Is Monsanto Eeeeevuuuullll ?

[krazyKemist]

Not necessarily - if you look at the benefits of, say, Bt crops, the farmers who would normally have walked through their fields spraying pesticides benefit much more than those who drop it from an aeroplane. For example, a "dramatic reduction in pesticide applications in Bt cotton fields has also been reported in China, and the proportion of farmers with pesticide poisoning has been reduced from 22% to 4.7%" according to this article in TRENDS in Plant Science.

The problem that happened in India was that those crops, which are very productive under industrial conditions (access to irrigation, good quality fertilizers, ect) tend to fare a lot less well in subsistance agriculture conditions, where amounts of water and quality of fertilizers (dung) may vary.

I don't really buy the monoculture argument. There are over 1000 varieties of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in the US in cultivation. To me, this is a great opportunity to preserve the diversity out there because it allows pure and sterile lines to be protected. But there's a good chance I'm confusing your argument with another common one. Forgive me if that's the case.

Yes, it was probably confusing. By monoculture I meant cultivating the same crop over a very large area of land, which allow for mechanized farming. Since India has a large supply of farm workers at low cost, they tend not to farm in this way. Indeed, industrial monoculture has already robbed many indian farmers of their jobs and sent them into city slums. I'm not sure that constitutes an improvement in their lives.

And you don't think they would benefit from Bt crops, which drastically reduce the cost of pesticides? The biggest benefits of GM crops are in the input costs; not necessarily the yield. Roundup Ready crops, regardless of what, regretfully, Monsanto claims, are not expected to increase yields.

I'm not sure what fertilizers and irrigation has to do with it.

The high yields demanded by our type of agriculture often come at the cost of a loss of resistance to difficult conditions such as poor soils and droughs. As I said, those varieties work well here but may be catastrophic for a third world country practicing familial/subsistance farming and which has very low reserves of food.

Unless you knowingly plant GM crops in violation of the contract, Monsanto will pay all the cleanup costs. I have yet to hear of an unfair case in this area. Activists often point to Percy Schmeiser, but it's quite blatantly obvious that he knowingly destroyed his own crops to plant RR crops without permission.

I'm not sure how I would explain that to a illeterate farmer of india or africa, which may already have commited suicide after being accused of such a thing because he cannot afford to defend himself.

It's possible, but that's exactly what happens with in nature with transposons and retroviruses. The effects of course depend on the specific variety. Herbicide-tolerant crops are less fit in the wild; Bt crops are more fit. Also, this is not specific to biotechnology.

Also not specific to GMOs - in fact, this has happened with hybrid celery that was causing rashes on people's hands. The probability of a single-gene insertion causing this change pales in comparison to the probability of natural hybridization causing it. Why does nobody worry when thousands of genes are introduced at once?

Yes, it does happen in nature, after all, all the tools that allow us to do this come from nature. And I'm not a believer in "natural is better than synthetic" anyways. I'm just questioning the risk-benefit ratio of it all. As I understand it, spliced-in genes tend to behave more like transposons or retroviruses than like stable genes. Is increasing the presence of such things (confering resistance to or producing toxic chemicals) in our environment a good/bad/neutral thing ? I frankly don't know.

As far as I know, the FDA, EPA, and USDA all require certain tests to be performed on GMOs, even if every ingredient is GRAS.

I'm not sure, but didn't the recent legislation lower the requirements for testing of GMOs ?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Explain how the fact that they'll have critics no matter what they do on one issue (pretty much a given, see illegal toxic waste dumping) has any influence on the validity of those concerns.

I'm pointing out that no matter what they do on that issue they will be criticized for being evil on that same issue. Illegal dumping is a separate separate issue that presumably doesn't suffer from the same 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' dilemma.

Why did you edit my post? It was so unnecessary.

If I changed anything you said, it was unintentional. I will check back and see if I can figure out what you're referring to in order to avoid making the same mistake again.

I did read it actually. It's a great plan. It doesn't do much to reduce my concerns about a country with a proven record of playing fast and loose with the rules, when people's lives were on the line. No, I'm saying you're not referencing your sources. I'm not saying you're making crap up, I'm saying from my perspective you might as well be making it up if I can't find what you're talking about. Okay, lets start simple:

What are these yield benefits to the GM revolution? What sort of percentages are we talking here? I want 20% minimum before I call it a revolution.

Show that Monsanto increased the wealth of the world by 1800%.

Document how multinational corporations were responsible for the rise of the United States, China, Japan, and other countries that went from backwards, reasonably impoverished status to international superpowers from 1900 to 2000.

