Greenpeace Stops Ship Carrying Contaminated Corn

[demdave]

VERACRUZ, Mexico, Sept. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- This morning, two Greenpeace activists, from Argentina and Mexico, attached themselves to the anchor chain of a ship carrying 40,000 tons of genetically engineered corn destined for the port of Veracruz, the largest port in Mexico. This action reinforces the Mexican government's rights to reject U.S. genetically engineered (GE) corn, put in place yesterday.

"The U.S. dumping of genetically engineered corn in Mexico must stop immediately," says Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace campaigner. "We are dealing with an emergency situation where one of the world's most important staple food crops is at risk due to genetic contamination. Mexico is the biological origin for corn and it needs to be protected."



http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=134-09122003

[molly]

1. I must be missing something - what is wrong with

genetically engineered corn?

[demdave]

2. Strap yourself in........a whirlwind is about to blow if history is any

indicator. That was a loaded question. :)

[JohnyCanuck]

6. Problems with genetic diversity is apparently one problem

With the growth of agri-businesses over the last 50 years, there has been a real concern that many varieties of crops are being lost as the factory farms find it most profitable to concentrate on growing relatively few varieties in order to maximize efficiency and profits.

Unfortunately that could cause problems down the road as farming conditions change over time. For example in the old days if a corn farmer found he was faced with hotter and dryer conditions than before, that farmer would likely find he had a wide selection of different varieties of corn that he could select from to try and find a variety that was more drout resistant than his regular variety. This option to readily change varieties as conditions change could become closed off as different strains and varieties are lost.

From this Greenpeace article, it appears that the growth of GM crops could cause an additional loss of genetic diversity.

Ellstrand (2001) and others (Ellstrand et al. 1999; Linder et al. 1998; Snow et al. 1999, 2001) have written extensively from the perspective of evolutionary biology on the threats that genetically engineered crops may pose to landraces and wild relatives. Some of their general conclusions about genetic contamination include:


If there is no further inflow of contaminating gene, the nature of the trait conferred by that gene will significantly influence whether the gene disappears, remains at low frequencies, or increases in frequency. (Ellstrand 2001; Ellstrand et al. 1999)


Evolutionary theory predicts that a beneficial gene will increase in frequency, as natural selection or farmer selection differentially favors individuals carrying that gene. For example, if the gene codes for insect resistance, such as a Bt gene, we would expect it to confer a benefit and to increase in frequency in the population. This could result in a decrease in frequency of other genotypes and a concomitant loss of genetic diversity. (Ellstrand 2001; Ellstrand et al. 1999)If the gene is neutral in effect, evolutionary theory predicts that the gene will persist at a low frequency. It is a misconception that only beneficial genes will persist in a population. (Ellstrand 2001; Ellstrand et al. 1999)


Even crop genes that reduce the fitness of a crop-weed hybrid have been shown to be maintained in weed populations over time. (Snow et al. 1999; Snow et al. 2001) Many scientists had assumed that transgenes were inherently problematic for a plant and would always eventually be lost. Experimental evidence shows that this is not the case. If a deleterious gene is eventually lost, there is a concomitant loss of genetic diversity as that population carrying the gene will also be lost. Even the eventual loss of a transgene can have a negative impact on the conservation of maize diversity. Transgenes don’t just disappear by themselves – they take the transgenic individuals and the diversity they contain with them.
It is impossible to predict future frequencies of contaminating genes without having identified the source of the contamination and without assurance that gene flow has been halted. If in fact there is no halt to the gene flow, we would expect continuing contamination and potential loss of diversity through swamping. (Linder et al. 1998)Consequences of transgene contamination for wild relatives of maize – the teosintes

Maize under threat

[Maple]

7. The varieties have all been saved

Which is more than what happened when specially bred and hybrid domestic corn took over from the wild stuff.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. Perhaps you can provide a few more details

Re your statement "The varieties have all been saved." I'll grant you it may be true that many different varieties have been saved, but ALL of them?

Because of the continued need of modern breeding programs for new characteristics and genes, crop genetic conservationists concern themselves with preserving wild relatives of crop plants, as well as those local varieties of crops that small-scale agriculturalists grow in the many diverse cropping system habitats found throughout the world. Often these wild relatives and landraces, as local varieties are often called, are found in small populations, making conservation difficult

The effort to collect samples of different varieties of plants including corn, I'd assume, is an ongoing task (See quote above from the Greenpeace article), and I was under the impression it was highly unlikely they could possibly have saved in a seed bank or gene bank every possible variety of wild or domesticated corn. My understanding was that it was quite likely that some unknown variety of corn might be growing right now in an obscure two horse Central American moutain village and yet it could have a beneficial trait such as resistance to a disease or environmental condition that could be needed 25 or 50 years from now to prevent wideapread crop failures (provided it was still around).

Also, I'd be interested in knowing where exactly these varieties you are referring to are saved. Are they in seed banks owned and controlled by governments, multi-national agri-businesses, univerties, combination of all 3? I know that there are some organic farming co-op groups where farmers share heirloom seeds among themselves, but I am assuming that the you'd have to be talking about an operation much larger in scale with proper scientific management etc.

I'll freely admit I'm no biologist or genetecist, but the article I referenced contained material published in what appears to be peer reviewed scientific literature and indicated that some scientists are deffinitly concerned about the impact genetically modified crops might have on the genetic diversity of the world's corn crops.

I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten us what your background in biology/genetics might be so that when you declare that all possible varieties of corn have been saved (implying therefore that there is no need to worry about loss of genetic divesity in corn) we can evaluate how much credence we can give to your assertion when we are faced with two conflicting opinions on the same subject

Edited to add;

Perhaps you could also inform us if your work in any way involves working for businesses, government agencies etc. who are in the business of promoting genetically modified crops. I just think if such were the case, the DUers should know about it to help evaluate your position and decide whether any conflicts of interest could possibly affect your objectivity.

