GM Crops: Should We Be Scared?

[ysabella]

I tend to hang out on a nutrition forum or two, and I find that there is a lot of fearmongering about genetically modified crops, especially food crops. I have found people assuming that their allergy problems or other ailments were due to GM wheat "secretly in the food supply for years without our consent" and pro-organic people complaining that GM and organic cannot coexist, for example claiming that all Canadian canola plants are now "contaminated" with pollen from GM canola so there can be no more organic canola (organic certifications do not allow GM).
One person is adamant that we don't know what the crops that have bacilllus genes can do, because there have never been crops with non-plant genes in them, therefore she opposes them. The main ones are the Bt crops (mostly cotton, actually), but Bt (a certified organic bacillus-based pesticide) has been dusted on crops for decades, so we've all been exposed to it by now (here's (http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/aenews/April00AENews/Apr00AENews.htm#anchor5338542) an overview of Bt). She also claims that the only reason the crops are regulated at all is due to protesting by people like herself who oppose the bacillus-gene crops, which I feel I have disproved - GM for plants was invented in 1983 and I have a big regulatory statement from 1986 (http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/Coordinated_Framework_1986_Federal_Register.html). The bacillus-gene crops didn't come along until the 90s, I think, although I can't find definitive info online about that.

And we are seeing negative consumer reaction to GM. Consumers seem to want to make sure they can choose, GM or non-GM, and keep them strictly segregated. There was a news story a few years ago about StarLink corn - GM corn meant for animal feed and not humans - getting into consumer foods (taco shells); when it aired on TV lots of consumer complaints came in to the FDA, and the FDA and CDC jumped into testing, which was completely inconclusive. The FDA had samples from 10 different complaining consumers - presumably the taco shells left in the box - and testing showed no StarLink corn was in them.

I don't know much about GM, just the Penn&Teller "Eat This!" episode. :D So I started digging around for data on this stuff - for one thing, there is no GM wheat, so allergenic claims about that are balderdash. There are some GM wheats coming up for approval soon, but there never was one before now, certainly nothing in consumer foods (although the people I'm discussing with are saying "Well, they have to grow test crops somewhere, and that can contaminate crops 20 miles away!). As far as allergens go, it's not as though nobody ever thought of that; lots of specific allergy tests have been done (in one case, soybeans were purposely given a brazil nut gene known to create allergenic proteins and then allergy testing was done - the soybeans did cause allergic reactions, so all the soybeans were destroyed and the useful data remains). New crops have always brought new allergens, so there's no reason to assume GM crops won't (I'm basically paraphrasing from Norman Borlaug there). Most of what is grown now are things like soybeans and canola, used to make oil mostly; oil is usually well filtered, so unless it's pressed a certain way and not filtered, the oil shouldn't have a lot of proteins and such that would cause an allergic reaction.

Overall, I'm not sure much of the fear is based on real information. I saw on the P&T episode that Greenpeace and other activists spread a lot of disinformation, claiming there are animal genes in GM food crops (rat genes in tomatoes, jellyfish genes in potatoes) and claiming there is no testing and no regulation on these crops. Both claims are totally untrue. There were some lab experiments with animal genes but nothing outside the lab.
I can feel some sympathy to someone who is afraid of plant genes crossed with bacillus genes, since that is really being done, and most of us don't understand genes well enough to have a clue for whether that matters. I can feel some sympathy for fears of new allergens in food crops to some extent, as food allergies are pretty scary (like peanut allergies).

However, it is a struggle to try to feed the starving, and GM crops hold great promise in this area. I feel that has to be weighed into the equation as well. I also feel that one has to consider the other methods for creating plant mutations - as that Economist article on wheat pointed out:
In 1956, a sample of a barley variety called Maythorpe was irradiated at Britain's Atomic Energy Research Establishment . The result was a strain with stiffer, shorter straw but the same early harvest and malting qualities, which would eventually reach the market as “Golden Promise”.
Still Pictures

Today scientists use thermal neutrons, X-rays, or ethyl methane sulphonate, a harsh carcinogenic chemical—anything that will damage DNA—to generate mutant cereals. Virtually every variety of wheat and barley you see growing in the field was produced by this kind of “mutation breeding”. No safety tests are done; nobody protests. The irony is that genetic modification (GM) was invented in 1983 as a gentler, safer, more rational and more predictable alternative to mutation breeding—an organic technology, in fact. Instead of random mutations, scientists could now add the traits they wanted.

Naturally I welcome any info on this topic, but I also welcome opinions. Do you find GM foods/crops scary? And how much do you really know about them?
I wouldn't be afraid to eat something with GM food in it, personally. Should I be?

[Nick Bogaerts]

I'm of two minds on this topic.

On one hand, I'm quite satisfied that none of the current crops of GMOs planted pose any significant health risk. Furthermore, I acknowledge that GMOs have an important economic value which should not be overlooked. And yes, there is a lot of misinformation being spread by their detractors.

Nonetheless, I am against allowing them to be planted for the time being, and I will continue to oppose it until the agrobuisnesses display the maturity required to deal with problems which might surface.

Genetic manipulation should be regulated in the same fashion drugs are. And unlike their pharmaceutical branches (these are often the same buisnesses), agrobuisness has shown time and again that it will do all it can to subvert safety precautions. These are the people who today, as BASF with Régent TS or Bayer with Gaucho, work as hard as tobbacco majors to hide the ill effects of their prize pesticides.

I believe we have enough safeguards to prevent another Thalidomide. But do we have the safeguards to prevent another Mad Cow disease?

[phildonnia]

I was puzzled by the idea of adding bt genes to a plant.
I didn't think BT conferred any immunity to pests upon the plant itself, but rather it infected those pests directly. How would putting BT genes in a plant help?

(anecdote)I used BT one year on a pear tree that was particularly troubled by codling moths. It didn't seem to help much; the whole tree was devastated. The following year I used liberal doses of malathion, and had a nice crop.

[Melendwyr]

No more scared than we should be of previously-existing breeding methods.

How scared should we be of previously-existing breeding methods? Very. It's to them that we owe our disease-prone monocultural stocks, which require more fertilizers and pesticides to remain healthy. Also, native plant populations can become contaminated by massive crop farming. AND the original stocks of many of our crops are being driven out of existence by the competition, and plant scientists desparate to maintain biodiversity are having to track down scarser and scarser native plantings of indigenous people.

In short: DOOM.

[hodgy]

No more scared than we should be of previously-existing breeding methods.

How scared should we be of previously-existing breeding methods? Very. It's to them that we owe our disease-prone monocultural stocks, which require more fertilizers and pesticides to remain healthy. Also, native plant populations can become contaminated by massive crop farming. AND the original stocks of many of our crops are being driven out of existence by the competition, and plant scientists desparate to maintain biodiversity are having to track down scarser and scarser native plantings of indigenous people.

In short: DOOM.

I agree that there are some respects in which industrialisation of agriculture might be seen to be a bad thing but on the other hand you couldn't feed the world without it. In this sense DOOM is a matter of perspective.

I am selfishly in favour of (and personally promote) organic livestock (I love to roast a well reared piece of pork and I hate the cruelty of factory farming). However - organic oats vs GM oats in my porridge? Its not got the same compelling arguments for me. Furthermore, if I was starving I reckon I'd prefer the higher yield crop.

