President Bush has been very vocal lately about the importance of genetically modified food. To hear him tell it this miracle of science could help end world hunger. That must be why he's been so pushy about it. You hardly ever see him go to bat for any cause except Big Business so this must be the compassionate side of his conservatism.

Yeah right.

This isn't about world hunger...it's about biotech companies looking for a global profit for a product people are strongly
opposed to adopting. But Bush is like a salesmen that won't take no for an answer and acts like he's trying to do a great favor rather than force his product on the unwilling.

The only way a farmer in a third world country could afford today's genetically modified seeds is for us to give the seeds or technology to them no strings attached. But that's not part of the deal.

In the US, most farmers using GM seed will usually break even. They cost about 35% more but have higher yields and reduced pesticide expenses which makes up for the difference and allows farmers to cultivate more land. For well-irrigated, large mechanized farms they could be considered an attractive alternative.

But in Africa, this is not the case. Poor farmers can't afford the increased cost of the seed and crops need almost perfect conditions to grow. The farm work is mainly done by humans not machines. Used in dry areas, they would require irrigation systems and the water to run them. They also need special care and were created to work with special herbicides. In Africa these chemicals are not sold like they are in the US. They are often misbranded, sold in unmarked containers, or handled by people who can't even read. Using the wrong herbicide could wipe out the entire crop.

GM products are primarily being developed to fit into large-scale, chemical-intensive, mechanized, capital-intensive, well irrigated farming systems. The technologies would be far less effective on African farms, which are small and diversified and rely largely on human labor.

To me the troubling part is that the seeds are sterile and patented, with the aim of preventing farmers from saving and replanting their own seeds. What a clever way of getting return customers.

By buying out smaller seed companies, agri-food companies aim to diminish the availability of unpatented and self-reproducing seeds. To me it sounds like, in the wrong hands, this technology has the ability to do serious damage and actually increase world hunger if we aren't careful.

There is something immoral about taking away a plant's biological ability to reproduce and create food the way nature intended and manipulating it for the sake of profits and corporate greed. Maybe I'm just being silly. Does anyone else see the good outweighing the bad in GM foods?

Here's a link, "What's Wrong with Genetic Modification?"

http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gmwrong.html

I suppose this bears out the time-worn phrase "Beggars aren't choosers."

This appears to be a great stroke of political genius for Dubya, feed the poor Africans while supplying human guinea pigs to the corporations.

Well, I'm not going to complain too loudly about this one. A full belly sits better than an empty one. I just hope it can do the people some good.

I think you called it right on what it really is.

If we forego fields of science and discovery just because we are afraid of it or feel it is "immoral", we are denying the gift of intelligence that God gave us, and we are limiting our potential. Any new discovery can be misused, or found to be not only not a good thing but a dangerous thing, but much is learned every time. I doubt we would have cures for a lot of deadly diseases without science and scientists.
GM foods is still a new science and I expect much good will come of it, if the Luddites of this world will just give it a chance.

The Luddites of this world are willing to give GM food a chance, if it is ever subjected to rigorous scientific testing to objective standards (it doesn't even have to be done by an objective body - if the GM producers such as Monsanto were to carry out adequate testing, the EU for one would not be resisting).

However the producers have never carried out such testing, which is why product licences are being refused in the EU until they are (there are ongoing tests all over Europe, so it is not that we are unwilling as such, merely sceptical).

GM foods have great theoretical potential, but the increases in yield seen in the US and elsewhere do not necessarily equate to a good thing, especially if there are unforseen consequences (cross pollination with wild species, conferring disease and herbicide resistance on weed species, for example).

Of course, the USA, in its headlong embrace of GM food, could (in the worst case) be one big GM experiment, with the population as the test subjects. Hopefully no ill will come of it, but as no satisfactory testing has ever been carried out, nobody knows exactly what, if anything, will result.

Danya, I agree with you, and in addition to what you said, I want to share an article that I found involving the patenting of plants for use in genetic modification and how it effects countries in the third world.

Patents, a new form of colonialism?



Doesn't it seem a bit unusual to be able to patent a plant? I can understand being able to patent the genetically modified version of the plant, but unless I'm misunderstanding the situation, companies can patent the native, unmodified versions.

I basically agree with you. I'm all for science and technology used in new ways to improve lives but it sounds like they need to go back to the drawing board on this one. I do support stem cell research for instance. Let's look at it another way.

Let's say I'm a poor third world dairy farmer. I have cows that I use for milk and cheese and cows for breeding. I sell off the calfs and that's how I pay for the feed and upkeep of the rest of them. I have no money to spare and am barely surviving. Now the US knocks on my door and says they can give me better cows that live an average of five years longer, yeild more milk, and they are genetically modified to resist the most deadly bovine diseases (mad cow for instance). Sounds good so far. Now they say that due to the cost of research and development these cows are more expensive than regular cows...35% more. I am thinking that with increased milk I might be able to just break even with these new cows when the US says, oh yeah, btw, these cows are patented so have been modified to be sterile. There go my calf sales that pay for the feed and so of course I slam the door in their face.

