Have biotech companies downplayed the use of GM crops ?

[peteweaver]

I think a debate about biotech companies would make a nice change from 11th Sept 2001.

In 1996 a consignment of GM maize from the USA came to the attention of the public, and attempts to stop this from getting into our food were made, the public were then told by the biotech industry, stop complaining, you're already eating this stuff.

There's never been any public consultation as to whether we want this stuff or not, there's never been any legislation brought about to legally oblige companies to label food as GM or not, and through cross pollination, the modified Genes can find their way into the wild.

Have biotech companies conspired to keep things as quiet about this?

[WildCat]

I never understood what the big deal was about GM food, or cloned animals for that matter. Looks like baseless fear-mongering to me.

[Anti-sophist]

I never understood what the big deal was about GM food, or cloned animals for that matter. Looks like baseless fear-mongering to me.

I couldn't agree more. Although I'd insert the words "irrational" and "emotional" somewhere right before "fear-mongering".

[DC]

was there longtime studies about GM food ?

[njslim]

Almost every major food crop has been geneticly engineered - corn (maize to you
fureners!) was the result of crossbreeding and selection of native grasses in central
america. Took centuries. Other crops resulted from natural mutations or breedings of
plants. Our ancestors picked out those they liked and propogated them, continuing
to improve desirable characteristics. Modern genetic engineering speeds up the
process by directly inserting genes into target plants.

Conspiracy whack jobs play up fear aspect - breeding "frankenfoods" to come back
against us. Sorta like "ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES"

I know I'm goin to miss her, a tomato ate my sister!

[peteweaver]

Some areas for debate would be the effect the type of pesticides that are being used on both the seeds, and the sprouted crop.

Another issue would be the effect of cross pollination.

And another issue, how our gut enzymes cope with this new diet.

Obviously gm foods are not lethal poisons which instantly kill anyone who eats them, and there's no evidence that they'll cause cancers etc, but this is a completely new science, and the long term effects have yet to be seen.

I'm concerned by the pesticides which are being advocated for use with these plants.

But then again, this technology, in principle, has some good ideas going for it (third world farmers being able to grow crops in difficult environments for example).

[Rob Lister]

wow, it's been a while since we had a GM thread.


Here's a thought! If peanuts were a new GM crop, what might you think the result. LOL

[Rob Lister]

I'm concerned by the pesticides which are being advocated for use with these plants.


or lack thereof...lol again...

[Horatius]

was there longtime studies about GM food ?


Were there long term studies about food produced by mutation breeding? (http://www.plantmutations.com/mutation_breeding.htm)

Why would GM be any worse than that?


ETA: From the above page:

However, with international coordination and some financial assistance by IAEA and FAO from 1964 onwards it could be convincingly demonstrated, that ionizing radiations and also certain chemicals, when handled properly, could induce many useful alterations in the genomes of crop plants. Records maintained by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division in Vienna show, that ca. 2000 crop cultivars with one or more useful traits from induced mutations (mainly from x- and gamma-rays) were released worldwide over a period of 35 years. Included in these records are some outstanding examples of cultivars (e.g. „Diamant“ and „Trumpf“ in barley; „IRAT 13“, „Yuanfengzao“ and „Calrose 76“ in rice; „Lumian 1“ and „NIAB 78“ in cotton; „Pervenets“ in sunflower; „Star Ruby“ in grapefruit), which had a remarkable economic impact (Anonymous 1991; MICKE et al. 1980, 1985; FAO/IAEA Mutation Breeding Newsletters 1972 - 1997). Inspite of the number of induced mutants recognized as valuable crop cultivars and used successfully in cross breeding, of course „new genes“ in the strict sense could not be produced (MICKE 1991). Consequently, one would expect much interest in the question, what kind of molecular alteration in the chromosomal or cytoplasmic DNA, or what kind of structural/numerical alteration in the genome happened in those successful mutant cultivars. However, so far there were not many efforts to bring into accord the destruction caused by mutagens and the good performance of so many induced mutants. The answers to this question should be very relevant for any future investment into mutation breeding and gene engineering, to give a reliable forecast of what can be expected.


Chances are you've been eating something produced this way for all/most of your life.

[DC]

Were there long term studies about food produced by mutation breeding? (http://www.plantmutations.com/mutation_breeding.htm)

Why would GM be any worse than that?