[CurtC]

Like Melendwyr said, GM is less risky that the methods that we had been using to come up with new breeds. I posted a thread about this article (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323362&no_na_tran=1) in The Economist a few days ago, which makes the point:Today scientists use thermal neutrons, X-rays, or ethyl methane sulphonate, a harsh carcinogenic chemical—anything that will damage DNA—to generate mutant cereals. Virtually every variety of wheat and barley you see growing in the field was produced by this kind of “mutation breeding”. No safety tests are done; nobody protests. The irony is that genetic modification (GM) was invented in 1983 as a gentler, safer, more rational and more predictable alternative to mutation breeding—an organic technology, in fact. Instead of random mutations, scientists could now add the traits they wanted.

So the people who are anti-GM are being irrational if they eat crops at all that have been developed in the last 75 years.

[CplFerro]

GM-anything is not a good idea, simply because it's corporate controlled and largely unregulated. These are the same people who are patenting seeds to prevent farmers from growing new ones, so that they must re-buy seeds each year. How is that "feeding the world"?

GM is not about improving anything. It is about making loads of money for ruthless corporations, as part of the general "free trade" swindle that's been foisted onto the world by the Anglo-American empire and its hangers-on and imitators.

In principle, there's nothing wrong with GM - it's just technology taken to the next level of human ingenuity. But given the current political-economic order, no one should fool themselves that GM is about "feeding the world." Peoples don't starve for lack of food, they starve for lack of proper government to allow wealth (such as food) to be generated and justly distributed.

Anyone genuinely concerned about the hazards of GM should worry more about the political economy, and less about fleeting boycotts and scares.

Cpl Ferro

[Jorghnassen]

Should we be scared? No. But I don't think we should be overly excited either... It's not the solution to world hunger (not that GM crops can't help alleviate the problem, and it would be better if more crops were developped in hunger-stricken countries to address location-specific needs, but that's usually not very economically profitable, as developing crops is pricy), because world hunger is not caused simply by a lack of food or lack of the latest developped crop, and it is a complex issue that cannot be solved purely by agricultural means.

For example, the Zambia rejected GM corn issue was much different than what Penn & Teller presented. The corn would not have been used to feed the populace and the decision was not based on fear caused by Greenpeace pressure but by the fact that the European Union would not have bought (as much) poultry or dairy products from animals who had been fed that corn (though I remember reading that if the kernels had been milled prior to donation then there wouldn't have been technical contentions from the EU, go figure).

That being said, if it's tasty and the government says it's fit for consumption, eat as much as you want (and that goes for "organic" produce too).

[ysabella]

Actually, most GM crops so far are not about increasing yields. They are about increased resistance to pests, herbicides, or I think drought in some cases, or needing less fertilizer. There are a lot of reasons why these features would help out in, say, Africa.

Cpl Ferro, GM crops are incredibly tested and very, very regulated. In the US they are regulated by the USDA, EPA, and FDA.

To me, GM is kind of like nuclear energy. It has great potential to solve existing problems, but people are afraid of the new problems that could occur.

[Euromutt]

GM-anything is not a good idea, simply because it's corporate controlled and largely unregulated.If that's your argument, you probably shouldn't be using a computer.

[CplFerro]

Actually, most GM crops so far are not about increasing yields. They are about increased resistance to pests, herbicides, or I think drought in some cases, or needing less fertilizer. There are a lot of reasons why these features would help out in, say, Africa.

Cpl Ferro, GM crops are incredibly tested and very, very regulated. In the US they are regulated by the USDA, EPA, and FDA.

To me, GM is kind of like nuclear energy. It has great potential to solve existing problems, but people are afraid of the new problems that could occur.

Is that why GM plants are spreading into the wild and into other farmer's fields, so that the corporations can turn around and sue those people? These are people patenting genes in /my/ body, so they can suck me dry for some patented medical treatment? It's all about money, and the government is in bed with these clowns.

Nuclear energy is another case where government mismanagement is used as an excuse to dump what is an invaluable set of technologies. The very mindset that hates the government so much in principle, and hates Western civilisation and the people who built it, helps create a self-fulfilling prophecy of incompetence.

[CplFerro]

If that's your argument, you probably shouldn't be using a computer.

And how will unregulated computing poison my food or patent my genes?

[hodgy]

GM-anything is not a good idea, simply because it's corporate controlled and largely unregulated. These are the same people who are patenting seeds to prevent farmers from growing new ones, so that they must re-buy seeds each year. How is that "feeding the world"?

Penniless starving people are no market for greedy corporations.

GM is not about improving anything. It is about making loads of money for ruthless corporations,

Altruistic intent does not result in global plenty - capitalistic endeavour does - and provides food to the many. Your ruthless corporations pay the wages that donate to 3rd world charity. If you want to see the alternative take a look at where Russia is today.

as part of the general "free trade" swindle

Can you explain why you think its a 'swindle'?

that's been foisted onto the world by the Anglo-American empire and its hangers-on and imitators.

As far as the Anglo goes we disposed of the vast majority of our Empire over the past 20-50 years. Unfortunately for the residents of some former colonies (Zimbabwe springs to mind) Eurpoean domination turns out to offer a better chance for the survival of your children than does domination by your African tribal neighbours. Ironically, racism is only perceived by the liberal elite as a function of skin colour.

In principle, there's nothing wrong with GM - it's just technology taken to the next level of human ingenuity.

We have some common gound here :)

But given the current political-economic order, no one should fool themselves that GM is about "feeding the world." Peoples don't starve for lack of food, they starve for lack of proper government to allow wealth (such as food) to be generated and justly distributed.

I sort-of agree but given your previous analysis I worry about your political conclusions.

[Soapy Sam]

If that's your argument, you probably shouldn't be using a computer.- Euromutt.

Invalid analogy, EM. Computers don't actually reproduce.

I'm intrigued by the science of GM, but concerned by the politics and economics. This seems very common across a surprisingly broad range of politoical / ecological points of view.

[Melendwyr]

Invalid analogy, EM. Computers don't actually reproduce. Sure they do. Humans are just a computer's way of making more computers.

[Manny]

Yes. We should be scared. As we're learing in this thread, GM crops is woo for liberals. The science of it is well established, the benefits clear, the alleged risks overstated or made up from whole cloth. But many people who side with science and common sense on most issues hate GM crops because it is corporations doing it for money instead of university scientists doing it for, well, money and fame. We should be scared that millions or tens of millions or even hundreds of millions will die and billions left needlessly in poverty because of fear of GM crops.

[delphi_ote]

I believe both sides of this issue were summed up nicely in this book review:

Denial worked fine for 10,000 years, but will not cut it in the era of
GM, globalization and rapidly expanding human populations.
Breeders, agronomists and agribusiness need to stop thinking as
though the impacts of gene flow in agriculture are restricted to seed
production fields. Activists need to start being honest with the public;
genetic pollution is not new, nor unique to GM crops. Much as
Rachel Carson did for pesticides four decades earlier, Ellstrand’s
book serves notice that society will need to come to terms with the
genetic promiscuity of agriculture. We may someday look back and
find that it was GM that shined light on the gene flow problem such
that we could no longer ignore it, but that it also gave us the knowledge
and tools to manage it.
http://zircote.forestry.oregonstate.edu/tgbb/publications%5CStrauss-DiFaz-book-review-Nat-Biotech-Jan2004-nbt0104-29.pdf

I worked very closely with Dr. DiFazio for a year and know Dr. Strauss. Both are dead honest and very intelligent scientists and are expert in this area. There is reason for concern, but not paranoia. GM is not evil. It is not unregulated. It is a science with the potential to improve the standard of living of the entire world. As with nuclear technology, we just have to be careful with it.