I'm glad you found it interesting and I appreciate you clarifying what you meant by the statement 'I'm inclined to think you're making garbage up'.

You seem to want me to provide citations for things I didn't actually claim. I made no claims about crop yields, and crop yield is not the only thing that can make a crop successful...saving money on pesticides and reducing human and animal exposure to them can make a particular crop a good investment even if it doesn't yield any more than the crop it's replacing. I believe we're on the verge of another green revolution, we would have to be a little past the verge for me to be able to make the claims you seem to want me to make. The whole thing could turn out to be a pipe dream, but it would be unconscionable not to pursue it. The future doesn't come with any guarantees. We make the effort and hope it pays off the way we think it can.

I said that companies like Monsanto drove much of the increase of wealth the last 100 years. I'm sure Monsanto is a blip compared to the whole global economy over ten decades. My point was that economic growth has been the most significant factor in countering poverty. It is important that this growth continue and that it finally includes Africa.

You're very demanding, GreyICE. It's an annoying quality. I claimed that multinationals played an important role in the development of the modern world and you want me to document how they are 'responsible' (as though I claimed multinationals were the only important factor) for the rise of various nations from poverty. I imagine the documentation of even my modest claim that they played an important role would be quite breathtaking in its scope, and I'm not prepared to devote many hours of time to educating you, especially since I truly doubt you are unaware of the importance of foriegn investment to a developing country, which is particularly obvious in the cases of Japan and China.

I believe we have fundamentally incompatible debating styles. I tend to talk about the big picture and you tend to sit back and dissect and demand specifics and citations rather than actually presenting a case of your own. Essentially, you are acting as a critic rather than a contributor, in my opininon. I'm not finding this to be either a pleasant experience or a learning one, so I will leave you the field. Perhaps we can have a more enjoyable conversation on another topic in future.

 

[Mister Agenda]

"And as I don't think you're an idiot, why are you posting this? Hmm."

As far as editing GreyICE's post, the only change I can see is that the 'Hmm' got contracted to immediately follow the rest of the quote when originally it was separated from the preceding sentence by a quote from me. I apologize for not doing a better job quoting and am sorry it was as confusing as it seems to have been. GreyICE if you're referring to something else, please clarify so I can learn from my mistake.

 

[krazyKemist]

Time-bomb? Only if they plant traditional seeds and Terminator seeds close enough for cross-pollination. Being a known problem, I wouldn't necessarily call that a time bomb.

But, I can see where this could be an issue with one farmer contaminating the field of another; so someone using reuseable seed could be unfairly held to the single seed/single year standard being proposed for GM seed.

I wonder if it's possible to make a Terminator type plant that would not cross-pollinate? I think pollination is required for the development of the seeds/fruit (the parts that, generally, we're wanting for food).

Actually, this can become a severe problem for a farmer who produces his own seed. The Terminator crops may well end up sterilizing his crops.

Hypothetical question : suppose you produce your seed using the traditionnal method of keeping the best seed for replanting. Your neighbor plants Terminator crops which cross-polinate with yours, causing your plants to produce less and less until they become sterile. Who will replace your seed ? And with what ? The seed you were using was selected for resistance and productivity in your area over generations. It was in itself a genuine local variety, produced by your family over time. Will the biotech pay back what it was worth ? Will you even be able to find and buy seed that is neither Terminator type or F1 hybrid anymore ?

This problem actually didn't begin with GMOs. It began with seed producing companies wanting to aquire a captive clientele. F1 hybrids do this almost as efficiently as Terminator seeds.

 

[GreyICE]

I'm pointing out that no matter what they do on that issue they will be criticized for being evil on that same issue. Illegal dumping is a separate separate issue that presumably doesn't suffer from the same 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' dilemma.

No, but it does show a particular corporate willingness to play fast and loose with the rules when lives are on the line. Toxic Waste, after all, doesn't get its name because it's normal garbage. Bribery shows a certain lack of respect for the proper workings of the law, if you will. Corporations who participate in activities like that earn a little extra scrutiny. They do get it, and they do get jumped on a lot faster than corporations that generally tow the line. I don't think this is particularly unfair, any more than it is unfair to look watch the school bully a little more than you watch the honor students.

I'm glad you found it interesting and I appreciate you clarifying what you meant by the statement 'I'm inclined to think you're making garbage up'.

You seem to want me to provide citations for things I didn't actually claim. I made no claims about crop yields, and crop yield is not the only thing that can make a crop successful...saving money on pesticides and reducing human and animal exposure to them can make a particular crop a good investment even if it doesn't yield any more than the crop it's replacing. I believe we're on the verge of another green revolution, we would have to be a little past the verge for me to be able to make the claims you seem to want me to make. The whole thing could turn out to be a pipe dream, but it would be unconscionable not to pursue it. The future doesn't come with any guarantees. We make the effort and hope it pays off the way we think it can.

