Will someone explain the complaints about genetically modified crops?

[oostevo]

Will someone explain the complaints about genetically modified crops? I am about to start my AP Bio final project that involves genetically modifying a plant, but I wanted to get your input first on why genetically modified crops are causing so much controversy -- I've never quite understood why.

Edit:
Oh, right, I forgot -- the project involves taking the gene that causes bioluminescence in fireflies and sticking it in a plant, so that the plant will grow in the dark under UV light.

[Lone_Wolf]

1. There are lots of reasons...

For example pollen from GMO making it into the wild can have unforeseen consequences to the environment. For example, the pollen from Bt-Corn (corn that contains a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis), actually kiled the larvae from Monarch butterflies:

Here's an article:

http://www.global-reality.com/biotech/articles/news031.htm

[treepig]

22. thanks for bringing up the tired myth of the monarch butterflies

thankfully (so the discussion doesn't have to be repeated here) it's thoroughly debunked in another extant thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x389161

[whistle]

2. Be glad too...

... see Frankenstein movie from 1933 starring Boris Karloff as the Monster. Oh, fast forward to Iraq, 2004 to birth defects brought on by genetic mutations due to U.S. military uses of depleted uranium, tick, tick, tick....:nuke:

[cosmokramer]

3. I can give you some answers.

Montsano Corp (sic) is patenting their genetically modified seed. They are also putting terminator genes in seed.

Typcially, a farmer will hold back a certain amount of say corn from his crop to re-seed the next corn season. Companies like Montsano are instead patenting genetically modified seed (that might include roundup bug prevention type modifications) and selling it to farmers. They can't keep back seed for planting the next corn season because there is a terminator gene that prevents them from doing so. They have to purchase new seed.

For patented seed that does not have terminator genes, when the wind blows, and seed ends up planted say in the farm across the road, the neighboring farmer is sued for a portion of his crop because he is selling food grown from patented seed, even though he didn't know he was doing so. (Montsano has genetic identifiers for their seed--it is like DNA testing).

It is extremely dangerous for any corporation to patent FOOD, and control the food supply with terminator genes.

Think about the implications:

They can eventually take over the entire soy bean or corn market in the United States, charging whatever price they want for seed. Genetically modifying the natural grain can cause the source grain to eventually become extinct! Then all you have is 'patented' food and grain, and no price controls on food.

The implications are devastating. A girlfriend of mine worked for Monsanto (still not sure of the spelling) in their tree division. They are creating trees that have more soft fiber, so it is easier to extract pulp. They are creating trees that have dense fiber, so it is longer burning and can be sold like lumps of coal for fuel. In the process, they are genetically modifying existing species.

I hope this helps.

[oostevo]

4. So, then,

it's not the genetic engineering that's necessarily the problem, it's the dubious ethics/results of commercialization of genetic engineering?

[cosmokramer]

5. ...and the genetic engineering...

...because of the untold harm cross pollenation has on the neighboring environment.

[GregD]

10. No, there are horrible ecological issues

It results in the creation of monocultures. No genetic variations as normally found in the wild. So many other issues.

Monsanto created a "roundup-ready" canola. This means that round up, which I believe is a carcinogen (could be wrong about that bit), can be sprayed over entire crops. The idea is that instead of cultivating rows of plants, they want to just spray fields to eliminate weeds. The canola cross-germinates the weeds, and then you have a super-weed. Monsanto then needs to make more-deadly chemicals to kill the weeds. Endless cycle...

Then there is the pollination mentioned above. See http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ for what happens. The legal environment that is being created around this entire industry is unbelievable.

Next you have to look into the corn crops (and forests) that are modified to generate a natural insecticide (also refered to above) as being responsible for killing monarchs. The problem here is that the natural plant expresses this substance in small quantities. You can even buy it at nurseries to kill tomato worms. But in a corn field, or a forest, with every gene of the plant expressing this crap 24x7 - well, what's it doing to the environment. What do we not know after allowing this crap into the environment for less than 10 years now. What will we know in 10 more years? 20? See the problem? They want to play God. Not a good idea to mess with nature.

