The British royal family is no stranger to controversy and media attention, but Prince Charles caused a new kind of worldwide media flurry on Tuesday when he sat down for an exclusive interview with the Telegraph (U.K.). This time around, though, it seems unlikely the media story will be covered by the British tabloids since the Prince of Wales didn't discuss his sons, his love life, or even his future reign as king. Instead, the Prince talked about genetically modified organisms, our food supply, and the future of food security for the globe.
Simple enough, it seems: A soon-to-be global leader honestly discussed the roles of nations in food security, food technological issues, and the ways in which our entire human population can feed billions of people sustainably. Apparently, though, it's controversial for a global leader to advocate for a food system not dominated by "gigantic corporations," which would be an "absolute disaster." He further noted, "Corporations [are] conducting a gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong. Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and everything?"
I almost wish I were British so I could be proud of such bold leadership. Prince Charles' remarks tie together the phenomenon of increasing corporate control and business profits with that of increasing natural disasters and food insecurity. Corporate control of agriculture and our food system is at unprecedented levels, and industrial agriculture continues to rely almost exclusively on the extensive use of fossil fuels, which are ever increasing in price, perpetually polluting, and most importantly, diminishing. In the United States, over 90 percent of the soybeans harbor Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene; and the company continues to buy up seed companies throughout the world. This control has done nothing for world environmental and social sustainability. Instead it has only resulted in corporate profits in the billions of dollars while people continue to go hungry throughout the world.
And what about GMOs? Is Prince Charles accurate to note that they are an experiment with nature and humanity? The majority of GM crops are designed to resist herbicides and repel insects. Despite what some people may think, not a single GMO is commercially available that is designed to enhance nutrition, increase yield potential, tolerate drought, or manifest other attractive traits touted by the biotech industry. Rather, 82 percent of commercialized GM crops are designed to resist continual applications of herbicides. In reality, this means that GM crops are being developed to allow for greater pesticide use. In the United States from 1994 to 2005, there was a 15-fold increase in the use of the herbicide glyphosate on soybeans, corn, and cotton, driven by adoption of Roundup Ready (Monsanto brand) versions of these GM crops. Use of other more toxic herbicides, such as atrazine and 2,4-D, is also on the rise to deal with the epidemic of weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate.
The effect of this increased pesticide use is widespread and dramatic. Pesticides are polluting waterways, wildlife, and aquatic life while also affecting human health globally. Yet, perhaps the greatest tragedy of our GM fields is the loss of biodiversity it fosters. As our agriculture moves more and more toward monoculture with increased pesticide use, biodiversity decreases rapidly. Prince Charles specifically noted the devastating toll that corporate industrial agriculture has taken on India, especially in the Punjab. At the heart of India's green revolution, intensive industrial agriculture has impoverished Punjab's once-rich soils leading to diminished yields and rural breakdown. This is reflected in the rising incidence of farmer suicides.
As more and more people go hungry, natural disasters become increasingly prevalent and corporations continue to grow bigger and richer. In his interview, Prince Charles demonstrated bold leadership by decrying a system that is fundamentally flawed. Earlier this year the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) -- a committee commissioned by the World Bank and United Nations -- issued a report declaring "Modern agriculture will have to change radically if the world is to avoid social breakdown and environmental collapse." The director of IAASTD further noted, "To argue, as we do, that continuing to focus on production alone will undermine our agricultural capital and leave us with an increasingly degraded and divided planet is to reiterate an old message ... If those with power are now willing to hear it, then we may hope for more equitable policies that do take the interests of the poor into account." It looks like Prince Charles has taken this to heart -- his remarks are encouraging and inspiring, because they recognize all of the "externalities" that industrial food production seems to leave out of the equation. I hope he will inspire other global leaders to rethink their agricultural perspectives and advance towards a true food security.
Farm lobby: Shoot the climate bill, but keep the Peterson goodies
A reading from the book of Jackson
Comments View as Flat
Skeptico Posted 5:16 am
15 Aug 2008
So stop it all?
Because not all benefits have yet been realized, does that mean we should stop all GMO research and production? Is that a reason for Charles to spout nonsense about problems in India and Australia, that later commenters point out are nothing to do with GMOs? What do you have to say about the "protesters" who are so scared of learning anything about GMOs that they destroy any attempts to even do trials. From the Telegraph article:
Is that the answer? Charles' ignorant rhetoric seems to encourage such actions.
Permalink
justlou Posted 6:02 am
15 Aug 2008
The Big Question Charles is Asking
Is there any potential for sustainability of the current industrial mode of ag production, with GMO or without GMO? GMOs are a side issue. In the absence of cheap fossil fuel energy and fossil fuel feed stocks for ag chemicals, what is the end? The end for much of the world will be food too expensive to purchase. And peak food correlated with peak oil and peak fertilizer supplies.
As we ratchet up the technology to perpetuate an inherently unsustainable system is it not wise to question the path we are on and not tie ourselves to one future dictated by our dependency on a few international corporate giants?
Permalink
Meredith Niles Posted 6:14 am
15 Aug 2008
This is not Nonsense
Skeptico: Thanks for your comments. To be clear, I am not, nor do I believe that Prince Charles is, advocating for trespassing and destruction of land. Rather, something more like the precautionary principle seems appropriate in this situation, where science which is potentially dangerous to both the environment and human health be adequately tested in all regards before being wholeheartedly planted throughout the globe.
The "nonsense" in India that you speak of is actually quite the opposite- it is truly devastating. Farmer suicide rates and increasing debt problems in India have been increasing significantly in the past 10 years. While the issue may not be completely dealing with GMO crops, it is the result of debt that farmers accrued while trying to pay for agricultural inputs including fertilizers and pesticides sold to them by large agribusiness corporations. Research from Washington University published in Anthropology News gives an interesting overview of these issues, specifically corporate control. Considering that GMO seeds are yet another agricultural input that farmers must pay for year after year, rather than saving their seeds, GMO crops may be contributing to this problem significantly. This is not nonsense and is affecting untold numbers of rural farmers throughout India. I would encourage you to watch the PBS Documentary Series "Seeds of Suicide" or a new French documentary, "The World According to Monsanto" for additional information.
Meredith Niles Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator The Center for Food Safety www.coolfoodscampaign.org www.centerforfoodsafety.org
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 6:37 am
15 Aug 2008
What is the solution, then?
