Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #1456

Subject: "whats the big deal about GM crops.." This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
brainsoup
Member since Mar 20th 2004
1112 posts
Fri May-07-04 02:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IMClick to send message via ICQ
"whats the big deal about GM crops.."


  

          

why all the scare stories. i mean isnt this a chance to make cheap, good quality food available to the whole world?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: whats the big deal about GM crops..
May 07th 2004
1
check this out...
May 07th 2004
3
like he said....
May 07th 2004
2
yes i read that article..
May 07th 2004
4
      RE: yes i read that article..
May 07th 2004
5
      RE: yes i read that article..
May 07th 2004
6
           how so..?
May 07th 2004
7
                hmmm...
May 07th 2004
8
                RE: hmmm...
May 07th 2004
10
                     a warm feeling
May 07th 2004
11
                     your source is
May 07th 2004
12
                     RE: hmmm...
May 07th 2004
13
                RE: how so..?
mcneter
May 07th 2004
14
a side issue here, since it deals with same MNCs
May 07th 2004
9
an article i once wrote on GM
May 07th 2004
15
more evidence of GM dangers
May 10th 2004
47
RE: whats the big deal about GM crops..
May 07th 2004
16
ah yes-so simple
May 07th 2004
17
      RE: ah yes-so simple
May 07th 2004
18
           RE: ah yes-so simple
May 07th 2004
19
           check response #15 for answer to your ? n/m
May 07th 2004
20
           ok... so you think GM should be banned?
May 07th 2004
21
                avoid the cliche references...
May 07th 2004
22
                What's wrong with GM foods is...
May 08th 2004
24
                plant/animal breeding?
May 08th 2004
26
                     There is a clear and distinct difference here,
May 08th 2004
29
                          i dont see much of a difference at all
May 08th 2004
30
                               Ok, maybe I can offer this as an example
May 08th 2004
31
                                    i understand you arguement
May 08th 2004
32
                                         You disagree,
May 08th 2004
33
                RE: ok... so you think GM should be banned?
May 11th 2004
50
           RE: ah yes-so simple
May 08th 2004
23
                see response 15 n/m
May 08th 2004
34
                How can you tell this?
May 08th 2004
35
                     on my "shortsighted silliness"
May 08th 2004
38
                          maybe not
May 08th 2004
42
                               no...
May 08th 2004
43
                                    I'm disappointed,
May 08th 2004
45
                                         RE: I'm disappointed,
May 11th 2004
51
                                              Just curious,
May 13th 2004
52
there is nothing wrong with GM crops
May 08th 2004
25
RE: there is nothing wrong with GM crops
May 08th 2004
27
      answers
May 08th 2004
28
           I hope that you are available 20-30 years
May 08th 2004
36
           i will be
May 08th 2004
39
           RE: answers
May 08th 2004
37
                answers II
May 08th 2004
40
                     thankyou..
May 08th 2004
41
                          you're quite welcome
May 08th 2004
44
about the only time i don't trust scientists
May 08th 2004
46
excellent point
May 10th 2004
48
using this post to look at my avatar image
May 10th 2004
49

x4ways2rockx
Member since Dec 11th 2003
241 posts
Fri May-07-04 03:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "RE: whats the big deal about GM crops.."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I'm wondering if you're for real asking this. From my understanding you essentially need to buy a license (every year) to grow genetically modified crops. If all farmers rely on this then it becomes almost like a drug. The manufactures of the GM seeds can increase prices at will. This is only the tip of the ice berg on an economic level. What about enviromental affects? ..or the affect these modified products will have on ppl? There is enough food to go around, it just doesn't get around. Making ppl think that in the end food will be cheaper doesn't mean your going to feed all the hungry ppl on this planet.

--------
"Fuck create/Hit the weed, cover a song/That's how rappers get down/And the reason shit is wrong" - Evidence

"Facts stand no chance in the face of a lifetime of believing in the same theory." Rand Flem-Ath

"Well mam, if you were to actual

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
x4ways2rockx
Member since Dec 11th 2003
241 posts
Fri May-07-04 03:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "check this out..."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

check the link

http://guerrillanews.com/contaminated/

--------
"Fuck create/Hit the weed, cover a song/That's how rappers get down/And the reason shit is wrong" - Evidence

"Facts stand no chance in the face of a lifetime of believing in the same theory." Rand Flem-Ath

"Well mam, if you were to actual

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MicheleQJ
Charter member
5380 posts
Fri May-07-04 03:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
2. "like he said...."
In response to Reply # 0
Fri May-07-04 04:01 AM

          

GM crops are basically for the benefit of the big agricultural companies.

Many, many people (i'm not going to say all b/c i just don't know) go hungry or malnurished not because there isnt food, but they can't afford to buy the food - it sits in storehouses and rots

GM crops often have a termination feature that either requires repurchase of GM seed each season for replanting, or if re-use of seed is not physically prevented, its often prevented legally, through the license to use the seed. Historically, farmers have been able to use the seed that comes from their crops and replant them.

GM crops are often made to be resistant to strong pesticides like Roundup. This is a win-win for companies like Monsanto who make the seed and the pesticide. This allows for increased use of these pesticides and ends up not only polluting the environment and waterways but also leads to decreasing productivity of the soil.

Then you have the issue of gene spread. It's already been shown from the limited tests that have been done that altered or unnatural genetic elements spread into the environment in ways that werent even expected. This can threaten biodiversity aside from the fears of 'frankenstein' organisms. Also, back to the license issue, a Candadian farmer was/is being sued for using GM crops without paying for them when what actually happened was his fields were invaded/contaminated from what had spread from a nearby GM test field.

a recent opinion piece...I recommend this author on the subject though (link to his site: www.monbiot.com)

Starved of the truth

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1165077,00.html

Biotech firms are out to corner the market, so they have to persuade us something else is at stake

George Monbiot
Tuesday March 9, 2004
The Guardian

The question is as simple as this: do you want a few corporations to monopolise the global food supply? If the answer is yes, you should welcome the announcement that the government is expected to make today that the commercial planting of a genetically modified (GM) crop in Britain can go ahead. If the answer is no, you should regret it. The principal promotional effort of the genetic engineering industry is to distract us from this question.

GM technology permits companies to ensure that everything we eat is owned by them. They can patent the seeds and the processes that give rise to them. They can make sure that crops can't be grown without their patented chemicals. They can prevent seeds from reproducing themselves. By buying up competing seed companies and closing them down, they can capture the food market, the biggest and most diverse market of all.

No one in her right mind would welcome this, so the corporations must persuade us to focus on something else. At first they talked of enhancing consumer choice, but when the carrot failed, they switched to the stick. Now we are told that unless we support the deployment of GM crops in Britain, our science base will collapse. And that, by refusing to eat GM products in Europe, we are threatening the developing world with starvation. Both arguments are, shall we say, imaginative; but in public relations, cogency counts for little. All that matters is that you spin the discussion out for long enough to achieve the necessary result. And that means recruiting eminent figures to make the case on your behalf.

Last October, 114 scientists, many of whom receive funding from the biotech industry, sent an open letter to the prime minister claiming that Britain's lack of enthusiasm for GM crops "will inhibit our ability to contribute to scientific knowledge internationally". Scientists specialising in this field, they claimed, were being forced to leave the country to find work elsewhere.

Now forgive me if you've heard this before, but it seems to need repeating. GM crops are not science. They are technological products of science. To claim, as Tony Blair and several senior scientists have done, that those who oppose GM are "anti-science" is like claiming that those who oppose chemical weapons are anti-chemistry. Scientists are under no greater obligation to defend GM food than they are to defend the manufacture of Barbie dolls.

This is not to say that the signatories were wrong to claim that some researchers who have specialised in the development of engineered crops are now leaving Britain to find work elsewhere. As the public has rejected their products, the biotech companies have begun withdrawing from this country, and they are taking their funding with them. But if scientists attach their livelihoods to the market, they can expect their livelihoods to be affected by market forces. The people who wrote to Blair seem to want it both ways: commercial funding, insulated from commercial decisions.
Advertiser links
1-800-CHARITY - Vehicle Donation Program

Donate your automobiles to the nationally acclaimed the...
800charitycars.org
Breast Cancer Charity and Donation

The Breast Cancer Foundation of Arizona provides research,...
bcfaz.com
Cars for Charity

Visit Cars 4 Causes to donate your car, boat, motorcycle or...
cars4causes.net

In truth, the biotech companies' contribution to research in Britain has been small. Far more money has come from the government. Its Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, for example, funds 26 projects on GM crops and just one on organic farming. If scientists want a source of funding that's unlikely to be jeopardised by public concern, they should lobby for this ratio to be reversed.