Then you look at GMO (farmed) salmon. These are modified genetically to encourage rapid growth. Much of the "farmed Atlantic salmon" is raised offshore in Chile in pens. The pens are huge nets painted with a anti-fouling substance that prevents the growth of significant vegetation, but not 100 percent. That paint is toxic. The small fish that feed on the growth from the nets have some undetermined level of toxicity. The salmon that feed on those small fish are consuming that toxicity. Yummm...

With all the fish penned in this unnatural enclosure, the waste settles to the bottom in unnatural quantities. That is creating immense dead zones at the bottom of the ocean.

Occasionally the pens break. These unnaturally large fish have been determined to be sexually agressive, and more-attractive spawning partners, but less effective breeders. That is believed to have impacts on the offspring when breeding with natural fish.

More reading here: www.sacmobilization.org

It took my lady and I a day of attending the pre-mobilization teach-in to make us devout consumers of organic foods, and fierce opponents of GMO. We spent 4 days running around Sacramento disturbing the peace and getting chased by robo-cops.

What a fun world we live in. Makes ya hungry huh?

[cosmokramer]

7. Here is a link to help you...

In April 2000 three well-known companies were combined to form the
Pharmacia Corporation of today. Pharmacia and Upjohn Laboratories who
had earlier combined acquired Montsano (chemical) Company. The
combined companies have a pipeline of new drugs, a $2 billion
Research and Development budget and leading sales force in the U.S.
market. Additionally, with the acquisition of Montsano's agriculture
division, about 90% of the world's genetically engineered foods will
contain a Pharmacia (Montsano) gene.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/colloidalsilver2/message/10035


And an excerpt here:

http://janhaag.com/SJ.html

Genetically Modified Food

Most of the world does not want to eat genetically modified food. The Montsano's of this world do not want to hear this. They are trying to prevent us even knowing whether or not we are eating altered substances. Lobby for labeling of genetically modified food, and BOYCOTT ALL tampered-with food substances. Eat Organic Only! if you possibly can.

Montsano's motive in meddling with agriculture is not to "feed the world" -- the world is perfectly capable of feeding itself, if left to grow organic food under a system of sustainable argriculture -- but to buy up, own, and control the food supply of all human beings!!!




BOYCOTT

Below are two of our most common genetically modified foods. DON'T EAT THEM:

CORN, corn syrup, corn-meal, all those deliciouis Mexican chips and tortillas, if made in America -- unless specifically label organic or non-genetically modified -- are likely to be tainted.

SOY BEANS, all soy products, soy milk, soy oil, etc. Indeed this one is ironic, since so many health foods have, since the beginning of the health food movement, been made of soy. But now! DON'T EAT ANY OF THEM! unless they are labeled organic or non-genetically modified.

[treepig]

42. the "terminator" gene

was originally thought up in response to anti-gmo activists fears that gmo's would spread like wild-fire through the biome.

of course, when it became reality, they had to change their tune and object to it - ah gee, poor farmers, they can't save and replant their seeds (btw, very few farmers actually do so in modern agricultural practice anyway).

and about the infamous case of monsanto suing farmers for "wind-blown contamination" . . . is 58% really indicative of accidental contamination?


The Federal Court judge said the concentrations of Monsanto canola on Schmeiser's farm were too high to be accidental. Schmeiser admits there have been Monsanto seeds growing in his fields, in patches varying in concentration from zero to eight to 58 per cent. There are even patented genetically modified canola seeds growing by the driveway of his farm equipment dealership outside the town of Bruno.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_omalley/archive/martin010403.html

[cosmokramer]

53. You entirely miss the point.

One company should not control 90% of Genetically enhanced/altered seed/food. It's bullshit, and dangerous beyond belief.

Seed for food should not be patented so someone can make a profit.