[delphi_ote]

And how will unregulated computing poison my food or patent my genes?

Personally, I don't feel you should be using a computer, because a wealth of information is available to you which you have chosen to ignore. GM crops are poisoning your food? GM Crops are unregulated? Your computer would be better off used as a door stop than for spouting such hysteria.

You need to get a grip on reality. It's exactly that type of knee jerk reaction that's put the green movement so far behind. People will only listen to "the sky is falling" for so long. There are plenty of safe and legitimate uses for genetic modification. It just has to be regulated intelligently. Let's listen to the science to find out how to do that.

By the way,

http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=3947

It says something when you're slower to adopt new technology than the Amish.

[Nick Bogaerts]

We should be scared that millions or tens of millions or even hundreds of millions will die and billions left needlessly in poverty because of fear of GM crops.

Increased crop yields will not reduce starvation. Only contraception will do that. Don't forget Malthus (http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html).

[Mongrel]

Is that why GM plants are spreading into the wild and into other farmer's fields, so that the corporations can turn around and sue those people?

This case? (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/more_snorting_a.html)

[ysabella]

Is that why GM plants are spreading into the wild and into other farmer's fields, so that the corporations can turn around and sue those people?
Monsanto sued one guy who purposely and intentionally replanted something he wasn't supposed to, if that's what you mean.
New crops have always blasted pollen and seeds into the environment, including mutant strains developed by bombardment with radiation, as the quoted Economist bit in this thread points out. It's just that with GM products, we can actually track it.
These are people patenting genes in /my/ body, so they can suck me dry for some patented medical treatment? It's all about money, and the government is in bed with these clowns.
Got no clue what you're on about here, but I don't think it's on the same topic anyway.
Nuclear energy is another case where government mismanagement is used as an excuse to dump what is an invaluable set of technologies. The very mindset that hates the government so much in principle, and hates Western civilisation and the people who built it, helps create a self-fulfilling prophecy of incompetence.
But you say the government is in bed with clowns. Not sure whether that menas you love or hate the government; to me, a coulrophilic government is sort of disturbing. At least the mental picture.

[ysabella]

Interesting point, delphi_ote. I guess what I'm wondering, after researching some of this, is whether plants with bug genes are really scarier than plants that have mutated due to bombardment with radiation or chemicals? Especially since we can track them so accurately with gene testing. If someone says StarLink corn is in their corn flakes, we can actually test for it.

[delphi_ote]

Interesting point, delphi_ote. I guess what I'm wondering, after researching some of this, is whether plants with bug genes are really scarier than plants that have mutated due to bombardment with radiation or chemicals? Especially since we can track them so accurately with gene testing. If someone says StarLink corn is in their corn flakes, we can actually test for it.

Absolutely true. But to be fair, putting bug genes in plans is probably altering their genetic makeup in a more significant way. Also, a gene may have properties that make it more readily transferred from one plant to another or from one location in the plant genome to another. In my brief time researching plant genetics, I was constantly suprised at how robust and sloppy their genomes are. Entire copies of their cloroplast DNA can just slip into their nuclear DNA and be copied for thousands of years. Tandem copies of genes abound. Genome wide dupilication events are more common than I ever imagined. This is stuff that would kill us dead, but plants seem to thrive on it.

That said, the paranoia is totally unwarranted. If we keep a careful eye on these things, not only will we be able to keep ourselves safe while reaping the benefits of GM, we'll be able to learn more about the processes that underlie life itself.

[FortyTwo]

No more scared than we should be of previously-existing breeding methods.

How scared should we be of previously-existing breeding methods? Very. It's to them that we owe our disease-prone monocultural stocks, which require more fertilizers and pesticides to remain healthy. Also, native plant populations can become contaminated by massive crop farming. AND the original stocks of many of our crops are being driven out of existence by the competition, and plant scientists desparate to maintain biodiversity are having to track down scarser and scarser native plantings of indigenous people.

In short: DOOM.

You seem to imply that famine was rare and all was wonderful prior to plant hybridization.

Modern hybrids were developed to combat disease, be more pest resistant, provide higher yields, be drought tolerant, etc. depending on the target environment.

BTW, it seems logical that higher iyield plants would require more fertilizer than heirloom varieties since you are taking more stuff out of the soil each year. You have to put back what you take away or you eventually have no yield at all.

[Art Vandelay]

I think that such blanket ban is silly. Every] GM food is bad? Every single one?
Is that why GM plants are spreading into the wild and into other farmer's fields, so that the corporations can turn around and sue those people?Cite?

These are people patenting genes in /my/ body, so they can suck me dry for some patented medical treatment? Cite?

And how will unregulated computing poison my food or patent my genes?How will GM? Note: patents are a form of [i]regulation. If you object to patents, you are objecting to regulation.

[Beausoleil]

Yes. We should be scared. As we're learing in this thread, GM crops is woo for liberals. The science of it is well established, the benefits clear, the alleged risks overstated or made up from whole cloth. But many people who side with science and common sense on most issues hate GM crops because it is corporations doing it for money instead of university scientists doing it for, well, money and fame. We should be scared that millions or tens of millions or even hundreds of millions will die and billions left needlessly in poverty because of fear of GM crops.

It's not the technological aspects of GM that are cause for concern. It doesn't matter where a new plant comes from. We have a long history of unintended consequences arising from introducing something new into an environment, and a long history of not being careful enough before we did it. GM is more of the same, and needs to be treated with great caution.

[Rolfe]

I am selfishly in favour of (and personally promote) organic livestock (I love to roast a well reared piece of pork and I hate the cruelty of factory farming).Rant alert.

This attitude makes me see really red, and I may not be entirely coherent here, but basically "organic" animal husbandry is so inimical to animal welfare that I wouldn't eat organic meat on principle if it tasted like the nectar of the gods.

There are two issues here. The one you seem to be focussing on is the husbandry standards of healthy stock. This may or may not be better in organic herds. Certainly you're not going to get the evils of the real "Stalag Hen" variety, but many conventional farms have very good welfare standards, and many so-called free-range systems have miserable conditions for the livestock. Welfare in this respect has little to do with whether or not an individual farm can tick the boxes that allow it to call itself "organic".

The second issue is the important one of the prevention of disease and the treatment of sick animals. This is where organic farming sickens me. The use of many (if not most) properly tested, safe, effective and licensed medicines is forbidden. Farmers are encouraged and indeed instructed to use unlicensed, unproven and non-safety-tested preparations, under the laughable heading of "natural" remedies. This includes the use of some very toxic compounds for disease "prevention", far more toxic than the licensed products, simply because they aren't tested and licensed and so aren't "big pharma" medicines. It also includes the heavy promotion of homoeopathy.

Most farm animal vets simply tear their hair out over "organic" livestock farms, despairing over the animals being allowed to suffer from eminently treatable conditions because waiting till the problems go away on their own (assuming they do) will not lose these animals their "organic" status while giving the poor, thin, scouring calves a dose of much-needed wormer will. And the amount of woo coming out of the organic proponents about homoeopathy being "good for" mastitis and so on would just make you throw up.

