Selfsufficientish.com

It seems I may be the first person from the US to respond. We are really p----- off about GM crops here. Let me explain.
First, MKG, by your 'DNA is DNA is DNA' reasoning there is absolutely no difference between scorpion venom and your own saliva. Which would you rather rub into a wound? Oh, those mean little devils. Not trying to be mean, just keep that in mind.

As a want-to-be organic gardener, I can't be, not because of chemicals, but the bees. I am surrounded by large commercial farmers on all sides. Four in fact. I have spoken to three of them. They would love to be able to save their own seed like their grandfathers did. Unfortunately, they all signed contracts with Monsanto several years ago. They were all going to grow Round-up ready corn that was supposed to save them money. The corn, a grass, is resistant to round-up. So they could just spray like crazy. And they do, becase the weeds are growing resistant to the ever increasing arsenal of herbicides and the trade off was a corn that can't compete on its own. Nice short term solution, but .....?

Ok. So the farmers have contracts they don't want. Even if they don't renew, Monsanto can genotype their future crops and sue them if they find any of 'their' genes in the crop. They would lose their farms. They wouldn't be the first. They are trapped. Any stray grain that sprouts, cross polination from say, MY tainted seeds that I saved, and these farmers are ruined.

Thing is Monsanto could sue me too. Not because I saved 'their' seed, but because the bees don't wear little shock collars to stop them from coming into MY garden.

Granted GM is resistant even to animals. They actually avoid eating it. In labs when they are forced to eat it exclusively, they die. Do you really have any doubts about 'potential toxicity'? That is potential toxicity to HUMANS, because they don't lock us in labs and force us to eat it. In fact, GM corn is not even a food crop. It is used to produce mostly high fructose corn syrup and non-nutritive fillers, which I guess is technically a food, but it is also used in manufacturing and animal feeds. Bottom line, it can't be consumed without a science lab to alter it into a useable state. Incidentally, animals fed GM crops require significantly more food stuffs because they can barely digest the trash.

Shall I begin to tell you about GM soy? What about canola? Or maybe wheat?

I'm sorry I feel my blood pressure rising.

There is so much more to GM crops than you can realize. It is NOT the same as hybridization or gene sharing. Hybridization is nature in action, evolution if you want, GM introduces genes that would never be in plants they are iserted into, and with good reason. Think about it, if a tomatoe can last 12 years, can you even digest it?

And for anyone thinking it can't really be that bad or our very own beloved USDA and FDA would put a stop to it, well, check out the board of directors at Monsanto. They bounce back and forth between the USDA, the FDA, and Monsanto. Monsanto runs the regulatory agents that are meant to police its activities.

One last thing to consider, would you want say, cheetah DNA inserted into your child to make him run faster? What does that really do? Because we really don't understand genes. There are genes that 5 years ago we thought were exclusive to one part of a plants physiology that we now know have multiple impacts because they act in concert with other genes. When new genes are introduced to a plant all kinds of things happen that the researchers for these companies don't tell you about, and have no obligation to tell you. They only release the plants that behaved properly, without any idea what it may do if some unforseen polination or stress should take place.

I don't know any one in this area, a farming community, who knows anything about GM crops and loves them. I do know at least a dozen farmers who feel like they are enslaved to Monsanto. I know little old ladies who don't understand why the seed they have been saving for decades is suddenly producing food that tastes horrible and doesn't produce as well. I know people that don't understand why it takes twice the feed outlay to over winter the animals. And I know people that are terrified to take a stand because they know our government is not 'ours' anymore. And That my European, Australian, New Zealander, and wherever else you all may be friends is the very essence of being an American. Control of our own destiny. Strangely, I think everyone of this site would probably share that imperative. Take control now before Monsanto does. And remember, Monsanto is only one of many.

Good Luck. Very sincerly.

Hi Sortanormalish ...