[treepig]

55. it appears that your real beef is with the capitalist system

and the fact that genetically engineered products are the subject of debate is only incidental. the points you raise could be just as easily applied to any conventional agricultural methods of production.

like homer j. simpson says, communism is great in theory - unfortunately, in practice, the profit motive is basically required to get stuff done. if there was no profit in selling seeds no one would do it - if the gov't would step in that'd be fine with me, but i don't see that as a realistic option in the america of 2004.

btw, if the anti-gmo crowd would stop stirring up public hysteria towards making gmo's a pariah, a lot more companies - in addition to monsanto - would be developing gmo products, the reason they're not is the political landscape is too uncertain.

[cosmokramer]

56. My beef..

...is not with the capitalist system. It is with terminator genes in a food supply, and the patenting of food.

We get our food from the earth, and we are all entitled to it--one company should never be able to control 90% of a staple of LIFE.

[cosmokramer]

6. Bioluminescence...

...Montsano is also working on this for their 'green glowing corn'. It would make it easier for them to identify which crops are from their seed!

[oostevo]

12. Everybody's doing it now

Everyone used to use antibiotic resistance genes to determine if their genes were taken up by an organism, but now they just use bioluminescence. Most of the time they use something called GFP (green fluorescent protein) though, since it doesn't stunt the growth of the organism.

In fact, someone even stuck the GFP gene in a rabbit (now that's just sick ...) link.

[DrWeird]

40. "now that's just sick"

Umm, why?

[oostevo]

45. Well,

I don't necessarily have a problem with animal experimentation when it has direct and meaningful benefits and there's no other practical way around it (especially in the case of GFP, which is not harmful), but modifying the body function of an animal for the purpose of displaying said animal seems to me just a tad egocentric and narrow-minded (think of this from the animal's perspective -- how would you like to glow green?).

[treepig]

43. you'll no doubt be please to know there's now also a RFP

i.e, red fluorescent protein, here expressed in a mouse's brain:



and although i couldn't find any animals yet, there are cells engineered to express:

blue fluorescent protein



cyan fluorescent protein



and yellow fluorescent protein

[texastoast]

47. And Taters

There is a crop that has been genetically modified for the herb to glow in the dark when it needs water.

Ewwwwwwww!!

[cosmokramer]

8. Here is more on Bioluminescence....

...except with Jellyfish genes...

http://www.ekac.org/iht.html

[Elanor]

9. First off,

Monsanto is not genetically modifying plants for any altruistic reason.

People with food allergies are concerned for obvious reasons. Studies have shown that allergens can be added with the new genes. The bioengineering people say they won't use common allergens like peanuts, which I guess is fine if you're allergic to peanuts. I'm allergic to rice, corn, shellfish, beef, pork, cinnamon, tomatoes, potatoes and celery. If I buy an unlabelled food, how do I know it's safe for me?

Some studies have indicated that rats fed genetically modified foods develop health problems. We are just assuming that GMO foods are safe; we are not testing them for safety.

Monsanto et al claim that genetically modified plants require less pesticides, produce bigger crops and are better for the environment. In fact, more pesticides are used on GMO crops, and plants are less tolerant of drought and bad weather conditions, and tend to produce less. They are far more convenient for farmers, however (although more expensive, and if farmers try to save seed to re-sow they can be sued.)

GMO crops spread their pollen as well as traditional crops and can cause environmental damage.

Currently, people are working to use GMOs for pharmaceutical or industrial use. We can't keep these new genes out of the food supply; plants spread pollen. In addition, there have been accidents where GMO crops not approved for human consumption have ended up in food. Recently, some scientists who were working on modifying tomatoes acquired heirloom tomato seeds from a (Berkeley, I think?) seed bank...only the "heirloom" tomato seeds turned out to be genetically modified.

Here are a couple of websites with links:

http://saynotogmos.org/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/campaigns/intro?campaign%5fid=3942

(I do think that doing research in a controlled environment is a Good Thing. I just don't believe that allowing Monsanto to control our food is good, at all.)