It has been shown in objective tests that the overall welfare standards of organically-reared animals are not better than conventionally-reared livestock and may often be worse. Anyone who is choosing organic meat for animal welfare reasons had better go away and do some serious reading, and have a rethink.

Rolfe.

[puppypundit]

Thank you for opening my eyes Rolfe! Great post.

I originally thought this thread might answer my questions about WHY people would think that GM foods in and of themselves might be harmful.

It never occured to me that economic reasons or mistrust of the "big bad corporation" would engender the fearmongering.

I was all ready to hear some "Attack of The Killer Tomatoes" woo!

[Capsid]

The second issue is the important one of the prevention of disease and the treatment of sick animals. This is where organic farming sickens me. The use of many (if not most) properly tested, safe, effective and licensed medicines is forbidden. Farmers are encouraged and indeed instructed to use unlicensed, unproven and non-safety-tested preparations, under the laughable heading of "natural" remedies. This includes the use of some very toxic compounds for disease "prevention", far more toxic than the licensed products, simply because they aren't tested and licensed and so aren't "big pharma" medicines. It also includes the heavy promotion of homoeopathy.

Most farm animal vets simply tear their hair out over "organic" livestock farms, despairing over the animals being allowed to suffer from eminently treatable conditions because waiting till the problems go away on their own (assuming they do) will not lose these animals their "organic" status while giving the poor, thin, scouring calves a dose of much-needed wormer will. And the amount of woo coming out of the organic proponents about homoeopathy being "good for" mastitis and so on would just make you throw up.

It has been shown in objective tests that the overall welfare standards of organically-reared animals are not better than conventionally-reared livestock and may often be worse. Anyone who is choosing organic meat for animal welfare reasons had better go away and do some serious reading, and have a rethink.

Rolfe.
Interesting, I didn't know this. Organically raised humans do not fair so well at times of critical illness either, so isn't it hypocritical to expect animals to be treated this way too?

[Melendwyr]

How will GM? Note: patents are a form of regulation. If you object to patents, you are objecting to regulation. And as we all know, regulating everything in sight is always good. Always.

[homer]

Interesting thread . I've just read though most of it . Seems to me there is more common sense here than in a shed load of ' newspapers ' who have stirred up things mainly just to sell a few more copies .
Both sides are well argued.
I think that , like it or not , we are stuck with science although we need to be very careful with things like this .
On the organic aside , I thought this just meant using natural fertiliser and avoiding stupid things like feeding antibiotics to healthy animals ? I wasn't aware that stupid things like not using modern vet: treatments was a part of this . I rarely buy organic food anyway , I get the impression that the main difference is the price . I mean , organic honey ! How do they know where all those bees go ?

[Jorghnassen]

On the organic aside , I thought this just meant using natural fertiliser and avoiding stupid things like feeding antibiotics to healthy animals ? I wasn't aware that stupid things like not using modern vet: treatments was a part of this . I rarely buy organic food anyway , I get the impression that the main difference is the price . I mean , organic honey ! How do they know where all those bees go ?

Yeah, the thing is that in theory, organic livestock is put in less stressful and condensed situation than regular livestock, which should reduce the occurence and the spread of diseases. The problem is that when disease does occur, few conventional treatments are allowed and there is heavy reliance on "natural" treatments which usually means stuff like homeopathy. I wouldn't be surprised that vets only get called when things have gone bad for way too long and the "natural" treatments have been ineffective.

One thing I would love to see is studies on the incidence of disease in factory farms vs organic ones, and the references that Rolfe alluded to. I do believe there's a happy medium between abusing antibiotics in highly condensed conditions and the "let's not stress the livestock but not use effective treatments when problems occur" organic philosophy. It might be rarely implemented though...

[RichardR]

It has been shown in objective tests that the overall welfare standards of organically-reared animals are not better than conventionally-reared livestock and may often be worse. Do you have a cite for that?

[casebro]

I think most peoples fears are centered around an imaginary scenario invovling genes gettin loose into their own cells. Like eating GM corn that has a wasp gene spliced in to make the corn ...um.. predatory to insect infestatioons. Then, the people eating the corn will make babies with skinny waists, compound eyes and stripes on their butts. From this unreasonable fear springs more reasonable justifications for banning. Of course, folks have been eating pork for years without getting cloven hoofs, kinky tails, or 18 inch penis's that rotate...well, only rarely.

[delphi_ote]

From this unreasonable fear springs more reasonable justifications for banning.

From this fear we get the reasonable justifications for banning? I think not. I've yet to see a reasonable justification for banning GM.

[delphi_ote]

It's not the technological aspects of GM that are cause for concern. It doesn't matter where a new plant comes from. We have a long history of unintended consequences arising from introducing something new into an environment, and a long history of not being careful enough before we did it. GM is more of the same, and needs to be treated with great caution.

I think we have a tendency to overlook how robust life can be sometimes. There are consequences, yes. But life seems to do a good job of adapting to what we've caused.

These two articles are about bacteria which naturally evolved the ability to digest nylon. Yes, nylon.
http://content.febsjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/3/547
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=345072

Not that we shouldn't be careful, but I don't think the public has an appreciation for how tough life can be (then again, they don't seem to have an appreciation for the fact that species evolve at all...) This whole "you shouldn't play God, because you don't know the consequences" theme is harped on to the point that it just doesn't mean anything anymore.

[Melendwyr]

I think we have a tendency to overlook how robust life can be sometimes. There are consequences, yes. But life seems to do a good job of adapting to what we've caused. In case you haven't noticed, we're in the middle of one of the Great Extinctions, and we're causing it.

[delphi_ote]

In case you haven't noticed, we're in the middle of one of the Great Extinctions, and we're causing it.

I've heard that assertion many times, but I have yet to see hard data on it. Got a good resource?

[Beausoleil]

I think we have a tendency to overlook how robust life can be sometimes. There are consequences, yes. But life seems to do a good job of adapting to what we've caused.

These two articles are about bacteria which naturally evolved the ability to digest nylon. Yes, nylon.
http://content.febsjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/3/547
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=345072

Not that we shouldn't be careful, but I don't think the public has an appreciation for how tough life can be (then again, they don't seem to have an appreciation for the fact that species evolve at all...) This whole "you shouldn't play God, because you don't know the consequences" theme is harped on to the point that it just doesn't mean anything anymore.

What does bacteria evolving to digest nylon have to do with my point?

Life will adapt, of course, but that's hardly a consolation to me as I try to keep the kudzu under control in my backgarden, or the builder who has to eradicate Japanese knotweed. Surely you didn't interpret my remarks as suggesting GM was a threat to life (whatever that might mean).

There is a long history of introducing species from one ecosystem into another, then discovering it was a mistake. 100 worst invasive species...

http://www.issg.org/database/species/search.asp?st=100ss&fr=1&sts=sss

[Art Vandelay]

And as we all know, regulating everything in sight is always good. Always.But not as good as posting bizarre strawmen which indicate one has no freaking idea what's going on in a thread.

[Melendwyr]

I've heard that assertion many times, but I have yet to see hard data on it. Got a good resource? I don't think it really constitues "hard data", but: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0009/feature4/

The following link is clearly not objective, but it contains links to more scholarly articles: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Sixth_Great_Extinction

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/

I could try finding scientific data on the current extinction rate and what scientists believe the normal background extinction rate is, if you'd like.