But the plight of the men in white coats isn't much of a tearjerker. A far more effective form of emotional blackmail is the one deployed in the Guardian last week by Lord Taverne, the founder of the Prima PR consultancy. "The strongest argument in favour of developing GM crops," he wrote, "is the contribution they can make to reducing world poverty, hunger and disease."

There's little doubt that some GM crops produce higher yields than some conventional crops, or that they can be modified to contain more nutrients, though both these developments have been overhyped. Two projects have been cited everywhere: a sweet potato being engineered in Kenya to resist viruses, and vitamin A-enhanced rice. The first scheme has just collapsed. Despite $6m of funding from Monsanto, the World Bank and the US government, and endless hype in the press, it turns out to have produced no improvement in virus resistance, and a decrease in yield. Just over the border in Uganda, a far cheaper conventional breeding programme has almost doubled sweet potato yields. The other project, never more than a concept, now turns out not to work even in theory - malnourished people appear not to be able to absorb vitamin A in this form. However, none of this stops Lord Taverne, or George Bush, or the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, from citing them as miracle cures for global hunger.

But some trials of this kind are succeeding, improving both yield and nutritional content. Despite the best efforts of the industry's boosters to confuse the two ideas, however, this does not equate to feeding the world.

The world has a surplus of food, but still people go hungry. They go hungry because they cannot afford to buy it. They cannot afford to buy it because the sources of wealth and the means of production have been captured and in some cases monopolised by landowners and corporations. The purpose of the biotech industry is to capture and monopolise the sources of wealth and the means of production.

Now in some places governments or unselfish private researchers are producing GM crops that are free from patents and not dependent on the application of proprietary pesticides, and these could well be of benefit to small farmers in the developing world. But Taverne and the other propagandists are seeking to persuade us to approve a corporate model of GM development in the rich world, in the hope that this will somehow encourage the opposite model to develop in the poor world.

Indeed, it is hard to see what on earth the production of crops for local people in poor nations has to do with consumer preferences in Britain. Like the scientists who wrote to the prime minister, the emotional blackmailers want to have it both ways: these crops are being grown to feed starving people, but the starving people won't be able to eat them unless er ... they can export this food to Britain.

And here we encounter the perpetually neglected truth about GM crops. The great majority are not being grown to feed local people. In fact, they are not being grown to feed people at all, but to feed livestock, whose meat, milk and eggs are then sold to the world's richer consumers. The GM maize the government is expected to approve today is no exception. If in the next 30 years there is a global food crisis, it will be because the arable land that should be producing food for humans is instead producing feed for animals.

The biotech companies are not interested in whether science is flourishing or whether people are starving. They simply want to make money. The best way to make money is to control the market. But before you can control the market, you must first convince the people that there's something else at stake.









http://myspace.com/139003080
http://www.last.fm/user/micheleqj/
http://myspace.com/alluswe
http://myspace.com/fermentedspirits
http://www.last.fm/music/Alluswe

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
brainsoup
Member since Mar 20th 2004
1112 posts
Fri May-07-04 04:48 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IMClick to send message via ICQ
4. "yes i read that article.."
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

v.interesting. but i also know that GM crops r also being used to make lifesaving drugs to be used in the treatment of cancer,HIV,renal disease etc. R u going to go to little boy how is dying of leukaemia, look them in the eye and tell them .. well actually because i am so against people making money (ie i am a communist) u cannot hv ur lifegiving treatment.
huh?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
x4ways2rockx
Member since Dec 11th 2003
241 posts
Fri May-07-04 04:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "RE: yes i read that article.."
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

well your original post was about cheap crops and food for everyone. would you like to address this or start discussing other things now?

--------
"Fuck create/Hit the weed, cover a song/That's how rappers get down/And the reason shit is wrong" - Evidence

"Facts stand no chance in the face of a lifetime of believing in the same theory." Rand Flem-Ath

"Well mam, if you were to actual

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
MicheleQJ
Charter member
5380 posts
Fri May-07-04 04:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
6. "RE: yes i read that article.."
In response to Reply # 4


          

i think the medical issue of genetic engineering is separate than the issue of GM foods and crops


http://myspace.com/139003080
http://www.last.fm/user/micheleqj/
http://myspace.com/alluswe
http://myspace.com/fermentedspirits
http://www.last.fm/music/Alluswe

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
brainsoup
Member since Mar 20th 2004
1112 posts
Fri May-07-04 05:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IMClick to send message via ICQ
7. "how so..?"
In response to Reply # 6
Fri May-07-04 05:14 AM

  

          

neo-leftist activists know exactly what they r doing when they block monsanto et al.No GM food = No GM pharmaceuticals.
Simple.
Its the crypto-enviros who should be hanging their heads and wringing their hands for trying to drag this back 2hundred years and denyoing dying children of their drugs.Aargh ..i am upset now!!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
x4ways2rockx
Member since Dec 11th 2003
241 posts
Fri May-07-04 05:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "hmmm..."
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

What is the link between needing GM food to get GM drugs? Can you not just make GM drugs without growing GM food? I'd like to read some info on this and you appear to be of some knowledge where this is concerned. Can you post some links?

--------
"Fuck create/Hit the weed, cover a song/That's how rappers get down/And the reason shit is wrong" - Evidence

"Facts stand no chance in the face of a lifetime of believing in the same theory." Rand Flem-Ath

"Well mam, if you were to actual

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
brainsoup
Member since Mar 20th 2004
1112 posts
Fri May-07-04 05:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IMClick to send message via ICQ
10. "RE: hmmm..."
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

links u say:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108570,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,817,00.html

that should start u off..ill get more later.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
x4ways2rockx
Member since Dec 11th 2003
241 posts
Fri May-07-04 05:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "a warm feeling"
In response to Reply # 10
Fri May-07-04 05:51 AM

  

          

i'll read the articles but the fact that they're from fox news just makes me laugh.

--------
"Fuck create/Hit the weed, cover a song/That's how rappers get down/And the reason shit is wrong" - Evidence

"Facts stand no chance in the face of a lifetime of believing in the same theory." Rand Flem-Ath

"Well mam, if you were to actual

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
MicheleQJ
Charter member
5380 posts
Fri May-07-04 05:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
12. "your source is"
In response to Reply # 10


          

from the cato institute and the one article is almost a pr release from monsanto

at least can we work with stuff thats not from a pro-business think tank or funded by industry sources?






http://myspace.com/139003080
http://www.last.fm/user/micheleqj/
http://myspace.com/alluswe
http://myspace.com/fermentedspirits
http://www.last.fm/music/Alluswe

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
x4ways2rockx
Member since Dec 11th 2003
241 posts
Fri May-07-04 06:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "RE: hmmm..."
In response to Reply # 10


  

          


>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108570,00.html

Ok this first link was about salmon farming. You may have posted it because it talks about eco-extremism which you seem to have a hard-on about, but is completely irrelevant to linking GM crops to GM drugs

>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,817,00.html

Again, there is relevance to the topic but nothing dealing with children on deathbeds waiting for the miracle that is GM drugs produced through the development of GM crops.

But, you did say you would have some more links so I'll kick back and wait.