As, I mentioned above, I am not a biologist and I am not involved in agriculture myself. I 'm just an interested layman.

Thanks

[Maple]

17. Or perhaps you could just look it up

It's information all freely available on the web...just not on Greenpeace sites.

On edit: PS they are called heirloom seeds or crops.

[JohnyCanuck]

47. The one making the assertion is responsible for providing evidence

The onus is on you, not me, to provide the evidence to backup your assertions. That is if you expect to have any credibility with an impartial reader.


You have told us that "All" varieties have been saved, yet you still haven't said where the saved varieties are being stored. The only saving of heirloom varieties that I know of is on a more or less informal basis as farmers and organic growers etc. (mainly in the Western developed countries) take it upon themselves to share seeds passed down through family and friends etc. But that is by no means "All" the varieties that currently exist in the world.

The material I read on this topic of genetic diversity stresses how the indigenous, small-scale or peasant farmers all over the world are the ones that have been keeping unknown and obscure strains of crops alive and often a genetecist or crop scientist will find in some isolated hamlet in some godforsaken corner of the world a new strain or variety of a particular crop that no one outside of that particular area even new existed, and its precisely these forms of crops that are threatened, even more than before, with extinction by the Genetically Modified crops. As any biologist or genetecist would tell you, genetic diversity is supremely important to ensure the long term survivability of any organism.

It is quite possible that some variety of corn grown only in some isolated mountain village that no one even knows about yet, could very well have some genetic resistance to disease or an adabtability to poor soil conditions that could be vital to help maintain the survivability of the species when some disaster hits.

reserving genetic diversity is necessary to assuring continued genetic improvements in food crops. In the 1960s, for example, when an epidemic of wheat rust struck the US, genes from a wild wheat found in Turkey provided resistance. Even more strikingly, when virulent plague devastated one-sixth of the US corn crop in 1970, plant breeders found two ancestors of modern corn in Mexico. Once developed, these two varieties of wild corn conveyed resistance to seven of the domestic crop's major diseases. Remarkably, all that could be found of these ancient progenitors were a few stalks on a small plot of land slated for development (54).

Unless the rate of plant genetic loss is halted or slowed substantially, as many as 60,000 plant species roughly 25% of the world's total could be lost by the year 2025, according to the International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (44). Assuring food security in the future may depend partly on finding ways to conserve areas rich in crop plant diversity as well as on expanding collections of germplasm in seed banks and tissue culture facilities

Disappearing Gentic Diversity

Above quotes are from: Population Reports is published by the Population Information Program, Center for Communication Programs, The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 111 Market Place, Suite 310, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4012, USA

If you want to stake the security of our food supply on the belief that the modern system of factory farmed, genetically modified agriculture adequately provides for the safe preservation of the genetic heritage of our crops, you do so, but forgive me if I remain sceptical.

BTW, I noticed you still haven't responded to these question in my previous post.

I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten us what your background in biology/genetics might be so that when you declare that all possible varieties of corn have been saved (implying therefore that there is no need to worry about loss of genetic divesity in corn) we can evaluate how much credence we can give to your assertion when we are faced with two conflicting opinions on the same subject

Edited to add;

Perhaps you could also inform us if your work in any way involves working for businesses, government agencies etc. who are in the business of promoting genetically modified crops. I just think if such were the case, the DUers should know about it to help evaluate your position and decide whether any conflicts of interest could possibly affect your objectivity.

As, I mentioned above, I am not a biologist and I am not involved in agriculture myself. I 'm just an interested layman.

Frankly I don't think you are a scientist yourself, because no one with scientific training would make such an absurd statement that All varieties of corn have been saved especially without even attempting to provide any supporting documentation. However, that is no big deal as I am no scientist myself, but at least I quote scientific and academic material in support of my position which, so far, is more than you have done.

[Maple]

48. I said

look under Heirloom seeds.

Don't be blaming me for your laziness, and willingness to believe hokum.

[JohnyCanuck]

51. 'nuff said

An error in reasoning similar to making an unstated or invalid assumption occurs when a writer employs an unsupported assertiondefense of her central idea. An assertion is a declaration stated positively, but with no support or attempt at proof. When a writer makes an unsupported assertion, a reader has no way knowing whether the point is valid. No matter how well-reasoned the rest of the argument may be, an unsupported assertion casts doubt on its validity.


From the paper "Avoiding Common Errors in Logic and Reasoning

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/writing/writing_center/Handouts/logic&reason.pdf

[DemBones DemBones]

64. Maple will never provide any evidence to support her pro-GM

crops, pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO, pro-globalization views. Or that has been my experience so far. She claims special knowledge of economics but won't say how she got it (training) or uses it (occupation.)

[Mairead]

71. I have a strong feeling, DB, that nothing whatever about

Maple's assertions can be believed. Not sex membership, not national identity, not educational level, not occupation, and not politics. I strongly suspect that they're all rubbish.

[pw]

9. It's not approved for human consumption

Is what's wrong, if it's that stuff that caused repeated food recalls in the US. It's only allowed in certain kinds of animal feed.

So selling it (apparently) for people in Mexico to eat is kinda tacky. It's a little like taking hamburgers or sausage that failed US health inspections and trying to sell them in another country.

[Maple]

18. Yeah it is

Canada and the US have grown GM crops for years, and you eat it every day.

[DeathvadeR]

53. Gee a couple a years worth of consumption???

Sounds like a real long test to me????? Lets bank humanity on a couple of years of tests done by the very same people envolved in creating and benefiting from the stuff.....