[Soapy Sam]

delphi-ote
The critical word is "middle".

The last glacial maximum was around 20,000 years ago, since when a big, but far from certain number of mammals, insects, plants etc. have become extinct.

Humans started to make their presence felt as large mammal hunters about that time or a couple of thousand years after.
So, if we take that as the start of the present "mass extinction event" and now as the end, the middle was about ten thousand years ago.
If we call now the middle, the extinction has twenty thousand years to run and clearly we are a prime cause.
In short, it's a political statement which means what the user wants it to mean. We still have only a vague idea how many species exist- of any sort. We have only a vague idea how many went extinct per century from -say- 130,000 years ago until 20,000 years ago. So we have only a vague idea whether we are in a situation of increased , decreased or normal extinction rates, or even if those terms are meaningful for a given period.

That said, it's clear humans are causing the demise of many species through habitat destruction, fishing etc. Others expand into the vacated territory and will speciate accordingly. I'm betting there will be a lot more crow and rat species ten thousand years from now.

My personal suspicion is that any time is extinction time, because change is always happening somewhere. So maybe it's true- we are in the middle of an extinction event. A very long one.

[Melendwyr]

Our effect on the rainforests alone are causing the rate of species extinction to go way up. Whether you see that as an example of a larger problem is more subjective.

[bruto]

I agree that much of the scare about GM crops is overblown, and strikes me as similar to the scare about irradiation. On the other hand, there certainly are some serious issues here, especially with regard to the patenting of seeds, and the consequences of unwanted cross fertilization, which don't seem to have been answered as yet.

One, of course, is how inbred pesticides will affect non pest insects over the long run, a concern that I have not seen really well answered. It's not an idle concern either for beekeepers or for persons whose crops depend on insects for pollination.

Whether or not you agree with those who prefer old-fashioned crops, organic growing, etc., there are those who do, and who find it economically rewarding, and cross pollination is a problem that needs addressing. Here in Vermont it's been a sticky issue that the legislature has not been able to resolve very well. Who is liable when GM crops cause unwanted alteration in a neighbor's fields?

Then, of course, comes the issue of patenting. Whatever you think about it, it's certain to change the way farmers grow crops in the future if seed patents prove enforceable, and perhaps other aspects of the way we live, depending on how those patents are enforced, because seeds will get away, pollen will drift, hybrids, volunteer plants and pirated plants will grow. How will this be policed? How far does a hybrid carry its patent? Who is liable for volunteer plants?

I think we at least need to be careful.

[delphi_ote]

Our effect on the rainforests alone are causing the rate of species extinction to go way up. Whether you see that as an example of a larger problem is more subjective.

But at what rate are new species developing to take their place, and how abnormal is this extinction rate? How do we even go about measuring extinction rate? Can we really compare our count of species going extinct over the past 100 years or so with the rate of extinction we find over millions of years in the fossil record? It even seems like some life is actually adapting to our new behaviors (not that this would necessarily be a good thing...) If some species crap out and others survive because of us, couldn't we just consider that evolution?

I'm very curious about this subject. I don't think there's any question that biodiversity is going to be a very important subject in the upcoming years. Thanks for the links and the thoughts. I'll be doing some reading.

[delphi_ote]

What does bacteria evolving to digest nylon have to do with my point?

It seemed like a good example of our introducing something new to the environment and life adapting and handling it quite well. Some crazy bacteria decided something toxic should be food. It suprises me that sometimes the slightest pollutant can bring down a very complicated ecosystem, but sometimes life handles our filth without batting an eye.

[hammegk]

Do you have a cite for that?
Maybe Rolfe will answer this scientifically, but economically, if you are in the business of raising livestock for sale, preventing death & disease is high on your list of must-dos.

[luchog]

Modern hybrids were developed to combat disease, be more pest resistant, provide higher yields, be drought tolerant, etc. depending on the target environment.
Of course, much of the problem with diseases and pests is the result of modern "monoculture" factory-farming practices, which is greatly reduced with sustainable farming techniques (things like crop rotation, allowing fields to fallow, etc.).

Hunger, even in the Third World, is rarely, if ever, ever a resource issue. There is more than enough arable land to feed our current population using sustainable farming. In fact, IIRC from previous research, existing arable land is capable of supporting a considerably higher population. The problem is predominantly political. Countries that have serious hunger problems also have governments that repress their population, interfere deletoriously with the ability of their citizens to farm effectively, and confiscate large amounts of various resources to enrich themselves.

Most modern famines are artificially created by government actions. Even when there is a natural problem of some sort (eg. drought); problems that should be relatively minor and survivable are greatly excerbated by government actions, far beyond what their natural result should be.

Food availability is not an issue in a country that subsidizes farmers to keep prices artificially high.

My biggest issues with GMO crops are the cost, the inevitibility of (potentially harmful) unintended consequences, and the continued promotion of the same monoculture that caused much of the problem that GMO crops ostensibly solve.

[ysabella]

Distribution is also a problem, like in countries that lack roads. If a crop can grow with less fertilizer and/or less pesticide, then that's less stuff that has to get to the field somehow.
I read some interviews with Norman Borlaug and in this one (http://reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml) he pointed out that RoundupReady crops could help in Central Africa:

Roundup Ready crops could be used in zero-tillage cultivation in African countries. In zero tillage, you leave the straw, the rice, the wheat if it's at high elevation, or most of the corn stock, remove only what's needed for animal feed, and plant directly [without plowing], because this will cut down erosion. Central African farmers don't have any animal power, because sleeping sickness kills all the animals--cattle, the horses, the burros and the mules. So draft animals don't exist, and farming is all by hand and the hand tools are hoes and machetes. Such hand tools are not very effective against the aggressive tropical grasses that typically invade farm fields. Some of those grasses have sharp spines on them, and they're not very edible. They invade the cornfields, and it gets so bad that farmers must abandon the fields for a while, move on, and clear some more forest. That's the way it's been going on for centuries, slash-and-burn farming. But with this kind of weed killer, Roundup, you can clear the fields of these invasive grasses and plant directly if you have the herbicide-tolerance gene in the crop plants.

[bruto]

Distribution is also a problem, like in countries that lack roads. If a crop can grow with less fertilizer and/or less pesticide, then that's less stuff that has to get to the field somehow.
I read some interviews with Norman Borlaug and in this one (http://reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml) he pointed out that RoundupReady crops could help in Central Africa:

Roundup Ready crops could be used in zero-tillage cultivation in African countries. In zero tillage, you leave the straw, the rice, the wheat if it's at high elevation, or most of the corn stock, remove only what's needed for animal feed, and plant directly [without plowing], because this will cut down erosion. Central African farmers don't have any animal power, because sleeping sickness kills all the animals--cattle, the horses, the burros and the mules. So draft animals don't exist, and farming is all by hand and the hand tools are hoes and machetes. Such hand tools are not very effective against the aggressive tropical grasses that typically invade farm fields. Some of those grasses have sharp spines on them, and they're not very edible. They invade the cornfields, and it gets so bad that farmers must abandon the fields for a while, move on, and clear some more forest. That's the way it's been going on for centuries, slash-and-burn farming. But with this kind of weed killer, Roundup, you can clear the fields of these invasive grasses and plant directly if you have the herbicide-tolerance gene in the crop plants.