[mike1963]

15. I'm sorry but this quote from you

"I'm allergic to rice, corn, shellfish, beef, pork, cinnamon, tomatoes, potatoes and celery. "

Is BS.

And I've been trying to find some way to mitigate my comment, but there just isn't any. It's BS (that means bullshit)
:eyes:

[democratreformed]

31. Why is it BS?

Do you know this person? I have a brother-in-law who is reportedly allrgic to a wide variety of things as well. Didn't know about all of them until he almost died last year. Ever since, he has had about six close calls. Has to carry a shot with him at all times. The incident in question was supposedly caused by sunflower seeds which he has eaten all his life. I have often wondered if his new allergies to all types of things could have something to do with the genetically modified stuff.

[lostnfound]

11. One technique they use is literally shooting DNA material with a gun..

at plants to which they wish to attach certain genes.. Where in the DNA code the genes actually get inserted is completely random. So they will let all of the randomly altered plants grow.. and they don't really know what the plants will be like..they just pick the ones they like the best. The problem is the possibility of unintended consequences.

But I think the other problems mentioned -- like over-use of herbicides & pesticides; the gene-spillover into wild populations; the killing of beneficial insects -- are bigger problems.

[treepig]

50. pesticide use has been generally reduced by gm crops

see the discussion in this link:

http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/pesticide.html

[mike1963]

13. You will hear innumerable horror stories from people who do not understand

that plants (as well as every other living organism) have undergone billions of genetic modifications over eons. The odd thing is that many of these same people will defend (correctly) the proposition that evolution is a proven discipline but recoil in horror at the prospect that science might actually have the ability to improve on natural selection.


Go figure.

[oostevo]

14. Exactly.

I seem to have managed to piss off both the far left and religious fundamentalists in my high school simultaneously. I didn't realize that was possible until now.

[mike1963]

16. It isn't hard to do. There are nutballs on the left as well as the right

Stupidity knows no political bounds. :D

[bobbyboucher]

17. You're view is simplistic in the extreme.

Sure, plants have evolved forever, naturally. But a natural tomato never managed to get the genes from a pig, somehow, on its own, naturally. Not in a billion years. So don't try to imply that it is anything close to the same thing, because it is not.

The genetically modified thing is about profit, nothing else.

[democratreformed]

32. Here, here!

That's what I was thinking while reading those posts. Helping along nature in logical steps is one thing. Doing unnatural things like putting genes from a whole different kingdom into an organism is another.

[treepig]

33. since people seem unable to access the other thread

namely, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x5066 where your statement is refuted but instead keep saying factually untrue things like

Doing unnatural things like putting genes from a whole different kingdom into an organism is another.

i'll go ahead and re-post this information here:

there are many specific molecular mechanisms now known by which genetic information is transfered between species, and even across kingdoms. for example, the human genome has somewhere between 40 and 200+ bacterial genes, as outlined in this article from SCIENCE:

"For evolutionary biologists working on the exchange of genes between species (lateral gene transfer) , the most exciting news from the human genome sequencing project has been the claim by the "public effort" (1) that between 113 and 223 genes have been transferred from bacteria to humans (or to one of our vertebrate ancestors) over the course of evolution . We, and probably many others wanting to test whether this result is really solid (2), have been beaten to the punch by Salzberg and colleagues (3). Their analysis, appearing on page 1903 of this week's issue, suggests that the actual number of bacterial genes in our genome may be lower than the predicted 223" --the authors calculated the final number of possible BVTs to be 41 (Ensembl) or 46 (Celera).

So, the original description of 223 BVTs is probably overenthusiastic. But even 41 (or 46) BVTs is sufficient cause for excitement.


more at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5523/1848

[democratreformed]

34. Please forgive me for my ignorance. I had no idea.

Wow. I will have to read more about this.