[sandnsea]

65. Mexico is a regular cornicopia

Okay, that's not a word. But Mexico has the most diverse varieties of corn in the world. It's the 'birthplace' of corn. Any time there is a disease in corn that scientists need to study, they go to Mexico. Mixing genetically engineered corn into that crop is potentially dangerous to the very future of corn. And it has been found in areas where it is just not supposed to be. If we don't have pure strains of corn, we really can't do any future genetic engineering anyway. And from what I understand, genetically engineered corn leaves no natural seeds. Imagine 50 years and all our food has no natural seed. You have to purchase seed from corporations or not grow crops. If there was some worldwide economic melt down, no way to grow your own food naturally. Genetically modified food may or may not be dangerous to eat, but they sure need to be alot more careful with it.

[peacebuzzard]

70. Simple--GM =Corporate manufactured.

vs. family farms or national production of staple corn. Genetically modified corn directly benefits large corporate conglomerates such as Monsanto. Does anyone here remember when the Taco Bell produced version of the supermarket variety was recalled due to a problem with the corn? I believe that was one of the GM products.:*

[twilight]

3. geez they block it by ship

and they sell it in Safeway by the boat loads! I go to great lengths to avoid this crap and damn right its toxic waste!

:nuke:

[Maple]

4. Since corn

was only half an inch long in it's original state....you've been eating engineered corn all your life.

Yes, even the 'organic' corn.

[TSElliott]

5. I love pickled baby corn.

n/t

[Fish Eye]

10. Selective breeding is

different than transgenic manipultion...no amount of selective breeding can introduce genes found in other species.

Both good and bad can come from this technology..proceed with caution but by all means proceed.

[htuttle]

12. Profit has pushed GM food to the mainstream too fast

It took Stanley Prusiner 10 years of lab work to discover the prion in 1982-84. That's a whole new form of 'something' -- the jury is still out as to whether it's 'life'. But he was concentrating on looking for it (the cause of CJD & BSE), not trying to move a GM food forward to market.

If something as potentially deleterious to human health as the prion could exist in our food supply and not be discovered until '82, why are we already munching on GM corn in almost ALL processed food (corn chips, taco shells, etc...)? Could there be some heretofore unknown effect from transgenic manipulation? We didn't realize how dangerous it was to supplement cattle feed with rendered cattle corpses until the '80's, because we had no idea that such a thing as a prion existed.

I'm a friend of scientific progress in general, but I'm very much against throwing caution to the wind when dealing with the entire planet's food supply.

[Maple]

20. Well feeding meat

to herbivores has zip to do with GM food.

[htuttle]

26. That's not my point

My point is that we didn't even realize that feeding meat to herbivores was a problem until the '80's. And that was only discovered after 10 years of study.

I'm saying that there could well be 'unknown unknowns' when dealing with GM food. The effects have not been well studied for very long, and with each new species we develop, that study should be done again. That isn't happening (certainly not for 10 years it took to discover prions).

Given that risk, is it wise to feed an unsuspecting population this stuff in mass quantities? Tons of GM corn is already eaten by Americans every year -- most don't even realize it. If a previously unknown problem with it is discovered in the future, hundreds of millions of people will have been afflicted by it.

And to cap it all off, the US government is pushing hard through the WTO to prohibit other governments from making laws requiring the labeling of GM food, as it is prohibited in the US. So YOUR government will not be able to make laws requiring the accurate labeling of the ingredients of GM food either. Is that a good thing? Why can't it be listed like the other ingredients? Since when does Monsanto alone get to decide what is good for the world's population?

The whole thing smells of a corrupted process, and the consequences are too high not to proceed with extreme care.

[Maple]

29. It isn't anybody's point

because we've known for centuries that herbivores don't eat meat unless they're starved into it.

It ain't news.

However, this has nothing to do with GM food.

Two different topics.

GM food has been eaten for thousands of years....and we currently have the healthiest, longest lived generation in the planet's history.

[DeathvadeR]

54. GM crops and modified plants are different...

[Eloriel]

56. That's a fully ignorant argument

GM food has been eaten for thousands of years

GM crops are NOT the same as crops grown from hybridized seed or plants.

You don't have the right -- or the power, no matter how hard you try -- to redefine "GM crops" or "GM food" in that way to try to divert attention from the issues.

Eloriel

[newyawker99]

13. Hi Fish Eye!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Maple]

19. No it's not

It all GM's the food.

Along with grafting, AI and other procedures...it's been done for centuries.


Proceed at speed.

[piece sine]

63. wisest comments in the thread

"proceed with caution but by all means proceed. thanks. finally, a true progressive humanist. You folks are too scarce around here!

[mbperrin]

14. Link, please

for this silly assertion!

[Maple]

21. Had you thot of googling

under corn? Origins of?

[mbperrin]

23. Yes, but since you made the statement,

I thought maybe you had that thought. Had you?

[Maple]

24. Apparently you're too lazy

to defend this luddite nonsense.

It's grass...'overdeveloped' grass.

Engineered grass in fact.

http://www.nativetech.org/cornhusk/cornhusk.html

[veganwitch]

25. yes modern corn is "genetically modified"

the same way that one monk back in germany (i cant remember his name) figured out dominant and recessive genes with pea flowers.

however developing corn to have more and more kernels on it by cross pollinating ears that seem to have larger ears is something completely different than growing spidersilk in goats' milk (something that they have already done).

[Maple]

27. And are you being asked

to ear spidersilk? No.

It is something we can develop however...the same as we've done for eons.

[mbperrin]

30. No, actually we're being asked to eat

pesticide.

Don't worry- it hasn't been tested, but the same folks who told us Agent Orange is OK and depleted uranium ammo is good are the ones with this line. And you KNOW they're always right!

[Maple]

32. Don't eat pesticide

eat GM food. That's one of the reasons why it was developed.