What they didn't tell me is that all the cows in this area are being bought up or killed and eventually the only cows that will be available to me are these expensive, sterile, modified American cows.

That's pretty much the same scenario whether it's seeds or animals and some of the articles I've read mention both. If that's a gift from god someone ought to tell him not to do us any favors. How is this helping to fight hunger or poverty or anything else but the Stock Market? And that doesn't even begin to go into any health concerns.

I'm really not anti-capitalist or a Peta activist or nature freak or anything like that and still this creeps me out. Plus I think it's morally reprehensible for corporations to try to profit at the expense of the poorest people on earth while at the same time making their lives more difficult than before.

No wonder Europe calls them Frankenfoods.

I heard a programme on the radio the other day that taked about "pirating" of GM seeds - i.e. somehow people have worked out how to cross some GM seeds with garden varieties, or have done the GE work themselves, and so it is now possible in some parts of the developing world to get hold of pirated GM seeds in much the same way as one might get hold of pirated music, software or video.

Since hearing about this, I am a little less concerned about the attempt at market control by big business than by the potential ecological impact of introducing alien species to an ecosystem.

We already know from past disasters the effects of introducing alien (in the sense of foreign) species, such as cane toads in Australia; North American grey squirrels in the UK; rats in seabird nesting colonies, and so on. We have to be even more careful in introducing completely novel species - especially plant species, where we know genes can transfer between species. Animal GM in farmed species is actually much safer ecologically from that perspective, yet it hasn't caught on to anything like the same extent (but then, who really needs a luminous pig?)

Without very strictly controlled testing in each new ecosystem, we cannot know that there will not be unintended bad consequences from growing GM crops. That is the contention of EU opposition to GM crops and it's why there are GM tests going on all over Europe.

It is also why a successful test in the USA (very few of which ever took place to rigorous standards) might not be particularly useful outside the USA (or even in different parts of your very large and ecologically diverse country).

Julian,
I agree completely. Because they're sterile this is already something that will cause a negative impact. What bothers me the most is that they are manipulating natures ability to reproduce something as important and beneficial as natural resources that we all depend on for critical things like food or healing properties. Even those growing in far off places affecting native populations of people, plants, and animals they have no connection to and know little or nothing about.

They are basically stealing from nature, taking for themselves something that rightly belongs to all. It's mind boggling that we even allow them to get away with such a thing. Who gave them the right, or as my kids might say, who died and made them God?

To do so for such short sighted purposes and such little regard for the environmental and biological impact on others seems criminally reckless. I'm starting to see why there is so much protest and violence at those WTO conferences. Not that I approve of the violence but at least now I understand the anger and emotion that drives it.

I admit I'm not the most knowledgeable about the details, but here's the gist of this:
A while ago we took lots of genetically altered food with tons of different vitamins and minerals, and all that good stuff, and dropped it to the starving people in Africa. They refused to eat it, nd continued to starve. So, it's not like we haven't at least made attempts here.

I don't know the specific case you're talking about, because you don't cite it, but it's equally possible that they didn't just refuse the aid because it was GM in origin. Before now, western aid has taken the form of powdered milk, which isn't a lot of use if the famine and crop failure that's causing the food emergency has taken place because of lack of water. We've also sent air drops of pork and bacon into Muslim areas and wondered why the locals starved and let it rot. GM food might or might not have been present, but it would have had very little to do with why the food wasn't used.

It amazes me how every good thing that Bush does can be spun into something evil. Could be possible that he is trying to help the hunger problem, holy crap, he could be doing something good, and instead of applauding him you are making excuses to hate him. Partisan politics, the spin starts here.

CP

It amazes me how every evil thing that Bush does can be spun into something good...

One assumption is no better than the other. Wouldn't it be more useful if, instead of just trying to trump other assumptions with our own, we tried to explain our reasons for believing one way or another. Your post, Conservpat, is as much an attack on Danya's motives as hers was an attack on Bush's. There's a legitimate concern about the long-term economic effects of terminator genes and such, which have been shown many times to "infect" nearby fields (not even necessarily the same crop) so that everyone in an entire region is affected. It's natural to object when benefits are oversold and drawbacks quietly swept under the rug.

My point was that maybe, just maybe, his intentions are good. I haven't actually seen any of his plans happening yet, so maybe they are working out some of the problems that could be attributed with such an idea. All I'm saying is that let's wait a sec, step back, figure out what GWB is trying to accomplish before we jump down his throat.

CP

Please give me a source. This is pretty hard to believe.

About starving people in africa, it's true that some countries refused the american aid because they were afraid of a contamination of thei fields by GM food, and so of not being able to export their product to europe.
The hypocrisy here is that if the american government (and the biotech company behind it) really wanted to help them, why they just didn't give them non GM food ???? They could have done it, there is still a lot of non GM products in america, so, isn't that an attempt to force the african countries to adopt GM foods?
As for europe, there is nothing against free trade here, free trade suppose that the consumer has to choose knowing all about what he is going to buy, so there is nothing in the european policy of GM tracing in food that is against free trade, it's just an other attemp made by some powerfull lobby to increase their profits (because they know that the europeans won't buy GM food if they have the choice, so they just don't want them to have this choice, as they did in america)

Just saying it's true doesn't make it so. That's why Hugo had asked for a link (or any resource) to verify this. What nation(s) in Africa did this? Was it a government decision or did the people rise up against it? It would help if we had details to work with here.

