Who do they think they are! GM crops wikileak

[Nomada]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... u-gm-crops

Have you seen this!?! Just shows who exactly holds the power in the US.

[okra]

No surprise there

First, there was President Obama’s appointment of former Monsanto goon Michael Taylor as Food Safety Czar and ‘biotech governor of the year’ Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture. Then he made Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui, the US Ag Trade Representative. Now, the real food movement has completely lost its appetite with Obama’s nomination of Monsanto defender, Elena Kagan, to the US Supreme Court.

[contadina]

I had to cover a big biotech conference a few years back where President Bush seriously went off on one; damning Europe as anti-science. US agrochemical companies, with political backing, are relentless in their drive to push GMO on us all. Let's hope the WikiLeaks confirmation of what many of us suspected will help Europe stand up to them again.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Let's hope the WikiLeaks confirmation of what many of us suspected will help Europe stand up to them again.

It is to be devoutly hoped! The GMO bubble does appear to be a bit deflated as people realise that it doesn't really deliver greater yields, better health, ends world hunger, etc, etc. The game was always about widely establishing these crops to the exclusion of non-GM varities before anyone noticed that what was being claimed for them was complete rot.

[Green Aura]

Let's hope the WikiLeaks confirmation of what many of us suspected will help Europe stand up to them again.

And so say all of us!

Apparently Nestle are part of this - and they have such a good track record on healthy products don't they

[greenorelse]

I am 120% against GMOs.

Just to say I'm not biased, can anyone point me in the direction of a properly peer-reviewed assessment of a single GMO success? ie, one that has delivered a benefit other than monetary profit, one which didn't cause health problems?

[Green Aura]

Er, no!

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Just to say I'm not biased, can anyone point me in the direction of a properly peer-reviewed assessment of a single GMO success? ie, one that has delivered a benefit other than monetary profit, one which didn't cause health problems?

Nothing I've come across so far has not had some kind of downside attached. There was that rice that produced vitamin A that "could save a million children per year" but that was quickly exploded as a sort of GM Trojen horse, using an emotive issue to get GMOs widely accepted when alternatives (the cultivation of fruits such as apricots, veg such as sweet potato or - in an emergency - vitamin A suppliments) were easily and cheaply available.

Given their records, it really is encumbent on the biotech and food industries to prove their honourable intentions, not for us to prove the converse. So far they seem to be failing.

[greenorelse]

Precisely TRRE.

[MKG]

Given their records, it really is encumbent on the biotech and food industries to prove their honourable intentions, not for us to prove the converse. So far they seem to be failing.

And there's the problem, because it isn't no matter what is "proven" to the converse. Any company which spends millions on research showing that they can find no adverse effect is at a distinct advantage against agencies which don't have the equivalent number of millions to spend. They don't have to show "what if" scenarios. It's a well-known fact that a million spent proving what the researcher wanted to prove is worth SOOOOOOOOOO much more than a few thousand spent to provide evidence suggesting they were wrong.

Way of the world.

Mike

[Nomada]

I think the companies that produce these things are totally morally bankrupt from what I've seen and read about them. It's nothing to do with helping people, it's all about controlling food supplies, you've got control of that and you've got everyone by the b**ls

[okra]

I think the companies that produce these things are totally morally bankrupt from what I've seen and read about them. It's nothing to do with helping people, it's all about controlling food supplies, you've got control of that and you've got everyone by the b**ls

Well said Nomanda - sums up what its all about

[oldjerry]

Abso.... bloody... lutely. Your analysis is faultless.

'' Tear them down,Mess them round '' .......Etc etc. Passive outrage is simply not enough.

[gregorach]

I am 120% against GMOs.

Just to say I'm not biased, can anyone point me in the direction of a properly peer-reviewed assessment of a single GMO success? ie, one that has delivered a benefit other than monetary profit, one which didn't cause health problems?

This flood-tolerant rice might be one to watch. Non-commercial, developed by non-profits, breeds true, royalty-free licensing, etc, etc... What's not to like?

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I am 120% against GMOs.

Just to say I'm not biased, can anyone point me in the direction of a properly peer-reviewed assessment of a single GMO success? ie, one that has delivered a benefit other than monetary profit, one which didn't cause health problems?

This flood-tolerant rice might be one to watch. Non-commercial, developed by non-profits, breeds true, royalty-free licensing, etc, etc... What's not to like?

Ah, but I'd say this is a little different.

Techie bit: The flood resistant gene SUB1 comes from rice plants that were known to be good in floods but which were generally low yielding. Attempts to cross into high-yielding varities never succeeded very well until the developement of a technique called marker assisted selection. This allowed individual crosses that included only the gene responsible for the flood tolerance and none of the other genes that supressed yield to be selected from the thousands of crosses made and then propogated to produce enough seed for cultivation.

I suppose apologists for GM might try and spin this, but in my book it looks like a bit of really cute science being used to improve traditional breeding techniques.

I like everything about it