Simple solution.

[mbperrin]

34. Pesticide is IN GM food;

I can wash it off others. You eat the stuff.

[Maple]

36. No it's not

Pesticide and GM food are two quite different things.

Go have some nuts and berrries...

Oops...don't read how nuts and berries were developed.

[mbperrin]

39. Yes, it is.

Here: read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/gm_genie/risks_and_benefits/environment.shtml

Gosh! Actual science!

[Maple]

41. Sorry, NOT science

just another ideology site.

Monarch butterflies are fine...this story was debunked long ago.

[mbperrin]

43. Link?

After all, YOU'RE the scientist, right?

Wouldn't want me to take it on faith, would you?

[Maple]

45. Well you want to play

hippie-dippie, so I doubt anything will change that cement your mind is set in, but here:

http://deltafarmpress.com/ar/farming_butterfly_kills_bt/

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=632

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/

Enjoy your lovebeads.

[DeathvadeR]

55. ahh yes pesticides are in GM crops......

One of the man reasons for creating the stuff was to move from spray based pesticides to GM seeds from a company that specialized in pesticideds (Monsanto).

Awhile back mcdonalds was serving GM potatoes cut into french fries that were so high pesticides that the actual potatoes themselves were classified as a pesticide under the FDA. They have since stoped using these Monsanto potatoes.

[treepig]

75. there's plenty of naturally-occurring pesticides in non-GM crops

plants aren't completely helpless - even though they can't move to avoid predation, they don't just sit there waiting to be eaten. instead they fight back by producing their own pesticides:

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1-511.html

furthermore, work by bruces ames' laboratory at the university of california, berekely show that on a molecule by molecule basis, these natural pesticides are every bit as harmful as synthetic pesticides.
believe it or not, gm crops significantly reduce pesticide use, and therefore benefit both the environment and human health

[DemBones DemBones]

67. The monk who discovered the basic principles of inheritance was

Gregor Mendel. It took years before anyone took note of his work and went on with it to understand what we now call genetics, but people had been crossbreeding plants and animals for centuries.

The terms "genetic modification" or "genetic engineering" mean something very different from earlier human tinkering with inheritance. They are used to refer to organisms that have had their genomes altered by direct action, such as splicing in a gene from another species of organism.

[mbperrin]

28. Apparently you're too dumb to read your own source.

"The first ears of maize were only a few inches long and had only eight rows of kernels."


Not exactly 1/2", is it? Thanks for finally doing something!

[Maple]

31. There are dozens of sites on the web

I chose the one I thot you would understand.

You want exactly half an inch...altho the idea it was grass should have told you that much....look for more sites.

Take your ruler

[mbperrin]

33. I asked you to verify your silly statement, and you can't..

that's OK. You're wrong and you want me to prove you're right?

You made the statement.
You provided the source.
They don't match.

You've got a great career on Fox!

[Maple]

35. I just did

You just want to play games.

Ideology and science aren't the same thing

No matter how hard you wish.

[mbperrin]

37. I agree.

Your ideology demands that I just take this stuff 'cause....well, just because.

My scientific frame of mind wants to test it first!

Thanks for finally seeing it my way - you have a faith-based approach, and I want facts!

[Maple]

38. Sorry I don't have an ideology

beyond disliking luddites.

It's been tested scientifically, and you've been eating it for a life time.

And no, that's a cute gimmick, but I have no 'faith' and I believe in the scientific method...and I most certainly do NOT see it your way.

PS...the earth is round btw.

[mbperrin]

40. Sorry, but no agency has the power

to compel tests. Not in this country.

Your ideology is that since no one died instantly, it must be good.

BTW: the earth is actually slightly pear-shaped

[Maple]

42. Agency?

Try scientists.

Testing has gone on for years and years.

All over the world.

I think your brain is slightly pear shaped.

[mbperrin]

44. You DO realize that this entire thread is beside the point, right?

Because the issue is whether or not people want to eat this stuff, for any reason or no reason at all. That's their freedom.

So, you little dictator (or am I just half right?), get off the technical crap, because the issue here is choice for people for any reason they choose.

Bye now. (That was fun, wasn't it?)

[Maple]

46. Yup, cuz you 've been eating it for millennia

and now you're just playing ignorant.

Or are you only playing?

[DeathvadeR]

57. Thank god for reminding me...

Choice!!!!!! or do we? recentely Oregon shot down a measure that would force all food labels to disclose wheather or not they contained GM products. Millions were spent by our very own government and Monsanto with adds and poor actor farmers and tv spots etc... The sheeple voted against labeling them... Very sad day.

Let us not forget that GM foods isn't about saving bugs or animals or feeding the world... It's about control of and over the worlds food distibution and wealth from it.

Once you go GM, You don't go back. Well actually you do go back to the seed producer(Monsanto) to pay for more seeds, cause you can't save last years crops seed with out a lawsuit and you can't ever get back to the old plants you were growing because of uncontrolable cross pollenation of yours and surrounding farms have al ready taken place..

[SuffragetteSal]

77. exactly right

Let us not forget that GM foods isn't about saving bugs or animals or feeding the world... It's about control of and over the worlds food distibution and wealth from it.

I remember a few years ago (how naive I was) thinking I could save my seeds from last years green bean crop. (I have always a been back yard gardener), alas I was taught a lesson - for no more would the seeds be viable because they won't sprout - thanks to them messing with them for 'our benefit'.

Anyway, your above statement says it exactly right...

[BuddhaGirl]

52. curious...do you work perhaps for Monsanto?