Are you sure? Genetic contamination of supposedly non-GM crops, even across great distances, is turning out to be a serious problem. Pretty soon no crop grown in the US (or Canada, probably) will be truly non-GM. That is, in fact, one of the anti-GM crowd's biggest objections: not that GM foods are known to be unsafe, but that by the time we do know it will be too late to do anything about it. The whole world is the guinea pig for this experiment, and it will probably be OK, but when the stakes are so high so must the level of caution. Oddly, many people use exactly that argument to justify extreme measures against terrorism, then turn right around and say we shouldn't worry too much about GM food.

I though this was well known, but I'm going to provide you a link :
http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/737.cfm
In fact, they first refused, but they finally accept because they had no other choice

A long time ago, we shipped some mercury treated wheat to Africa, to be planted, not eaten. If planted, grown, harvested, etc. the mercury would not have been of sufficient potency to harm the consumer. Although the bags were clearly marked, in English, somehow the word didn't make it to those who were starving, and the results were disastrous. Maybe that is still fresh in some memories.
When you are starving, you can't wait for the next crop, so it should have been expected that some of it would have been consumed, so it happened.
I wonder why there wasn't a big uproar over cross-breeding of various strains of food crops to develop disease and drought resistant strains for those parts of the world that needed it.
Is this new science really that scary? BTW, if you want to see a genetically modified human, look in the mirror. None of us are exactly like either of the 2 humans that produced us.

I think there's just a little bit of a difference between mixing genes within a species and inserting a fish gene into a tomato to make it freezing-resistant. To answer your question: yes, it is. What happens if a terminator gene mutates or malfunctions and all of the wheat goes away. What happens if a "natural bug repellent" gene mutates or malfunctions and creates something toxic to humans instead? What happens if widespread use of a pesticide-resistance gene encourages even more use of pesticides until all of the bugs go away...and the birds and small mammals with them, and so on until an entire ecosystem is destroyed? How did BSE happen? By feeding one species to another, allowing a deadly disease to jump the gap from one to the other. How did SARS start? We don't completely know, but the best scientific guess at the moment is that it's something similar. Making it easier for genes to go from one species to another entails incredible risk, on a level that rivals or perhaps even exceeds the Manhattan Project. An equally unprecedented level of caution is called for. I'm not saying we should ban research on genetic engineering, but we should try really hard to reduce and/or contain the risks, and that quite simply isn't being done.

I suppose anyone can "what if" anything to death but I hope those doing it are actually scientists themselves and can put up a credible defense for their arguments.
Concerning the risk reduction/containment, how do we know it isn't being done? Do we really think that these are mad scientists with no sense of responsibility? Or are we just afraid of anything new? Life itself is risky, the best we can do is avoid the riskiest behaviour and hope for the best with the rest. I don't buy the incredible risk scenario, not yet anyway.
Concerning the Manhattan project, can anyone come up with data on the number of people killed during the discovery process of nuclear energy? I will concede the dead in Japan due to our bombs, and the increase of cancer among 'down-winders' in southern Utah due to bomb testing, but how about the peaceful use of nuclear energy? How many dead, injured, maimed, genetically mutated? In the USA, please. The Russians refused to use containment structures for economic reasons, and paid the price.
Until the risks outweighs the potential benefits, GM research and development should continue.

Looks like an ad hominem argument to me. Concerns have been raised. If those concerns are invalid, the constructive thing would be to explain why - not to demand credentials or shift burdens of proof.



If it were, there would be no question of things like terminator genes being tried outside of an enclosed lab so soon after their invention. It's not possible to verify their safety in so short a time.



No, but they are scientists working in an environment where oversight is minimal and profits are often prioritized ahead of public interest. The pressure to get things out there and make money from them is greater than the pressure to understand them fully and prove that they are safe.



Which "we" are we talking about, Bill? I certainly hope that wasn't intended as a slur against me personally. I probably see and do more new things before breakfast than you do all day, but that doesn't mean I throw caution to the wind when dealing with extremely dangerous technologies. If I'm fiddling in the guts of a computer, I'm wary of electrical shocks. If I'm working with hazardous chemicals, I'm wary of spills and fumes. If I were to work with things that can spread and infect on their own, potentially on a global scale and with catastrophic consequences, I'd be damn careful about managing those risks in their turn. I don't release code before it has been thoroughly tested and debugged, let alone living organisms.



I was talking about risks to the public, not just to the scientists. Therefore, casualties at Chernobyl and Hiroshima are part of the equation. Many of the Manhattan Project scientists, more committed futurists with more scientific knowledge than either of us will ever have, became quite concerned about how their work would be used, and tried to ensure that adequate safeguards will exist. Will you accuse them of being Luddites too?




And what evidence is there that the very same economic reasons won't lead to lack of proper safeguards in research and application of biotech?