Now, I'm not I'm not any way being insulting or condescending, but you have illustrated exactly the point I was making - all of the arguments you make are either emotive or based upon what COMMERCIAL concerns have done with GM. If you go back a few posts, you'll find I said that I'm not against GM in PRINCIPLE. I'm certainly against the irresponsible harnessing of any technology for profit to the detriment of any part of this world.

Let's see...

"First, MKG, by your 'DNA is DNA is DNA' reasoning there is absolutely no difference between scorpion venom and your own saliva".

Sorry, but that's called a "crafty conflation". You have taken two totally dissimilar things and attempted to make them appear similar.

Then there's "large commercial farmers", "signed contracts with Monsanto several years ago", "spray like crazy" ... none of which has anything to do with the fact that it's all about a GM crop - just a crop undergoing intense commercial pressure backed by the huge wallop of an irresponsible multinational company.

"... the weeds are growing resistant to the ever increasing arsenal of herbicides". This may well be true - but what has it to do with GM?

"... GM is resistant even to animals. They actually avoid eating it. In labs when they are forced to eat it exclusively, they die. Do you really have any doubts about 'potential toxicity'?" I've never seen any research results suggesting any such thing. I'm not doubting your word, but a reference to the source of this information would help. And, I'm willing to bet, if there is any such research, it will be limited to one GM strain rather than the whole of GM. You see what I mean? Sweeping statements serve only to give the GM lobby ammunition with which to attack.

"Hybridization is nature in action, evolution if you want, GM introduces genes that would never be in plants they are iserted into, and with good reason. Think about it, if a tomatoe can last 12 years, can you even digest it?" Two for the price of one. There are some pretty definitive statements there, like "never" and "good reason". Never? Not even considering the fact that ALL life on this planet arose from the same genetic source? This is the basis of my "DNA is DNA is DNA" statement. And if there IS a good reason for certain DNA never to find itself in another organism, exactly what is it? Oh, and we DO eat and digest stuff which has been preserved in one way or another for years - think about it.

"... check out the board of directors at Monsanto. They bounce back and forth between the USDA, the FDA, and Monsanto. Monsanto runs the regulatory agents that are meant to police its activities". Indeed - but, once again, this is a commercial activity, not a GM one.

I could go on (and often do ). I've said it before, but here we go again. I am certain that if companies like Monsanto are allowed to carry on with their activities, there will be ecological disasters of small or large scale. They should be stopped. However, genetic reseach is an ongoing and potentially useful technology (and we understand more than you may think - mapping the entire human genome was no mean feat) IF USED RESPONSIBLY. It would be, potentially, disastrous for the human race to turn its back on something which could well turn out to be its saviour.

To sum up, I am in complete agreement with your sentiments. People like the spin doctors employed by such companies as Monsanto, on the other hand, make daily mincemeat out of emotive and unsubstantiated arguments. Slowly and surely, this means that they are eroding the resistance to THEIR vision of GM, thus allowing them to carry on creating their monster. The only way to stop them is by the use of reasoned argument backed up by sound research. Nothing else has a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding.

Mike

MKG wrote:I am certain that if companies like Monsanto are allowed to carry on with their activities, there will be ecological disasters of small or large scale. They should be stopped. However, genetic reseach is an ongoing and potentially useful technology (and we understand more than you may think - mapping the entire human genome was no mean feat) IF USED RESPONSIBLY.

The main problem with that argument Mike, is who gets to decide what is responsible use? I'm sure Monsanto would argue, while laughing behind their hands, that they are using the technology responsibly. I'm sure the US departments who sanction use of these argue its responsible use, all the way to the bank.

Who decides? Those in power, those with vested interests, those who would exercise some caution or those who advocate a total ban. I know who I would choose but I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum to those who do make the decisions.

I also would argue, but I think it's probably a whole other topic, that there is no use in genetic research whatsoever - for any purpose.

MKG wrote:we understand more than you may think

Having worked in the evolutionary biology dept. of a local Uni, I'd say sure, we do know and understand a lot about genetics, but there really is still a lot that isn't fully understood yet.

