More GM crop destruction

[Kimpatsu]

Read that article you linked in Jref. Anyways, you still haven't shown why we should listen to that know nothing conspiracy theorist that wrote the GM food articles.

That's it; ad hominem. If they oppose GM, they have to conspiracy theorists dissociated from reality, right?
Not like the multi-millionaires in their ivory towers. Oh, no.
Did you read the articles by George Monbiot?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Look, take a course or two on Genetics, and get back to me then.

Genetic engineering could herald better decaf coffee

http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2003/06/19/52.asp

Cool.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Look, take a course or two on Genetics, and get back to me then.

You first.
I asked if you were a geneticist, and you didn't answer.
Guess that gives me my answer.
And as I've said before, it's not GM per se to which I'm opposed; it's the application of GM in the Third World. A padlock on the food chain.
So, right back atcha:

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I must have missed that post. I took Bio-Tech in College, and the year before that I took a genetics course, microbiology, etc. in General studies.

So when someone says a person can get a peanut allergy from a fish just because it has an extra gene, I have to wonder how.

Genes aren't protein. You can't be allergic to genes.


Once you understand gene expression and simple genetics, you'll know that is impossible too.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

That GMO/Third world conspiracy? Old news. Gimme a break. First thing homeopaths talk about in their adds for 'all natural' food.

 

[Kimpatsu]

That GMO/Third world conspiracy? Old news. Gimme a break. First thing homeopaths talk about in their adds for 'all natural' food.

Strawman. What's this got to do with homeopathy?

 

[Kimpatsu]

I must have missed that post. I took Bio-Tech in College, and the year before that I took a genetics course, microbiology, etc. in General studies.

So when someone says a person can get a peanut allergy from a fish just because it has an extra gene, I have to wonder how.

Genes aren't protein. You can't be allergic to genes.


Once you understand gene expression and simple genetics, you'll know that is impossible too.

OK, I'll accept that. But what creates the allergenic proteins, if not the genes? (I'm not a geneticist BTW, which is why I have to ask).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Homeopath, holistic, what was that other? Herbalist.

Moreso, people selling 'organic' food can quite often be 'dr.' so and so with a degree in homeopathy. Will back up claims, don't worry, I've seen it. Same with irradiation. Organic food sellers love to scare people all to heck with their claims about how harmful that is.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

OK, I'll accept that. But what creates the allergenic proteins, if not the genes? (I'm not a geneticist BTW, which is why I have to ask).

That's the thing. If the gene is in the fish, it makes stuff for the fish, not for a peanut. It's going to be fish protein. So any proteins that a person will react to in a fish won't make them suddenly allergic to peanuts, but may cause them to be allergic to fish, maybe more than a few fish.

GMO foods have also been proven not to increase allergies in a population. So if you're allergic to the fish, then you would have been whether or not it had that one gene in it.

You have yet to indicate what property was the gene from the peanut stuck in the fish for?

Some GMO tomatoes have their own genes modified to make them ripen more slowly. It just makes less of the (I think its ethane) that makes it ripen.

So, what benefit was the peanut gene to the fish?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Homeopath, holistic, what was that other? Herbalist.

Moreso, people selling 'organic' food can quite often be 'dr.' so and so with a degree in homeopathy. Will back up claims, don't worry, I've seen it. Same with irradiation. Organic food sellers love to scare people all to heck with their claims about how harmful that is.

None of whch has anything to do with the ethics of foisting GM upon a public that doesn't desire it, but more importantly, there is a world of difference between a homeopath (there's nothing in it) and a herbalist (misuse of rosemary and thyme). Lumping them together is a strawman. (Which is a farmer's perogative.)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The Dark Side of Genetic Engineering

Who Is Behind Genetic Engineering?

Obviously, organic is the best way to go in order to get food of acceptable quality. By buying organically produced milk, meat, poultry and eggs, you help reduce the agricultural use of antibiotics and hormones. Organic farming doesn't create the toxic runoff that pollutes water and disrupts ecosystems, and it helps preserve and improve farm soil. And, buying local organic produce from local farmers is one of the best ways you can support sustainable agriculture and open space in your area.

Being an informed consumer is an important part of becoming a healthy consumer. Now, more than ever, it is important to take control of your heath and the food you eat. Prevention is the best way to avoid serious health issues, so see your health care provider and get on a program of supplements that are right for your body. Eat right, get informed, get educated and get active!

Yours in Health


Dr. J.D. Decuypere
(727) 449-8080
www.HealthAlternatives2000.com

Disclaimer: Statements about products and health conditions have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to treat, cure or prevent any condition or disease. Check with your healthcare professional before undergoing any protocol.

http://www.healthalternatives2000.com/ge_foods_report.html

Dr. J. D. Decuypere is a much sought-after Chiropractic Physician. She has helped numerous people solve their insomnia and sleep problems with Sleep Release, an all-natural, drug-fee herbal remedy.