I know there are many GMO backers amongst the Gristmill commenting folk - what benefits do GM crops offer that outweigh sustainable farming practices? I think knowing that would help frame the debate a bit more precisely. Right now there's a lot of "is not/is so" talk scattered throughout the threads of this blog.
As for his lordship, years ago I read a long and engrossing article on the land use practices he promotes in his territory (being a landed noble as well as heir apparent, he owns a LOT of UK turf); it became clear quickly that Charles is very keen on sustainability issues. He can treat his land and its subjects like a huge laboratory, and I do wonder if he's in a unique position to bring agricultural sustainability solutions to scale.
Permalink
justlou Posted 7:11 am
15 Aug 2008
The ABCs of GMOs
"what benefits do GM crops offer that outweigh sustainable farming practices?"
I don't think this is an either or question. GM is not something that is standing out there by itself, outside of the context of the system it augments. GM crops could fit within a sustainable farming system.
In the current system, GMOs are an increasingly key component of a heavily industrialized ag production system, off and on the farm.
GMO are facilitating increasing crop yields which are instrumental in keeping large scale producers competitive in a low margin business environment. The introduction of herbicide and insect resistant crops is making it much easier for the large farmers to become even larger. And with this development, their ties with the large agricultural input suppliers and the commodity marketing firms becomes more and more interdependent. And this interdependency grows increasing political power to effect huge policy moves like ethanol from corn (which keeps prices moving upward to pay for those rapidly escalating input costs like GMO seed).
And these rapidly escalating costs do require us to ask just how long any of this is going to be economically viable. New figures for 2009 reveal that break even prices for corn will shoot up to about $4.00 per bushel and about $8.00 per bushel for soybeans. It is safe to say that we no longer have a cheap food policy in the U.S.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:16 am
15 Aug 2008
It is not an either/or problem.
PBrazelton wrote...
"I know there are many GMO backers amongst the Gristmill commenting folk - what benefits do GM crops offer that outweigh sustainable farming practices?"
The benefits of GMOs do not out weigh sustainable farming practices. The benefits of GMOs enhance sustainable farming practices.
Over the past two years I've presented examples of GMOs that reduce rather than increase the use of chemicals. Others who know more about the subject have tried to engage in fact-based discussions of the benefits and hazards of GMOs. Yet I see the same complaint over and over... "GMOs only increase the use of chemicals!" "Supporters must be corporate shills!" It appears anti-GMO people don't want to have their world view threatened by information suggesting GMOs are not necessarily bad. Ignorance is bliss? More likely, ignorance is rage? Afraid that if you get to know them, it will be more difficult to hate them?
I've mentioned three books, written by intelligent people who looked at both the advantages and disadvantages of GMOs, freely admitting there are potential problems. I've summarized passages from those books showing how GMOs helped farmers in developing countries. None of the official commentators here appears interested in reading and reviewing such pro-GMO/pro-environment books. I would really like to hear an organic farmer's response to these books.
One visitor to the Grist website has set up a blog to discuss these issues, explain how the technology works, and share her opinions regarding how to get the technology, no strings attached, into the hands of farmers. She clearly cares about the environment, farmers, and the quality of our food supply. Perhaps Grist, in the interest of presenting diverse views, could invite here to contribute to this website.
We all have to learn more about this topic so we can make informed decisions and not discard the advantages of GMOs. I'm trying to learn about organic farming practices, primarily because I don't want to use chemicals around my home or anyone else's home. But also because it would be pointless to create a GMO to solve a problem when there is a perfectly good organic practice that solves the problem.
I also want to know whether "natural" chemicals really work and whether there are hazards we should be aware of. Feel-good measures do not protect the environment. We have to know our decisions to embrace or reject certain practices really work.
Consider my recent post here...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/23/64038/8979
"Natural" pesticides are not necessarily good for total soil health. Shouldn't we be aware of this? And if a GMO can get rid of BOTH the synthetic and "natural" chemical, wouldn't the environment be better off?
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 7:50 am
15 Aug 2008
Prince Charles background
The Prince owns a lot of land (141,000 acres in the Duchy of Cornwall) but there are others who own a similar amount, like the Duke of Buccleuch, Estate of Atholl dukedom, Duke of Northumberland, and Duke of Westminster. Land ownership is very poorly distributed in the UK. All told, 158,000 families own 69 percent of Britain's land.
Prince Charles has no more or less ability to treat his land "like a huge laboratory" than any other large landowner, farmer or developer. The difference is he has made a concerted effort to innovate with research and investment into
Healthy living,
Sustainable building and urban design,
Organic food, and
A variety of responsible business and charitable trusts
Everyone who lives or works on Duchy of Cornwall land does so by choice, and many of the Prince's initiatives are successful profit-making enterprises.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:04 am
15 Aug 2008
Yawn......
more "corporations are ruling the world" and GMOs are going to destroy the world. It's agricultural subsidies which are the root cause of the problem and GMOs are a sideshow, but that doesn't make for sexy headlines so.....
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 8:40 am
15 Aug 2008
Agricultural subsidies
A large percentage of agricultural subsidies in the US end up in the pockets of the multi-nationals. If there were no subsidies it is unlikely that US farmers would have embraced GMO's as they have done.
Another factor which has not been mentioned is that pre-GMO days soybeans produced their own nitrogen fertilizer because of the symbiotic rhizobacteria which colonized their roots and supplied nitrogen directly to the plants.
Round up is toxic to the rhizobia so that the farmers are not only having to face lower yields, yes yields (i.e. per acre yields, not total yields) have decreased since the introduction of GMO's but they are having to use more expensive nitrogen fertilizer.
GMO's are designed to increase chemical profits and ensure that the chemical companies have more of a monopoly in this area. They do nothing for food supply or nutritional content.
Permalink
Cacaoatl Posted 8:48 am
15 Aug 2008
Maybe It Is Time to Take a Step Back
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Where we stand now with GMOs is where the Greatest Generation stood 60 years ago with atomic energy. Sure splitting the atom to create energy seemed like a good idea at the time but that was before Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and thousands of nuclear weapons stockpiled by the US and Soviet Union. It would be nice if those working in the GMO field would take a step back and think about the possible consequences before we have the GMO equivalent of Chernobyl on our hands. I mean agriculture got along fine with out GMOs for 10'000 years, a little break from the research won't hurt anyone. It might even help everyone see it with a clear head.
Permalink
Skeptico Posted 9:56 am
15 Aug 2008
Reply from Skeptico
Meredith Niles wrote:
I agree with that, but that wasn't really what Charles was saying.