--------
"Fuck create/Hit the weed, cover a song/That's how rappers get down/And the reason shit is wrong" - Evidence

"Facts stand no chance in the face of a lifetime of believing in the same theory." Rand Flem-Ath

"Well mam, if you were to actual

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
mcneter

Fri May-07-04 07:51 AM

  
14. "RE: how so..?"
In response to Reply # 7


          

I am somewhat skeptical about GM's also, simply because there is quite a bit of suspect things going on within the FDA and the Bush administrations policies regarding environment and food in general. For example the latest thing I have heard about organic food and there production, chemicals and farm animals, as well as chemical percentages allowed in water systems. We have the resources to naturally produce cures, and treatments for people. The unfortunate reality is that within the capitalist system, profit is before life in many occassions. Therefore, x company will put a new drug on the shelf for an exagerrated price and only allow such a drug to be offerred for a particular ailment, while there are alternatives that are much more inexpensive and just as effective that wont become available for purchase until the overhead is found to be sufficient. I am concerned for peoples well being as well, and I am sure I can speak for the others who replied that they also have compassion. Our compassion should not be what is questioned, it is the compromise to our health that we are constantly forced to respond to that is the problem. Hetep.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MicheleQJ
Charter member
5380 posts
Fri May-07-04 05:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
9. "a side issue here, since it deals with same MNCs"
In response to Reply # 0
Fri May-07-04 05:40 AM

          

is biopiracy, which is beginning to happen to less powerful communities and indigenous groups

one example...good ol' Monsanto...interesting to have their ex-chief as Sec. of Agriculture too...

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-04/22shiva.cfm


April 22, 2004

Wheat Biopiracy

By Vandana Shiva

WILL "GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD" BECOME A PRAYER TO MONSANTO?

Wheat the Golden grain, is called "Kanak" in North Western India. It is the staple of a large majority. Wheat diversity has been evolved by Indian farmers over millennia for taste, for nutrition, for ecological adaptation to cold climates and hot climates, dry regions and wet regions.

Barely four years after starting work, in December 1909, the book entitled "wheat in India" was published. By 1924 no fewer than thirty one papers exclusively on wheat had appeared. A survey of work was presented to the Royal Society of Arts in 1920.

In 1916-1920 indigenous Indian varieties won prizes in International Grain Exhibitions. Indian Wheat was so important a crop for the British Empire that an important Resolution of the Government of India no. I - 39-50 of March 17th, 1877 was passed on the wheat question requiring the Governor General to provide all information on Indian wheat including "local names for the varieties of wheat cultivated and three description in English". More than 1000 wheat samples in bags of 2 pounds each were sent to the India office, examined by Forbes Watson, and a detailed report provided to the Secretary of the State.

Sir Albert Howard, the founder of Modern Organic Farming and his wife G.L.C. Howard started to document and systematize India's wheat diversity. They identified 37 separate botanical varieties of wheat belonging to 10 sub-species.

The Ghoni, Kanku, Rodi, Mundli, Retti, Kunjhari, Sindhi, Kalhia, Sambhergehna, Sambhau, Kamla, Laila, Dandi, Gangajali, Pissia, Ujaria, Surlek, Manipuri, Anokhla, Tamra, Mihirta, Munia, Gajia, Mundia, Merdha, Dudhia, Lurkia, Jamali, Lalka, Harahwa, Galphulia….

An amazing diversity of indigenous wheat was evolved by farmers through their indigenous innovation and knowledge. In 1906, the Howards began to select and systematize Indian wheat in Pusa (Bihar) and Lyallpur in Punjab (now Pakistan) and made Indian wheat known worldwide. Howard's work on wheat paid full tribute to the genius of Indian peasants. As he wrote in his plan to study and improve Indian wheat.

"The present condition of Indian agriculture is the heritage of experience handed down from time immemorial by a people little affected by the many changes in the government of the country. The present agricultural practices of India are worthy of respect, however strange and primitive they may appear to Western ideas. The attempt to improve Indian agriculture on Western lines appears to be a fundamental mistake. What is wanted is rather the application of Western scientific methods to the local conditions so as to improve Indian agriculture on its own lines."

Millennia of breeding by millions of Indian farmers is however now being hijacked by Monsanto which is claiming to have "invented" the unique low-elasticity, low gluten properties of an indigenous Indian wheat, rice lines derived from such wheat and all flours, batters, biscuits and edible products made from such wheat.

On 21st May, 2003, the European Patent Office in Munich granted a patent to Monsanto with the number EP 445929, with the simple title "plants", even though plants are not patentable in European Law. The patent covers wheat exhibiting a special baking quality, derived from native Indian wheat. With the patent, Monsanto holds a monopoly on the farming, breeding, and processing of a range of wheat varieties with low elasticity. Earlier in a patent (EP 518577) filed in 1998 Unilever and Monsanto have claimed "invention" of an exclusive claims to the use of flour to make traditional kinds of Indian bread such as "chapattis".

And it is not just in Europe that Monsanto has filed and obtained patents based on the biopiracy of Indian wheat. In the U.S on May 3, 1994 patent number 5,308,635 was given for low elasticity wheat flour blends, on June 9, 1998 patent number 5,763,741 was given for wheat which produce dough with low elasticity, and on January 12, 1999, patent number 5,859,315 another patent was granted for wheats which produce dough with low elasticity.

Through these global patents based on biopiracy, Monsanto is literally seeking to control our daily bread. The wheat variety which has been pirated from India, has been recorded as NapHal in the gene banks from which Monsanto got the wheat and in Monsanto's patent claims. The name NapHal is not the name of an Indian variety. Indian varieties were fully documented by Howard in Wheats of India. NapHal means "no seeds", and is not, and cannot be an indigenous seed variety because farmers bred seed to produce seed.

They did not breed "Terminator seeds" for which the Indian name could be "NapHal". This is clearly a distortion that has crept into the gene bank records because the original variety was stolen, not collected. NapHal is the name given by W.Koelz, USDA. However Koelz clearly did not make the collections himself, but was handed over the varieties, since the locations are inaccurate. The altitudes and longitude / latitudes do not match. According to our search, W.Koelz made the following collections :

Date of Collection Locality

10.4.48 Marcha, Uttar Pradesh, India Elevation - 3050 meters Latitude - 28o mm N Longitude - 80o mm E 10.7.48 Subu Uttar Pradesh, India Elevation - 3050 meters Latitude - 28o mm N Longitude - 80o mm E 19.7.48 Nabi, Uttar Pradesh, India Elevation - 2745 meters Latitude - 29.50o mm N Longitude - 79.30o mm E 21.7.48 Saro, Nepal Elevation - Not given Latitude - 28o mm N Longitude - 84o mm E

The latitude 28o N and longitude 80o E lies in the plains near Shajahanpur. The elevation here is clearly not 3000 meters. This altitude is in the higher Himalayan ranges with different latitude and longitude. In any case Marcha is not the name of the village but a sub tribal category of the Bhotias who are Tibetans speaking Buddhist living in the upper regions of the Himalayas. The terms Bhotia came from Bo which is the native Tibetan word for Tibet.

The discrepancy in the location and in the name indicate that the variety referred to as NapHal was pirated, not collected. Probably the name is a distortion of Nepal, since one sample was from Nepal and indigenous varieties names Nepal are in the NBPGR collection.

We have challenged Monsanto wheat biopiracy both in the Indian Supreme Court and in the European Patent Office in Munich with Greenpeace. As our challenge submitted to the EPO on 17th February, 2004, stated,

"The patent is a blatant example of biopiracy as it is tantamount to the theft of the results of endeavours in cultivation made by Indian farmers. In the countries of the southern hemisphere, it is frequently the small farmers who make a decisive contribution to agricultural diversity and secure sufficient food supplies by freely swapping seeds and breeding regionally modified forms of crops.

Monsanto is now unscrupulously exploiting the fruits of their labour. The company is able to restrict not only the farming and processing of crops, but also trade in them, in the countries for which the patent has been granted. At the same time it can block the free exchange of the seed, thus preventing other growers and farmers from working with the patented seeds.

The wheat exhibiting these special baking qualities is the result of the labours of cultivators and farmers in India who originally grew these plants for their own regional requirements, growing them to bake traditional Indian bread (chapatis). As it is natural for these farmers to freely swap seeds, it comes as no surprise that this wheat seed has been stored in various international gene banks outside India for many years.

Thus, samples of the seed can be found in the collections held by the US agricultural administration as well as in Japan and Europe. The patent owner uses these features to achieve his own business goals in a way which can only be regarded as indecent.

Unilever and Monsanto also have unrestricted access to these seed banks. They took the wheat to their laboratories, where they searched for the genes responsible for the special baking qualities. And, indeed, they were able to find the gene sequences which they had been looking for in the plant. In this connection, they were aided by the research results of various scientists as the corresponding gene regions had been undergoing examination for quite some time. It is this natural combination of genes which has now been patented by Monsanto as an "invention"."