All natural, organic...blah blah blah...with the usual disclaimer...uh huh. Use my herbal remedy and go to arms against GM foods..blah blah blah...

Can find you a hundred more 'doctors' just like her.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

None of whch has anything to do with the ethics of foisting GM upon a public that doesn't desire it, but more importantly, there is a world of difference between a homeopath (there's nothing in it) and a herbalist (misuse of rosemary and thyme). Lumping them together is a strawman. (Which is a farmer's perogative.)

Who says the public doesn't want them? Millions of people do. I don't care if they're labelled. This big conspiracy of things being 'pushed' on people is the usual woo woo claim.

Foisting? Bah, not. Okay, so I'll use woo woo instead of homeopath or whatever straw thing.

Ethics? That would be a concern if the food WAS harmful. Hey, there's bug parts in all the food you eat. Those aren't in the label. Is that unethical? No, because it's inconsequential.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Who says the public doesn't want them? Millions of people do. I don't care if they're labelled. This big conspiracy of things being 'pushed' on people is the usual woo woo claim.

Foisting? Bah, not. Okay, so I'll use woo woo instead of homeopath or whatever straw thing.

Ethics? That would be a concern if the food WAS harmful. Hey, there's bug parts in all the food you eat. Those aren't in the label. Is that unethical? No, because it's inconsequential.

I'm thinking of Europe, where there is massive opposition to GM foods. And failure to clearly label products as GM IS unethical, because it's done with intent to deceive the consumer as to the contents.

 

[WildCat]

Kimpatsu-
How are 3rd world farmers being forced to buy and plant GM crops? Who is doing this, and how? Have their gov'ts banned them from planting their usual seed? Why would they do this?

Please quote from a relevant article, I don't have time to read all those articles of unsupported opinions.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm thinking of Europe, where there is massive opposition to GM foods. And failure to clearly label products as GM IS unethical, because it's done with intent to deceive the consumer as to the contents.

Really? And you know this how? Who says all Europeans don't want them and why don't Europeans want them?
Same reason they don't want vaccines? Can we say 'unsubstantiated paranoia'?
We can say woo woo conspiracy being eaten by the public and overblown by the the media.

 

[RichardR]

Has it been approved for human consumption now? Do you have a link?

My point was that a GM version of a basic foodstuff, specifically not approved for our consumption, nevertheless made its way into many food products.

A link for what? I followed your advice and googled exactly as you suggested. Nothing that said it was a problem for humans to eat – in fact one of the links stated that it is not harmful for humans.

So do you have a reference for your point?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

A link for what? I followed your advice and googled exactly as you suggested. Nothing that said it was a problem for humans to eat – in fact one of the links stated that it is not harmful for humans.

So do you have a reference for your point?

Yeah, references to woo woos selling you 'natural food' and encouraging you to fight this unethical pushing of GMO food on 'innocent' and naive consumers. We're all victims don't ya know.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Really? And you know this how? Who says all Europeans don't want them and why don't Europeans want them?
Same reason they don't want vaccines? Can we say 'unsubstantiated paranoia'?
We can say woo woo conspiracy being eaten by the public and overblown by the the media.

That's as maybe, but if the people don't want them, they shouldn't be forced to have them. The British government has done itself no favours by declaringthat the public are like 5YOs and need to be told what's good for them.

 

[CurtC]

A medical researcher begs to differ.

But wait - that's the same story that I told earlier in this thread, in defense of GM technology! I'd like to know what you find worrisome about:

1) A company wanting to splice the gene from a brazil nut into a soybean, but being aware tha the gene could express the protein that some people are allergic to,

2) Testing the resulting product to look for this allergenicity, and

3) Cancelling the development product when they find out it's bad news?

This seems like a textbook example of how plant breeding should work, but right now only does so in the case of GM.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Please quote from a relevant article, I don't have time to read all those articles of unsupported opinions.

Here's the article in full:

I've always been a little uncomfortable about the term "Frankenstein food". It smacks of both sensationalism and trivialisation. In politics, as in shopping, the cheaper the device, the less likely it is to last. But the label is becoming ever more germane. For not only are GM crops cobbled together out of bits of other organisms, but they have also begun to demonstrate a ghoulish ability to rise from the dead, given a sufficient application of power.

A year ago, the biotech companies' grave had been dug. They had failed repeatedly to refute the three principal arguments against deployment: that GM crops enhance corporate power by allowing companies to patent the food chain; that the long-term safety tests to establish whether or not they pose a risk to human health have never been conducted; and that consumers don't want to buy them. The companies might bluster about children in the developing world turning blind if we don't eat up our GM cornflakes in Europe, but there's no shortage of evidence to suggest that corporate control of the food chain has devastating effects on nutrition. But, though we have won the argument, we are losing the war. For the GM companies have re-discovered the old way of dealing with reluctant customers: if persuasion doesn't work, use force.