Meredith Niles wrote:
I'm sure it is. But is it the fault of GMOs? According to The Financial Times it's the government:
Maybe you thing the FT is biased. Perhaps they are but probably less so than Charles. He was totally wrong about Australia - they've banned GMOs there since 2004 (and they were virtually unused there before) but that didn't stop him from blaming the problem on GMOs.
Meredith Niles wrote:
"Must" pay for? Really? Surely they only "must" pay for them if they want them, and they must only want them if the return is worth the financial investment? Why would they buy GMO seeds unless they are better off doing so?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:40 am
15 Aug 2008
Demand farmers stop using Neem extracts as well...
Hello Mr. Forrester.
Please read my comment at...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/23/64038/8979/#16 ...
Neem extracts, a popular organic pesticide, severely alter soil microorganism populations and should not be used on legumes.
RoundUp, Neem extracts, pyretrin... they are all broad spectrum pesticides. Sure, the first is synthetic and kills plants. I don't know about its effect on nitrogen-fixing bacteia. Can you direct me to a reference. The other two are "natural", but still severely harm ecological webs. I think we should discourage use of all toxic chemicals. I'd have more respect for those opposed to GMOs if they looked not at the technology, but the specific consequences.
Is Charles calling for the elimination of Neem extracts, pyrethrin, copper sulfate, rotenone, and othe harmful "natural" compounds from agriculture?
Is Charles calling for the elimination of sweet clover, crown vetch, and other extremely invasive plants from agriculture?
The problem is not GMOs, it is the sorts of GMOs most commonly used.
If RoundUp does reduce nitrogen fixation, like Neem extracts do, why not continue to used RounUp instead of burning fuel to till to control weeds and use natural soil ammendments (like manure) instead of synthetic fertilizer? Combine the best GMOs with the best organic practices. There is no need to combine RoundUp Ready crops with synthetic fertilizer.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 11:46 am
15 Aug 2008
Greenleft GMOs
It would be nice not to become too science-averse. There are many biotechnology initiatives aimed at developing genetically improved crops for developing countries, - crops that would not be patented or owned by corporations, and that would benefit the poor, while limiting environmental risks.
For example, the father of GMOs - professor Marc Van Montagu - chairs the Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries. These are very serious people, working on such things as improving cassava, the staple of the world's poorest people.
They want an open-source style biotech universe. And they're no fundamentalists, they are all for a smart combination of organic production methods where feasible, biotech where reasonable, etc...
This debate is often way too black and white. Nowadays, GMOs can be designed in such a way that the traditional associated risks are really minimized, while bringing major environmental, economic and social benefits to very many people.
Finally, let's not forget that it can sometimes be very rational to take a small risk in order to avoid much larger risks: e.g. keeping sub-Saharan Africa's population dependent on traditional agricultural methods and food imports, fuels population growth, which is environmentally and socially catastrophic (leading to wars, abject poverty and the wholesale destruction of ecosystems). A mild GMO-based local food industry could rapidly transform this situation and help bring about the urgently needed demographic transition in these countries. That would be very wholesome from an environmental point of view.
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 12:56 pm
15 Aug 2008
Land ownership
Jonas said: "A mild GMO-based local food industry could rapidly transform this situation."
I doubt that that will work. For instance all the basic patents for GMO development are in the hands of the multi-national companies. They only allowed them to be used gratis for "golden rice" once it was established that GR was not going to work.
The problem, particularly in Africa, is that most of the good agricultural land was used for cash crop production for colonial type farmers. The indigenous people were shunted off their land and were allowed to farm the poorest of the poor land. That is why they have trouble producing sufficient nutritionally adequate food.
The best solution is to give the indigenous people their land back and allow them to revert back to their traditional form of agriculture which they used before the colonials drove them off their land.
If the indigenous people have neither ownership of their land not ownership of their seeds they will not prosper.
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 12:57 pm
15 Aug 2008
nor ownership
Sorry, that should read "nor ownership".
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:06 pm
15 Aug 2008
Real Leadership
Wow, now that's a real leader talking! He's not even elected and he's far better than anyone in power here in the U.S. He makes Obama look like a pandering fool. This shows that democracy alone does not produce good leaders. Without an informed and at least slightly wise electorate, democracy will produce the kind of crap we currently have.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 9:43 pm
15 Aug 2008
Technology is not inherently evil
Perhaps we can all agree that "scientific research" and technological "advances" are not necessarily "bad". How a technology is used, the motives for using it, and the consequences of how it is used are the real issue.
Many, including me, have a deep distrust/fear of any entity building a patented monopoly on seeds and by extension our survival. Perhaps its nearly "instinctive" -- evolved over the many generations since humans developed agriculture.
All businesses -- from the one man shop to the huge multinational corporation -- are in it for the profit. Profit is not inherently good though. How one profits can be inherently immoral/abhorrent/destructive/"bad". I have grave reservations about the motives & practises of those who aim to profit by GM seeds. And the resistance of companies like Monsanto to such things as the labeling of GM ingredients or hormones in milk, etc. makes me suspicious and distrustful of their motives and their products' safety. We have all too often seen large corporations put profit ahead of safety, ahead of the environment and ahead of the law.
This is not a purely "scientific" discussion whether or not GM seeds are "safe" for the environment and human consumption -- nor should it be. The philosophical and ethical issues are at least as important in this case.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Jonas Posted 10:16 pm
15 Aug 2008
Going back is not an option
Ian, I beg to disagree. Reverting back to "traditional agriculture" would often mean itinerant farming, slash-and-burn and other extensive models. This, combined with the very high population pressures would ruin the environment. Remember: fertility rates are highest amongst the rural populations. In Congo, for example, it is almost 7 children per women.
It is traditional farming with its ultra-low yields, amongst other things (like lack of infrastructure) which keeps these people in poverty.
Traditional agriculture is extremely challenging, especially in the tropics, known for their poor soils. It would mean using much, much more land than would be the case in a technology intensive scenario.
If there is any place on the planet where science and technology can absolutely make the difference in agriculture, then it is precisely in the notoriously problematic tropics and subtropics.
Your point about land tenure and land rights is obviously important, but it does not address the extreme agronomic challenges these people face.
All major new initiatives aimed at improving the food security of people in SSAfrica (like AGRA or the Global Cassava Partnership) are all based on heavy investments in science, technology and Greener Revolution strategies.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 10:19 pm
15 Aug 2008
Ultra-conservatism and environmentalism
By the way, I find it bizarre to see a growing coalition between an extreme conservative right-wing Royal person who has never had to work in his life, on the one hand, and self-proclaimed environmentalists on the other.