This patent needs to be challenged on the following grounds :

The traits of low elasticity, low gluten which are being patented are not an invention, but derived from an Indian variety. The crossing with a soft milling variety is an obvious step to any breeder. The patent is based on piracy, not on non-obvious novelty, and hence needs to be challenged to stop legal precedence being created on false claims to invention.

The broad scope of the patent covering products made with Indian wheat robs Indian food processes and biscuit manufacturers of their legitimate export market and could in future affect our domestic food sovereignty. The Governments 2020 vision refers to making India a "global food factory".

However if Monsanto has the patent based on piracy of Indian wheat, India's "food factory" will be controlled by Monsanto, not Indian food processors and producers. The governments policy if it has to be successful, must have the Monsanto patent revoked in order to bring market benefits for our unique food products to the country's producers - both farmers and food processors.

With an estimated annual turnover of US$ 1.5 billion, the baking industry in India is one of the largest manufacturing sectors in India, production of which has been increasing steadily in the country. The two major bakery industries, viz. Bread and biscuit account for about 82 percent of the total bakery products. With overall annual growth estimated at 6.9%. According to ASSOCHAM India, a business support services firm, there are almost 85,000 bakeries in the country. Approximately 75,000 of these operate in the unorganised sector, which has a 60% market share. The remaining 1,000 bakeries operate in the organised sector, which has a 40% market share.

Packaged Food in India, a recently released report from Euromonitor, recorded year 2000 volume sales of the organised biscuit sector at 500,000 MT, or approximately US$492 million in value terms. The unorganised sector, which supplies 60% of total production, has an annual turnover of nearly US$718 million. If combined, the two sectors would bring overall biscuit sales to more than US$ 1.2 billion annually, or 1.3 MMT, making India the world's second largest biscuit manufacturer and consumer behind the US.

Further, the patent covers not just biscuits but all edible products and flours with low elasticity. India Chapatis are in effect covered by the patent.

If such biopiracy based patents are not challenged, and crop lines and products based on unique properties evolved through indigenous breeding become the monopoly of MNC's, in future we will be paying royalties for our innovations especially in light of the Patent Cooperation Treat and upward harmonization of patent law.

Monsanto's wheat biopiracy patent should be a wake up call to citizens and governments of the world. It is yet another example of why the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) of W.T.O needs to be changed, and why traditional knowledge and community rights need to be legally recognized and protected.







http://myspace.com/139003080
http://www.last.fm/user/micheleqj/
http://myspace.com/alluswe
http://myspace.com/fermentedspirits
http://www.last.fm/music/Alluswe

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Fri May-07-04 08:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
15. "an article i once wrote on GM"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

title was "Beefin' with GM", maybe you'll find this helpful...

Genetic modification poses multi-dimensional dangers that merit careful exploration of its potential short AND long term consequences. Concern over genetically modified organisms amply demonstrates the double-edged nature of scientific progress with regards to how perceived benefits of manipulating nature often become tainted by unforseen side-effects. The commercial introduction of genetic modification of agricultural animals in 1980 and crops in 1996 spawned controversial clouds over safety concerns regarding their adverse health and ecological impact.

Genetic alteration of plants occurs by either linking the desired genes to a transfer plasmid which gets absorbed by a bacterium that transfers it to plant cells to facilitate the transgene's migration and permanent integration into the plant’s chromosome, or by being injecting into the plant cells using gene-carrying “bullets” that penetrate cell walls through the use of a “gene gun”. Despite assurances from FDA Commissioner Jane Henney that genetic modification is a mere extension of traditional plant breeding techniques, the fact remains that the insertion of genes into organisms has yet to produce a genetically stable, uniform line.

Transplanted genes use a viral booster that radically alters the transgenes’ behavior to function as an invading virus, wheras organic plants are products of stable evolutionary tailoring that took place over countless years. This fact is the variable setting GM foods apart from their stable organic counterparts. Transgenes act independently of cellular controls and are uncorrelated with other genes. They escape regulation by the host organism’s control system, starkly contrasting with the harmonious coordination present among organic genes. The hyperactivity of invasive genes results from the constant expression of their product, where organic genes rest until the specific genetic function's need arises.

The tendencies of transgenes to loosen, rearrange, or become partially or entirely lost in successive generations forms the core of safety concerns. Because changes to the transgenic lines are upredictable, they often increase the chance of transgenic DNA being assumed by unrelated species. This horizontal gene transfer and recombination can spread to make new mixtures in the genetic coding of soil, water, airborne bacterbia, and the mouth, gut, and respiratory tracts of animals. Every species that interacts with a transgenically altered organism is at risk. Transgenic DNA is flanked by recombination sequences suited for crossing species barriers and invading genomes, which also allows them to jump out of the genome, as the same enzymes are catalysts for entry and exit. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho wrote about the similarity of this process with “gene therapy experiments” whose main side-effect was cancer. In a joint statement called “The Need for Greater Regulation and Control of Genetic Engineering” by scientists concerned with trends in biotechnology, the potential toxic or carcinogenic effects of genetic modification was said to have substantial latency periods. In short, the broad extent of environmental consequence unleashed by the Pandora’s Box that is genetic modification is unlimited.

Buffer zones are needed to protect organic crops and fields from GM ones because of the capacity of transgenic DNA to infect organic plants. Despite this understanding being acknowledged long ago, all earlier estimates of safe buffer zones- some of which have been as large as 5 miles- performed dismally in the prevention of cross-pollination, resulting in making soil conditions less hospitable to organic crops while more favorable for the invasive crop source.

Transgenes may also alter the genetic structure of symbiotic organisms to produce a genetically homogenous ecology. This constriction of biodiversity may potentially spell disaster for a specific biosphere if they are afflicted by conditions targeting specific weaknesses in a particular genetic structure. To put this in perspective, think what would've happened in Europe if no part of the population was immune to the black plague... or inversely, what would happen in D.C. if ebola broke out.

Arguments made for genetic modification typically assume overly simplistic, short-sighted premise sets to conclude beneficial results. Nevertheless, let us grant GM the benefit of the doubt and explore three of the text-book assertions made for the GM promise.

The vantage points hailed by GM advocates have repeatedly manifested their own serious drawbacks. Genetic modification is often presented as a solution for destroying weeds that consume valuable water resources, sunlight and soil nutrients needed by other crops. GM crops could be engineered to tolerate "broad-spectrum" herbicides that destroy all other plants. The field could then be sprayed with the broad-spectrum herbacide to kill all plants except the engineered crop, hence ensuring the bulk of soil and water resources be used by the intended crop. This would be a more "environmentally friendly alternative, as it would limit the use of numerous herbicides targeting specific plants. Unfortunately, weeds and GM crops often crossbreed to produce “superweeds” that actually draw nourishment from the herbicides. The presence of superweeds may spell pure disaster for farms.

Another argument contends that the insertion of transgenes allowing crops to produce pest killing toxins could save countless plants from being wasted. The most common natural pesticide is taken from genes of the bacterium Bacillus thurigiensis and combined to form pesticide-producing genetic crossbreeds, like Bt-cotton. Despite sounding like a fantastic innovation, the effectiveness of the genetically induced pesticide declines over time as the organisms its meant to destroy develop resistance to it thru prolonged exposure. Recent studies examining insect larvae in Bt-cotton indicated that pests have come to develop means of using the pesticide for nutrition. Larvae in modified cotton grew much bigger than those in organic cotton, and could eventually blitz and paralyze the farming industry, thereby severly disrupting global food production.

Genetically engineered recombinant Bovine growth hormone’s (rBGH) injected into cows stimulates the production of another hormone called IGF-1 that is responsible for speeding up the cow’s metabolism to increases milk production by 30%. Although this might produce tremendous short-term profit from increased milkprodction, the long-term impact of rBGH could spell disaster for both cattle and rancher. The hormone is linked to hoof problems and a serious udder infection called mastitis. An investivation by former Fox News reporter Jane Akra explored the claims by ranchers who blamed rBGH for shortening their cattles' lives by two years. The hormone affected cattle on many levels, altering the content of dairy products to where the produced milk is contaminated with increased levels of bacteria, mastitis induced pus and the antibiotics used to treat it. By consuming this milk, we subsequently raise our resistance to those antibiotics. This complicates the fight against disease, as new virii immune to our current medicines emerge. The increased production of IGF-1 carries into the milk and has also been linked to breast, colon, and prostate cancers.