That view is, IMO, exactly backwards. When the risks are this great deployment should wait until the rewards are proven to outweigh the risks, not vice versa.

from platypus:
Which "we" are we talking about, Bill? I certainly hope that wasn't intended as a slur against me personally. I probably see and do more new things before breakfast than you do all day, but that doesn't mean I throw caution to the wind when dealing with extremely dangerous technologies. If I'm fiddling in the guts of a computer, I'm wary of electrical shocks. If I'm working with hazardous chemicals, I'm wary of spills and fumes. If I were to work with things that can spread and infect on their own, potentially on a global scale and with catastrophic consequences, I'd be damn careful about managing those risks in their turn. I don't release code before it has been thoroughly tested and debugged, let alone living organisms.

Wow, are you upset or something? Did you find GM food in your breakfast cereal?
I am familiar with the english language, and would have used "you" or your name if I was to cast a slur, but that is not my style, that is yours. Now if you WANT a slur, I can provide a few. I am not without the ability to respond to a personal attack when I encounter one.
You imply that you probably see and do more new things before breakfast than I do all day? That sounds like the old Army commercial, and it is lame. How do you know what I do all day? Making assumptions about others is not a debate tactic that works. I have made my point clearly, I think, and you don't have to like it, or me.
Not only will I eat GM foods, I will eat radiation sterilized foods, non-organic foods, highly processed foods, and most anything that suits my tastes at the moment. What I won't do is live in fear of every new thing that comes along. Life is too short for that.
Besides, at 57 years of age, it is getting shorter all the time. Might as well enjoy what is left.

Calling something "lame" isn't a debate tactic that works, and neither is accusing someone of a personal attack that didn't exist. I said I probably see and do etc. and, statistically, it is likely. You're right; I don't know you, but I do know that nine times out of ten when I make such a statement comparing my willingness to embrace technology with someone else's I'd be right.

Should I take the lack of an answer to any of the more substantive parts of my post as evidence that you have no answer? Why do you consider the scenarios I mentioned unworthy of consideration? Do you deny that the environment in which biotech research is conducted is not not conducive to appropriate levels of caution and oversight? Do you disagree that the reward should be proven greater than the risk and not vice versa? A little less focus on your hurt feelings and a little more focus on the actual argument would be appreciated.

Instead of puffing up your ego with unsubstantiated claims about yourself and your alledged techno-prowess, how about some PROOF, or even evidence that controls are not in place and that caution/oversight are not being used?
Big business has deep pockets, deep pockets get sued at the hint of an error on their part that may have hurt someone even a little bit. That is reason alone for appropriate caution to be taken.
If you can't prove your claims, I will be happy to deny them, or to label them as irrational fears by someone who, having a little technical knowledge in some areas, assumes he has insight into all of it.
You are incapable of hurting my feelings, try as you might. My ego is self sufficient, thank you, and the rantings and fears of someone afraid of genome deviations in his wheaties can't hurt me.
What substantive parts are you talking about?

I made no claims about prowess, only about comfort with new things. I'm not the one who has repeatedly tried to turn this into a credentialist *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** contest. I want to focus on the arguments, not the people, and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.



How about some proof that such controls are in place, and that sufficient caution/oversight are being used? Blind faith won't cut it. I've already explained that the affirmative requires proof, not the negative, and I have little patience for attempts to shift the burden of proof where it doesn't belong.



Tell that to Dow Chemical or Union Carbide. Tell it to GM or Philip Morris. Tell it to whoever was behind Three Mile Island or Love Canal. Tell it to the military, who exposed thousands to nuclear radiation and Agent Orange. Nobody can sue until after the danger is recognized, and by then it might be too late. Would suing ADM into bankruptcy bring back a species that has been contaminated beyond viability, or an ecosystem that has been ruined beyond recovery? The threat of legal action afterward doesn't do enough to guarantee proper safeguards before.



That sword cuts both ways. However little knowledge I might have demonstrated about biotech, you've demonstrated even less, so your case is even weaker.



Sigh. Try this.



Or this.

From the posted article:

It looks like the objection is because of the current ban on GM food in Europe. Accepting the food is not about the food, per se, it is about the reaction of the European market to the presence of GM plants in Africa.

I have yet to see any valid argument as to why GM foods make everyone into a "guinea pig". Just speculation.

We eat food from the environment, if a gene or species of gm nature goes bad per say, we will feel the effect. All food we eat comes from either the land or the sea, the environment has a tendency to work in systems, to introduce something like a new gene, without extensive research could be an extreme hazard, it could be 1 week to 100 years for us to find this out. Say some pollen collects on a certain bird while feeding, this bird then returns to say ireland or something for the summer, it then deposits this new gene into the local ecosystems, this could have a very negative effect to none at all, but who wants to take the chance, i dont. Plus even in america, lots of farmers do not like gm foods, some have lost quite a bit of money do to cross pollination to say the least, entire silos of harvest gone due to contamination.

