More GM crop destruction
- Thread starter Number Six
- Start date
-
- Tags
- crop destruction
Kimpatsu said:
Well, the "third world" that exists in my dimension shows a real appetite for GM crops.
According to the ISAAA, the industry body for commercilised transgenic crops, 27% of all GM crops production occurred in developing countries in 2002. And that comes from a late start. India only start using Bt cotton last year.
If you are interested look here:
Global Status of GM Crops
Kimpatsu said:
No, perfect analogy. GM crops have, in some instances, serious advantages over alternatives. For example yield, insect resistance etc.
There is choice, producers are exercising that choice and more of the stuff is being grown.
CurtC
Illuminator
I feel there are some things in this thread which have been implied, but some follow-up is needed.
Fish genes in strawberries
Although you can say that the concept of putting a gene from one species into another is a new capability, it's really not any scarier than what we've been doing for the last 100 years. Many of our modern varieties of crops were genetically modified by exposing seeds to harsh chemicals and/or radiation, in order to cause genetic mutations. Then someone laboriously plants them to see if any good traits appear. Not very efficient, but getting a gene in a plant that's never been tried by nature would surely be scarier than taking an existing one from another species, no? And I never heard anyone protest that kind of technique.
Nut gene in fish - already happened
A company inserted a gene from a brazil nut into a fish, and they were aware that the gene might be responsible for allergic reactions, so they tested it and found that yes, that gene did make the allergenic protein. This was a standard part of the product's development, and it was therefore shelved long before reaching the market. This is a perfect example of why we *should* use gene-splicing instead of other techiques, since we know what to look for and test it.
Starlink corn
Again, another example of why gene splicing is preferrable. A protein in this variety of corn had certain features that made researchers suspicious that it could cause allergies in humans, although it wasn't proven to do so. It was approved for use therefore for livestock only. This was probably a bad idea, since the inevitable happened and a small quantity got mixed in with some corn intended for humans. No one was harmed, and there won't be any more varieties approved for livestock and not humans, whether gene-spliced or not.
Terminator seeds
Although it seemed like a great idea to me, Monsanto dropped the development of it several years ago because it was a lightning rod for uninformed protesters. The funny thing is that most modern crops grown use hybrid seeds which don't produce viable seeds anyway. So "terminator" seeds were nothing new - farmers now have to buy seeds for many crops each year, and are happy to do so because of the advantages of those crops.
Fish genes in strawberries
Although you can say that the concept of putting a gene from one species into another is a new capability, it's really not any scarier than what we've been doing for the last 100 years. Many of our modern varieties of crops were genetically modified by exposing seeds to harsh chemicals and/or radiation, in order to cause genetic mutations. Then someone laboriously plants them to see if any good traits appear. Not very efficient, but getting a gene in a plant that's never been tried by nature would surely be scarier than taking an existing one from another species, no? And I never heard anyone protest that kind of technique.
Nut gene in fish - already happened
A company inserted a gene from a brazil nut into a fish, and they were aware that the gene might be responsible for allergic reactions, so they tested it and found that yes, that gene did make the allergenic protein. This was a standard part of the product's development, and it was therefore shelved long before reaching the market. This is a perfect example of why we *should* use gene-splicing instead of other techiques, since we know what to look for and test it.
Starlink corn
Again, another example of why gene splicing is preferrable. A protein in this variety of corn had certain features that made researchers suspicious that it could cause allergies in humans, although it wasn't proven to do so. It was approved for use therefore for livestock only. This was probably a bad idea, since the inevitable happened and a small quantity got mixed in with some corn intended for humans. No one was harmed, and there won't be any more varieties approved for livestock and not humans, whether gene-spliced or not.
Terminator seeds
Although it seemed like a great idea to me, Monsanto dropped the development of it several years ago because it was a lightning rod for uninformed protesters. The funny thing is that most modern crops grown use hybrid seeds which don't produce viable seeds anyway. So "terminator" seeds were nothing new - farmers now have to buy seeds for many crops each year, and are happy to do so because of the advantages of those crops.
Read any of the articles here (there are many) for a very different perspective.Drooper said:
As I said above, it's not the splicing per se that's the problem; it's the blackmailing and dirty tactics used by mega-corporations to force their product and none other upon the Third World, and the end of choice.CurtC said:
Kimpatsu said:
I suggest you do either, or preferably both of the following.
Provide evidence that might indicate that farmers around the world (there are around 5 million of them) are being forced to use GM crops against their wishes and,
Povide a link to said article if you want people to read it, or provide a an extract of the relavant parts.
Shane Costello
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,232
Care to explain how Zambia chose to ban the import of GM food despite all this corporate blackmailing and dirty tactics?
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
"Terminator seeds
Although it seemed like a great idea to me, Monsanto dropped the development of it several years ago because it was a lightning rod for uninformed protesters. The funny thing is that most modern crops grown use hybrid seeds which don't produce viable seeds anyway. So "terminator" seeds were nothing new - farmers now have to buy seeds for many crops each year, and are happy to do so because of the advantages of those crops."