[JohnyCanuck]

59. Funny you should ask that, BuddhaGirl

I asked this question twice in two different posts on this thread (see #11 and #47, at the top of the page) but so far maple hasn't bothered to answer. LOL

I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten us what your background in biology/genetics might be so that when you declare that all possible varieties of corn have been saved (implying therefore that there is no need to worry about loss of genetic divesity in corn) we can evaluate how much credence we can give to your assertion when we are faced with two conflicting opinions on the same subject

Edited to add;

Perhaps you could also inform us if your work in any way involves working for businesses, government agencies etc. who are in the business of promoting genetically modified crops. I just think if such were the case, the DUers should know about it to help evaluate your position and decide whether any conflicts of interest could possibly affect your objectivity.

As, I mentioned above, I am not a biologist and I am not involved in agriculture myself. I 'm just an interested layman.

[DemBones DemBones]

68. The Luddites were right, you know. They fought industrialization

because they didn't want their lifestyle (as we would call it today) changed. Industrialization triumphed over the Luddites and nothing has been the same since. If we had continued in the traditional ways, our world would be much different today. You can argue we'd be worse off -- wouldn't have certain things that we like -- but it can also be argued that we wouldn't have certain things that we don't like. But you can't argue that the world hasn't changed, just as the Luddites feared.

[twilight]

49. I am certain that the ships going to Ireland loaded w/corn

Was NOT genetically modified corn, for it was known as "Indian corn" (this was during "The Great Famine"). That blows a large hole into your case I'd say. Ever tried "blue corn" or Hopi corn? Its the real deal. You're missing out if you haven't - has twice the protein of "Kelloggs Corn Flakes" Corn!

:dem:

... some "scientist" indeed ...

another link to think about re: organic farming which you claim doesn't really exist:


http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/facts/01-027.htm#define

[Maple]

50. Well I didn't say anything about Ireland

and Ireland didn't need any shipments of any kind of corn in the 'famine' since tons of food were being shipped out of Ireland at the time.

Indian corn was modified grass in any case.

Try reading the whole thread before you hop in.

PS...'organic' is a polite word meaning 'fertilized with shit.' Really healthy stuff, hmmmm?

[DemBones DemBones]

66. Nothing wrong with shit as fertilizer. It actually HAS been tested

since the dawn of agriculture.

The GM foods you defend so waspishly have not been tested. The biotech companies are letting all of us in the U.S. (and Canada?) be the lab rats to test these in an ongoing experiment. And, like lab rats, no one thought it important to inform us we were test subjects, much less get our consent.

The Europeans and the British -- and even the starving Africans -- have said, "Hell, no! We're not eating THAT shit!" They don't want GM foods, which they call FrankenFoods. Neither do Americans, once they understand what's going on.

[LastDemInIdaho]

8. How will that stop the ship?

What if the bigger ship pulls anchor and sails?

[veganwitch]

15. im glad..

greenpeace is being more "direct action" they seem to have been in the shadows for the last few years.

[LastDemInIdaho]

16. Didn't France sink one of their ships a while back?

What was up with that?

[Kemet]

22. Shamefull

Not one of our finest moment.
It was a terrorist action planned by the secret services, it went bad and someone died.

[david_vincent]

80. GP was protesting French nuclear tests, IIRC

The French were conducting tests in their territories in the South Pacific. Greenpeace was trying to disrupt the tests by entering the off-limits area. The French waited until the GP vessel was in port in New Zealand, then boarded and sunk it. A GP photographer was killed.
BTW, this action is the only reason Dubya even acknowledges France's existence.

[sendero]

58. Nobody will ever convince me...

... there is any legitimate reason NOT to label foods that contain GM products. Then we could kill this god damn "solution looking for a problem" now while the cost is low.

You ask me "what is wrong with GM foods?" And I'll tell you, we don't know, we just don't know. And we're messing with stuff that has implications well beyond our current understanding.

Just like the flouroscopes of the 50s, just because you haven't seen someone keel over does not mean this SHIT is safe for people and the environment. And the meager 'benefits' derived simply do not justify the risks that are being taken.

[reprobate]

60. Hey, guys. Don't argue with Maple. It's mind is made up.

Besides using personal attacks, making unfounded statements, and generally acting like a disruptor, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it's statements that couldn't be fixed by a third grader.

No matter how many posts a person might have, they are still subject to the rules of this board. Just push the alert button and let the moderators do their jobs.

[Emillereid]

61. A report from the Journal Nature sounds the alarm:

Genetically Modified Corn Spreading to Protected Wild Corn







Despite Mexico's 3-year-old moratorium on the use of genetically altered corn, scientists have detected genetically modified DNA in wild maize in the mountains of the state of Oaxaca.



Wayward genes from genetically modified corn that is widely grown in Canada and the United States are spreading in remote mountainous regions of Mexico.



Up to 70% of wild Mexican maize now carries transgenes that could only have come from genetically engineered crops. The transgenes, which scientists borrow from viruses and bacteria, have been engineered into GM crops.






The spread of altered genes in the birthplace of domesticated corn could have "very serious consequences."



Scientists add foreign genes to crops to boost resistance to pests and drought, or in come cases, to make them tolerant to chemicals that can kill weeds. Close to 30 million hectares of GM crops have been grown around the world, much of them in Canada.



Scientists believe it is only a matter of time before many transgenes that have been added to plants spread around the world, incorporating themselves in the DNA of non-GM crops. Potatoes, rice and cotton are sure to be affected.



The prospect is particularly worrisome when one considers some of the crops being engineered in the lab. One U.S. firm is working on corn with anti-spermicidal properties, which might have disastrous consequences if it ever spread to food crops.