MKG wrote:The only way to stop them is by the use of reasoned argument backed up by sound research.

I agree, but I wish independent researchers could do some of that sound research before these crops are given the go ahead. That's not using the technology responsibly, that's why I have problems with it. I agree with Green Aura there (although I do think that no research whatsoever is throwing the baby out with the bathwater).

Also, it was mentioned a little while back that the technology is needed to feed the third world. I think the argument about feeding the third world with this technology doesn't make sense. For a start, they'd have a better chance if they weren't using their land and water for growing flowers and out of season veg for us. Even if you came up with a super GM crop that could grow with next to no water, what's the point of growing enought to feed a population that has no water? Dwindling water is a bigger problem than dwindling food supplies, it's going to get worse and it's not an easy problem to fix.

OK, so now I'm going to take this a step further.

If we have to resort to extreme science like GM to feed the starving millions, then surely the world is over populated?

If there weren't so many humans on the planet we could feed them all using the resources we already have.

Zoe

Absolutely spot on, Zoe!!!!!!

But what do we do about it?

Mike

Thomzo wrote:OK, so now I'm going to take this a step further.

If we have to resort to extreme science like GM to feed the starving millions, then surely the world is over populated?

If there weren't so many humans on the planet we could feed them all using the resources we already have.

Zoe

The feed starving millions angle is just the latest ploy to convince us all that GMOs are the answer. It's a combination of increasing population, decreasing rainfall and soil fertility and a surge in food prices which has left Africa so vulnerable to famine. Forcing impoverished farmers to buy expensive seeds and herbicides each year (not saving seed from the year before) rather than teaching them about small-scale organic farming techniques is not the answer.

In 2008 a UN Environment Programme looked at 114 projects in 24 African countries and found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. That increase in yield jumped to 128 per cent in east Africa.

The report revealed that not only did organic practices outperform traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming, it also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought.

MKG wrote:Absolutely spot on, Zoe!!!!!!

But what do we do about it?

Mike

I fear that plagues happen. The latest plague I can think of is HIV/AIDS. Something else will come along.

MKG wrote:Absolutely spot on, Zoe!!!!!!

But what do we do about it?

Mike

Sterilise people at birth and on reaching adulthood they can apply for a license to breed?

southeast-isher wrote:

MKG wrote:Absolutely spot on, Zoe!!!!!!

But what do we do about it?

Mike

Sterilise people at birth and on reaching adulthood they can apply for a license to breed?

No need to worry. GM crops are bred to be sterile so that the seeds can't be saved and farmers have to buy new seeds each year. Where do you think they get the necessary genes from? Within 2 generations mankind will be completely sterile from eating GM corn and the planet will be saved

Zoe

A lot of my views on GM were formed by this story which I first read 5 - 6 years ago.

" Monsanto has developed a canola seed completely immune to Roundup. That means a farmer can spray the herbicide over a planted field, kill all the weeds growing there, but not hurt the crop -- as long as it comes from Monsanto's seed." (canola = rapeseed

"For 40 years, Percy Schmeiser has grown canola on his farm near Bruno, Sask., about 80 km east of Saskatoon, usually sowing each crop of the oil-rich plants with seeds saved from the previous harvest. And he has never, says Schmeiser, purchased seed from the St. Louis, Mo.-based agricultural and biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. Even so, he says that more than 320 hectares of his land is now "contaminated" by Monsanto's herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready canola, a man made variety produced by a controversial process known as genetic engineering. And, like hundreds of other North American farmer, Schmeiser has felt the sting of Monsanto's long legal arm: last August the company took the 68-year-old farmer to court, claiming he illegally planted the firm's canola without paying a $37-per-hectare fee for the privilege. Unlike scores of similarly accused North American farhttp://www.percyschmeiser.com/mers who have reached out-of-court settlements with Monsanto, Schmeiser fought back. He claims Monsanto investigators trespassed on his land -- and that company seed could easily have blown on to his soil from passing canola-laden trucks. "I never put those plants on my land," says Schmeiser. "The question is, where do Monsanto's rights end and mine begin?"