The new opium wars are being waged in the fields of North America, where many farmers are beginning to shy away from engineered seed. GM crops, they have found, are harder to sell. There is evidence that some varieties yield less while requiring more herbicide. But farmers are swiftly coming to see that the costs of not planting GM seed can greatly outweigh the costs of planting it.

Last month, lawyers warned a farming family in Indiana that the only way they could avoid being sued by the biotech company Monsanto was to sow their entire farm with the company's seeds. Two years ago, the Roushes planted just over a quarter of their fields with the company's herbicide-resistant soya. Though they recorded precisely what they planted where, and though an independent crop scientist has confirmed their account, Monsanto refuses to accept that the Roushes did not deploy its crops more widely. It is now demanding punitive damages for the use of seeds they swear they never sowed. The Roushes maintain that they are, in effect, being sued for not buying the company's products. So next year, like hundreds of other frightened farmers, they will plant their fields only with Monsanto's GM seeds. Like the opium forced upon a reluctant China by British gunboats, once you've started using GM, you're stuck with it.

But the solution proposed by the Roushes' lawyers' was a prudent one. In April, a Canadian farmer called Percy Schmeiser was forced to pay Monsanto some $85,000, after a court ruled that he had stolen Monsanto's genetic material. Schmeiser maintained out that the thinly-spread GM rape plants on his farm were the result of pollen contamination from his neighbour's fields, and he had done all he could to get rid of them. But Monsanto's proprietary genes had been found on his land whether he wanted them or not. Following the time-honoured convention that the polluted pays, Mr Schmeiser was forced to compensate the company for what he insists was invasion by its vegetable vermin.

Where the courts won't enforce compliance, governments will. In ten days' time, Sri Lanka will introduce a five-year ban on genetically engineered crops, while scientists seek to determine whether or not they are safe. The United States, worried that thorough testing could destroy the value of its biotech companies, has threatened to report the ban to the World Trade Organisation.

In Britain, the Welsh Assembly voted unanimously that Wales should be a GM-free zone. But the Westminster government has ignored the ruling and licensed trials of Aventis's genetically modified maize there. The trials are supposed to determine whether or not the new variety is safe to plant. But Aventis has already received consent to grow it commercially, even if the "experiments" show that planting is an ecological disaster. Welsh activists suggest that the purpose of the trials is to lend credibility to a done deal.

Monsanto will never repeat the mistake of seeking to persuade consumers that they might wish to purchase its products. In future, it won't have to. Like the other biotech companies, it has been buying up seed merchants throughout the developing world. In some places farmers must either purchase GM seeds -- and the expensive patent herbicides required to grow them -- or plant nothing at all.

In March the EU environment commissioner Margot Wallstrom warned that the Union could be sued by biotech firms if it upheld its ban on the sale of new GM foods. "We cannot afford," she explained, "to lose more years of not aiding the biotechnology industry". Biotech companies have been pressing to raise Europe's legal limit for the contamination of conventional crops with modified genes: in time, they hope, genetic pollution will ensure that there is so little difference between GM and "non-GM" food that consumers will give up and accept their products. The US government has begun pressing for a worldwide ban on the labelling of GM food, to ensure that consumers have no means of knowing what they're eating.

The monster has begun to walk. The technology which, we were promised, would broaden consumer choice is becoming compulsory.

This is the free trade which George Bush and Tony Blair have promised to the world. It is the freedom which, they have assured us, will overthrow vested interests, challenge market concentration, enhance competition and empower consumers. It is the freedom we must be forced to swallow.

When protesters against this forced emancipation were arrested by the freedom-loving police in Genoa, some of them were tortured, then shown a photograph of Mussolini. They were obliged to salute it and shout "viva il Duce!" Presumably because this enthusiastic defence of market forces is compatible with free trade, neither Tony Blair nor Jack Straw saw fit to complain. Had they done so, they would have spoken to one of the most senior members of Italy's borderline-fascist government, the foreign minister Renato Ruggiero. Before he became minister, Renato was director-general of the World Trade Organisation, the body responsible for enforcing free trade.

Mr Ruggiero has not changed his politics: he has long upheld the right of the strong to trample the weak, of corporate power to crush human rights. The organisation he ran has now chosen as the venue for its next summit meeting one of the most repressive nations in the rich world. In November, WTO delegates will be discussing freedom in Qatar, safe in the unassailable fortress of a country which tolerates no dissent. This is the force behind market forces.

It has become fashionable of late, especially in these pages, to claim that we can buy our way out of trouble: that through the judicious use of shares and shopping we can force companies to change the way they trade. But it is surely not hard to see that consumer choice is an inadequate means of curbing corporate power. Trapped inside PFI hospitals or sponsored schools, forced through lack of choice to buy cars, shop at superstores and eat GM food, we cannot escape the coercion which facilitates free trade. If market forces operate outside the market, then so must we.