ETA: From the above page:




Chances are you've been eating something produced this way for all/most of your life.

they take direct influence into the genetic information. other than just by testing new crossings. i think the risk could be alot bigger.

[defaultdotxbe]

they take direct influence into the genetic information. other than just by testing new crossings. i think the risk could be alot bigger.
what are the risks? what do you think could happen?

[peteweaver]

What are the risks ? Organic farmers lose their organic status due to cross pollination affecting their crops.

Ok thats quite a minor one.

As for other risks, unknown.

But looking back through history, DDT was introduced as a pesticide without any tests into what its environmental impact would be.

Its quite a controversial issue.

There's a good article about this on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/food_under_the_microscope/278490.stm

AgrEvo: No GM products are allowed into the food chain if there is any likelihood of harm to human health. All such products are, and have been, subjected to stringent regulation at both UK and pan-European levels. This mean that we can have even greater confidence in the safety of GM than non-GM food (non-GM foods are not subject to the same level of scrutiny).
Safety assessments of GM foods are quite different from those that were applied in the case of BSE, which has reduced the public's confidence in the regulatory process. With BSE, the assumption was that the public would not be exposed to the hazard.
With GM foods, it is assumed that the public will ultimately consume it and it is the consequences of exposure to them that are assessed so that these crops are only licensed if they are shown to be safe.

[WildCat]

But looking back through history, DDT was introduced as a pesticide without any tests into what its environmental impact would be.
And we also know what the effects are of not using DDT - millions of unnecessary human deaths in Africa and Asia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1677073.stm). But what's a few million less dark-skinned people in the world compared to the self-righteous satisfaction white people get when they save a few birds? Those people should just die of malaria and their survivors should be happy for all the smug white people who don't have to worry about diseases like malaria.

[Horatius]

they take direct influence into the genetic information. other than just by testing new crossings. i think the risk could be alot bigger.



Did you read the link I supplied? Specifically the section on artificially induced mutations? Those induced by application of X-rays or Gamma rays? That not only have a "direct influence" on the genetic information, but which have a completely random direct influence?

Because that's not your Grandfather's cross breeding, anymore.

[DC]

what are the risks? what do you think could happen?

would be cool we had some lontime studies that showed this.

[DC]

its like those DU munition fans. they always keep claiming that DU is good and not bad for your health..

wsnt there a time when the tabacco industry told us that smoking is not bad for health?

you ppl have so much blind faith, its amazing.

[JimBenArm]

its like those DU munition fans. they always keep claiming that DU is good and not bad for your health..

wsnt there a time when the tabacco industry told us that smoking is not bad for health?

you ppl have so much blind faith, its amazing.
It's like the vaccination fears. We have no evidence it's bad, but we have to find something to hang our irrational fears on, so it wins. So it is with the GM fearmongers. We don't care if it could wipe out famine in our lifetime, because it might do something bad like I saw in the stupid SciFi movie I watched last Tuesday that also didn't understand the science behind it. We'll be overrun by giant mutated snails if we don't stop it now! Oh, and DU and tobacco! Shave the whales, dude!
Is there anything you're not afraid of? I ask because I'm sure that's a shorter list than all the things you are.

[DC]

It's like the vaccination fears. We have no evidence it's bad, but we have to find something to hang our irrational fears on, so it wins. So it is with the GM fearmongers. We don't care if it could wipe out famine in our lifetime, because it might do something bad like I saw in the stupid SciFi movie I watched last Tuesday that also didn't understand the science behind it. We'll be overrun by giant mutated snails if we don't stop it now! Oh, and DU and tobacco! Shave the whales, dude!
Is there anything you're not afraid of? I ask because I'm sure that's a shorter list than all the things you are.

fear?
i know tabacco is very bad for me, and still i smoke.
how long did it take till the "industry and lobbys" admitted that it is indeed bad. and all the stuff they mix in it today?

i just want to see some longtime tests before we possible contaminate a big part of the food chain. no nead for fearmongering, but also no need for claiming, its all save.

and why shoudnt we save the wales?

there is a huge number of things i dont fear, all the daily things you do, most of them have some dangers in them, like crossing a street, and i dont fear them, but mostly i know its dangers.

while talking about crossing streets.
what i ment is just take a look at it if there is no danger on long terms.
like teaching your kids, look left look right before crossing street.
then you come up and say, dont fearmonger your kids, there is no evidence that there cars are coming.

well no there is no evidence for a coming car. thats why you take a look first, is there a car coming? when not, fine, cross the street. but crossing the street without looking left and right, is just stupid.