But then, many environmentalists nowadays are extremely right-wing reactionaries. So it doesn't really come as a surprise.
With all due respect to his Majesty, but I don't think His Higness The Royal Prince of Lalaland has no authority to speak about he lives of billions of food insecure people who have to plough the earth to make a living.
Science and technology can help these people. Not myth and reactionary bourgeois thinking.
Permalink
JTime959 Posted 1:30 am
16 Aug 2008
Is the very idea of GMO even ethical?
The debate between GMO's being good or bad is all well and good. But shouldn't we first decide whether it is even our place to be patenting lifeforms? I think nature has done a pretty good job at creating a very diverse cast of creatures on this planet and it is a pretty big thing for us (just one of those creatures) to say that we now have the right to create/destroy life forms. I suppose it can be argued that it is good we are now creating life forms to replace the ones we have eliminated. But I would still have to differ to nature being the sole entity with the right to create new creatures. 3.5 billion years of practice is nothing to laugh at. Life on Earth has gotten to this point because all the creatures (save for us at this point) have allowed the natural progression of changes to go on unaided.
Looking at what "Frankenfoods" we have created however forces one to look at our eating habits. EVERYTHING we eat in the US contains corn. Ok not 100% of our food but 99.999999% does contain corn in some fashion. These foods do not look anything like corn but, nonetheless, corn must be grown to make them. Perhaps if we ate a more diverse diet and did not hinge our food security on the success of one single creature we would not even need to be "inventing life" or having this discussion.
Jonas, I agree that science and technology can help the "billions of food insecure" but the technologies they are getting are in fact exacerbating their situation. And by the way, that technology is coming from the "bourgeois" you seem to dislike. Going back to "traditional" farming does not mean medieval serfs tending the land. It means reforming a connection between the land and people. Without reconciling with the soil, it will eventually politely tell us NO MORE! and stop producing...perpetuating more technology designed to force the soil to do what we want (aka rape).
Permalink
Skeptico Posted 2:17 am
16 Aug 2008
None of our food is "natural"
JTime959 wrote:
Absolute nonsense. Virtually none of the food we eat is a result of "natural progression" unaided by man. For example, wheat was artificially bred by humans from three wild species between 2,000 and 10,000 years ago. The resulting plant we now know as wheat has extra-large seeds and is totally incapable of survival in the wild.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:49 am
16 Aug 2008
Charlie's Background...
.... inherited wealth
.... corporate sponsored rape
.... corporate shillery
.... murder of native people
I'm astonished by the power this "prince" has over the distrustful anti-GMO crowd.
His family accumulated power and wealth by means far more violent and world-shaking than anything perpetrated by Exxon, Monsanto, and Walmart. The Bristish Empire, cooperating with other empires, pitted native people against native people and exterminated the vast majority of them to take their natural resources and establish corporate control over globe. We are still dealing with the consequnces of imperialism and colonialism, which makes it very difficult to focus on preserving the natural world.
The institutions established by the British and other aristrocracies continue to plague us. That a few members of these wealthy families might try to accompish something good now is little consolation those innocent people who lost their land, their freedom, their lives, and are forgotten.
One could say that Charles' lovely organic fields have not been fertilized by cow manure, bone meal, and minerals. They've been fertilzed by lies, human corpses, and gold.
The aristocracy is a very slippery and adaptable bunch. I suspect Charles' interest in organic agriculture is more of a business decision than some sort of enlightened conversion. It is funny how we are so skeptical about Monsanto because they profit from GMOs and therefore, of course, defend the technology. Yet, here is a "prince" who has built a profitable business around organic agrculture and we are supposed to trust that he diplays no bias when he condemns modern agriculture! We are supposed to be suspicios of Monsanto's generosity. But, of course, the "prince" is displaying real generosity. We are supposed to hate corporations, but embrace a smiling "prince".
Real leadership carefully studies issues and presents an honest fact-based assessment of the problems and potential solutions. They do not try to hoodwink people and resort to fear tactics.
If Charles really wanted to save our natural world, I'd recommend heading to some of the troubled spots in the world and trying very hard to undo the damage inflicted by his ancestors. His meddling with our food supply is more likely to get us all killed than preserve what's left of native ecosystems.
Charles, George W. Bush.... they are cut from the same cloth. One chose supposedly benign tactics to win the heart of the people. The other chose ruthless suppression of the truth and use of military force. But a dictator or wanbee dictator, whether benign or evil, is till a dictator. Ineed, the benign one that carefully pretends to protect people while building a commercial empire might be more dangerous than the one who employs violence. The first is difficult to recognize and can easily woo people. The second is obviously a problem and eventually goes too far.
I don't believe either one is delivering the Truth.
Please present one good reason for trusting Charles more than Monsanto.
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 5:08 am
16 Aug 2008
Honesty over lies and dishonesty
wiscidea said: "Please present one good reason for trusting Charles more than Monsanto".
Well it does not matter to me whether Charles inherited his wealth or not. What is important to me, and should be important to you, unless you are one of Monsanto's PR flacks, is honesty.
Charles is displaying far more honesty in what he does than Monsanto has shown in its dishonest campaign to gain a monopoly on our food and agricultural technology.
You also say: "Real leadership carefully studies issues and presents an honest fact-based assessment of the problems and potential solutions. They do not try to hoodwink people and resort to fear tactics." It's funny that you should make that statement since it describes exactly the dishonesty shown by Monsanto.
You also do not appear to know much about British history. The monarch has had no real power in the UK since the government, headed by Cromwell, beheaded the British king, also called Charles 360 years ago.
It was the British Government and its big business backers (nothing changes) who sponsored the creation of the British Empire.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:58 pm
16 Aug 2008
He's honest because he's honest?
Hello Mr. Forrester.
So, you are saying Charles is more honest than Monsanto because he's more honest than Monsanto. Perhaps you can elaborate.
Charles profits from organic agriculture; he strongly supports organic agriculture. Therefore we should trust him. Monsanto profits from GMOs; they strongly support GMOs. Therefore we should not trust them. Hmmm....
I don't trust either one of them. But, of course, since I support the use of some GMOs, the typical anti-GMO response... I must be a corporate shill or one of Monsanto's PR flacks. Why can't I just be someone concerned about the environment who happens to believe some GMOs are useful, distrustful of Monsanto, and distrustful of Charles? (Does he have a last name?)