Of course this means rapeseed could become a 'super weed' - the mrsa of the countryside indestructable as even roundup wont kill it!

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Heartbr ... 1jul02.htm
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

southeast-isher wrote:

MKG wrote:Absolutely spot on, Zoe!!!!!!

But what do we do about it?

Mike

Sterilise people at birth and on reaching adulthood they can apply for a license to breed?

we already are slowly 'sterilizing' ourselves. leaving motherhood to late, bad diet, chemical laden food not to mention the chemicals we whack into our homes and on our clothes on a day to day basis. it all has an impact on our fertility

the whole reason for me shifting from a 'typical' lifestyle to an eco one was the repeated miscarriages i had ( i was a healthy weight not medical problems and only 20)
since switching all those usual cleaners, food and drink for natural stuff ive been much better and have a 2 year old.

I've been out of pocket for awhile, glad to see the discussion still going.

MKG, I am a bio-statistician by trade. My bread and butter is agricultural, but I have also worked in pharmacutical and food safety. If you are eating anything that has been preserved for 12 years please stop immediately! My arguments are not emotive they are 'professional anger' brought on by the manipulation of the court system Monsanto is engaged in. If you want details, I will give them to you, but know this, I and any other researchers that dare speak out are risking a great deal. I can assure you that the current GM crops were not properly researched before they went to open market and subsequent research is tied up in court battles. Why silence the results if they strengthen the argument in favor of GMO's? I understand if you don't want to take my word for it, that is proof of analytical reasoning on your part and I suggest you keep up the good thinking.

Zoe, what you are referring to is the Terminator Gene. Basically a manipulation of the gene that allows seeds to germinate. Because GM crops DO CROSS POLINATE, the US government (finally acting in our best interest) forced Monsanto and another GMO manufacturer to keep it in the lab. It is my understanding that Canada has a similiar ruling. The gov had to use the Domestic Terror Act to stop them. the government agreed with us researchers that it was the equivalent of a bio-terrorism act. The Terminator Gene was an attempt by the manufacturer to control accidental pollination because they knew they wouldn't get away with cases like the Schmeiser case much longer. After all, corn is wind pollinated and bees don't wear little shock collars to keep them in the appropriate field.

Incidentally, there is some on going research suggesting that GM crops do in fact have an adverse affect on bee populations. I am watching the outcome very closely, there are a few factors that have to be researched, but they haven't had this sort of affect on bees before GMO's. Additionally, there may be genetic weakness in the bees, after all they are bred like show horses. And changing weather patterns?

Interesting point about fertility crowsashes, to support your hypothesis you need only look to the countries too poor to dump chemicals on their food an crap in their drinking water (do you know what it takes to return the water to a 'drinkable' state?). Their populations are exploding!

I still think the solution to hunger in these places is responsible agriculture rather than growing prize winning roses.

i often think about what is in our water supply, traces of contraceptives, antidepressants, how many tons of bleach get washed down to clean a loo, im sure that drugs ( cocaine, heroin etc) can also pass in to the water system. urine is routinely tested for drugs.

im not sure what percentage is returned in 'clean' drinking water but then you have to add in the chlorine, flouride, heavy metals etc on top of this.

i agree their populations are exploding the birth rate in Britan has gone up, but thats down to immigration from poorer eu states.

My question about the water wasn't rhetorical. Does anyone know what they have to do to water to clean it up after a trip through the sewer? I know they use a frightening amount of chlorine. It only makes sense that if they can test urine for drugs of all sorts then they either have to remove the drugs at water treatment or just leave them there. In that case, wouldn't the drugs become concentrated? Drugs do decay, but at what rate in a sewer?