The areas of diversification -- the genetic bank account of diversity -- for this crop, corn, is compromised. Oaxaca is the region where corn was domesticated. Even today most of the diversity of corn is found there....

http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/12/gm_corn.htm

An article in today's Mercola newsletter reports on a Nature article sounding the alarm about GMO contamination of maize and provides other information and links to problems with GMO. When are we ever going to realize we evolved and are part of this planet and the natural order of things. I fear we are opening a pandora's box that might well be the end of us all. Remember the warning from Jurassic Park -- no matter how many controls man might think he has in place to thwart nature -- Life always finds a way...

[treepig]

76. why the blatant misrepresentation of the 'Nature' article?

the quotes you give cannot actually be found in the Nature article you cite.

for example, The spread of altered genes in the birthplace of domesticated corn could have "very serious consequences." is not in the nature article.

neither is The prospect is particularly worrisome when one considers some of the crops being engineered in the lab. One U.S. firm is working on corn with anti-spermicidal properties, which might have disastrous consequences if it ever spread to food crops.

in fact, none of your quotes, purported to be in Nature, actually are!! a high level of dishonesty such as this hardly lends confidence to your point-of-view!

on edit, the authors of the Nature paper merely claimed to show (without any value judgements) that gene transfer occurred between the gm corn, and native varieties (and they conveniently neglected to probe the counter effect, specifically, gene transfer from the native varieties to the gm corn).

in any event, the 11 April 2002 issue (page 600) contains the following relevant article

Biodiversity (Communications arising): suspect evidence of transgenic contamination.

Metz M, Futterer J.

Department of Microbiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.

Quist and Chapela claim that transgenic DNA constructs have been introgressed into a traditional maize variety in Mexico, and furthermore suggest that these constructs have been reassorted and introduced into different genomic backgrounds. However, we show here that their evidence for such introgression is based on the artefactual results of a flawed assay; in addition, the authors misinterpret a key reference to explain their results, concluding that reassortment of integrated transgenic DNA occurs during transformation or recombination.


A longer discussion of this issue is given here:

Transgenic Res. 2002 Feb;11(1):iii-v.

No credible scientific evidence is presented to support claims that transgenic DNA was introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico.

Christou P.

Because maize and its progenitor are wind-pollinated
and capable of outcrossing, the eventual introgression
of transgenes from commercial hybrids into landraces
and wild relatives is likely should they be grown in
close proximity. On 14th November 2001, a paper
was published in the journal Nature which claimed for
the first time to present evidence that transgene DNA
had introgressed from commercially-released transgenic
maize varieties into traditional landraces. It is
not surprising that a scientific paper with such a strong
claim in the title would be seized upon by the media
and the public, including those who have been working
with transgenic plants for many years. What is
very surprising, however, is that a manuscript with so
many fundamental flaws was published in a scientific
journal that normally has very stringent criteria for accepting
manuscripts for publication. Members of the
Editorial Board of Transgenic Research, and a number
of other scientists with many decades of experience
in the area of transgenics, have provided comments
that indeed demonstrate that the data presented in the
published article are mere artifacts resulting from poor
experimental design and practices. Consequently, this
editorial focuses strictly on a purely scientific analysis
of the data presented in the manuscript. We will not
address implications or consequences if such an event
had actually happened, as this is beyond the scope
of this analysis. Our conclusion following detailed
analysis of the results presented in this paper is that
no credible scientific evidence is presented in the paper
to support claims made by the authors that gene
flow between transgenic maize and traditional maize
landraces has taken place.

[Emillereid]

85. Sorry to be so late responding --

but if you notice -- I didn't do any quoting. I said the 'quotes' were from a reporton an article in Nature by Joseph Mercola -- in other words Mercola is doing the writing -- he's interpreting the article from Nature.

[treepig]

87. well, ok

but it was a bit misleading how you titled your post

A report from the Journal Nature sounds the alarm:

and then immediately inserted a bunch of text - it sure looked as though you were quoting the journal Nature.

in any event, the next time i see the name "Joseph Mercola" i'll know to discount him because he's a totally unreliable source

[frustrated_lefty]

62. GM foods have NOT been around for thousands of years,

the claim that they have been so is quite simply laughable. Cross pollination and grafting techniques have been around for quite some time, and have been used to benefit. These techniques, however, do NOT introduce genes from entirely different species into plants. This is genetic manipulation by means of selective breeding.

Genetically Modified (which means engineered, in this context) foods, on the other hand, do frequently introduce completely foreign genes from prokaryotic bacteria into eukaryotic plants. It is quite simply impossible to foresee the long-term consequences of GM foods at this point, and it is grossly irresponsible to attempt to force their spread throughout nations around the world. This is unprecedented.

For the record, I AM a scientist, and my specialty is developing mechanisms for gene transfer (gene therapy). GM foods may well be perfectly safe. It’s just too damned soon to tell at this point.

[Mairead]

72. Exactly! It's too damned soon to tell, which means that if we go on

we might well learn the truth only through the alienation and collapse of our food supply.

Doing genetic engineering on the food supply under imperfectly-controlled conditions should be a criminal offence.

[treepig]

74. perhaps you have never heard of "horizontal gene transfer?"

genes have always spread widely across species and even kingdom barriers, see:

http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW3/MG334.html#Facts

"Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes.
Genes can move across species barriers by conjugation.
Symbiotic relationships may play a role in cross kingdom transfers of genes.
The wide transfer of genes that must have occurred naturally weakens the argument that human intervention through genetic engineering is placing genes where they have never been before."

[frustrated_lefty]

78. You raise a valid point.

However, as stated in the reference you cite:

"The results of comparative genome analysis show that IKF (InterKingdom Gene Fusions) formation is a real, but relatively rare, evolutionary phenomenon."

The most recent reference on the topic may be found at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12963817&dopt=Abstract

The article states, in the very first line of the abstract: "Although horizontal gene transfer is well documented in microbial genomes, no case has been reported in higher plants." The article proceeds to describe the first account of such an event.