[LWolf]

26. The difference being

that the modifications were a natural part of evolution over eons; not a laboratory produced modification intended to enrich a corporation and give it control of the world's food supply. Whatever ecological changes have occurred, they were not human-created and controlled, nor should they be, IMHO. That is no longer "natural selection." It is meddling. And human meddling is a fearsome thing in unethical hands. I don't find most of humanity ethical enough to want their laboratories to give them that kind of control over my planet.

[el_gato]

27. The GMO apologists always try to play the "nature already does it" angle

but it is spurious to say the least

Nature does not inject genes from one species into
another completely unrelated species.


Trying to say "nature does it" is a stupid fucking arguement.
Nature does not do what Monsanto is doing. PERIOD!

[treepig]

28. this thread is most enlightening

before now, i did not realize that humans and bacteria were the same species.

refering to post #18 in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x5066

oh well, ignorance will no doubt continue to run amok . . .

[DrWeird]

39. That's not true at all.

Genetic transfer occurs across species all the time. GM actually mimics the same techniques nature uses.

[Zephyrbird]

29. sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Same old story, over and over.

You are talking TRADITIONAL BREEDING METHODS. Most folks that oppose GM are talking methods of gene shooting; i.e., talking a gene from a fish, a petunia, a tomato, and sticking them into plants that as far as I know, would never cross naturally or with human-induced traditional breeding methods.

Folks who argue for GM really ought to understand the difference. The techniques to insert a petunia gene into a squash (which was done to treat tobacco mosaic virus in squash) HAS NOT exisied for "thousands of years," so how could it possibly be done?

The answer is, it can't. Please understand the difference before you say that we've been doing this for thousands of years. We have not, plain and simple.

[treepig]

30. the techniques have actually existed for hundreds of millions of years

notwithstanding the foolishness about "gene shooting" (whatever the heck that is) arising on this thread, the methods used by genetic engineers in the laboratory are exactly the same as those used in nature for hundreds of millions, or perhaps even billions, of years.

for example, nature can "cut and paste" genes using restriction endonucleases and ligases - genetic engineers use these very same enzymes in the laboratory.

alternately, nature can recombine DNA sequences using recombinases (such as the Cre-Lox system commercially available from Invitrogen)

further, the plasmids and viral vectors used to tranfer the genes from one organism to another are directly taken from nature where they are used for the same purpose.

[DrWeird]

41. Actually it's been around for billions of years.

Genes transfer from species to species naturally.

[bobbyboucher]

18. Don't forget this guys story

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

It might give you a little insight into what motivates companies like Monsanto.

[Sufi Marmot]

19. So have you...

I am about to start my AP Bio final project that involves genetically modifying a plant...Oh, right, I forgot -- the project involves taking the gene that causes bioluminescence in fireflies and sticking it in a plant, so that the plant will grow in the dark under UV light.

...designed into your experiment ways to prevent the unwanted spread of your genetically modified plant? I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily likely to happen, or that green fluorescent protein is noxious, but it might be a good exercise for you as a budding scientist to address these issues, or at least think about them and discuss them when you write up your project. Good luck! :-)

-Sufi Marmot, biologist

P.S. I work with GFP and its color variants on a regular basis, although the organism I modify doesn't have pollen and isn't likely to compete with strains in the envrionment. GFP is a great lab tool when it works, although our success rate with it is spotty...

[oostevo]

46. Sort of.

The school's given me their greenhouse, which is quite sealed off from the rest of the environment). And if I mess up the rest of the plants in the greenhouse, I don't really care -- almost all of them are mine.

Just out of curiosity -- what organism are you expressing GFP in? I agree that GFP is a wonderful lab tool, but at the moment I'm just concerned with getting it to work, not necessarily using it to detect gene take-up in organisms.

[Sufi Marmot]

52. I work with GFP in a benevolent single-celled eukaryote....

whose benefits to mankind you are probably still too young to legally appreciate, if you're still in high school... ;-) (Or if that's too obtuse, it's an essential ingredient in bread-making...) This guy. The workhorse of molecular genetics.