Over 90% of GM crops are produced by Monsanto, with the remainder being distributed among Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, Dow, and Du Pont. This concentration of GM production presents the very real possibility of global food production succumbing to oligopolistic control. Food could be used as a weapon tailored to suit socio-political and economic interests.

Shortly following Mexico’s ban of genetically modified (GM) crops, a particularly virulent strand of GM corn that was designed to secrete harmful poisons commenced to spread rapidly through Mexico’s northern borders, infecting fields of organic corn. Many analyst interpreted this incident as a sort of arm-twisting measure executed to coerce the Mexican government into reversing its ban. The recent wave of politically induced famines in various African nations were exploited as an opportunity to further the proliferation of GM crops by donor nations that dumped them into needy provinces. A political stand-off has since emerged between select leaders refusing to accept such food aid, and the western heads who would offer nothing else, despite being readily capable of supplying organic products. Food as a political weapon has the potential to surpass any weapon of mass destruction developed to date.

The union of big business and politics undoubtedly dominates the global socio-political landscape, often flying in the face of sustainable development. Wide-ranging health and ecological drawbacks of proposed commercial interests are ignored, and the marginal presence of objective GM oversight amply exemplifies this. Much of the GM regulations in the United States were swiftly passed during the two-year tenure of Michael Taylor as head of the FDA. Taylor's previous job was in the capacity of an attorney for the GM industry giant Monsanto. After his tenure, Taylor went right back to work for Monsanto. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the glaring conflict of interest here. The latest in regulatory measures came in the form of voluntary guidance allowing the commercial distribution of GM foods even before safety testing had been conducted.

Rest assured you are completely safe, citizen.

Who can comfortably accept the status quo knowing their very health and well-being is entrusted to the protection of a government driven by parochial corporate interests? The visions of many who thought the 21st century would usher an era of renewed reverence for huamnity, civility, egalitarianism, and peace have slowly transformed into pipe dreams.

History doesn't grant us the priviledge of having blind faith in the institutions affecting our lives. The world is mostly governed by complex agendas that often elude the precepts of rationality. We have arrived at a junction where everyone of us must strive to grasp the "big picture" and proactively engage our global village in pursuit of truth to genuinely reclaim power over our lives and, ultimately, our collective destinies. The parochial agenda of multi-national corporations are amply represented in this world, irrespective of what that translates into regarding the collective interests of humanity, while the interest of the people is actively supressed and muted in the process of social decision making called politics. In short, multi-national corps got their backs covered... so who got yours? A realistic, sustainable future cannot be possible without the active, resolute pursuit of our collective human interest.
_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_SiG_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_

www.absurdtheater.org

“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Johann W. von Goethe

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Mon May-10-04 06:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
47. "more evidence of GM dangers"
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

article from the guardian:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=498693

Revealed: Shocking new evidence of the dangers of GM crops
Genetically modified strains have contaminated two-thirds of all crops in US
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
07 March 2004

More than two-thirds of conventional crops in the United States are now contaminated with genetically modified material - dooming organic agriculture and posing a severe future risk to health - a new report concludes.

The report - which comes as English ministers are on the verge of approving the planting of Britain's first GM crop, maize - concludes that traditional varieties of seed are "pervasively contaminated" by genetically engineered DNA. The US biotech industry says it is "not surprised" by the findings.

NZ Herald

07.03.2004
6.00pm - By GEOFFREY LEAN
Because of the contamination, the report says, farmers unwittingly plant billions of GM seeds a year, spreading genetic modification throughout US agriculture. This would be likely to lead to danger to health with the next generation of GM crops, bred to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals - delivering "drug-laced cornflakes" to the breakfast table.

The report comes at the worst possible time for the English Government, which is trying to overcome strong resistance from the Scottish and Welsh administrations to GM maize.

The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee drew attention to the problem in North America in a report published on Friday, and said the Government had not paid enough attention to it. The MPs concluded: "No decision to proceed with the commercial growing of GM crops should be made until thorough research into the experience with GM crops in North America has been completed and published". It would be "irresponsible" for ministers to give the green light to the maize without further tests.

Peter Ainsworth, the committee chairman, accuses the Cabinet of "great discourtesy" to Parliament by making its decision on the maize last Thursday, the day before the report came out, and plans to raise the issue with the Speaker of the House.

This week's statement by Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for the Environment, is expected to fall short of authorising immediate planting of the maize, and provide only a muted endorsement for the technology. She will make it clear that the Government wants the GM industry to compensate farmers whose crops are contaminated. This could make cultivation uncommercial. The US study will increase the pressure on her to be tough.

Under the auspices of the green-tinged Union of Concerned Scientists, two separate independent laboratories tested supposedly non-GM seeds "representing a substantial proportion of the traditional seed supply" for maize, soya and oilseed rape, the three crops whose modified equivalents are grown widely in the United States.

The test found that at "the most conservative expression", half the maize and soyabeans and 83 per cent of the oilseed rape were contaminated with GM genes - just eight years after the modified varieties were first cultivated on a large scale in the US.

The degree of contamination is thought to be at a relatively low level of about 0.5 to 1 per cent. The reports says that "contamination ... is endemic to the system". It adds: "Heedlessly allowing the contamination of traditional plant varieties with genetically engineered sequences amounts to a huge wager on our ability to understand a complicated technology that manipulates life at the most elemental level." There could be "serious risks to health" if drugs and industrial chemicals from the next generation of GM crops got into food.

Lisa Dry, of the US Biotechnology Industry Association, said that the industry was "not surprised by this report, knowing that pollen travels and commodity grains might co-mingle at various places".

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_SiG_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_

www.absurdtheater.org

“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Johann W. von Goethe

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Wonderl33t
Member since Jul 11th 2002
21405 posts
Fri May-07-04 08:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: whats the big deal about GM crops.."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

because hippie liberals don't like it when big businesses have an opportunity to make more money. That's why you hear all the horror stories... there more benefits than drawbacks. And with regard to biodiversity, there wouldn't be any negative impact. It is already a normal practice to make sure that not all crops are the same. GM crops would be made just as diverse.

All of the horror stories lead you to believe that the proponents of GM are giving absolutely no thought to the risks, which is completely false. Not much different than the hippie outcry against nuclear power IMO

"Remember kids--if you don't root for the Dodgers, there is a good chance you might not get into heaven" -Tommy Lasorda

The Illgaluminati set us up the bomb!!!

The Fellowship of the Fins:
absence, Al_Tru_Ist, BreezeBoogie, dank_reggae, Drewmathic, Ir_Cuba, LML, MIAthinker, Robert, Roofdogg10, wonderl33t, xenophobia



______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
MicheleQJ
Charter member
5380 posts
Fri May-07-04 08:27 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
17. "ah yes-so simple"
In response to Reply # 16
Fri May-07-04 08:29 AM

          

there is a risk to biodiversity because of the way genes have shown to be able to migrate into non-GM crop lines, thus GM genes can become dominatant and a vast array of different variations of a non-GM crop can be lost----eh im not good with terminology in this area---hopefully sense can be made of that




http://myspace.com/139003080
http://www.last.fm/user/micheleqj/
http://myspace.com/alluswe
http://myspace.com/fermentedspirits
http://www.last.fm/music/Alluswe

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Wonderl33t
Member since Jul 11th 2002
21405 posts
Fri May-07-04 08:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "RE: ah yes-so simple"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

if you have passed a high school biology class, you would know that "dominant" is normal and not harmful. Whatever gene is dominant will be expressed more often that the recessive gene. That doesn't mean the recessive gene is wiped out.

And how is it a bad thing that GM lines are mixed with non-GM? Whenever you cross-breed, more variations are created, and biodiversity is increased.