That's a fine idea on the surface, but I think it rather disingenuously ignores the rather obvious other aspect of these crops, which is that before planting such crops one must make a legal agreement never to propagate them in any way, thus ensuring perpetual dependency on the manufacturers of the seeds. This represents a significant change in the way that farmers have traditionally propagated crops, planned ahead for shortages, and budgeted their living. Ordinary hybridized crops have always been saveable, but patented ones are not. Manufacturers are stringently enforcing these agreements, and there is still a good deal of legal ambiguity and controversy over whether even involuntary recipients of the GM technology are infringing patents by possession of plants or hybrids of plants that have landed on their property, and there remains a considerable issue of who is liable if such involuntary propagation harms a farmer's own crops.

Just looking at the snippet of article above, herbicidal corn seems an oddly oblique way of addressing what really sounds more like a problem of sleeping sickness in livestock and poor tool technology.

edit: I just realized that the corn spoken above is not herbicidal but herbicide resistant, which doesn't actually change my argument, but should be corrected. Actually, Roundup-ready corn appears to foster a double dependency, since the farmer must commit not only buy the seed every year at whatever the going price might be, but also the specific herbicide for which it is engineered.

[RichardR]

There is more than enough arable land to feed our current population using sustainable farming. In fact, IIRC from previous research, existing arable land is capable of supporting a considerably higher population.

Do you have a cite for that?

[Rolfe]

Do you have a cite for that?Yes, I do, but I see the relevant journal issue isn't in my office, I think I took it home. In fact I was quoting what someone else quoted, so I hope it was properly referenced!Maybe Rolfe will answer this scientifically, but economically, if you are in the business of raising livestock for sale, preventing death & disease is high on your list of must-dos.Yes, indeed. So think about it.

If your only aim is to produce good livestock, economically, then you make use of all the tools at your disposal. Wormers, vaccines, insect repellants, and of course therapeutic medicines where necessary and appropriate. These things are all well enough surrounded by legislation regarding when they may be used and in what circumstances and for how long produce (milk, meat or whatever) must be withheld from sale so that there should be no serious concern about conventionally-produced meat and animal products, certainly in this country. And in this way death and disease are prevented as far as is possible.

However, if you are ideologically committed to "organic" farming, then that committment can and indeed must override concerns about death and disease. If your organic status depends on not using wormers, then tough, the "organic" calves get to keep their worm burden. There are sometimes ways round this, whereby animals treated with "forbidden" medicines my regain their organic status after a wait of two or three times the scientifically-determined withdrawal period for that medicine (and I wonder how the "organic" consumers would react to knowing that), but understandably the organic farmers are very reluctant to take this step.

So, I know which group of farmers has combating death and disease higher up the priority list, and it ain't the organic ones.

Non-therapeutic use of antibiotics as growth promoters is much less widespread than it used to be, as you don't have to go the whole "organic" hog to see that this isn't necessarily a very good idea. However, the Soil Association rules go very very much further than that. In fact, some of it reads like the homoeopaths' promotion society.

Rolfe.

[luchog]

Do you have a cite for that?
Not a single source, no; since that conclusion is the result of several years sporadic research from a number of differernt sources. I haven't been able to organize the research into a single, easily referenced page. Not real high on my daily goal list.

[RichardR]

Not a single source, no; since that conclusion is the result of several years sporadic research from a number of differernt sources. I haven't been able to organize the research into a single, easily referenced page. Not real high on my daily goal list.
Then, depending on your definition of “sustainable” farming, I dispute the claim. Specifically I dispute the claim (if this is what you were saying) that there is enough arable land to feed our current world population using organic farming. Apologies if you were not saying this.

[luchog]

Then, depending on your definition of “sustainable” farming, I dispute the claim. Specifically I dispute the claim (if this is what you were saying) that there is enough arable land to feed our current world population using organic farming. Apologies if you were not saying this.
No, I never used the word "organic", I used "sustainable". There is a significant difference. Here is a good source for info on the principles and techniques. (http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/trans.html)

[RichardR]

No, I never used the word "organic", I used "sustainable". There is a significant difference. Here is a good source for info on the principles and techniques. (http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/trans.html)
An interesting article - thanks.

[clarsct]

GM crops:
The legal issues were something I hadn't considered, but there is a point, there. As for the science of it, well, we've been 'engineering' crops for years. Every time you eat those really HUGE strawberries, realize that they are genetic mutants we have selected FOR. Sure, polyploidy strawberries occured naturally, too, but not in such numbers. Genetic modification is just a more direct and controlled way to do so.

Organic crops:
Bull$h!t. That's my opinion. I grew up in a farm community, ok? Most farmers can't afford to lose a lot of their livestock to disease and such. Most of them also don't medicate unless it is NEEDED. Medication is expensive, ok? Vets are, too, no offense to Rolfe or BSM. We call those folks and get those meds when we HAVE to. We vaccinate our animals so we won't HAVE to do so more often. I don't know how the 'farm factories' do things, but on the 'Independent American Farmer' level, this is how things work.

Humans as a speciation event:
Of course we are. No other species has had the advantage of modifying our environment in so many ways, nor so drastically. But to assume that everything we do is 'artificial' and everything else is 'natural' isn't sound reasoning. The glaciers that came down in the Ice Age were a natural event that caused massive extinctions. So was the meteor they say killed off the dinosaurs. Mass species died out. There have been species that died out and we never even knew about them. I haven't heard anyone berate the glaciers yet for the indiscriminate destruction they wreaked upon this world. We are natural beings, and all that we do is natural, as well. How is a dam built by beavers for the purposes of beavers different from dams built by humans for the purposes of humans, on a moral level? Yes, we should be aware of what we are tinkering with, but that counts for many thing, not just ecology. Electricity, Fire, Chemicals, Nuclear Power, and Livestock can all be dangerous if you don't understand what you're doing. Agreed. But to somehow say that man is evil because we aren't 'natural' is some cockeyed thinking, to my mind.

[Euromutt]

And how will unregulated computing poison my food or patent my genes?You said that GM crops were a bad idea because they were "corporate controlled and largely unregulated." Just like the manufacture of your computer. Those were the only two criteria you set, so don't try to make out like I missed something because you posted something which was easily shown to be asinine.

[Mashuna]

Just reading through a post on GM foods, I didn't expect to have my views on organic animal farming changed so much! I started (or, at the time, it would have been my parents) to buy free-range and organic chickens on the back of Edwina Currie and the salmonella scares, along with the pictures of the battery farmed hens.

I can't speak generally, but my own conception has always been that free-range was good and that organic was somehow 'better'. I honestly hadn't given any thought to, or realised that organic farming precluded the use of antibiotics.

Mind you, I've tended not to buy other organic meats (beef, lamb etc), purely because where I live in Wales all the meat from the local butchers is so nice. Now I can feel good about them not being organic too!

So, thanks to Rolfe for her educational rantings!

[Belz...]

http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=3947

It says something when you're slower to adopt new technology than the Amish.

Ouch.

[Hellbound]

Ouch.

Reminds me of an interesting sci-fi story I read, can't recall the name or author, though...have to see if I could find it.