We don't use -GFP to measure gene uptake, as is done when mammalian cells are transfected, rather we fuse -GFP onto an exisiting protein and use microscopy to see where that protein localizes within the cell. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't...(like most things in science...)

-SM

[AP]

20. Food safety is the least of society's concerns. The biggest concern is...

...the economics of what ADM and Monsanto are trying to do. What they want to do is control the free "reproductability" of food. It's like privatizing water which falls from the sky. In the same way that Guatamelan (?) neoliberals passed a law preventing people from putting buckets on their roofs to collect rainwater after the water utility was privatized, seed/agricultural companies want to add costs (and ensure profits) from the sale of seeds.

They're doing this too ways: (1) terminator genes which prevent plants from producing germinating seeds, and (2) building in genes which require the purchase, or tie the seeds to another patentable product sold by the same company, like round-up.

When IBM made punch card machines, they also made money off selling punchcards. They were a tied product through which they could derive another layer of profits.

That's what the seed comanies want to do.

They want more profits, and they want to make it harder for independant farmers to compete with them, and it's a dangerous mix.

[PATRICK]

35. Agree

the sideline issue is the environment although that is actually working against them more than being a convenient distraction.

The gamble is that the simplification and monopolizing of the seed supply sets up humanity for even worse than tyranny. Single "super" crops that fail with no variety or diversity will automatically doom countless millions and destroy economies within a very short period.

The unintended consequences can never be fully guarded against even if it were less than a huge replacement of current crops. Killing off pests naturally or boosting other yield enhancements don't necessarily jive with nutritional safety. It is easy to see that acceptable side effects are played off against hunger in the argumentation. So if anything loses in the equation it is rigged to be human health. You wonder why they bother feeding us at all.

And where these crops go in first may be politically motivated too, despite all the honesty or goodwill of those doing it. In Monsanto's case one is allowed to at least doubt mostly any such motivational purity toward any human concern other than profit for Monsanto.

[KT2000]

21. Technology that needs more study

before it is unleashed on the world - but actually it is too late for that.

Arthur Anderson consulting provided Monsanto with a 20 year business plan that called for flooding the market with Gm foods before resistance could take hold.

Pursuing the genetic modification of plants and foods as a business endeavor has led to suppression of studies that have shown danger to human health. An example of one such study was one conducted by Dr. Arpad Pusztai, under the auspices of a research institution in Aberdeen Scotland. His study concerned potatoes genetically modified with a pesticide that occurred naturally in another plant. The following was found in the rats:

damaged immune systems; sluggish white blood cells; damaged thymuses and spleens;
the rats had smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles; others showed enlarged pancreases and intestines.
Most disturbing of all, there were structural changes and proliferation of cells in the stomach and intestines.
He found that this was not caused by the pesticides but by the process of genetic engineering - the same method used by food companies.

Dr. Pusztai's study was changed without his knowledge, stopped from publication and hidden. His personal character was trashed and his career was ruined. The lesson was clear for other researchers.

There is much we do not know that we must find out about before manufacturing new life forms. We are just now learning about the behavior of proteins. Genetic engineering is based on the assumption that each gene is coded for its own single protein. As it turns out, most human genes are theoretically capable of making at least two proteins.
Splicosomes are a groups of molecules that cut up the RNA, rearrange it and reassemble it. We do not know how splicosomes are called into action, but when they are - they will produce an entirely new protein.
Molecules such as phosphate, sulfate, sugars and lipids can hitch-hike on proteins, but we do not know when or how a protein picks up hitch-hiker molecules.
Something called chaperone proteins are sometimes needed to properly fold a protein, but we do not know if when a novel protein encounters a chaperone whether correct folding will take place or not.

The FDA has declared that genetically modified foods are the same as their natural counterparts so safety testing before human comsumption is not required. That is why Dr. Pusztai's study is one of a very few that even examine the health effects if consuming these products.