>there is a risk to biodiversity because of the way genes
>have shown to be able to migrate into non-GM crop lines,
>thus GM genes can become dominatant and a vast array of
>different variations of a non-GM crop can be lost----eh im
>not good with terminology in this area---hopefully sense can
>be made of that

"Remember kids--if you don't root for the Dodgers, there is a good chance you might not get into heaven" -Tommy Lasorda

The Illgaluminati set us up the bomb!!!

The Fellowship of the Fins:
absence, Al_Tru_Ist, BreezeBoogie, dank_reggae, Drewmathic, Ir_Cuba, LML, MIAthinker, Robert, Roofdogg10, wonderl33t, xenophobia



______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
MicheleQJ
Charter member
5380 posts
Fri May-07-04 09:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
19. "RE: ah yes-so simple"
In response to Reply # 18


          

definitely see your point---im going to have to figure out what i was really attempting to say b/c its still something slightly different


http://myspace.com/139003080
http://www.last.fm/user/micheleqj/
http://myspace.com/alluswe
http://myspace.com/fermentedspirits
http://www.last.fm/music/Alluswe

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Fri May-07-04 09:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
20. "check response #15 for answer to your ? n/m"
In response to Reply # 18
Fri May-07-04 09:20 AM

  

          

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_SiG_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_

www.absurdtheater.org

“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Johann W. von Goethe

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Wonderl33t
Member since Jul 11th 2002
21405 posts
Fri May-07-04 09:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "ok... so you think GM should be banned?"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

nobody is denying there are risks. But with careful development these risks can be minimalized and the benefits will be great. I think it is pretty ironic that hippies who supposedly want "progression" cry foul when science is trying to make food healthier for people and more profitable for business.

"Remember kids--if you don't root for the Dodgers, there is a good chance you might not get into heaven" -Tommy Lasorda

The Illgaluminati set us up the bomb!!!

The Fellowship of the Fins:
absence, Al_Tru_Ist, BreezeBoogie, dank_reggae, Drewmathic, Ir_Cuba, LML, MIAthinker, Robert, Roofdogg10, wonderl33t, xenophobia



______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Fri May-07-04 11:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
22. "avoid the cliche references..."
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

... because it really won't take a discussion anywhere. the thing with GM is just that there hasn't been adequate testing and development. its sort of being prematurely winged... the science isn't stable enough to be implemented on the scale it is now.

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_SiG_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_

www.absurdtheater.org

“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Johann W. von Goethe

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
CaptainRook
Charter member
4936 posts
Sat May-08-04 06:32 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "What's wrong with GM foods is..."
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

that they are not Godly. God created fruits, vegetables and other life forms with their own genetic structure. So-called scientists come along, and through their arrogance, declare that they can develop something better than God. This is foolish thinking. There is nothing wrong with the original genetic structure of fruits and vegetables and it does not need to be altered or modified.

The original genetic structure of food is compatible with the necessities of life (i.e., humans, animals, insects, etc.) on the planet. GM food is not compatible with the necessities of life.

GM food doesn't have a normal spoilage cycle. Food is supposed to spoil. It has a lifespan like everything else and that's just how it is. Who knows what kind of short or long-term effects are likely when one eats food that doesn't break down normally in the digestive system after being consumed?

The dangerous part in this is that most people eat a GM tomato (or any other GM food) and they think that they're eating a tomato. They don't know that it's a genetic hybrid, that includes the DNA of a fly and/or a fish or whatever else that has been put into the mix, and in reality it's not really a tomato.

With junk foods, (candybars, potato chips, now-a-laters, etc), one eats this stuff and knows that they are eating "junk food", i.e., food that is not natural and healthy. But when people consume these GM foods, they think that are eating natural, healthy food that was constructed by God, not knowing that it was constructed by a Frankstein-ish system of science. And like Frankenstein, this new technological invention will turn back on us and eventually destroy us.


>nobody is denying there are risks.

This is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Not only are there risks, but GM's are dangerous!!!

But with careful
>development these risks can be minimalized and the benefits
>will be great.

What benefits? Who will benefit? And at costs will someone benefit?

I think it is pretty ironic that hippies who
>supposedly want "progression" cry foul when science is
>trying to make food healthier for people and more profitable
>for business.

Fist of all, I'm no damn hippie. What do you consider "progression"? God set shit up a certain way for a reason, and somethings aren't meant to be fucked with. The Genetic structure of food is one of those things. Cross-breeding the DNA of other species and life forms for food consumption is not natural and it is dangerous.

This type of food can not be "healthier" than what God has naturally created. About the only thing that you got right is that GM's will be "more profitable for busisness"; but just because it makes a lot of money, doesn't mean it should be done. I mean, unless your God is $$GREEN$$.



<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 06:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
26. "plant/animal breeding?"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

human selection of certain traits? are these agricultural methods not unnatural as well?

people have been altering the genetic traits of the food they eat since civilization existed, far before anyone even knew what DNA was. unless you go out to forage everyday NOTHING you eat is completely "natural"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
CaptainRook
Charter member
4936 posts
Sat May-08-04 08:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "There is a clear and distinct difference here,"
In response to Reply # 26


  

          

in what you are talking about and GM foods.

I'm aware that man has altered some plant species to create new plant foods. Carrots and bananas are the main two staple foods that I can think of that are supposed to be food hybrids.

The difference between previous food hybrids and GM foods is that previously plants were crossed with other plants to produce a new plant. GMO's (I shouldn't call the products of GMs', "foods") are plants that have been cross-bred with entirely different species. Two different plants can natuarally cross pollenate and create a new plant type. But flies and fish can not naturally produce anything with a tomato or any other vegetation. The only way that this is possible is by practicing biotechnology (i.e., Frankenstein science).

Previously man had not developed this type of technology. I don't believe that it was necesarily because human intelligence of the past was not as advanced as it is today. I believe that they were more in tune with what is natural and unnatural and acted accordingly in such matters.

GM is a different kind of monster, one that we have not seen before.

>human selection of certain traits? are these agricultural
>methods not unnatural as well?
>
>people have been altering the genetic traits of the food
>they eat since civilization existed, far before anyone even
>knew what DNA was. unless you go out to forage everyday
>NOTHING you eat is completely "natural"

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 08:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
30. "i dont see much of a difference at all"
In response to Reply # 29


  

          

>Two different plants can natuarally cross pollenate and create a new plant type.

however, humans encourage "unnatural" crossbreedings. many of our food plants today would never naturally occur - in nature the plants that will produce the most progeny are the survivors but humans encourage traits that will produce the most and best quality food. nature and man have different ends, and thus a different means has developed.

>But flies and fish can not naturally produce anything with a tomato or any other vegetation.

obiviously true.

i see what point you were trying to make and i probably cant persuade you otherwise if you feel that way about it so ill agree to disagree.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
CaptainRook
Charter member
4936 posts
Sat May-08-04 09:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "Ok, maybe I can offer this as an example"
In response to Reply # 30


  

          

or a way to think of plants being cross-bred with other plants and GMO's.

Afrikan Human + Caucasian Human = a hybrid human being
Afrikan Human + Chinese Human = a hybrid human being
Indian Human + Vietmanese Human = a hybrid human being

or

Doberman Pincher + German Shepherd = a hybrid dog
Boxer + St. Bernard = a hybrid dog
Rottweiler + Pitbull = a mean ass hybrid dog

I hope you get the idea here. This is similar to the way previous hybrid foods were produced.

Now GMO's are akin to

A fly + a tomato = ??????
Fish cells + a tomato = ?????

or maybe even something like

Mosquito cells + Chicken cells + Cucumbers = ?????


I hope that you can see what is different about how it was done and what is being done with this GMO madness.

What is the fly gonna do when he recognizes some of his genetic structure present in these plants? What will be its reaction; how will it react? How will the other organisms and life forms interact when it will find and notice its DNA in life forms that they could not have put there through natural interaction? These are the type of questions we have to ask.



<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 09:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
32. "i understand you arguement"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          

you say that cross-species reproduction/hybridization is unnatural and therefore wrong. okay, so we will agree to disagree.