It's not just speculation. Genes from GM crops have a well-documented tendency to "infect" other crops. http://www.greens.org/s-r/29/29-21.html describes a well-known case in which a Canadian farmer's crops were contaminated from a neighbor's field, and then Monsanto had the gall to sue him for violating their license. http://www.ipcb.org/issues/agriculture/htm...line_maize.html describes many cases of contamination, including one in Mexico that threatens the center of maize diversity. http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/...0000066344.html describes a study showing contamination of neighboring fields at common isolation distances. Anybody who knows anything about agriculture knows that you can't contain pollen. It'll blow off the GM field and onto another field, possibly miles away, contributing its DNA to the plants in that other field. The whole seed itself can also be a vector for similar contamination, carried by the wind or by animals or on clothing. The net effect is that if one farmer plants GM seed every other farmer for miles around can expect sooner or later to find that they're selling GM grain too.

Possums are a problem in New Zealand, foxes in Tasmania. Purple loosestrife and kudzu crowd out native species throughout much of the US. Zebra mussels are a global problem, and pondweed checks have become a standard part of life for many freshwater boaters. Ecosystem disruption by these natural (though alien) species is enough of a problem, and there's absolutely no reason to believe man-made species won't have a similar tendency to "burst their bounds" with even more disastrous effects. Really, guys, it's not hard to find evidence of the danger. If you do any reading at all about modern biology, you almost can't help but find such real-life horror stories. I find it hard to believe that any educated person would say that biological contamination is a merely theoretical problem. In this day and age it's like claiming the earth is flat.

My question is what value do terms like "genetic contamination" have? OK, I agree it can cross-breed with "native" species.

Aside from legal issues (It does appear that Monsanto needs to be reeled in as to its legal rights over every GM plant occurring anywhere in the world), I don't see anything on any of those links that leads to the hysteria of "genetic contamination".

Examples such as :

where they use not one, but two "maybe" terms (could potentially...) to me indicates that no scientific study has shown these concerns to have any merit.

I agree that the legal issues (who owns GM plants) should be addressed. As to the advantages that such plants bring, my opinion remains that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

what kind of study are we talking about, do we have a different world as a lab somewhere no one told me about. What we are talking about is natural genetic history to a one produced by man. Nature works itself by some magical law we have yet to define fully, even with that light you would say go ahead on dropping some new gene or so into the mix, what if it meets something, and some magical law takes hold and we get some kind of violent man eating plant as a side effect not to say it would happen, but i dont trust people with genetic engineering enough to let them toy with what could be the entire worlds food source just about, do you really feel that comfortable with a competitive company

I agree with Platypus.
Unfortunate results of genetic tampering with agriculture aren't something you can just 'oops' away. Think of all of the other less significant scientific blunders of Christmases past and apply them to our food source. A blunder in this area would be catastrophic and wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the measurable aspects of the product within the laboratory. It is the unforeseeable and indirect consequences of that product on the environment and the resultant mutations thereof (such as increased insect resistance to pesticides) .

If we insist on having the benefit proven to outweigh the risks in advance, we won't make much more progress. For starters, I don't think it can be done. I doubt that there has ever been a technological advance made that did not have unforseen consequences. That is a fact of life. Still, a lot of scientists insist on painting the rosy picture of the potential beneficial results of their research without completely analyzing the possible risks. That will always be a fact of life. But even if they try their best, some of the consequences will be overlooked.
But consider also that a lot of the feared bad consequences never occurred. Certainly giving women the vote didn't turn us into a socialist country, which was quoted as a prediction in some of my past reading. Likewise, educating our returning servicemen with the GI Bill didn't turn the working class into a mass of communists insisting on an equal share of this country's wealth. That was from a Republican congressman!
Our opinions on this issue have no sway on the scientific community. Even if a bunch of scientists are against it, it will still happen. If not in the USA, then somewhere else.
And I choose to believe that our scientists have good intent, and can operate these programs safely, even if their bosses are only looking at the profits to be gotten.

I favor any and all progress, whether technical, social, or political, that stands to benefit mankind, and I hope that none of us are satisfied with those aspects of the status quo that allow many in this world to starve or suffer from malnutrition.

Sounds a bit strange coming from a Republican, doesn't it?

Yes, but a bad thing in this areana could be like blowing up the moon. I think the latest GE the scientific community pulled of in public was with 65 goats. These animals can be controled much easier then crops per say. Its the fact we are dealing with maybe the entire food source thing that gets to me, its not like a few tons of nuke waste to bury somewhere and forget about, a bo-bo here could be just a tad more deadly if not costly.

Of course no such proof can be absolute, but nobody's suggesting that. The standard in a case like this should be "beyond reasonable doubt" according to the best scientific judgment that can be brought to bear. Scientists know a thing or two about levels of uncertainty and standards of proof. They should be allowed to apply that knowledge, not overridden by the business-side folks who do not understand and often don't seem to care about the risks associated with such an obviously dangerous technology. We're not talking about the Internet or giving the vote to women, which had no obvious potential for harm. We're talking about something where the potential for catastrophic consequences is known to exist and the only question seriously debated among scientists is whether that potential can be contained or limited.



And I know that the scientists don't always win those battles with management. In fact, they rarely do.