I fail to understand why a person who profits from organic agriculture is a reliable source of information about the evils of GMOs while a person, or corporation, who profits from GMOs is obviously lying when they support them.
Shouldn't we be relying on unbiased sources of information about organic agriculture and GMOs? Did you read the academic article about Neem extracts? Or do you prefer to wear blinders?
Regarding my comment about real leadership, I was not saying that Charles is dishonest while Monsanto is perfectly trustworthy. Sorry to diffuse your amusement. Both are extreme in their views, both profit from what they say or don't say, and both are trying to gain advantage by persuading the public to oppose the "enemy". Charles has no more credibility than Monsanto.
Regarding British history. I admit I don't know much about it. So... Charles I was beheaded 1649. Are you saying the British monarchy did not play a role in or profit from British foreign policy, imperialism, and colonialism between 1649 and the present? The royal family -- or perhaps I should say "families", since I don't whether there is a continuous genetic line of decent between Charles I and Elizabeth II -- was not a "business backer" that sponsored creation of the British Empire? How did they support their lavish life-style between 1649 and present? Were they humble organic farmers?
Permalink
David Gerard Posted 9:55 pm
16 Aug 2008
It's not the food, it's the money
The problem is not the food itself, it's that (a) Monsanto will own the seeds and their very genetic code outright (b) they have a history of exploiting their victims to the hilt. http://notnews.today.com/2008/08/17/prince-must-prove-ant ...
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:41 pm
16 Aug 2008
Royal pain
I'd never have cast myself as a defender of the British royals but I have to comment on some of the personal attacks on Charles Windsor in the comments above.
Though born filthy rich like all his immediate family, by all accounts he's been a very hard worker throughout his adult life both in the public duties that are expected of him and on the personal causes that he has chosen on his own account. His sincerity and forthrightness, which has often got him bad press, is unquestionable. The agricultural holdings of the Duchy of Cornwall have been throughout his tenure responsibly let to local farming families on condition of sustainable farming practices. They could undoubtedly deliver far more income leased to agribusiness industrials. This well-documented record of good stewardship has often led to a kind of public contempt for him as a well-intentioned fool who could make more money if he would only abandon his ideals: all in all, a very long way from the accusations of capitalistic duplicity bandied about in this thread.
My own major concern is rather that in the past any cause to which Charles has devoted himself have been tainted by a common public perception of him as a life member of the lucky sperm and egg club of no more than average intelligence who cares little for money because he has so darn much of it, and that his advocacy may serve to continue the perception of the organic agriculture movement as elitist and out of touch. It's been a long time since I lived in England, and I hope attitudes to Charles may have rebounded from that very low spot around the time of his first wife's death to the extent that this fear is unfounded.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:22 pm
17 Aug 2008
JTime959 Makes The Point
Notice that no one here refuted the point about only nature being competent to create forms of life or mess with its basic building blocks. That's because no refutation is possible. The posters who take anti-environmental positions on the issues of genetic engineering and/or organic farming can't get past these fundamental reasons for opposing these technologies, so I say we just declare moral victory and move on.
GreenGranny,
I disagree with your assertion that technology is not bad per se. Name one technology that does not kill plants or animals, harm ecosystems, or pollute air, land, or water.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 7:15 pm
17 Aug 2008
Wolverine
By your argument, humans (and perhaps all living creatures) are inherently bad. After all, by the act of eating, every creature from the small insect to the largest mammal, destroys something.
And then we could go round and round on the "guns don't kill people. . ." type of argument. I'd say the invention of the sail (as in sail boat) was a non-destructive technological innovation. But then we used sail boats to over fish, kill whales, explore and then plunder far away lands. . .
The clock seems to be a fairly innocuous invention -- yet how many people die from stress ultimately caused by percieved lack of time. . .?
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Skeptico Posted 12:29 am
18 Aug 2008
Question
Maybe someone wants to answer the question I asked Meredith - Why "Must" farmers Pay for GM Seeds?
Permalink
Skeptico Posted 12:33 am
18 Aug 2008
Nature incompetent, I'm afraid
Total crap. It was completely refuted since, as I wrote above but you apparently ignored, virtually none of the food we eat is a result of "nature" unaided by man. For example, wheat was artificially bred by humans from three wild species between 2,000 and 10,000 years ago. The resulting plant we now know as wheat has extra-large seeds and is totally incapable of survival in the wild. Nature is clearly completely incompetent to give us the food we need. If it were, we wouldn't need farming, would we?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:35 am
18 Aug 2008
Nature Doesn't Make Mistakes
Just my opinion... like most of what I post...
Nature is neutral. Change occurs. Some organisms benefit and proliferate. Others are harmed and disappear.
The emergence of photosynthesis and the conversion of Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxidizing environment wiped out a global ecosystem and permitted the rise of intelligent life. Was it a mistake?
It is absurd to suggest that Nature made a mistake by allowing humans to emerge -- Wolverine's suggestion. Though perhaps combining our intelligence with an opposable thumb will not be particularly useful for most other organisms currently residing here.
It is also absurd -- and enormously arrogant -- to suggest that humans are correcting Nature's mistakes -- Skeptico's suggestion. We are altering Nature to meet our perceived immediate needs. We are not correcting errors.
I like to use the example of sickle-cell anemia. Two copies of the "defective" gene and a person has an average life expectancy between 40 and 50 year. One copy, and the person is resistant to malaria. Suppose someone uses genetic engineering to ensure their child does not carry the "bad" allele. Correcting a mistake? Suppose that child travels to Africa and dies from malaria... did the parents make a good decision or a bad decision?
So... I do not think it is helpful to approach this issue by saying humans, their behavior, or technology is a mistake. Nor is it helpful to claim humans are correcting and must continue to correct Nature's mistakes.
Wolverine...
I will try to respond to your comment...
"Notice that no one here refuted the point about only nature being competent to create forms of life or mess with its basic building blocks. That's because no refutation is possible."
... later.
I believe those who see some benefit from GMOs are obligated to study, think about, and provide some opinion on this matter. I'll try, though previous exchanges revealed we have very different views of exactly what "Natural" means.
I hope I've at least communicated -- through past posts -- that I don't view every single GMO as a brilliant idea.
Peace.