>What is the fly gonna do when he recognizes some of his
>genetic structure present in these plants? What will be its
>reaction; how will it react? How will the other organisms
>and life forms interact when it will find and notice its DNA
>in life forms that they could not have put there through
>natural interaction? These are the type of questions we
>have to ask.

the fly wont notice a piece of his DNA expressed by a plant, that really doesnt make any sense and is an unfounded fear. ive never even heard of this arguement before.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
CaptainRook
Charter member
4936 posts
Sat May-08-04 09:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "You disagree,"
In response to Reply # 32


  

          


>you say that cross-species reproduction/hybridization is
>unnatural and therefore wrong. okay, so we will agree to
>disagree.

on what grounds? Just curious.

>
>the fly wont notice a piece of his DNA expressed by a plant,
>that really doesnt make any sense and is an unfounded fear.
>ive never even heard of this arguement before.

What makes you think that other organism aren;t aware of their presence in and throughout the ecology of nature. I don't know for sure that a fly will recognize itself in a plant, but I'm sure a plant having fly cells in it as a part of its (i.e., the plant's) DNA structure will have some effect on the fly. Smaller organism are sensitive to these not so obvious changes/differences in nature than humans are.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
centurySamIam
Member since Apr 02nd 2003
2857 posts
Tue May-11-04 12:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "RE: ok... so you think GM should be banned?"
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

>these risks can be minimalized and the benefits
>will be great.

Benefits for whom? Peasant farmers forced to buy seed containing terminator genes don't get a benefit. The only people that benefit are the companies manufacturing the stuff.

Sure, prices might go down in the short term, but as was pointed out in another article in this thread, 90% of GM crops are produced by one company (Monsanto). That's a monopoly, which is guranteed to drive prices up in the future.
------------------------------

Cigarettes and black coffee
Long as I got a lung and a knot
You can't stop me

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 06:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
23. "RE: ah yes-so simple"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

>if you have passed a high school biology class, you would
>know that "dominant" is normal and not harmful. Whatever
>gene is dominant will be expressed more often that the
>recessive gene. That doesn't mean the recessive gene is
>wiped out.

that is not how the mechanism works because you are introducing a foreign gene. the danger in gene drifting is that "superweeds" can result

>because it really won't take a discussion anywhere. the thing with GM is just that there hasn't been adequate testing and development. its sort of being prematurely winged... the science isn't stable enough to be implemented on the scale it is now.

there has been adequate testing and the benefits outweigh the risks; the science is quite stable.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
zewari
Charter member
7113 posts
Sat May-08-04 10:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
34. "see response 15 n/m"
In response to Reply # 23


  

          

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_SiG_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_

www.absurdtheater.org

“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”
-Qur’an 4:135

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."
--Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary (and revolutionary), murdered in his bathtub by Royalist Charlotte Corday

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Johann W. von Goethe

__________________________

www.supportblackowned.org

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
CaptainRook
Charter member
4936 posts
Sat May-08-04 10:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "How can you tell this?"
In response to Reply # 23


  

          

>there has been adequate testing and the benefits outweigh
>the risks; the science is quite stable.

What are the perceived benefits and the risks?

There is no way to tell how stable this science is over this short span of time. We need to consider the long-term effects (i.e., 10, 20, 30, 40 and more years down)of this technology. Just because you eat GMO-based foods today and you don't die tomorrow, doesn't mean that they aren't dangerous and harmful. That is silly and short-sighted thinking.

Time will ultimately tell us how stable this so-called science is.


<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 12:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
38. "on my "shortsighted silliness""
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

>What are the perceived benefits and the risks?

haha, nice wording on that question - what are the perceived risks and the benefits? ive outlined the real risks in another response to this thread (#25). the risks you have argued are "perceived" - the benefits - increased food production, better food quality, and less chemical pesticide/herbicide use are real.


>There is no way to tell how stable this science is over this
>short span of time. We need to consider the long-term
>effects (i.e., 10, 20, 30, 40 and more years down)of this
>technology. Just because you eat GMO-based foods today and
>you don't die tomorrow, doesn't mean that they aren't
>dangerous and harmful. That is silly and short-sighted
>thinking.

i would really like to know what exactly do you think will happen in the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years? what are your "perceived" risks? nothing is going to happen over time if you continue to eat GMOs, its not going to build up in your system and make you explode - this is another unfounded fear and that is just as silly as my "shortsightedness." understand, these foods are already on the market (and they taste delicious, by the way).

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
CaptainRook
Charter member
4936 posts
Sat May-08-04 05:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "maybe not"
In response to Reply # 38


  

          

"God Complex" may be a better wording for it.

>i would really like to know what exactly do you think will
>happen in the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years?

I don't know and neither do you; but I know that this GMO shit ain't natural. Not only is it unnatural, it's freakishly unnatural.

what are your
>"perceived" risks?

Who knows? Long-term consumption of pork causes clogged arteries and high-blood pressure, which often leads to heart disease and heart attacks. This is an undisputed fact. GMO's are brand spankin' new and they're not natural; what it took to bring them into existence is akin to Frankenstein science. When you let this kinda shit get out into the public for mass consumption, one can only imagine what may happen.

nothing is going to happen over time if
>you continue to eat GMOs,

How do you know? If you know this, tell me what the lottery number is gonna be next time the numbers role.

its not going to build up in your
>system and make you explode -

No one said anything about explosions. One thing is certain: the consumption of these very unnaturally created "foods" will have some affect. Exactly what the affect is, I don't know, but it can't be a positive affect. GMO's can not be superior to the food that God created. I don't care how much time these spiritually warpped scientists spend in their laboratories, they can not out do the quality and value of God created food. Point blank and Period.

this is another unfounded fear
>and that is just as silly as my "shortsightedness."

Nothing is as silly or is as predictable as your type of shortsightedness. It's the same shortsightedness that convinced women a generation or two ago that some man-made formula from a can was better than their God made milk from their very own breast.

It's the same shortsightedness, that has made intimidated most parents (as you speak of fear) in to believing that their children must receive poisnous toxin-filled shots, directly into their blood stream in order for them to be "immunized" (i.e., posioned into good health).

It's the same shortsightedness that has made America believe that "Milk, it does a body good"; eventhough, that commercial was so misleading that it could damn near be considered false advertisement and they had to stop running it. But despite its not being run in the past 5 years or so, people still believe that "milk does a body good"

It goes on, and on and on like E. Badu.

>understand, these foods are already on the market (and they
>taste delicious, by the way).

Yes, they are on the market, which makes the grocery store a dangerous place and what the hell does taste have to do with health. That's the issue here, health, not taste. This is the foolish thinking that leads to most degenerative diseases, i.e., people eating according to their taste buds, instead of what is actually healthy for them. If this is your thinking, I can now understand your foundation. Shaky, very shaky.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 06:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
43. "no..."
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

no and no, like i said, we'll agree to disagree.

(and that "tasty" comment was my weak attempt at being facetious. even though they are tasty i am basing my arguement on all the points i have addressed in the various responses to this post.)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
CaptainRook
Charter member
4936 posts
Sat May-08-04 08:54 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "I'm disappointed,"
In response to Reply # 43


  

          

I thought that you were gonna give me the lottery numbers for the next big roll of the numbers. Holding out on me apparently.

>no and no, like i said, we'll agree to disagree.

If that's what you want to call it, Mr. Advocate of the "God Complex", in the name of "progress".

>
>(and that "tasty" comment was my weak attempt at being
>facetious.

And weak it was, very weak; like the rest of your argument in support of GMO's.

even though they are tasty i am basing my
>arguement on all the points i have addressed in the various
>responses to this post.)

If you think that Frankenstein food is tasty (since that is what you're into, i.e. taste, and not health), I suggest you try some food grown organically. Now that's some good eats right there. Food with it's proper genetic structure in tact, and raised without chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and other man-made poisons. This food is the closest thing to Completely Divine food that we can get in the States. Not only does it "taste good"; it is also healthy and good for you (not just good to you).

By the way, I checked for post #25, and I believe that your concerns regarding GMO's are limited because your overall perception on how unnatural and dangerous GMO's are, is limited.

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
centurySamIam
Member since Apr 02nd 2003
2857 posts
Tue May-11-04 12:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
51. "RE: I'm disappointed,"
In response to Reply # 45


  

          


>If you think that Frankenstein food is tasty (since that is
>what you're into, i.e. taste, and not health), I suggest you
>try some food grown organically. Now that's some good eats
>right there. Food with it's proper genetic structure in
>tact, and raised without chemicals, pesticides, herbicides,
>and other man-made poisons. This food is the closest thing
>to Completely Divine food that we can get in the States.
>Not only does it "taste good"; it is also healthy and good
>for you (not just good to you).