How noble. Bear in mind, though, that not all motion is progress. Was the invention of the machine gun or VX nerve gas good for mankind? Just because it's new doesn't mean it's good.



No, none of us are, but that's no reason to jump from the frying pan to the fire. The need for more nutritious or more drought-resistant grain is an excellent reason to make sure that the safety testing ofGM foods, and to develop safer alternatives if necessary. It is not a reason to bet everything on a roll of the dice, and it's also not a reason for trying to force things like terminator genes on third-world farmers as the price for any of these advances.

Can't give up the sarcasm, can you? What part of any of my posts implies that I am willing to accept any and all motion as progress?
And I am sure that "Just because it's new doesn't mean it's good" is understood by all who post here. How about, "Just because it is new doesn't mean it is bad"?
Also, "We're not talking about giving the vote to women, which had no obvious potential for harm" may be acknowledged now, but a LOT of men in that era had just the opposite opinion. Even when the philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment were discussing freedom for slaves, most of them felt that women should be kept uneducated and under some man's thumb. Those having power or priveledge are loathe to share it.

Anything that is new will have its naysayers. Meanwhile, people are starving.

World food supply

We don’t need to splice and dice DNA to feed the hungry. Basic traditional Mendelian techniques will provide enough food to safely feed the estimated population for the next 25 years. Poverty and poor food distribution limit access to food in some countries, not a world wide food shortage. I don’t see the point of rushing this technology, honestly.

What part of any of my posts attributed that specific belief to you? It's not all about you, Bill. This is a public forum, not a private conversation, and I was making a point for readers in general; think of it as addressing the jury and not the defendant.



Ahhh, it's our old friend the excluded middle. Anyone who doesn't assume it's good must be assuming it's bad, eh? No. I'm refusing to assume either position. What I've been insisting on is not that we forbid research into GM food, but that we defer widespread deployment until sufficient study has been done to know the answer instead of assuming it.



Another old friend, this time the "won't anybody think of the children" ploy. Thanks, hugo.

In fact, I do think of the people who are starving. As I just said, their plight is a good reason to accelerate research so that we can help them instead of endangering them. How will terminator-gene seed help them avoid starvation, in the long term? It won't. It will only make them more dependent on procuring seed from the very same inefficient and corrupt channels that have caused all this starvation in the first place, instead of creating their own. How will they be helped if genetic contamination wrecks their local ecosystem? Again, they won't. The lives that we save right now could be outweighed many times over by those we doom in the future (including, in some of the more extreme scenarios, those of our own descendants).

Bioinvasion is a real problem, and you have not provided any reason at all to believe it would not be a problem with GM strains. You haven't even tried, in fact. Just because we have the technology to cause genetic contamination doesn't mean we'll have the technology to reverse it any time soon. We've had nuclear technology for fifty years and we're still struggling with what to do about the waste. What we risk here is severe, irreversible damage on a global scale. If you want to shrug off the danger and forge blithely ahead, feel free...in an environment completely sealed off from the rest of us. I think Biosphere II might be free. Otherwise, if you're living in a world with other people, you'll just have to accept that they might feel they have more to lose than you do and they might not be as quick to bet everything on a roll of the dice.

P-Pus, cutting and splicing and dissecting is rude. You have a problem, and it has nothing to do with GM foods. If you want to assume the superior position in the pack, you can have it. Here is my last shot, then the forum is your personal whining post for all I care.
What part of my post says I think it is all about me? You are making a personal attack, something I try to avoid but in this case I have been sucked in.
You make assumptions about where I am going. I never said "think of the children". Part of the end result of GM foods will surely, if successful, allow the poorer nations to grow their own crops, if the GM foods can overcome problems associated with poor soil, inadequate moisture, ravaging insects, or all those things that combine to cause them to have a poor ecosystem in which to grow their crops. Then the distribution problem will be less severe.
You, and others, are assuming CORRUPT and EVIL and INEFFICIENT channels. You call it BIOINVASION, which sounds like a good title for a horror movie. You call it genetic CONTAMINATION, which is not the intent. It is GM, not GC. You call it SEVERE, IRREVERSIBLE damage on a GLOBAL SCALE, and use the expression "betting everything on a ROLL OF THE DICE". Those are all the kinds of words that fearful, paranoid, and ignorant (unaware or undereducated) people use.
If this is how you feel, how can you say that you are for continued research? Oh, yeah, as long as they prove that they KNOW all will be well before they release the monster-modified seeds into the wild.
Name one new technology that was perfect in conception, birth, application, etc. that did not have unforeseen consequences?

Personal attack removed.

No, it's not. It's common practice, and often necessary to preserve context for a reply. Even if you disagree, report the post instead of filling the thread itself with meta-drivel.



Not word for word, but "meanwhile people are starving" is rhetorically equivalent.



Prove it. I've already explained one way in which GM foods would undermine that ability. It's part of the question this debate is supposed to answer, not something that can be assumed before you even deign to engage.



The idea that famine is caused not by an actual shortage of food but by inefficiency and corruption in the distribution channel is hardly new. Amartya Sen won a Nobel prize for his work in this area, and here's fellow laureate Ken Arrow's commentary on that work. It's a conclusion, not an assumption.