I said that companies like Monsanto drove much of the increase of wealth the last 100 years. I'm sure Monsanto is a blip compared to the whole global economy over ten decades. My point was that economic growth has been the most significant factor in countering poverty. It is important that this growth continue and that it finally includes Africa.

I agree. I just think that we're rushing into it. Monsanto gets a free pass because they might be able to help out Africa? We have to sacrifice any concerns, potential problems, drawbacks, corporate crimes, and legitimate drawbacks in a rush for economic growth? No.

We have a system. It works. It is working. I need a damn good reason to take down a system that is working for one that might work. And our system says we watchdog our technologies. Our system says if there's potentially disastrous results with a technology, we don't use it before we prove its safe. Our system is working quite well, really.

You're very demanding, GreyICE. It's an annoying quality. I claimed that multinationals played an important role in the development of the modern world and you want me to document how they are 'responsible' (as though I claimed multinationals were the only important factor) for the rise of various nations from poverty. I imagine the documentation of even my modest claim that they played an important role would be quite breathtaking in its scope, and I'm not prepared to devote many hours of time to educating you, especially since I truly doubt you are unaware of the importance of foriegn investment to a developing country, which is particularly obvious in the cases of Japan and China.

I believe we have fundamentally incompatible debating styles. I tend to talk about the big picture and you tend to sit back and dissect and demand specifics and citations rather than actually presenting a case of your own. Essentially, you are acting as a critic rather than a contributor, in my opininon. I'm not finding this to be either a pleasant experience or a learning one, so I will leave you the field. Perhaps we can have a more enjoyable conversation on another topic in future.

That is because your big picture is fundamentally flawed. The flaw is it has ground over the little picture, destroying it. You see, the big picture is just an excuse for not considering the effects of the policies you are advocating. There is actually no difference at all between 'the big picture' and 'the little picture' besides the fact that one cares about the human lives you might be obliterating.

The little picture contains facts. Facts like toxic waste dumped by those multinationals. Facts like they have played fast and loose with the rules, killing thousands upon thousands of people this century. Facts like they have manipulated governments, started wars, and slaughtered entire towns. All in the name of this economic growth.

Are they necessary? Quite possibly. But you giving them a pass to do as they will is insane. They are, and have been for quite some time, out of control. They are more powerful than governments, and answer to very little.

You have made claims that they are responsible for all of our progress. Perhaps. The fact that you can't document it suggests to me that perhaps it's not true. I don't think their role is as big as they like to think it is. It could certainly have occurred with smaller companies, spread out (see Merlin, as opposed to the big record labels). With the internet and improved communication, it very well could happen in Africa entirely without them - thousands upon thousands of personal connections efficiently flowing together.

Do you want me to document the people they have killed? I can document thousands.

Do you want me to document major corporations making decisions that they knew would kill people for profit reasons? I can.

Do you want me to document them starting wars? It all exists.

We're not talking about Prison Planet, we're not talking about Alex Jones. We're talking about historians, documented court cases, proven, verified facts. This has all happened.

And you would give these people a pass to do whatever they want, in the name of progress?

Our debating style difference is that you are a believer. I am a skeptic. I see a proven history of death, violence, and horror in the name of progress, andI expect more death, violence, and horrors if we continue to use the same method, unaltered. You take that same method, and expect different results.

It's magical thinking. Tigers don't change their stripes, these corporations don't suddenly decide that they should do no evil.

"And as I don't think you're an idiot, why are you posting this? Hmm."

As far as editing GreyICE's post, the only change I can see is that the 'Hmm' got contracted to immediately follow the rest of the quote when originally it was separated from the preceding sentence by a quote from me. I apologize for not doing a better job quoting and am sorry it was as confusing as it seems to have been. GreyICE if you're referring to something else, please clarify so I can learn from my mistake.

Yes, it made my quote from a simple question, which it was (the argument was stupid) into some weird implication. You made a semantic point, then sat back and ignored the real point, which was that your post read like the world's most saccharine press release. If you're going to play semantic Nazi, and then add implications into my post when I was pointing out semantic arguments are stupid (and honestly asking you why you're making them) I will get annoyed.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I think it is important to examine each variety individually. It is useless to discuss the yields of GMOs in general, because that varies tremendously with each type of technology, and each crop. Contamination into the wild is not as great a threat with wheat, which only exists in agriculture. It is also not a great threat with herbicide tolerance, because that gives it no advantage in the wild. Farm-to-farm contamination isn't as great a threat with corn, which has very heavy pollen, almost always falling within 3 meters from the plant. So let's just be careful to keep our criticisms specific. I don't really know who that's addressed to...just something to keep in mind.