GM foods are not a rare event occurring within nature, subject to selective pressures and natural selection. Further, the genes being transferred represent an exchange which could not occur naturally.

Genetically modified organisms can, I think, be used to benefit, like the "oil-eating" Pseudomonads. It would, however, be wise to use caution when introducing genetically engineered organisms into the world. The tactics being exhibited by Monsanto and ShrubCo with regard to the introduction of GM foods into the world do not in any way, shape or form even remotely resemble something that might be called caution.

[treepig]

79. ok, i'll grant you the point that horizontal gene transfer is very rare

in plants - that supports my debunking of the mexican-maize-being-contaminated-with-gmo-genes (somewhere above in this thread). on the other hand, i have a paper (on my computer at work) that documents something like 57 trans-kingdom gene transfers - so these events might not be all that rare in nature after all - especially when considering that most such events are likely to not be phenotypically meaningful and would not be selected for and maintained in the host organism. consider that there are something like 1,800,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms of human genes already known (and none of them have made any of today's humans' into a new species!)


however, i differ on your premise that gm crops are not subject to selective pressures and natural selection. first, round-up ready crops are subject to tremendous selective pressures (the application of the herbicide round-up). similarly, bt-resistant cotton is subject to challenge by insects, and when it isn't, the crops tend to lose expression of the bt-toxin (which makes perfect sense because why would a plant want to expend energy to express an unnecessary gene - there are many ways a gene can be 'silenced' such as through siRNA and methylation patterns of the chromosomal DNA).

furthermore, if the genes 'escape' from the intended crop into the larger environment, then such selective pressures will surely come into play. for example, plants that express pesticide-resistant genes in the absence of the 'pest' will have a growth disadvantage and the gene will either be silenced or it will be eliminated from the genepool. so basically, the gene that confers resistance to round-up (for example) will not spread in the absence of the application of this herbicide. alternately, resistant plants will evolve in the presence of round-up (if used widely enough), even without any human genetic intervention - like always, the environment trumps genetics - basically the genome acts as a blank slate for nature to use for her own purposes - any human intervention directly on a genetic level is fated to be transient and insignificant. by contrast, human intervention through indirect means - specifically the modification of the environment has the possibility to have profound genetic consequences.

[frustrated_lefty]

82. Please note,

I am not denying that inter- or trans-kingdom genetic transfers occur. You acknowledge in your post that this is a very rare event (to our knowledge) in plants. You further indicate: “these events might not be all that rare in nature after all.” They might. They might not. We simply do not know. In the absence of substantial evidence, I feel the prudent thing to do would be to exert caution, to not do anything irreversible.

I would point out that your statement: “that there are something like 1,800,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms of human genes already known (and none of them have made any of today's humans' into a new species!)” is misleading. Among those single nucleotide polymorphisms are one to two hundred distinct polymorphisms known to cause adenosine-deaminase deficiency, otherwise known as the “boy in the bubble syndrome.” A single nucleotide substitution can readily result in a lethal immunological deficiency, as you are no doubt aware. Further, we are not talking about nucleotide polymorphisms in plants, we are talking about the introduction of intact, foreign genes from other organisms.

Regarding selective pressures, we’re viewing this from different angles. Yes, you are right, once introduced into the environment, GM plants are subject to selective pressure. My point is that the inter/trans-kingdom gene transfers you refer to are things which presumably arose within the natural world in response to selective pressure. Genetic modification of food plants, on the other hand, establishes gene transfer within the plant BEFORE it is introduced within the environment and exposed to selective pressures.

Is this a bad thing? I don’t know, for certain. I am not a plant biologist, I work with animals, so my knowledge is admittedly limited in this regard.

What I am reminded of is a book by Nancy Kress. In a short segment of the book, ‘genetic police’ describe a strain of grass which has been engineered to make it sturdier, hardier. They then claim that this strain of genetically engineered grass was so prolific, so hearty, that it out competed every other plant within a few hectares of test environment in which it was seeded. Within a few months, every other plant within the test field was dead or dying. Within 6 months, every mammal within the test area was dead as a consequence of the loss of plant diversity within the region. Granted, Kress is an author of fiction, but she strikes me as a person who thinks about the possible consequences of modern molecular biology. I like her writing, it doesn’t draw conclusions or define moral imperatives. They do ask that the reader think critically and ask questions. What could happen? And what have we done to prepare for worst case scenarios?

I don’t see that happening with GM foods and the rabid support GM foods receive from the Bush administration. We’re talking about irreversibly modifying the genetic content of one of the basic food sources on the planet. Surely this is worth a generation’s debate?

As a last word, I disagree with your premise that unnecessary genes are lost within populations when there is no pressure to maintain them. I agree with you to an extent, my disagreement is based in the fact that this is not always the case. A strong counter-example is the presence of human endogenous retroviral sequences within the human genome. Their presence suggests that some genetic changes are irreversible. My position remains that until we know the long-term consequences of irreversibly modifying the genetic content of food sources, we should proceed with caution.