What I refer to as bioinvasion or genetic contamination is not the importation of GM food or stock, but the tendency of those organisms or their genes to spread throughout the local ecosystem. They're both common terms, and I'm sure you could learn a lot about the phenomenon just by googling them for a few minutes.



We went over this before, Bill, and your insult-laced obstinacy ("you have a problem" should earn you a strike IMO) is getting tiresome. I'm not demanding absolute proof. All I'm suggesting is that we allow the processes of science to reach a supportable conclusion regarding risks and benefits before we allow widespread deployment.



That's called argument by demanding impossible perfection (a.k.a. moving the goalposts, raising the bar) and it's a sad addition to your long list of fallacies.

Get this argument out of the personal realm. There is a lot of information available on this topic, and it can be discussed in a civil manner. Bring your sources and debate. No more ad-hominems please.

I have read the posts in this thread so far. I agree that public domain plants, those which exist already, should not be assigned patents. Those who identify specific genes in public domain plants should be able to patent those genes. Patents do not last forever. Allowing people to patent genes will encourage identification of genes.

Links showing the bad effect of cross contamination with GM crops does not prove a problem with GM crops. Cross contamination could just as well happen with organic crops. The cross contamination was the problem.

Competition in the biosphere occurs constantly. It is not something new with genetic engineering. Arguments that genetically modified plants may out compete native plants could be true. The ability to out compete is not sufficient to prove them a hazard.

Terminators genes seem to regarded as a means to end a species. I can not see how. Any living thing with a terminator gene will not propagate. Clearly those lacking a terminator gene will out compete with those having a terminator gene.

The Canadian case has shown the legal system does not have enough competent people who are able to understand technical information.

There also has been some discussion on how large companies buying out smaller companies is a bad thing. I agree. We should monitor for monopolist practices and disallow them.

Human's attempt to improve plants and animals to improve their health, nutrient value, disease resistance and productivity is a good goal no matter which method is used. I have not seen any arguments thus far which have shown any tangible evidence to show genetic modification is a big hazard. The potential good is evident to me.

Another way I have approached the problem is asking this question? If someone wanted to ruin a environment on purpose via introducing a genetically modified plant how would they do it? I can not see how it could be done.

Now, Canadian Thistle can do it but it is not genetically modified...

Mankind has been deliberately changing the genotype of domestic plants since farming has existed. We have bred plants selectively in order to increase their yield, pest resistance and every other desirable trait you can think of (maize is not naturally yellow, it's brown). Every domestic plant is a GMO. The only difference is that now we can manipulate their genotypes more quickly. Obviously, new foods should be tested, but if GMOs are agriculturally superior, then we should not ban their development.

I dont think any lab to date can reproduce the varibles one would find in the world, as in nature. We dont fully understand the sculpting process of genes in nature. We would be introducing something new to this system.
We have no way to monitor how it will turn out, unless you keep it in some closed environment. Just as an example, the use of fast growth trees in non native environment, in the timber industry has caused much damage, such as the soil becomeing worn out very quick, i dont know half of the so called genius people behind such decisions, such as building nuke plants with material that has a 150,000 year half life, but this is one leap in science i do not feel safe with, its the food source thing, we are produceing a new gene, not guideing one through breeding.

GMO plants aren't simply fast forward Mendelian breeding....
(as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong)There is horizontal gene transfer of unrelated organisms which never would have the chance to combine in nature. Bacillus toxins, for example, were incorporated into the DNA to enable the plants to emit constant insecticide. The toxins are emitted into the soil as well. The Sierra club has voiced their concern, because studies show that it is killing off the monarch butterfly, and they aren't exactly a radical environmental group.

I agree that the employment of GMOs should be monitored and tested much more rigorously, but the possible benefits outweigh the current risks. Plus as Gray Seal pointed out, since there is now monetary incentive to map out new genes, genome projects will be encouraged. As for the case of the monarch butterflies, any new pesticide could have had the same result. While I don't agree with modern conventional farming methods, they are the standard, and if it were a pesticide found to do the same harm, it would get the same reaction and call for the same measure to be taken. If it harms the natural environment, try something else. We will have to make mistakes before we get to a technology that is useful and safe (We used to medicate people with mercury). What is important is that someone monitors those mistakes and disallows the use of those technologies before the harm becomes too great.

Probably getting off topic a little, but patents are supposed to be for invention, not discovery of something that already existed.



...but it might actually have a chilling effect wrt actually developing uses for or relating to those genes. Many in the genetic-research community have already complained of such an effect, arising from the need to pay royalties to an idle discoverer.



As I already pointed out, there's a little bit of a difference between mixing genes among closely related species and splicing a fish gene into a tomato. The latter opens up a whole new realm of possibilities that would just not occur with the former, and many of those possibilities are dangerous. The timescales are also different. Genetic change via traditional methods occurs slowly; that can seem inconvenient, but it also provides a safety margin. The organism must "validate" its viability within the new, changed ecosystem at every tiny step, so problems can be stopped before they grow to catastrophic levels. With contamination from bioengineered organisms that's not the case. By the time we realize there's a problem it might be too pervasive and widespread to do anything about it. That is precisely why the safeguards prior to deployment must be extremely stringent.