Ah, "terminator" the great anti-GM myth. First, no matter how many times it is said (and I am not accusing Curt of doing this), saying "Monsanto" invented the "terminator" doesn't make it true.
Actually, the "terminator" technology was invented and named by the USDA in conjunction with a small seed-technology company (Southern Pineland, maybe?). The technology patents were held by the seed company. Monsanto got into the picture by looking to buy Southern Pineland (if that is the company, sorry, I can't remember). IT would have than acquired the technology license.
The sale didn't go through...in part, no doubt, because of the controversy over the technology...but also for financial and other reasons. As a result, the technology is still owned by both the US Government and Southern Pineland.
In addition, the technology has never been fully tested in field conditions, etc. So, any benefits that it might have had were years away from practical use. The technology is a theoretical possibility, but there were no products in the marketplace, and, indeed, it was years away from actual production and sales.
But, don't let a little thing like facts and/or practicality stop the anti-GM activists from the big lie. To hear it told by Earth First and Greenpeace, the Terminator was bagged up and ready to be sold/given to every third world farmer to undermine next years crop and deliver the entire food system to Monsanto, DuPont, Dow and other GM manufacturers.
Second, the "terminator" technology was desirable for a number of reasons...both economic and environmental.
Specifically, part of the thinking was economic. These GM seeds, in theory delivering superior performance, yields, etc., would deliver to farmers enhanced profits. But, as an expensive technology to develop, market, etc., they -- like a copyright -- needed protection. The Terminator gene would ensure that farmers had to, every year, buy the seed from the company, rather than save seed.
Now, the anti-GM argument went: Ah, but farmers have saved seed for thousands of years. Monsanto (which didn't own the technology at the time, would own the seeds necessary to a farmers livelihood, and thus control global food supplies).
The technology, LIKE ALL TECHNOLOGY, was a tradeoff. If it could deliver traits and yields that made farmers wealthier, than it was assumed by ag-economists, farmers would opt for buying seeds, rather than saving seeds. If it didn't work, farmers could continue to save seeds (it was never clear to me why, in theory, farmers couldn't continue to save seeds...just not the terminator seeds, a technology that they didn't pay for).
In short, it always seemed to me that the activists were arguing that farmers should get the benefits of a new technology without having to pay for it...and no-cost technology doesn't exist (to my knowledge).
In addition, the next argument was environmental. The argument went that the gene that enabled the terminator to work...i.e be sterile, would slip out (a la' Ice Nine) and infect other plants, crop varieties, etc. But, no one ever talked about the fact that the plant was "sterile" -- so, how was the gene to "slip" out? There were not going to be any seeds from plants growing in the field, or flowers, because the plants would be "sterile." So, there wouldn't have been any gene flow....as if the technology would have been approved for use without some kind of testing on this possibility anyway.
Finally, the technology was not intended for Subsistence farmers or the third world, in the first instance, anyway. Like all technology, it would have been most useful and cost effective and profitable for developed world farming conditions. However, its utility in the third world seems obvious to me...creating plants with potentially highly desirable and profitable (for the farmer) traits, that (because of the sterility of the plant) would have more or less minimal environmental impact on native species and plants.
In the end, the arguments against "terminator" to me, at least, always had not only the big lie about them, they were based in an almost Lysenko-esk understanding of biology, ecology and farm economics.
But, hysteria and the big lie -- rather than facts -- colors much of the argument over food and agriculture these days...sad to say.
Although it seemed like a great idea to me, Monsanto dropped the development of it several years ago because it was a lightning rod for uninformed protesters. The funny thing is that most modern crops grown use hybrid seeds which don't produce viable seeds anyway. So "terminator" seeds were nothing new - farmers now have to buy seeds for many crops each year, and are happy to do so because of the advantages of those crops."
Ah, "terminator" the great anti-GM myth. First, no matter how many times it is said (and I am not accusing Curt of doing this), saying "Monsanto" invented the "terminator" doesn't make it true.
Actually, the "terminator" technology was invented and named by the USDA in conjunction with a small seed-technology company (Southern Pineland, maybe?). The technology patents were held by the seed company. Monsanto got into the picture by looking to buy Southern Pineland (if that is the company, sorry, I can't remember). IT would have than acquired the technology license.
The sale didn't go through...in part, no doubt, because of the controversy over the technology...but also for financial and other reasons. As a result, the technology is still owned by both the US Government and Southern Pineland.
In addition, the technology has never been fully tested in field conditions, etc. So, any benefits that it might have had were years away from practical use. The technology is a theoretical possibility, but there were no products in the marketplace, and, indeed, it was years away from actual production and sales.
But, don't let a little thing like facts and/or practicality stop the anti-GM activists from the big lie. To hear it told by Earth First and Greenpeace, the Terminator was bagged up and ready to be sold/given to every third world farmer to undermine next years crop and deliver the entire food system to Monsanto, DuPont, Dow and other GM manufacturers.
Second, the "terminator" technology was desirable for a number of reasons...both economic and environmental.