Permalink
Skeptico Posted 3:08 pm
18 Aug 2008
Straw Man - ironic, considering the subject
wiscidea wrote:
That is a rather ridiculous straw man - I said no such thing. I just pointed out that the statement "only nature [is] competent to create forms of life or mess with its basic building blocks" was wrong. Humans have been altering their foods for 10,000 years. What nature provided was not even close to being sufficient to feed the human population - even thousands of years ago and certainly not now. That wasn't a "mistake" - mistake implies some sort of choice. Nature just didn't provide us with all we need. That should be obvious.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:45 pm
18 Aug 2008
"Incompetent" Planet
"Nature is clearly completely incompetent to give us the food we need."
This comment is so ecologically retarded and generally ignorant that it doesn't warrant a response, but I'll provide a brief one anyway.
People discovered agriculture 10-12,000 years ago. For tens of thousands to millions of years before that, depending on how you wish to define "humans," humans lived quite well as hunter-gatherers. So nature clearly did provide humans all the food we need. It's true that nature can't provide food for a grossly overpopulated human race, but that's OK because overpopulated species need to be reduced in number.
The real problem with comments like this is the attitude of the commenter toward nature and the natural world. I'd say if you don't like it here, please leave and find another planet where you do. You and your attitude are doing great harm just by being here.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:32 pm
18 Aug 2008
My Bad
Skeptico.
I apologize for the remark. I'd swear I saw a comment of yours that referred to "correcting nature's mistakes". But I clearly made a mistake.
Thank you for your contributions to this thread. Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
wiscidea
Permalink
Skeptico Posted 4:52 pm
18 Aug 2008
Vacuous
wolverine wrote:
And are you volunteering to be one of the people who dies of starvation? Because if not, you are just a poseur.
The real problem with comments like this from Wolverine is the attitude of the commenter toward the human race. I'd say if you don't like humans, please leave and find another planet where there are beings you do approve of. You and your attitude are doing great harm just by being here.
Permalink
Skeptico Posted 4:55 pm
18 Aug 2008
No prob
wiscidea:
No problem. It's easy to get confused with so many people posting. Apologies if I came off a little harsh.
Permalink
Meredith Niles Posted 7:44 am
19 Aug 2008
Clarifications on "must"
Hi Skeptico,
Thanks again for all of your continued interest in this topic. Its great to see so many posts and interest!
I am glad we can agree that the Indian situation is certainly devastating. That is an interesting perspective presented by the Financial Times. The issues to which I am referring are more specifically related to GM cotton, not rice. However, the Financial Times is a little misleading because there is actually no GM rice commercially available in India. In developing countries at present, the main issue with biotech seeds is their cost. In India, GM (Bt) cotton seeds can cost 4 times as much as conventional seeds, often leading cotton farmers to borrow at high interest rates from moneylenders. If the GM cotton gets hit with secondary pests, the farmer will end up spending as much on insecticides as conventional farmers who paid much less for their seed, and can become trapped in debt. GM cotton is heavily promoted in India so many farmers believe that it can offer them hope, but as the documentary "The World According to Monsanto" indicates through personal interviews, many farmers are no longer planting GM cotton because of the aforementioned issues.
In response to your comments about my "must" comment. The "must" I refer to is the price that farmers must pay if they wish to plant GMO seeds year after year. Once a farmer begins planting GMO seeds, they have to sign agreements, specifically with companies like Monsanto, in which they declare that they will not replant or save their seeds. These agreements are legally binding, and thus, actually do require farmers to return to the corporation to purchase their seeds year after year. So if they want to plant these crops, they MUST buy them. Infringements on this, whether through actual deliberate plantings or cross-contamination (i.e. nature pollinating neighboring crops) can result in lawsuits on farmers. In fact, Monsanto has an entire legal team of 75 lawyers devoted solely to investigating and suing farmers. The Center for Food Safety has produced an extensive report titled, "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers" which details these issues found online at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersrep ... .
I certainly hear your point being that a farmer is not being forced to purchase GMO seeds. Although, in the United States it is getting harder and harder to purchase some types of crops that are not GM. The most obvious example of this is soybeans, in which 90% of them have the Round-Up Ready gene present. Monsanto continues to buy smaller seed companies throughout the world every year which is decreasing market competition and making it more and more difficult to purchase seeds that are not owned by this, or other, large corporations.
It seems like one of the initial reasons farmers may choose to plant GMO is the simplified weed control and reduced labor inputs to control weeds. Yet, as weeds increase and become resistant, pesticide use increases (which it has done significantly in the past 10 years) and the economic benefits will begin to drop off. Unfortunately, once a farmer is in the system of growing GM, it's hard to get out- because soil organic matter has been depleted with application of synthetic pesticides and the transition to a more organic system of agriculture will be difficult.
Meredith Niles Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator The Center for Food Safety www.coolfoodscampaign.org www.centerforfoodsafety.org
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 1:11 pm
19 Aug 2008
Technology
GreenGranny wrote, "By your argument, humans (and perhaps all living creatures) are inherently bad. After all, by the act of eating, every creature from the small insect to the largest mammal, destroys something."
Well,yes, the human race fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet, but that's not due to my showing that technology is inherently ecologically and environmentally harmful. And eating per se is not destroying something, though the way many humans do so it is. Eating is just part of the cycle of life, and whatever is eaten is reincarnated as part of whatever ate it. Eating is the only legitimate excuse for killing, which is why when technology kills it's a bad thing.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:23 pm
19 Aug 2008
Nature and Creation of New Forms of Life
Wolverine wrote...
"Notice that no one here refuted the point about only nature being competent to create forms of life or mess with its basic building blocks. That's because no refutation is possible."
There is probably no way to oppose or support GMOs from this perspective because the very definition of Nature appears subjective, but...
I believe Nature includes human beings. We are a natural force that affects the evolution of other organisms just as they affect the evolution of our species. Hunter gatherers set fire to grasslands and selected for certain plants, insects, mammals, et cetera that would dominate continents... and also eliminated species and all those dependent on them. Further back in time, the color of ripe fruit and the structure of trees that sheltered our ancestors played a role in shaping our visual ability, our opposable thumb, and our brain that allowed us to exploit such traits. It is an endless cycle... shaping our environment and being shaped by it.
A bee chooses to pollinate a flower. The flower might be brighter or more red than others of the species; it produces more seed. Did the bee "mess" with Nature?
A beaver contructs a dam and floods hundreds of acres. A few members of a species of tree, say, tolerate or even thrive in wet soil; the others die. Did the beaver "mess" with Nature?
A herbivore feed on some species of grass. A few members of the species, by random mutation, rely on a meristem near their base to regrow; those that rely on a meristem near the top of the plant go extinct. A new species emerges. Did the herbivore "mess" with Nature?