Basically, in the course of a murder investigation invoving an Amish community, the detective discovers that the Amish have been practicing biotech for years, achieving all sorts of biological products through extreme selective breeding (light-generating plants, treees that act as silent alarms, etc, etc). The reason for the Amsih seclusion was to safeguard their tech.

An unlikely story, but an interesting read with a unique twist.

[Almo]

What worries me is Microsoft type market manipulation:

http://www.biotech-info.net/Farmer_v_Monsanto.html

To get Roundup Ready canola's advantages farmers have to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year. The agreement also states they must destroy any leftover seed each year and let Monsanto inspect their fields.

I read somewhere, but I can't find it now, that they are figuring out how to make the seeds expire after a year on their own.

[CurtC]

I read somewhere, but I can't find it now, that they are figuring out how to make the seeds expire after a year on their own.This was Monsanto's famous "terminator" technology, which they dropped several years ago because of bad PR. I think it was a good idea, but at this tender stage of the develoment of GM technology, I guess they were being sensitive. What it was trying to do was to develop sterile crops, whose seeds produced one year would not be able to be re-planted the next. This would get around issues of inspections to verify compliance with the license terms.

What's often missed in this discussion is that several more conventionally bred hybrid crops produce seeds that can't be used the next - not that they're completely sterile, but the resulting seeds would themselves not make quality crops the next year. This is already effectively equivalent to terminator technology, completely separate from the GM issue.

But GM Roundup-ready soybeans are not like this - the seeds can be re-used. There was a famous case where a Canadian farmer (Percy Schmeiser) took seeds from plants near the edges of his fields, where they bordered neighboring farms who were Roundup-ready users, then intentionally selected for those plants by spraying them with Roundup, then planted those seeds. He knew he was violating a company's patents, and was fined by the courts. He's become a hero for the anti-GM crowd.

[patnray]

I was puzzled by the idea of adding bt genes to a plant.
I didn't think BT conferred any immunity to pests upon the plant itself, but rather it infected those pests directly. How would putting BT genes in a plant help?

(anecdote)I used BT one year on a pear tree that was particularly troubled by codling moths. It didn't seem to help much; the whole tree was devastated. The following year I used liberal doses of malathion, and had a nice crop.
IIRC BT kills insects because of a toxin they produce and the BT gene being inserted in the plants is the gene for the toxin.

http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover11.html

"Bt toxin is considered to be an ideal tool for biological pest control for several reasons. It is highly specific for particular insect species; therefore, non-target organisms will not be affected. It is non-toxic to vertebrates, and target-insect resistance is slow to develop. Finally, due to its light-sensitivity, it does not persist in an exposed environment. Bt toxin has been used to control gypsy moth and spruce budworm populations; in this application, the protoxin is applied as a component of proteinaceous inclusion bodies produced by the bacterium, along with chemicals that attract feeding insects. However, the genes encoding the various forms of Bt toxin can also be inserted into other bacteria or plant species. For example, Bt corn is corn that contains a truncated form of the cry1Ab gene, and therefore produces an active form of Bt toxin, rather than the proform normally produced by the bacterium."

[ysabella]

This was Monsanto's famous "terminator" technology, which they dropped several years ago because of bad PR. I think it was a good idea, but at this tender stage of the develoment of GM technology, I guess they were being sensitive. What it was trying to do was to develop sterile crops, whose seeds produced one year would not be able to be re-planted the next. This would get around issues of inspections to verify compliance with the license terms.
Well, and with all the concerns about GM crops "contaminating" other crops, you'd think people would welcome sterile GM crops that can't reproduce themselves.

[meg]

I don't see how anyone could view the "terminator" gene as a good idea for conventional crops. Pretty much it means that if I plant soybeans and my neighbor plants roundup ready soybeans, his soybeans will cross pollinate with mine without me knowing it. I'll save my seed for next year, but nothing will germinate, because they've been "terminated". I'm out my next year's crop and facing hardship because of my neighbor's choice of seed.

I do, however, see value in using terminator technology when growing GM crops for pharmaceutical production. See www.prodigene.com for examples of "pharm" crops. I do have concerns about those crops free pollinating with the neighbor's and/or making it into the food chain.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=adT0ydpQc5Gg is an interesting article about some of the research going on.

Overall, I've been very interested reading this thread. It's so refreshing to be able to read opinions about this topic that aren't insane on one side or the other.

I do have a couple of opinions about GM crops in general, though, that I'd like to throw in.

First off, Bt corn. I am not concerned in the slightest about eating Bt corn, however I do not believe it is a good idea to plant it and here's why:

1. Insects mutate quickly to become resistant to pesticides. Bt, when applied topically has been able to be used so successfully because its use was timed specifically to when the corn borers were most vulnerable, then it broke down quickly and was gone. There are many valid concerns that if the Bt gene is in the corn through the entire growth cycle that corn borers will become resistant to it.

2. Bacillus thuringiensis (bt) is also NOT specific to only corn borers, but will colonize and kill many different caterpillars that eat it, particularly lepidoptera (butterflies and moths). Many of these are considered beneficial bugs and are pollinators for other crops.

So theoretically, we could quite possibly see in the next few years that Bt no longer is effective again corn borer, and we have poor pollination of other crops because of a general decline in lepidoptera populations.

3. I don't know that the possible outcome is worth the risk, given that I've yet to find any research that shows GM crops are in any way more cost effective than conventional. They don't produce more per acre, they don't cost less, they're not easier to grow. I don't see the point, honestly. The only reason they get grown is because syngenta and pioneer have some awesome advertising bucks.

Anybody that says GM crops reduce the need for pesticides is wrong. Most GM crops grown today are of the roundup ready variety, meaning you can and should spray MORE pesticides on them, not less. That's the whole point of them. You can now make 4 or 5 passes with the weed killer instead of the one before planting you used to do. And actually, most farmers are finding that they *do* have to make more passes with the roundup, because many weeds are now becoming resistant.

And my final thought, as to antibiotics and animals. While I hear what Rolfe is saying, I think there's got to be some middle ground there. When we started raising pigs I couldn't find a commercially prepared feed that didn't have antibiotics in it. I finally had to make up our own blend of feed just because I didn't want to feed our pigs that stuff if they didn't need it. All the consultants I spoke with were sure that we were going to need it because "pigs are sickly". Well, it didn't take long to figure out that pigs that get plenty of fresh air, water, sunlight and room to run aren't sickly at all.

My 2 or 4 cents worth.
Meg

[ZirconBlue]

Anybody that says GM crops reduce the need for pesticides is wrong. Most GM crops grown today are of the roundup ready variety, meaning you can and should spray MORE pesticides on them, not less. That's the whole point of them. You can now make 4 or 5 passes with the weed killer instead of the one before planting you used to do. And actually, most farmers are finding that they *do* have to make more passes with the roundup, because many weeds are now becoming resistant.
Meg

Just a clarification that Roundup is an herbicide -(it kills plants), not a pesticide (which kills pests).

[Jorghnassen]

Just a clarification that Roundup is an herbicide -(it kills plants), not a pesticide (which kills pests).

I thought pesticide was a catch-all term for herbicide, insecticide and fungicide...

I just checked. Dictionary.com seems to agree with you, while wikipedia says the EPA has a much broader definition.

[meg]

I was taught also that pesticide is the term for all -cides. Insecticide, miticide, rodenticide, herbicide, etc.