[CurtC]

i just want to see some longtime tests before we possible contaminate a big part of the food chain.
In case you missed it, the overall point is that modern GM is not substantially different from how food has been modified for the last several hundred years. On the one hand, we can modify plants more rapidly, since there's a whole lot less trial and error. And on the other hand, we're doing specific gene insertions so have a much better idea about where to look for potential problems.

Those small differences are not substantial. If anything, the way plants were modified before was much more worrying than GM is.

[peteweaver]

IMHO, its not the genes that are the problem so much as the strong pesticides that are used on the plants. Organo phosphates used on seeds for instance. This can pose a risk to farmers handling seeds. Another important consideration: Bees.

[CurtC]

IMHO, its not the genes that are the problem so much as the strong pesticides that are used on the plants. Organo phosphates used on seeds for instance. This can pose a risk to farmers handling seeds. Another important consideration: Bees.

But none of that is related to GM.

Actually, that's not quite true - the only differences are that there are some GM crops engineered so that they can be grown with less insecticides, and that some GM crops are engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, notably not an organophosphate.

[DC]

But none of that is related to GM.

Actually, that's not quite true - the only differences are that there are some GM crops engineered so that they can be grown with less insecticides, and that some GM crops are engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, notably not an organophosphate.

normaly "the nature" "evolves" plants. we had already methods to speed that process up, the already had technology to take alot influence on the genetic code. now they even take a much bigger step into that. by directly influencing tha genetic material.
i think thats a very very interesting and important science.
but i dont want to be Alph tester nor beta tester. and i dont want it to be tested on poor african ppl. we should handle it carefully. because it could change our food on long terms, well it will devo change it, but it could be in not such a good way.
and especially label that stuff in the stores, so we know what we buy.

[JimBenArm]

and why shoudnt we save the wales?

there is a huge number of things i dont fear, all the daily things you do, most of them have some dangers in them, like crossing a street, and i dont fear them, but mostly i know its dangers.


I see your reading comprehension is right up there where I thought it was.
I said SHAVE the WHALES! I could care less about Wales, or their prince for that matter. I'm worried about bearded cetatians. What about you? You seemed to be worried about everything else under the sun.

[peteweaver]

Oh ok. I was quite interested in this issue back in the late 1990's, I'd heard of a British farmer who'd handled seeds which it transpired had been treated with organo phosphates. It was brought up on the Mark Thomas Product (series 3 I think).

But I wanted to start a discussion on something that isn't terrorism related, there's been so much discussion about 9/11 its depressing.

GM is a controversial subject, and whatever ones opinion about it, I thought it would make for an interesting debate.

[chillzero]

To save this from being moved to the Science forum, with the rest of the GM debates, I'll return to the OP:

I think a debate about biotech companies would make a nice change from 11th Sept 2001.

In 1996 a consignment of GM maize from the USA came to the attention of the public, and attempts to stop this from getting into our food were made, the public were then told by the biotech industry, stop complaining, you're already eating this stuff.

There's never been any public consultation as to whether we want this stuff or not, there's never been any legislation brought about to legally oblige companies to label food as GM or not, and through cross pollination, the modified Genes can find their way into the wild.

Have biotech companies conspired to keep things as quiet about this?

Is there any evidence that GM companies have worked together to ensure that information is kept quiet, or to ensure that there is no legislation developed to address peoples' concerns over GM food?

[DC]

I see your reading comprehension is right up there where I thought it was.
I said SHAVE the WHALES! I could care less about Wales, or their prince for that matter. I'm worried about bearded cetatians. What about you? You seemed to be worried about everything else under the sun.

well i care about our nature. and i think we should take care. and we should use alternative transportations and get away from burning oil to more around tons of metal to get some burgers from the driveinn.

not that i eat tofu and recycle everything, i try to recycle most. and i think its a good idea to do. i caer about the forest rain and the diffrent animals. also the polution of the seas and its animals.
would be very stupid when one is not cared about that :/
i also care for ppl that still today are starving. while im fat.