A chimpanzee chews on a stick to sharpen it and randomly pokes it into tree cavities, hoping to spear a another primate for dinner. This chimpanzee has an advantage and produces more offspring. Perhaps evolution eliminates the vulnerable members of the prey species and those nesting in a higher tree cavitiy prevail. Did the chimpanzee "mess" with Nature?
Genetic engineering is an extension of human evolution, though cultural rather than genetic. It is an extension of consuming appealing plants and discovering more of those plants growing around our homes and along trails. It is an extension of crossing plants with desirable traits. It is an extension of inventing tools to facilitate crossing and growing plants we prefer. Our large-scale agriculture is similar to a beaver's effort to modify hundreds of acres of dry forest so there is better habitat for producing more beavers.
Most of our tools for genetic engineering are extensions of process that occurred long before we climbed down from the trees. We use bacteria that "naturally" transfer DNA from species to species, inserting their own genes into plant cells. We use viruses that transfer DNA from one species to another. The genes that confer antibiotic or herbicide resistance are found in organisms already growing in forests and fields. The antibiotics and some of the herbicides are found in organisms that were busy competing for space and killing one another long before we started banging rocks together.
One can certainly argue that it might not be wise for us to accelerate the emergenc of new plant varieties and it is certainly not wise for us to accelerate the loss of species. But I don't see how one can argue that the entire natural world, natural laws, natural forces, the products of natural selection, events like comets and solar flares -- excluding human beings and, I assume, any other species employing tools -- has exclusive moral authority to affect the course of evolution, while Nature -- including human beings -- does not.
Where does one draw the line between Nature and non-Nature? Who decides what is natural and what is not natural? When were humans living naturally and when did we slip into another category? If humans are not a part of Nature, what about beavers and chimps?
There have been and will be numerous species that exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and alter the course of evolution. Nature takes care of the matter, with or without their consent.
This does not mean accepting fate and letting the planet go to hell or permitting species to go extinct. We can use our intelligence to stabilize, to some extent, our environment and preserve the world we evolved in and are adapted to. That would be the natural response of an intelligent species, a species capable of reading the writing on the wall and realizing natural selection might start reducing the population a bit faster than a lot of us wish.
It is natural for us to use all tools available to ensure surivival of our species and the environment we emerged from and depend on, including all existing species. And it is natural for us to discuss and debate whether GMOs are useful. But whether GMOs are natural? I don't see how one could argue that they are not.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:17 pm
19 Aug 2008
Meddling
I agree with Wiscidea that we have been meddling with nature for our entire existence as a species, and we are not alone in doing this: other creatures share some measure of our curiosity, our inventiveness and our hunger, though perhaps with rather less impact. The issue right now though is the potential scale of this interference. The real questions we must ask of GMOs, as of all aspects of industrialized food production, are: what are likely to be the long-term consequences (social, environmental, financial) of their massive deployment? And is managing the risks associated with their development safe in the hands of large corporations which happen to be driven primarily by short-term financial gain?
The answers to the first of these questions are hardly being addressed, which suggests that the answer to the second question is simply, no. Wiscidea speaks as a technologist with an acknowledged vested interest in the continuation of GMO research. I have respect for that, but have no confidence that technologists or their employers are presently held properly accountable for the ultimate results of their work.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:26 am
20 Aug 2008
Hello Ms. Niles...
You wrote...
"The majority of GM crops are designed to resist herbicides and repel insects. Despite what some people may think, not a single GMO is commercially available that is designed to enhance nutrition, increase yield potential, tolerate drought, or manifest other attractive traits touted by the biotech industry."
If you have not read the book "Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Foods", by Nina Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown, please consider reading the chapter covering the African scientist who approached Monsanto for help. I do not recall the details of the story, but could provide that information later if necessary (my copy of the book is at home).
Basically, Monsanto agreed to help the African scientist. They donated lab space, materials, patent rights, technical advice. et cetera, so she could develop a yam -- I think -- that was resistant to a virus or fungus that regularly reduced crop yield by roughly 50%. This did not involve engineering the crop to produce a pesticide. This did not involve engineering the crop to resist a pesticide that the farmers wold have to spray on their plants. It actually reduced the need for chemicals and reduced input costs. Furthermore, the crop was naturally propagated vegetatively and the farmers were free to save material to plant the following year.
The African scientist's goal, supported by Monsanto, was to cut in half the area and labor needed for growing this staple crop -- by ensuring the pest did not reduce yield -- so less forest would be cleared and children could go to school instead of working in the field. The local forests and wildlife would benefit, the farmers growing this crop would see their standard of living increase, and their children would have more opportunities.
I believe the African scientist and Monsanto succeeded, but European anti-GMO organizations blocked distribution of the engineered plants. She commented that only Europeans have the luxury of rejecting food.
How was this a net gain for the environment and subsistence farmers?
Is it possible that the GMOs, the technology, is not the problem? Rather than focus on banning a useful technology, shouldn't we find ways to reduce corporate control over the natural commons, eliminate the notion that it is okay to patent organisms, and find ways of getting useful innovations to the people who need them?
Permalink
Skeptico Posted 1:55 pm
20 Aug 2008
Skeptico again
Meredith:
Thanks for your response. I did wonder if you were still reading the comments.
Regarding what the FT wrote - they weren't saying it was GM rice. What they said was:
Note - "GM or not". They were responding to Charles claim that:
They were refuting Charles' false claim - that I called nonsense. So they weren't being misleading.
Re the "must" comment - I know they must pay for the seeds if they decide to go GM. My point was they don't have to go GM. Also, they clearly won't stay GM if it doesn't work out, financially. In fact, you write yourself "as the documentary "The World According to Monsanto" indicates through personal interviews, many farmers are no longer planting GM cotton because of the aforementioned issues. So clearly it is not true that they must continue to buy GM - according to what you yourself wrote, many have decided to go back to non-GM - in which case they will not have to pay for the GM seeds. Surely you can see that?
If Monsanto is buying up smaller seed companies to reduce competition this is not a problem with GM per se, but a monopolies issue, and should be dealt with that way.
From your linked report - the reports of Monsanto's predatory actions against farmers sounds pretty bad, but I'm afraid they lose credibility by citing Percy Schmeiser (Page 38) as the innocent victim whose crops got contaminated by accident and yet Monsanto sued him. I've written about Schmeiser before - in summary, he knew exactly what he was doing when he sprayed his crops with Roundup to isolate the GM crops and save the seeds. That the authors of this report still find Schmeiser to be one of the best examples to support this case, when we have known the truth about Schmeiser for years, is disappointing to say the least. If he's really their best case then I don't think they have one. At least, it gives me doubts about the other things in the report that I haven't checked.
