fight against malaria by other, safer, means in the medium term.
My point was directed primarily to Clete who grouped a bunch of isolated issues into a general condemnation of the chemical industry and then used that as a reason for an overall ban on the use of GM .
Tom I grouped because it demonstated the irresponsibility of the industry. You want to argue DDT was effective but overused, so was Agent Orange, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
These substances are too potent to allow a profit motive to drive their use and the user cannot be solely blamed since the chemical company promoted and sold the item for the purpose it was used whilst filling their bank accounts in the process.
GM crops are in the same category a great rush to profit at the expense this time of the user and the environment with no thought of consequence. We are what we eat.
Not true. DDT is a chemical demonstrably effective in the eradication of malaria.. Agent orange was used in warfare. The Bohpal incident was an event that had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the methyl isocyanate gas ,but instead of poor industrial practices.
GM crops are reseached and go through similar scrutiny as prescription drugs... meaning millions of research dollars are spent before at least 3 government agencies approve their use.To say that this has bypassed the regulatory process is nonsense. The USDA ,the FDA ,and the EPA all had to approve.
Holding the trials for prescription drugs up as a gold standard doesn't quite cut it with me.
Is the conflict of interest unacceptable when drug companies conduct trials on their own drugs? Yes -- Goldacre 339 -- bmj.com
And as for rigorous testing of GM:
Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? (ActionBioscience)
Not to mention the almost complete lack of long term safety assesments in either, but particularly in GM. Remember the 1950's when doctors promoted tobacco as a health product?
This is a clear bias against the technology and nothing I write will convince otherwise. Let's stop new drug production because the regulatory system doesn't guarantee 100% safety. Let's wait a generation to see if a new product can be introduced . Progress stalled because of a complete aversion to risk. Good luck with that .
Same tired old argument. It's safe because we say so, because it has no intended side affects, but you avoid the argument entirely it is the rush to profit from the technology that has caused problems, how many so called wonder drugs have been withdrawn because of unintended side effects including death. I don't trust your FDA to say something is safe and yes a wait and see policy is not a bad policy because defects are revealed with time and further research. In each case I have cited it is the wholesale indiscriminate use of the product that has caused problems. Look at the old films of DDT use and tell me that that would be permitted today pure ignorance and it goes on, it does not stop, Look at the film of agent Orange sprayed over a nation with no thought of the effects on the human underneath. Look at the shattered lives of generations at Bophal and tell me that behaviour is justifed by the excuse bad practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Spoken by a person that has plenty to eat... spoken like a person who doesn't have to be too concerned about a malaria outbreak killing his kin.
Farmers all over the world have embraced GM farming.Most of them small family farmers . 14million of them in 25 countries have joined the 21st century. Must be a matter of pure greed .
But it's OK if you live in the 19th century. Make sure you hitch up your oxen and plow that field . You live in a land of plenty . The rest of the world has a bigger aversion to starvation.
You still avoid the obvious .Every crop evergrown commercially by humans has been modified by humans to adapt to the growing conditions it is planted in... Ever hear of hybrid seeds ? Every domesticated animal ever consumed was the result of human manipulations.
I'm still waiting for the evidence that non-GM foods grown with the applications of herbacides and pestacides is a safer option.
I'm not arguing against technology but for better and more independent testing and appropriate regulation. At the moment too much power lies in the hands of those making the profit. That balance has to change.
I'm arguing that politicians need to get better informed on the decisions they make, currently more due to lobbying etc than knowledge. Aren't we all tired off knee-jerk reactions such as that which led to DDT becoming unavailable for vector control because the homework was never adequately done on the problems caused by agricultural use to start with? With a little more forethought and more thorough testing we could make sensible decisions on when to embrace technology and when to reject it.
Technology happens embraced or not . There is good and bad in all . Nukes led to weapons and to a clean abundant energy source not yet fully exploited .
I disagree with the premise that there has been a mad dash to implement and incorporate GM . I don't know when humans became so risk-adverse. No doubt with the same can do spirit ;our ancestors would never've left their caves.
And you will be waiting a long time. Again the spirious argument, the false choice. Non GM crops can be grown without herbacides and pestacides and inappropriate agricultural practices, it is the profit motive, the striving to get that extra return. Farmers are not immune to the subtle pull of greed. It is what drives the use of GM crops in those countries you speak of. It is the big selling point bigger yields, bigger profits, but the important point is non GM crops can be grown without the intervention of big american chemical companies and the politics. So Tom cut the rhetoric and realise that your opinion is just one opinion, there are others here who disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You'd have the world starving while you stay doctrinare to growing methods that do not produce sufficient yield ,needs too much acreage ,and is prone to infestation from disease and plague . What do you do ? Ride in a chariot ? Here I was accusing you of living in the 19th century . Little did I know it was BC .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 AM. |