[treepig]

83. i partially agree and partially disagree

i totally agree that gm technology should be used with caution - really stupid things can be done by the unscrupulous - for example earlier in this thread there was some mention of the possibility of prions in gm crops. clearly, it'd be really stupid to express prion proteins in gm food, but i think that's pretty much common sense.

where i disagree is in the following statement of yours:

"Regarding selective pressures, we’re viewing this from different angles. Yes, you are right, once introduced into the environment, GM plants are subject to selective pressure. My point is that the inter/trans-kingdom gene transfers you refer to are things which presumably arose within the natural world in response to selective pressure. Genetic modification of food plants, on the other hand, establishes gene transfer within the plant BEFORE it is introduced within the environment and exposed to selective pressures."

you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic concepts of evolution. genetic change never occurs in response to selective pressure! what actually occurs in nature - whether by horizontal gene transfers, single nucleotide mutations, 'jumping genes' or whatever form of genetic diversity you wish to consider - is that the genetic changes occur FIRST, and then are subsequently subjected to selective pressure. based on results from laboratory 'protein evolution' experiments we can deduce that this process is incredibly inefficient - most (probably > 99.9999%) genetic changes are either phenotypically 'silent' or downright deleterious (as most the 1,800,000 known, disease-related human SNP's are). however, every once in a while a mutation with positive effects occurs - often unexpectedly such as the loss of a key gene (the CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase) that is thought to be responsible for the evolution of humans from chimps (or, more precisely, from a common ancestor with chimps). back on topic, in both nature and genetic engineering, the genetic change always occurs first, and then the selective pressures are evoked later on.

[DemBones DemBones]

69. I find the introduction of GMOs into our food supply very troubling.

Equally worrisome is their potential impact on the environment, including other organisms, the microorganisms in the soil itself, and more. And I am a biologist so I know a little more about genetics than most people do, though the basics aren't difficult, anyway. It seems that everyone in this thread -- except one person -- understands that genetic modification AKA genetic engineering is vastly different from traditional methods of breeding new varieties.


It's important to understand that GM foods have not been properly tested for human (or even non-human) consumption. Read this quote:

" 'Substantial equivalence' is a crude, non-scientific concept. It provided a loophole for the GM biotechnology companies not to carry out nutritional and toxicological animal tests to establish whether the biological effect of the GM crop-based foodstuff is substantially equivalent to that of its non-GM counterpart. It therefore allows them to claim that there is no need for biological testing because the GM crops are similar to their conventional counterpart, while on the other hand, because they contain novel genes from other organism(s), they are patentable."

In simple English, the biotech companies say "We don't need to do any toxiciological or nutritional tests on this corn because it looks like normal corn, smells like normal corn, tastes like normal corn -- it's substantially equivalent to normal corn. . . But we did put in a spare gene or two, so it's patented and you can't grow it without paying us big bucks. You can't save the seed, either. (And if any of our corn gets into your field by accident and starts growing there, we'll sue you for "stealing" it. And we'll win. It's already happened. All your fields belong to us! Bwaahahahahaha.)"

Tell me that makes sense, from either a scientific standpoint or a legal one. "It's the same (so we don't have to test it) but it's different enough (so you have to pay."

[Mairead]

73. "Tell me that makes sense"

Only in our corporatocracy, DB.

We MUST put DK into office!

[DemBones DemBones]

84. As far as I know, Dennis Kucinich is the only one who cares about

this, among those who are vying for the Democratic nomination. I don't even know anyone else in Congress who's concerned about it. I'd like to know who else fights for labeling of GM foods. So many issues, so little time.

I need to post more articles about GMOs. Researching to post at DU could easily become a full-time job.

[david_vincent]

81. The thing about Monsanto is

that they want to control the world's food supply, simple as that. It's clear by their actions that Monsanto not only wants to market GM crops, but prevent by any possible means the continued marketing of rival, non-GM crops. That's why they want to keep the public in the dark about the issue, because they know that, if given a clear choice, many people will reject GM crops and thereby allow the survival of competing, naturally-derived crops. Monsanto, therefore, cannot logically claim to be in favor of a free market; they want a market that's distorted by disinformation, biased regulation, and paternalistic cooing.
Monsanto is also, IMHO, responsible for a huge amount of the disfavor that America has encountered overseas in recent years.

[Oggy]

86. Well you are right in Europe

I'm a Brit, and we've had our fill of food scares, eggs, beef etc. All I want, and just about everyone I know wants, is a choice. So why does the US administration and Monsanto want to force us to take GM (bearing in mind the EU position is one of each individual crop should be looked at independantly, much as in the same way as medicine) with no labelling. I think it because all the big supermarkets have said thanks but no thanks, and no one over here would buy it, therefore no money for them.

By the way Maple, we just want a choice. That choice will be no more major uncontrolled experiments on the environment. Yes, over here in Europe we even are trying to do something about Global Warming.

[treepig]

88. the labelling issue seems like a no-brainer

people should have every right to accurate information on what they're eating to be able to make informed decisions relating to their health.

but there seems to be two distinct issues regarding gm crops. as mentioned above, one is the effects on human health. a separate issue is the effects on the envirnoment. regarding the environment, there is a large irony in the efforts of the ban-the-frankenfoods crowd in that the current use of pesticides is a much larger "uncontrolled experiment on the environment" than the introduction of genetically modified crops. but unfortunately too many seem to have obtained their biology education in kansas and don't realize this fact - which is another delicious irony - the republican's efforts to decimate education are now coming back to bite them in the ass as far as prospects for increased corporate control of agriculture goes.

[treepig]

89. Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?

here's an interesting article in The Atlantic Monthly of possible relevance and/or interest to readers of this thread

"For reasons having more to do with politics than with logic, the modern environmental movement was to a large extent founded on suspicion of markets and artificial substances. Markets exploit the earth; chemicals poison it. Biotech touches both hot buttons. It is being pushed forward by greedy corporations, and it seems to be the very epitome of the unnatural.

Still, I hereby hazard a prediction. In ten years or less, most American environmentalists (European ones are more dogmatic) will regard genetic modification as one of their most powerful tools. In only the past ten years or so, after all, environmentalists have reversed field and embraced market mechanisms—tradable emissions permits and the like—as useful in the fight against pollution. The environmental logic of biotechnology is, if anything, even more compelling. The potential upside of genetic modification is simply too large to ignore—and therefore environmentalists will not ignore it. Biotechnology will transform agriculture, and in doing so will transform American environmentalism."

more at

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/rauch.htm