Specifically, part of the thinking was economic. These GM seeds, in theory delivering superior performance, yields, etc., would deliver to farmers enhanced profits. But, as an expensive technology to develop, market, etc., they -- like a copyright -- needed protection. The Terminator gene would ensure that farmers had to, every year, buy the seed from the company, rather than save seed.
Now, the anti-GM argument went: Ah, but farmers have saved seed for thousands of years. Monsanto (which didn't own the technology at the time, would own the seeds necessary to a farmers livelihood, and thus control global food supplies).
The technology, LIKE ALL TECHNOLOGY, was a tradeoff. If it could deliver traits and yields that made farmers wealthier, than it was assumed by ag-economists, farmers would opt for buying seeds, rather than saving seeds. If it didn't work, farmers could continue to save seeds (it was never clear to me why, in theory, farmers couldn't continue to save seeds...just not the terminator seeds, a technology that they didn't pay for).
In short, it always seemed to me that the activists were arguing that farmers should get the benefits of a new technology without having to pay for it...and no-cost technology doesn't exist (to my knowledge).
In addition, the next argument was environmental. The argument went that the gene that enabled the terminator to work...i.e be sterile, would slip out (a la' Ice Nine) and infect other plants, crop varieties, etc. But, no one ever talked about the fact that the plant was "sterile" -- so, how was the gene to "slip" out? There were not going to be any seeds from plants growing in the field, or flowers, because the plants would be "sterile." So, there wouldn't have been any gene flow....as if the technology would have been approved for use without some kind of testing on this possibility anyway.
Finally, the technology was not intended for Subsistence farmers or the third world, in the first instance, anyway. Like all technology, it would have been most useful and cost effective and profitable for developed world farming conditions. However, its utility in the third world seems obvious to me...creating plants with potentially highly desirable and profitable (for the farmer) traits, that (because of the sterility of the plant) would have more or less minimal environmental impact on native species and plants.
In the end, the arguments against "terminator" to me, at least, always had not only the big lie about them, they were based in an almost Lysenko-esk understanding of biology, ecology and farm economics.
But, hysteria and the big lie -- rather than facts -- colors much of the argument over food and agriculture these days...sad to say.
Kimpatsu said:
According to Mr Monbiot's own search engine, he has no such article entitled "A Padlock on the Food Chain". Prive a direct link or quotes or both.
So I say again.
Provide what evidence you have that 5 million farmers around the world are not planting GM crops by choice.
CurtC
Illuminator
So where is this article titled A Padlock on the Food Chain? The link you provided was to amazon to purchase Monbiot's book by another name. I searched at his site, and on Google, and found an article of his publised in The Guardian which used this phrase. This article just said that the US is guilty of promoting to other nations the technology of US-based corporations. So what? That's their job.
So you've admitted that there's noting wrong with GM per se, but you just oppose the way the US is marketing it?
So you've admitted that there's noting wrong with GM per se, but you just oppose the way the US is marketing it?
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
Clearly, farmers are idiots and must be protected from themselves for their own good by Greenpeace et al.
Everywhere farmers have been given the option of using GM crops...cutting back on their expenditures on more toxic chemicals and fertilizers, and raising their yields, they have chosen to do so in large numbers. What idiots, opting for fewer farm in-puts rather than more labor intensive, fuel intensive, chemical intnsive and costly farming methods.
And, of course, even in economies, like the US, the market for "organic" farming is booming -- lots of farmers have opted for this costly method...Indeed, "Organics" are big business and will top $6 Billion in sales this year (the biggest "organic" farmer in california, interestingly enough, is a mega-corporation called General Mills -- over $500 million in sales/products last year -- why is Monsanto a bad capitalist enterprise, but General Mills not? Do we think General Mills is in the business to lose money?).
So, even where GM crops are becoming dominant, there is still options for farmers to use non-GM products and methods. In the end, no matter what, don't trust the farmers, they'll only make self serving, captialist choices that will benefit big corporations and drive themselves out of business....the logic is obvious.
Everywhere farmers have been given the option of using GM crops...cutting back on their expenditures on more toxic chemicals and fertilizers, and raising their yields, they have chosen to do so in large numbers. What idiots, opting for fewer farm in-puts rather than more labor intensive, fuel intensive, chemical intnsive and costly farming methods.
And, of course, even in economies, like the US, the market for "organic" farming is booming -- lots of farmers have opted for this costly method...Indeed, "Organics" are big business and will top $6 Billion in sales this year (the biggest "organic" farmer in california, interestingly enough, is a mega-corporation called General Mills -- over $500 million in sales/products last year -- why is Monsanto a bad capitalist enterprise, but General Mills not? Do we think General Mills is in the business to lose money?).
So, even where GM crops are becoming dominant, there is still options for farmers to use non-GM products and methods. In the end, no matter what, don't trust the farmers, they'll only make self serving, captialist choices that will benefit big corporations and drive themselves out of business....the logic is obvious.
Shane Costello
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,232
George Monbiot thinks "organic farming will feed the world"! 
So please present evidence that they are under pressure, and from whom?
So please present evidence that they are under pressure, and from whom?