I'm in your corner, but "organic" foods can be pretty misleading. "Organic" fertilizers include human sewage, which includes every antihistamine, birth control pill, painkiller, etc.

I worked at an organic veggie spot for about a year, and I usually buy organic at the supermarket. It's just that a lot of stuff gets away with being labelled "organic" under questionable circumstances.
------------------------------

Cigarettes and black coffee
Long as I got a lung and a knot
You can't stop me

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
CaptainRook
Charter member
4936 posts
Thu May-13-04 05:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "Just curious,"
In response to Reply # 51


  

          

>I'm in your corner, but "organic" foods can be pretty
>misleading. "Organic" fertilizers include human sewage,
>which includes every antihistamine, birth control pill,
>painkiller, etc.

I'm just curious about where you got this from. Below is a link on "Organic Matter Recycling Regulations" and it speaks against the practice that you described above.

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/W/WasteMgmt/18_2002.htm

Most specifically, I'm referring to the part in the link where it states the following:

"agricultural waste" means agricultural waste that is subject to the Code made under the Agricultural Waste Control Regulation, B.C. Reg. 131/92, but does not include

(a) human or animal food waste that is diverted from residential, commercial or institutional sources,

(b) waste materials derived from non-agricultural operations, or

(c) wood waste derived from land clearing, construction or demolition;

I believe that part (a) explicitly speaks against what you have stated is a common practice.

Now don't get me wrong; I am not so naive to believe that everything these bureaucratic entities states is the way that it is. But at the same time I want to know what your basis is for making such claims.

Do you have a link, an article, a book, or a report that speaks to this? If so, please share.

>I worked at an organic veggie spot for about a year, and I
>usually buy organic at the supermarket. It's just that a
>lot of stuff gets away with being labelled "organic" under
>questionable circumstances.

What is your source for this? I know that there has been a vicious fight to keep the integrity of the label "organic". Like I said before, I'm not so naive that I believe that everything that they claim is 100% organic (or anything else, for that matter) is actually 100% organic. But to what extent has the majority of "organic" produce been compromised, and what source gives the guidelines for the compromised produce? I'm just curious


>------------------------------
>
>Cigarettes and black coffee
>Long as I got a lung and a knot
>You can't stop me

<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 06:37 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
25. "there is nothing wrong with GM crops"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

there are plenty of horror stories because quite frankly, science scares people. there are only two legitimate problems i have with this technology.

1)labeling - GM foods should be labeled (i think they have to be in europe but such legislation has not been addressed in the US). if you place a peanut gene in a tomato someone with an allergy to peanuts might eat the food and die. but other than specific food/gene allergies GM foods have been proven to be PERFECTLY SAFE.

2)gene drift - runaway genes in the environment could result in the destruction of biodiversity and cause hybrid "superweeds" - on the flipside its probably no different than the natural destruction in biodiversity caused by humans and human activity (how many animal species have been driven to extinction since we've been around?)

GM technology is not "new" or "unstable" - the science is well established and before any of you accuse me of being on some bullshit i'll throw the fact out there that i am majoring genetics and have done quite a bit of genetic research and i know my side of the arguement pretty damn well.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
brainsoup
Member since Mar 20th 2004
1112 posts
Sat May-08-04 06:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IMClick to send message via ICQ
27. "RE: there is nothing wrong with GM crops"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

ok i hv a question for u. is it true that GM pharm dna can leach into the environment .And cause food crops to produce small but potentially harmful quantities of toxins.And once released it is virtually impossible to halt the spread of genetic material.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 07:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
28. "answers"
In response to Reply # 27


  

          

nearly any plant that is wind pollinated can release its genes into the environment. the toxin-mechanisms introduced into food plants are only toxic to a specific plant pest (for instance, BtCorn produces a substance that will kill the corn borer pest - such a toxin would only be harmful to the pest you are trying to kill and not to humans). and yes, once released it is nearly impossible to stop the spread of the genetic material if the plant is wind-pollinated.

if there are any other questions/horror stories i can clarify about this issue dont hesitate to ask me.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
CaptainRook
Charter member
4936 posts
Sat May-08-04 10:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "I hope that you are available 20-30 years"
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

>if there are any other questions/horror stories i can
>clarify about this issue dont hesitate to ask me.

from now, when the true and real horror stories will begin to emerge. Just because no real or noticable damage has occurred to date (or at least hasn't occurred in massive numbers) doesn't mean that it is safe for us to consume over generations or even over a lifetime.


<<<<"Nothings more attractive than a heavy praying woman" © Andre 3000

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 12:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
39. "i will be"
In response to Reply # 36


  

          

and im here now - ask away. there isnt a popular genetics horror story out there that i cant shed a little light on.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
brainsoup
Member since Mar 20th 2004
1112 posts
Sat May-08-04 12:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IMClick to send message via ICQ
37. "RE: answers"
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

yeah,but what i am saying is that GM pharm crops are used to produce drugs and industrial chemicals,right.Whats to stop the dna that produces those drugs and chemicals escaping and thus those drugs and chemicals entering the food chain?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 12:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
40. "answers II"
In response to Reply # 37


  

          

>yeah,but what i am saying is that GM pharm crops are used to
>produce drugs and industrial chemicals,right.Whats to stop
>the dna that produces those drugs and chemicals escaping and
>thus those drugs and chemicals entering the food chain?

natural selection gets rid of "unneccessary" traits.

GM plants are being used to produce pharmaceutical things like vitamins (golden rice) and vaccines. GM animals are generally the ones used to produce drugs and industrial useful proteins. like i said, nothing besides buffer area can really prevent a gene from running away if you are dealing with a wind-pollinated plant. however, native species would rather pick up a gene that makes them herbicide resistant than a gene which makes them produce a pharm. substance that they dont need. it takes away from the plant's resources to make the pharm. agents and if there is no benefit to the plant natural selection will weed the useless genes out. i hope that's a clear enough description of the situation.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
brainsoup
Member since Mar 20th 2004
1112 posts
Sat May-08-04 12:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IMClick to send message via ICQ
41. "thankyou.."
In response to Reply # 40


  

          

i remain thoroughly unconvinced.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
chienyenwa
Member since May 20th 2002
957 posts
Sat May-08-04 06:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
44. "you're quite welcome"
In response to Reply # 41


  

          

>i remain thoroughly unconvinced.

"what more can i say?" (c) Jay-Z

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

tohunga
Charter member
32612 posts
Sat May-08-04 09:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "about the only time i don't trust scientists"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

is when they're being bankrolled by int'l corporations..

and my main issue with GM crops is that, even if you are a full-time geneticist, you still can't tell us conclusively that these changes will NOT have any ill side effects. You can try, but I know you'll never be 100% certain.

and i just don't trust people enough to let them try their hands at evolution/gene splicing and then releasing it into our environment....

the bottom line is, we don't know what could go wrong. For this reason alone, we need to sit on this technology.

(and that "feeding all the hungry people" argument is pretty redundant; as the Guardian article pointed out, we already have enough food in the world to feed everyone. the problems are with economic systems + greed of Western countries, not the lack of food...)

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
40thStreetBlack
Charter member
26647 posts
Mon May-10-04 11:01 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "excellent point"
In response to Reply # 46
Mon May-10-04 11:05 AM

  

          

>(and that "feeding all the hungry people" argument is pretty
>redundant; as the Guardian article pointed out, we already
>have enough food in the world to feed everyone. the
>problems are with economic systems + greed of Western
>countries, not the lack of food...)

And that shit with the GM crops being designed to not produce viable seeds so the farmers have to keep re-buying seed from the company every year, doesn't exactly strike me as designed for the humanitarian purpose of feeding the starving masses.

--------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything
as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or
buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought,
or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You
know, as a career, I don't want to do that." - Lloyd Dobler


<----- Long Live The King

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

_CanCan_
Charter member
posts
Mon May-10-04 03:07 PM

49. "using this post to look at my avatar image"
In response to Reply # 0


          

.... carry on

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #1456 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com