Also, the type of terminator technology most people seem to be discussing is not the only one. Another version exists which acts only on the inserted gene. Basically the gene (Bt/HT, etc.) is in the plant but inactive until an activating compound is absorbed. Seeds can be replanted, and crops are not sterile - but to express the added trait, you need to add this compound. This would solve most of the problems presented - contamination would not spread sterility, and the food security issues GreyICE brought up would not at all apply. I would be very interested to see people's criticisms of this version.

The problem that happened in India was that those crops, which are very productive under industrial conditions (access to irrigation, good quality fertilizers, ect) tend to fare a lot less well in subsistance agriculture conditions, where amounts of water and quality of fertilizers (dung) may vary.

I'm not very familiar with the situation in India, so I can't offer much here. I'm not sure which varieties they used and what the problems were. I did read this study of Bt cotton in South Africa, in which small farms benefited significantly more than similar larger ones. Granted, irrigated farms did benefit slightly more than small farms.

Yes, it was probably confusing. By monoculture I meant cultivating the same crop over a very large area of land, which allow for mechanized farming. Since India has a large supply of farm workers at low cost, they tend not to farm in this way. Indeed, industrial monoculture has already robbed many indian farmers of their jobs and sent them into city slums. I'm not sure that constitutes an improvement in their lives.

Ahh, I see. But on the other hand, many GMOs have the advantage of being very non-invasive in the farming procedure. The Amish, for example, have embraced the seeds because the technique is the same (on their part at least), and with the extra income, they can help preserve their culture. I haven't read any follow-up studies, though.

The high yields demanded by our type of agriculture often come at the cost of a loss of resistance to difficult conditions such as poor soils and droughs. As I said, those varieties work well here but may be catastrophic for a third world country practicing familial/subsistance farming and which has very low reserves of food.

I'd be interested in seeing some studies about this. Is there any evidence that these crops are more harmful in this sense than conventional crops?

I'm not sure how I would explain that to a illeterate farmer of india or africa, which may already have commited suicide after being accused of such a thing because he cannot afford to defend himself.

I know that suicides are a problem with Indian farmers, but is that actually a realistic scenario? Has anything like this happened in the past? Even when Indians planted unapproved GM seeds without the permission of Monsanto (or whatever Monsanto derivative is over there), I don't think Monsanto pursued any legal action over there. I also think Monsanto cleans it up before any legal action, unless it's clearly a conscious violation. I could very well be wrong though.

Yes, it does happen in nature, after all, all the tools that allow us to do this come from nature. And I'm not a believer in "natural is better than synthetic" anyways. I'm just questioning the risk-benefit ratio of it all. As I understand it, spliced-in genes tend to behave more like transposons or retroviruses than like stable genes. Is increasing the presence of such things (confering resistance to or producing toxic chemicals) in our environment a good/bad/neutral thing ? I frankly don't know.

I've heard this claim from a few people, but I've never actually seen evidence to support it. I have a hard time believing that added genes "pop out" just as much as transposons, because transposons have special beginning and end sequences that act as "wheels". I haven't looked at the roundup-ready genes in detail, but I know it's not a component in the Bt sequence insertion.

Whether it's a good thing of course depends on the specifics. But I'm not quite sure what your scenario actually depicts - are you worried that these genes will pop out and be inserted back into wild plants? Or are you worried about the effect on the plant itself?

I'm not sure, but didn't the recent legislation lower the requirements for testing of GMOs ?

I haven't heard of this. Did they?

 

[GreyICE]

Also, the type of terminator technology most people seem to be discussing is not the only one. Another version exists which acts only on the inserted gene. Basically the gene (Bt/HT, etc.) is in the plant but inactive until an activating compound is absorbed. Seeds can be replanted, and crops are not sterile - but to express the added trait, you need to add this compound. This would solve most of the problems presented - contamination would not spread sterility, and the food security issues GreyICE brought up would not at all apply. I would be very interested to see people's criticisms of this version.

Beyond the normal criticisms inherent in the process - any time you're screwing with heredity you should definitely have to prove that your technology isn't going to do anything odd long term before we beta test it in real life - I don't have much of a problem with it. My problem is with crops that kill the next generation, not with crops that might not have some designer gene.

I'd say it would only be a problem if the crop in question was some low-water form of the plant that was growing in an area where the non-GMO version would die (at which point it would be functionally the same as killing the plant). But if it's just some gene like Roundup Ready, sure, go ahead and turn it off. If we're losing a few percentage points, some easy access to herbicide, some things that make the seed easier to collect, there will be belt tightening and problems. But certainly no risk of mass starvation.