That as a public health policy is absurd.

[treepig]

23. here's another monstrosity of the genetic engineers . . .

Scientists in the agriculture department of the Hebrew University in
Rehovot have genetically engineered a chicken that has no feathers.

http://www.greenapple.com/~jorp/amzanim/ffa08.htm



A new, genetically modified breed of chicken has been developed by Israeli genetics expert Avigdor Cahaner, of the Rehovot campus of the Hebrew University. He maintains that these chickens will grow faster in hot weather because they will not be prone to over-heating like normal chickens, whose growth rate drops when they get too warm.

Other people, however, have a very different opinion of this latest manipulation of nature. Dr. Ian Duncan, Chairperson of Animal Welfare in the Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and the foremost domestic fowl expert in North America, has stated that feathers are meant to cool as much as to heat, and that they are also designed to protect the skin surface. The skin is a route for infection, and their feathers protect chickens from being scratched. Furthermore, the lack of feathers will interfere with the pecking order. According to Dr. Duncan, it is likely that chickens use differences in feathers to recognize each other and for social interaction.

Rabbi David Rosen (a CHAI Advisory Board member), said that he considers this experiment barbaric and a perversion of nature.


http://www.chai-online.org/chickens.htm

finally, how was the "genetic engineering" done?

by "old-fashioned" breeding methods:

Professor Avigdor Cahaner, who led the project, told the BBC: "This is not a genetically modified chicken - it comes from a natural breed whose characteristics have been known for 50 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2000003.stm

[OhioStateProgressive]

24. complaint

Food is meant to be grown, fed only water.

Plants grown outside of that very natural fashion aren't healthy.

[PATRICK]

36. Science has and will

continue to manipulate nature, however it results and is characterized. The problems cited have to deal with human nature and specific untrustworthy, ill motivated institutions who are doing it.

Attacking science is ironically what the profiteers have done, but with a practical eye to their own monetary goals.

Nothing involving life or the necessities of life should be controlled by the profit sector. At the very least. Drug company empires, water, energy, education, food. It is absurd we love to trust the mercantile system to add to our woes of nature and human nature as it is.

And we fly in planes floating on confidence in the greedy. Eat the food, breathe the chemicals, that we would never trust an elected civil government to actually do. We are nuts.

[Jim__]

25. Another problem - Labeling

Besides the problems mentioned above, a number of people are asking that GM foods be labeled. It's been a while since I looked into this, but at the time Monsanto was resisting the calls to label GM foods.

If I buy food, I have a right to know if whether or not it's GM.

[texastoast]

49. Well, bloody good luck to ya . . .

My understanding is that a company that has no GMOs is prohibited from labeling that fact UNLESS they have gone through the arduous FDA process of proving that their non-GMO product is superior to a GMO product.

Talk about freedom of speech. I wish Nader's group would take this one on (and keep himself busy for a while). It's like Micky D's hiding the fact they used beef lard for their FRENCH fries.

We have a right to know what we are eating. I wish more people would get PISSED about this.

All of your mainstream cereals contain GMOs (Kellogg, Post, General Mills). Most all canola oils are GMO. Bakery items. And Frito-Lay uses GMO corn all over the place.

And TOMATOES. Some have had a fish gene spliced in so that the tomato can be grown in colder climates, and the fish gene helps the fruit to tolerate cold better. Watch out, you vegans.

[treepig]

51. the tomatoes aren't commercially available

see this link:

http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/crops/eating.html

it lists what gm food are and aren't being sold

and pray tell why a vegan would mind eating a fish gene? (fish and tomatoes already share a huge number of very similar genes)

in any event, labeling seems like basic common sense.

[Rob in B_more]

37. I recommend Barbara Kingsolver's "Small Wonders"

She has an essay on it in there. One of her points is the dependence on one particular genetic line.

[cosmokramer]

54. I do not oppose science...

...but Monsanto is the Devil incarnate. They do not want to feed the world...they want to SELL to the world and control ALL of the corn and soy.