M

[hodgy]

There are two issues here. The one you seem to be focussing on is the husbandry standards of healthy stock. This may or may not be better in organic herds. Certainly you're not going to get the evils of the real "Stalag Hen" variety, but many conventional farms have very good welfare standards, and many so-called free-range systems have miserable conditions for the livestock. Welfare in this respect has little to do with whether or not an individual farm can tick the boxes that allow it to call itself "organic".

Point taken - I am a layman on this issue so its good to hear a well-informed point of view from someone with more expertise. Actually I just double-checked the farm where I like to get my meat and its not organic, only free-range. When I go there I can see the animals and they look like they have a pretty good life.

I have a pretty simple approach - I buy free range (and sometimes organic) because I don't like the idea of animals spending their entire lives in cramped dark cages or being shipped across half of Europe in trucks. Free range and organic classification helps me to identify sources. I have no pretensions to being an expert in the life history of each animal I eat but I try in a limited way to reduce suffering.

The second issue is the important one of the prevention of disease and the treatment of sick animals. This is where organic farming sickens me. The use of many (if not most) properly tested, safe, effective and licensed medicines is forbidden. Farmers are encouraged and indeed instructed to use unlicensed, unproven and non-safety-tested preparations, under the laughable heading of "natural" remedies. This includes the use of some very toxic compounds for disease "prevention", far more toxic than the licensed products, simply because they aren't tested and licensed and so aren't "big pharma" medicines. It also includes the heavy promotion of homoeopathy.

That's a very good point and one that I was not aware of, I assumed that sick (organic) animals were treated as best veterinarian practice allowed. If you are telling me that this is not the case then maybe I will stick to free-range in future.

Most farm animal vets simply tear their hair out over "organic" livestock farms, despairing over the animals being allowed to suffer from eminently treatable conditions because waiting till the problems go away on their own (assuming they do) will not lose these animals their "organic" status while giving the poor, thin, scouring calves a dose of much-needed wormer will. And the amount of woo coming out of the organic proponents about homoeopathy being "good for" mastitis and so on would just make you throw up.

It certainly would make me very angry so thanks for enlightening me.

It has been shown in objective tests that the overall welfare standards of organically-reared animals are not better than conventionally-reared livestock and may often be worse. Anyone who is choosing organic meat for animal welfare reasons had better go away and do some serious reading, and have a rethink.

I'm not so concerned about the organic bit - I am more interested in the general welfare of the animals that I eat therefore I will re-evaluate my position a little. Having said that I still think that organic pork is on balance likely to have had a far less cruel life than factory-farm pork.

We should also bear in mind that cruelty is not just about how sick animals are treated but about how healthy ones are. A polar bear in a small enclosure in a zoo may have the best veterinarian care in the world but it does not make it a happy polar bear. Conversely an individual polar bear in the wild may starve to death in a bad year but I would still prefer that polar bears in general be not confined to zoos.

[Rolfe]

Stick with the "free-range" idea, then. But even there, it's good if you can actually see where the animals came from. Some producers have managed to squeeze into the "free-range" category with setups that aren't exactly what the consumer might have imagined - poultry with theoretical access to a small outside run that about 10% of the birds might actually succeed in locating during their lifetimes, for example. And the problems of bullying and victimisation aren't always addressed.

I'm all for improved welfare standards, it's just that you have to be constantly on the watch for people who will sweat the letter of the law while maintaining systems that really aren't too great. However, the whole "organic" movement, complete with overt, preposterous claims of efficacy for homoeopathic remedies, just makes me see very very red.

Rolfe.

[meg]

I understand why you see red, Rolfe, when dealing with an organic woo woo that's more concerned with whether he'll lose his organic certification than the health of his animal. This makes me see red, too.

To be fair, though, on the other end of the spectrum is the factory farmer piglot where the pigs are suspended in cages no bigger than their own bodies over a lagoon of their own manure and fed daily doses of antibiotics to attempt to counter the many diseases that such a system naturally breeds.

Or a somewhat less disgusting opposite end of the spectrum is the diligent farmer that worms his goats every 12 weeks whether they need it or not, which is resulting in the problem we have now that many wormers no longer work because the worms have developed resistance.

These also make me see red.

I think its a good thing to remember that the whole organic movement is a *reaction* to what has been occuring in our food production systems. And, like most kneejerk reactions, its not the absolute best choice of all. I believe that in general the organic movement is a good thing, because it is bringing to the forefront questions about how we grow our food, how we treat our food animals, and how we process that food for the table. I think these questions are important. I think we all should be taking a lot more responsibility for what we eat.

Unfortunately, I think many people think that as long as that "certified organic" stamp is on the package, it means that this food was lovingly grown by old macdonald himself in eden where, since he doesn't use those nasty chemicals, nothing ever gets sick and everything grows perfectly and you don't even need to wash it. Buying that "organic" product somehow proves how much they care about the environment, and sticks it to "the man".

It's just not true, though. There are huge organic factoryfarms interested only in taking the larger profit that organic stamp can get them, and there are soil conscious environmentally concerned conventional farmers that do everything in their power to maintain a healthy sustainable ecosystem.

Finding that middle ground where a farmer can make a halfway decent living and raise healthy nutritious food in a sustainable way is hard. I think the best advice is to try to have a relationship with the farmers that grow your food, and take a more active role in the decision making about where your food comes from, and how it gets to your table.

Trying to bring this back to the whole GM question. I think that those that consider all GM foods to be evil are wrong. Equally wrong is the attitude that since organic methods don't allow GM seeds, and since (some) organic farmers are woo that GM must be ok. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Meg

[Rolfe]

To be fair, though, on the other end of the spectrum is the factory farmer piglot where the pigs are suspended in cages no bigger than their own bodies over a lagoon of their own manure and fed daily doses of antibiotics to attempt to counter the many diseases that such a system naturally breeds.Just for information, where does this actually happen?

Rolfe.

[meg]

That is a fairly common method used by large pigfarms. It is called the "conventional confinement system". Quite common here in the midwest US, anyway.

ETA

Here are a couple of links describing the various options for farmers looking to get into hog production, which include some descriptions of confinement operations.

Brief paper description hog production systems from North Dakota State University:
http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/dickinso/research/1975/produc75.htm

"Hogs Your Way. Choosing a hog production system in the upper midwest" pdf. Has a pretty good description of confinement systems. Warning, fairly big download 80+ pages.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/components/DI7641.pdf

Let me know if you want more. I detest the "anti" websites that only show pictures of the disgusting parts in order to get emotional reactions, so I'm trying to put forward only university based publications that tend to be a bit more balanced.

Meg

[Rolfe]

I don't have the welfare regs at my fingertips, but so far as I'm aware, that stuff is illegal in the UK.

Rolfe.

[Floyt]

I don't think it really constitues "hard data", but: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0009/feature4/

The following link is clearly not objective, but it contains links to more scholarly articles: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Sixth_Great_Extinction

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/

I could try finding scientific data on the current extinction rate and what scientists believe the normal background extinction rate is, if you'd like.

I started reading the Biodiversity Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (which is largely an UN project). You can get it here:

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Products.Synthesis.aspx

- the specific biodiversity report is half a page down. (big, 14Mb)
It seems to be thorough and comprehensive research on a global scale. Had some surprises for me! So far it seems to pretty much bear out the hypothesis that we are triggering a noticeable extinction event.