[peteweaver]

Is there any evidence that GM companies have worked together to ensure that information is kept quiet, or to ensure that there is no legislation developed to address peoples' concerns over GM food?

Genetically modified food, is not exactly being advertised and promoted as such on the labels. I'm sure some people would think that counts.

(Just playing devils advocate here).

[JimBenArm]

well i care about our nature. and i think we should take care. and we should use alternative transportations and get away from burning oil to more around tons of metal to get some burgers from the driveinn.

not that i eat tofu and recycle everything, i try to recycle most. and i think its a good idea to do. i caer about the forest rain and the diffrent animals. also the polution of the seas and its animals.
would be very stupid when one is not cared about that :/
i also care for ppl that still today are starving. while im fat.
Is there someone who can do closed captioning for the humor impaired? Seems we have another one...

[chillzero]

Let's not personalise another thread, please.

[DC]

we could peronalise it in direction of Monsanto and MON810 for example.

Karl-Heinz Bablok sued against Monsanto, because the MON810 Maize nearby was contaminationg his honey. and he won.
because do to the contamination he was not allowed to sell his honey anymore.

or does anyone know about the rat test that proved toxics from GM maize?

[Rob Lister]

Oh ok. I was quite interested in this issue back in the late 1990's, I'd heard of a British farmer who'd handled seeds which it transpired had been treated with organo phosphates. It was brought up on the Mark Thomas Product (series 3 I think).

But I wanted to start a discussion on something that isn't terrorism related, there's been so much discussion about 9/11 its depressing.

GM is a controversial subject, and whatever ones opinion about it, I thought it would make for an interesting debate.

Well, GM is interesting...but try not to blame our disinterest in 911.


By the way, you claimed...


I'm concerned by the pesticides which are being advocated for use with these plants.

Please expound! Which ones are you concerned by? Roundup? lol

[dudalb]

In case you missed it, the overall point is that modern GM is not substantially different from how food has been modified for the last several hundred years. On the one hand, we can modify plants more rapidly, since there's a whole lot less trial and error. And on the other hand, we're doing specific gene insertions so have a much better idea about where to look for potential problems.

Those small differences are not substantial. If anything, the way plants were modified before was much more worrying than GM is.


I am convinced that a lot of the paranoia about "FrankenFoods" is politically motivated,because Private Companies are developinng them.
If they were developed by a Government Agency in a country with a Left Wing Government, I am convinced a lot of the people who are denouncing GM foods would be praising them to the skies.

[Beerina]

What are the risks ? Organic farmers lose their organic status due to cross pollination affecting their crops.

I don't view this as a significant downfall, given the organic produce industry is knowingly relying on scientific illiteracy of the general populace and scare mongering.

In any case, more food = cheaper food = more calories per person = better quality of life = one hell of a lot more good for the world population than organic farming would have in its wildest dreams.

Ok thats quite a minor one.

:)


But looking back through history, DDT was introduced as a pesticide without any tests into what its environmental impact would be.

It's also an argument as to the potential folly of environmental feel-good regulation that could have lead to an increase in human misery and death.

Its quite a controversial issue.

An artifical controversy, similar to "evolution vs. intelligent design", which is to say, science vs. talking heads pushing books, lectures, and the like.

Or in this case, overpriced produce.

[Beerina]

we could peronalise it in direction of Monsanto and MON810 for example.

Karl-Heinz Bablok sued against Monsanto, because the MON810 Maize nearby was contaminationg his honey. and he won.
because do to the contamination he was not allowed to sell his honey anymore.


So, fraudulent legislation based on fear tactics, which prevent him from selling honey that is partly from GM flowers, is Monsanto's fault?!?!?

While it's true Monsanto must abide by the law, methinks the real ethical slip is in the law, not Monsant.

[DC]

So, fraudulent legislation based on fear tactics, which prevent him from selling honey that is partly from GM flowers, is Monsanto's fault?!?!?

While it's true Monsanto must abide by the law, methinks the real ethical slip is in the law, not Monsant.

on the one side you have ppl that "overplay"? it, make a much bigger issue about it than it is, claim its harmfull, unhealthy, will kill us all.
then you have those that seem to blindly trust in the provat corps, wich maingoal is to make money, they trust on theyr words and theyr test results.
they totaly downplay it and claim there is absolutley no danger at all, its only good, nothing bad,

they go so far and demand to forbid to label GM food.

and that goes to far for me.

so you claim its only do to fearmongering that he was not allowed to sell his GM contaminated honey? those laws are only there because of fearmongering?