This is a bigger problem than you can even imagine. Corporate ownership of diet staples, and staples included in many, many, many processed foods and suppliments.

The negative possibilities are outrageous.

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. Some articles on the subject

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site:www%2Ecommondreams%2Eorg+genetically+modified

[KansDem]

44. Hold on, folks!

Could this thread be bordering on "food slander???"

"Food Slander" Is Now a Crime

by Gar Smith

On August 17, a group of activists dumped a mixture of Diet Coke, NutraSweet (aspartame) and rBGH-enhanced milk (produced from cows injected with genetically engineered hormones) onto the pavement at Atlanta's Cheshire Bridge Shopping Center.

The demonstration, sponsored by the Pure Foods Campaign (PFC), took its inspiration from the Boston Tea Party. But while dumping tea was considered a patriotic act in Boston Harbor, dumping soda, sweetener and milk is considered a crime in Georgia.

"Food slander" laws, in force in Georgia and at least ten other states, make it a civil crime to denigrate or criticize food products without a "scientific basis," explained PFC coordinator Ronnie Cummings. "Industry lobbyists admit that these laws are probably unconstitutional... their real purpose is to intimidate activists and concerned consumers."

PFC claims that Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler "lied to Congress" when he assured legislators that bovine somatrotropin (BST), the genetically engineered growth hormone, was destroyed by pasteurization. Kessler's assurance, which spared Monsanto (BST's manufacturer) the expense of any further research, was based on a scientific paper written by Paul Groenewegen, a graduate student from Guelph, Canada. According to PFC, Groenewegen was "outraged" to learn that the FDA had misrepresented his research. Far from destroying BST, Groenewegen's research showed that subjecting BST to pasteurization temperatures 120 times normal only destroyed 19 percent of the BST in milk. PFC also charges that the FDA will not release research that "proves that lab animals got cancer from BST," despite numerous Freedom of Information Act requests.

Monsanto's claim that BST is "identical" to natural hormones is also fraudulent, PFC contends, since BST replaces the naturally occurring amino acid lysine with epsilon-N-acetyl-lysine. While this may not sound significant, it is known that the alteration of a single amino acid can trigger sickle cell anemia or predispose some people to Alzheimer's disease.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/slancrime.html

[treepig]

48. food slander is a bizarre concept

some of details in the article are a bit bizzare, too

for example, exactly what does

"subjecting BST to pasteurization temperatures 120 times normal"

mean?

according to this website http://home.howstuffworks.com/question147.htm we learn the following about pasteurization:

Pasteurization is a compromise. If you boil a food, you can kill all bacteria and make the food sterile, but you often significantly affect the taste and nutritional value of the food. When you pasteurize a food (almost always a liquid), what you are doing is heating it to a high enough temperature to kill certain (but not all) bacteria and to disable certain enzymes, and in return you are minimizing the effects on taste as much as you can. Milk can be pasteurized by heating to 145 degrees F (62.8 degrees C) for half an hour or 163 degrees F (72.8 degrees C) for 15 seconds.

ok, lets say we're going to use the lower temperature range:

in Fahrenheit degrees:

120 x 145 = 17,400 degrees

in Celsius degrees:

120 x 62.8 = 7,536 degrees (which happens to be 13,596.8 Fahrenheit degrees - oh, oh - that's a discrepancy of a few thousand degrees).

perhaps we should use the Kelvin scale which starts at absolute zero if we wish to figure out what 120 times normal pastuerization temperature is. note that 62.8 celsius degrees is 335.8 K.

therefore, in Kelvin:

120 x 335.8 = 40,296 degrees (now that's pretty darn hot)

ok, leaving aside the huge discrepancies in these calculations, subjecting milk to any of these temperature would render it quite undrinkable. so while i try to be sympathetic to food activists, it is very very difficult when they put out complete nonsense. it would indeed behoove them to hire a starving graduate student (they work cheap) to do a bit of fact checking . . .