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, this can become a severe problem for a farmer who produces his own seed. The Terminator crops may well end up sterilizing his crops...

Yes, I realize that. I mentioned it in the second paragraph For the person buying the seed it's not an issue; they know what they're getting and know they need to keep it seperate from any seed crops, etc. The neighbors are a problem. And considering that, if contamination did occur, the victim likely wouldn't know until next season when he planted his saved seed and got diddly-squat, trying to prove causation and recoup damages from the person who caused it could be very problematic.

 

[krazyKemist]

I'm not very familiar with the situation in India, so I can't offer much here. I'm not sure which varieties they used and what the problems were. I did read this study of Bt cotton in South Africa, in which small farms benefited significantly more than similar larger ones. Granted, irrigated farms did benefit slightly more than small farms.

I've read a little on what happened. Actually, the whole incident was around a trial of Bt cotton, which was supposed to be the first GM crop allowed in India. This, published in Nature biotech. (2002), sums up what happened:

One of the problems, according to both government sources and NGOs, is that local farmers are not meeting the many technical specifications—such as for refugia management and planting conditions—for Bt cotton, a relatively high-maintenance crop. Cotton farmers with very small land holdings, for instance, have found it impossible to set aside land for refugia, and only 40% of the total area of cotton is irrigated—which is causing problems this year because of a delayed monsoon.

Add this:

Suman Sahai, convener of Gene Campaign, a Delhi-based NGO, and a visiting professor at the University of Heidelberg, blames the government and scientific community for failing to educate farmers about dangers of not following proper procedure.

and the fact that several illegal F1 Bt cotton seeds were being sold as the real thing, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I'd be interested in seeing some studies about this. Is there any evidence that these crops are more harmful in this sense than conventional crops?

I would not say that this is unique to GMOs. This is a general observation on all our chosen crops and farm animals - bred to increase yield, in high maintainance conditions (irrigation, proper fertilizer, pesticides). The prevailing farming conditions must be kept in mind when trying to penetrate a third world market, and in the case of Bt cotton in india, the failure to do so contributed greatly to the failure of the trial.

I know that suicides are a problem with Indian farmers, but is that actually a realistic scenario? Has anything like this happened in the past? Even when Indians planted unapproved GM seeds without the permission of Monsanto (or whatever Monsanto derivative is over there), I don't think Monsanto pursued any legal action over there. I also think Monsanto cleans it up before any legal action, unless it's clearly a conscious violation. I could very well be wrong though.

Farmer suicides admitedly didn't begin with GM crops, but some say that the Bt cotton failure added to it. After all, Bt cotton seeds cost 4 times as much as regular seeds, and farmers were promised higher yields. They simply could not make ends meet. As for the scenario I depicted, I guess we would have to ask people working in rural areas what kind of actions Monsanto or its subsidiaries take over there.

I've heard this claim from a few people, but I've never actually seen evidence to support it. I have a hard time believing that added genes "pop out" just as much as transposons, because transposons have special beginning and end sequences that act as "wheels". I haven't looked at the roundup-ready genes in detail, but I know it's not a component in the Bt sequence insertion.

According to the litterature, this seems to happen with a very low frequency. It tends to depend on the vector and site of insertion. From what I know of transfectants, some are very stable, and some a lot less.

However, recombinant DNA, in the case of RR soybeans, has been found to remain in soil for up to one year after seeding, allowing horizontal contamination of non-GM crops (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2007), 55(25)). The effect may be dependant on vector design and agricultural practices.

Whether it's a good thing of course depends on the specifics. But I'm not quite sure what your scenario actually depicts - are you worried that these genes will pop out and be inserted back into wild plants? Or are you worried about the effect on the plant itself?

One chief concern in litterature is transmission of antibiotic resistance to soil bacteria, followed by transmission to pathogenic bacteria. This is due to vector design which include an antibiotic resistance gene to control for the presence of the desired gene. The risk is estimated to be very low. However, efforts have been undertaken to remove the antibiotic resistance gene from the final GMO.

The one I have is with the persistance of recombinant DNA and its effect on neighboring plants, or plants that would be planted there following the GM crop. Naked DNA, depending on its design, does have the capability to insert itself in a genome. This insertion, beyond confering the GM trait, could change the properties of a plant that is supposedly not a GMO, so is not tested.

I haven't heard of this. Did they?

I may have mixed it up with the rejection of the obligation to declare if a foodstuff contains a GMO (in US).