[Anti-sophist]

those laws are only there because of fearmongering?

Yes. Unless you have some scientific evidence that what you claim is true or even a strongly scientific argument that your fears are within the realm of what we'd consider to be "too high" a chance. Otherwise, it's just an irrational appeal to fear.

[DC]

Yes. Unless you have some scientific evidence that what you claim is true or even a strongly scientific argument that your fears are within the realm of what we'd consider to be "too high" a chance. Otherwise, it's just an irrational appeal to fear.

tests that show negative results are mostly ....flawed in many "aspects of design, execution and analysis".

[defaultdotxbe]

tests that show negative results are mostly ....flawed in many "aspects of design, execution and analysis".
is that some sort of anagram of a real answer?

[DC]

is that some sort of anagram of a real answer?

well aslong the scientists are heavy debating it, i as a consumer would like to have labeled the GM food. so i can decide if i test it or not. i test it already enough in products i dont even know it is already containing GM food.

just cause some experts claim the other experts did theyr experiment wrong or its not precise enough, im not convinced that there is really no danger.

but when you dont worry GM food, you should be free to eat it when you like to. but i should be free to say no thx.

[defaultdotxbe]

well aslong the scientists are heavy debating it, i as a consumer would like to have labeled the GM food. so i can decide if i test it or not. i test it already enough in products i dont even know it is already containing GM food.

just cause some experts claim the other experts did theyr experiment wrong or its not precise enough, im not convinced that there is really no danger.

but when you dont worry GM food, you should be free to eat it when you like to. but i should be free to say no thx.
we as has been pointed out in this thread there really is no such as non-GM food, for hundreds, even thousands of years farmers have selctively bred crops to enhence desirable qualities, its just that nowadays we have a less haphazard way of doing it

if they had the same techniques when they tried to make docile bees that make a lot of honey we probably wouldnt have africanized "killer" bees :)

[DC]

we as has been pointed out in this thread there really is no such as non-GM food, for hundreds, even thousands of years farmers have selctively bred crops to enhence desirable qualities, its just that nowadays we have a less haphazard way of doing it

if they had the same techniques when they tried to make docile bees that make a lot of honey we probably wouldnt have africanized "killer" bees :)

you see maybe no diffrence, well i do see a big diffrence. crossing some seeds and manipulating gene material so they produce a natural insecticide, goes far beyond that what farmers did a few decades ago....

you should be free to use it asmuch you want, but i should be free to not use it.
and thanks to contamination i am already not free to not eat it. im forcced to eat it.

[defaultdotxbe]

you should be free to use it asmuch you want, but i should be free to not use it.
and thanks to contamination i am already not free to not eat it. im forcced to eat it.
and your free to buy certified organic foods, as the OP points out any contamination causes a crop to LOSE its certification as organic, hence no worries

[DC]

no GM food should be labeled as what it is. GM Food

[CurtC]

they go so far and demand to forbid to label GM food.

and that goes to far for me.

You sure about that? As far as I know, there are no laws even being discussed that would forbid anyone from labeling GM food as such if they wanted to.

I think you may be talking about opposition to laws requiring GM foods to be labeled. Of course, I am strongly opposed to that.

[defaultdotxbe]

no GM food should be labeled as what it is. GM Food
why? iots pretty much going to anything not labeld 'organic" so whats the point?

other than creating an anathema, a grocery store scarlet letter if you will

[chillzero]

One final reminder that this thread is in the CT section. If that aspect is not discussed, the thread will be moved.

[DC]

One final reminder that this thread is in the CT section. If that aspect is not discussed, the thread will be moved.

CT? ok

http://www.arte.tv/de/wissen-entdeckung/Monsanto-mit-Gift-und-Genen/TV-Programm---Debatte/1912680.html

for those whoo can German or French.

A documentary about Monsanto and how they handle theyr bussines.
like discrediting other scientists becuase theyr studys arent that positiv likey they would like it to have.

als interesting is this

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=axU9ngbTxKw

Monsanto vs FOX