It's a hazard if the engineered species drives out competitors and then itself proves not to be viable in the changed ecosystem we've created. What if an insecticide-producing crop kills all the pollinators? It'd be like a suicide pact, or like crushing an economic competitor with predatory pricing and then going bankrupt yourself. We can afford for a manufactured product to become unavailable in that way, but can we afford the same with a grain that's a diet staple for billions?



...unless the terminator gene contaminates everything else in the region before actual termination occurs. This is the same reason a virus with a long and silent incubation period is so much more dangerous than one that infects immediately. A simple terminator gene might indeed "flame out" quickly as you describe, but a more complex one - possibly arising via mutation - might not. There are multiple steps involved in such a scenario, but any step down that path should be a step considered very carefully before making it.



Then you haven't looked, not even to the extent of following links provided here.



And why would a genetically modified organism be less likely than Canadian thistle to cause problems? If it's not provably less, we have no business adding to the bioinvasion risks we already face.

Platypus, I have previously read all posts and links in this thread before posting on it. When reading your comments I do see you use terms such as "dangerous" when describing genetic modification of plants but I am unconvinced by your links, examples and arguments. For example: you claim that a natural plant will acquire genetic information from a neighboring genetically modified plant in a fast manner. Somehow you think contamination from genetically modified plants is different than contamination from natural selection process. It is a profound claim which would require some sort of explanation.

Your speculation that there is some sort of viral terminator being used sounds like science fiction. The terminator being used do not operate like that. To attribute characteristic of your hypothetical virus to presently used terminator genes is inappropriate.

pheeler has an excellent post summing up a logical approach to dealing with biological problems in agriculture. The approach should work with naturally occurring threatening biologically organisms as well as genetically modified ones. The more knowledge we gain in understanding biology the better off we will be. Genetics is part of that understanding. The more we research the better equipped we will be to handle biological problems and hopefully decrease our negative effects on biodiversity and the environment(pesticides, plowing, irrigation).

As far as using pesticides, I would much prefer the incorporation of insecticides into plants as opposed to spraying them over a wide area. It is much more elegant, decreasing environmental contamination. I expect the amounts of pesticides will be decreased and have a much more localized effect where they are needed.

There is a risk in many things. Having an educated understanding of those risks is important. I have not seen any evidence indicating our exploration of gene manipulation has resulted in any catastrophic disaster. I have not seen any evidence our current research is headed towards a disaster. I have concluded the risk are there but reasonable considering the already realized benefits and evidence of great advantages via this research.

------

Just for my curiosity, what virus with a long incubation did you have in mind and why is it more dangerous than one which infects immediately?

------

The Danish colonized the Virgin Islands to grow sugar cane. It was a tremendous success for the first 20 to 30 years. After that, the cane did not produce as well and eventually these farms lost out to beet sugar production on the mainlands. Crop rotation is a known agricultural technique to mitigate such problems caused by single crop farming. The problem has not started with gene modification. I would expect good agronomy and forestry knowledge and research will adjust for such problems just as we have learned for sugar cane.

Been there, done that. Twice. If it didn't get through both other times I mentioned the fish-gene/tomato example, I doubt a third time will make a difference.



They're not supposed to work like that. Does that mean they're more than one simple mutation away from working like that, unintentionally? Let's see. You put terminator genes in something, and you put virus genes into it (or you use viruses to insert the gene)...would it be such a surprise if the result exhibited both termination and virus-like behavior? Oh yeah, I guess there'd just be no way to anticipate that.



I've already explained a half-dozen times why nothing we do after the fact is sufficient. The safeguards must be up front, prior to widespread deployment.



I'm all for research. More research, please! What I don't favor is skipping the research in favor of immediate deployment.



In other words, let's wait for such a disaster to occur before we take the risks seriously. That's an approach with a great history of working out well.



I was thinking of AIDS vs. Ebola at the time, but there are dozens of other examples. Read The Coming Plague or Deadly Feasts or any epidemiology textbook for more. The most dangerous diseases are those that have long infectious-but-asymptomatic periods, not those that manifest spectacularly but briefly. There's less chance for infection to spread when someone's very obviously sick and dies quickly.

If we can produce food more efficiently would that not be a good thing? If we can limit the destruction of natural habitat to be replaced by farms would it be a good thing? As I have suggested there is a positive way to look at the incorporation of a protective chemical into a plant's lifecycle. This could be a less intrusive than using broadcast insecticides.

I do not consider the Sierra Club to be an knowledgable observer nor an unbiased critic. If a newly introduced crop is killing butterflies in numbers which threaten their survival, I will be gravely concerned.

I am not sure why you label genetic research as "rushed". I do believe this research is being done in a methodical and scientific manner. It takes careful detailed work to make progress. This is not done by throwing a some cells into a bathtub and mixing it. If it was rushed, I would expect the research would come up empty.

Your perception of the risks seems to be greater than mine. I wonder if we see the benefits differently as well ?