Still, I can easily believe many of the stories about Monsanto, and the way they do business needs to be controlled. But again, this is not a problem with GM, it's a problem with a monopolistic corporate bully who should and could be put in its place. Chapter 5 of the report suggests several legal remedies to cut out this predatory behavior. I'm not a lawyer but it sounded to me as though some of those ideas would solve much of the problem. Although I don't see much chance of any of it being enacted until the US has a change of government.
Actually just before posting I just noticed wiscidea ended a post saying something similar:
Which is a great point.
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 6:32 am
21 Aug 2008
The scientist is Florence Wambugu
Wiscidea, have you done any reading on FW's GM sweet potato project? From a scientific point of view the project was a complete failure. However, it was a masterpiece of public relations spin. Monsanto used the project to convince people that GMO's would save Africa from starvation.
She claimed to boost yields from 4 to 10 tonnes per hectare. Unfortunately, if you look at crop records you will find that 10 tonnes per hectare is the average. Thus her GM sweet potato was "just average".
See here for details:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ovzlz
You claim to be concerned about the environment and good crops, so why do you seem to be a shill for Monsanto? I do not find your comments convincing at all.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:44 pm
21 Aug 2008
average
Mr. Forrester wrote...
"Unfortunately, if you look at crop records you will find that 10 tonnes per hectare is the average."
Can you please clarify which average we are discussing?
According the the account I read, the yield per acre in Africa at the time was 1/3 that in China and 1/2 the global average. And the virus affecting the crop was a major contributor to this.
If the average you are referring to was a global average, then her claim that the genetically modified sweet potato would significantly boost yields makes sense. She was merely attempting to bring African production per acre up to global values.
I find the anti-GMO remarks criticizing some promise by the biotech industry that GMO technology will increase yields a straw man. The path to accomplishing this goal, increasing yields, as nothing to do with increasing yields beyond a standard set by perfectly healthy crops growing under perfect condition. It really has to do with fighting pests that decrease yields.
You claim to be concerned about the environment and good crops, so why do you seem to be a shill for the growing corporate organic industry? I do not find your blanket rejection of all GMOs -- regardless of who creates them or their exact nature -- based on rational concerns.
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 12:48 am
22 Aug 2008
The very method of making GMO's is of concern
Wiscedia, how much do you know about the science behind GMO production?
I assume not very much.
There are a number of concerns about the basic mechanism and its potential negative effects.
Firstly, are you aware of what promoter genes do? These are genes which, when placed in close proximity to a gene allows for much higher production of these genes. They are involved in virus infection and cancer initiation. Can you argue that you are 100% certain that every time they are used they will not affect other, silent genes, or may be horizontally transferred into another organism? The makers of these products are playing Russian roulette.
Secondly, every time a new strain is made it includes an antibiotic resistance gene. You are aware that antibiotic resistance is a major problem to our health care systems?
Thirdly, during the selection process for producing safe food that we eat today one of the processes which is important is the elimination of toxins from the parent plant. An example is the creation of canola from rape. Two metabolites were removed during this transformation. We do not know how they were eliminated. The genes could have been completely removed, or more likely, silenced because their induction gene was silenced. What do you think might happen if a powerful promoter gene is inserted next to the silenced toxin gene?
Fourthly, every time a new strain, using the same gene inserts, is created the gene inserts go to a completely random position in the genome. Thus it is false to assume that the strain BTxyz which was created last week will be identical to BTxyz created this week.
Fifthly, the Bt toxin created in Bt crops is not identical to the toxin produced by
Bacillus thurigiensis. It is shorter. Could this be the reason that there are more allergic problems with Bt crops than with the BT product itself?
Sixthly, post translational modification of GMO proteins will be different. Most gene products, if they have been tested at all, have been done on proteins produced by the natural host, not the new one. This can have huge allergic consequences.
Considering all of these problems, any one of which can have a major consequence, is it any wonder that honest scientists are concerned by the introduction of essentailly non-tested products into our food chain?
The producers of these products have done essentially no testing on them. Check out the report on one of Monsanto's Bt corn strains which was released in Germany, but not the US. It essentially reproduced the results of Dr Arpad Pusztai. The authors spun the results by saying that the effects were due to "natural variation", even though some results were 30-40% different from controls.
Please go through my comments and tell me which of them are not "based on rational concerns".
I don't know what scientific background you have in this area but I have spent 40 years working in areas closely related to some of the effects I have mentioned.
In regards to the GM sweet potato, the 10 tonne per hectare was the African average.
The more you post the more I am convinced that you are a shill for Monsanto. Do you know Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek? Seems to me that you are all in the same business.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:38 am
22 Aug 2008
Mr. Forrester...
"Firstly, are you aware of what promoter genes do? These are genes which, when placed in close proximity to a gene allows for much higher production of these genes."
There are promoters and there are enhancers. Promoters are precisely linked to genes and permit initiation of transcription. We often use constitutive promoters, but there are also promoters that respond to specific signals. Enhancers increase expression of nearby genes. I've never worked with constructs using enhancers. I do not know if Monsanto uses enhancers. It seems inappropriate, considering that Monsanto probably wants a predictable product. They do not want to turn genes on and off willy nilly as it might affect the agronomic value of the plant.
"They are involved in virus infection and cancer initiation. Can you argue that you are 100% certain that every time they are used they will not affect other, silent genes, or may be horizontally transferred into another organism?"
First, SOME of the promoters are involved on virus infection. They are derived from plant viruses that are already commonly found in the environment. If there is any danger of horizontal transmission of these promoters to animals, the stage was set long before the development of genetic engineering.
Second, most of the work I'm involved in uses native promoters. For example, the potato I often go on about. We took a gene from a wild relative of the cultivated potato, including its promoter and termination signal and transferred it to cultivated potato varieties to confer resistance to late blight. There were no virus promoters or cancer enhancers involved.
"Secondly, every time a new strain is made it includes an antibiotic resistance gene. You are aware that antibiotic resistance is a major problem to our health care systems?"
Yes. This is a problem. But concern is a bit hyped, since: (1) we can use antibiotics useless for fighting infections in hospitals; (2) the antibiotics are used only for selecting transformed plants, not applied to field crops where you would expect antibiotic resistant bacteria to emerge via selection; and (3) most of the resistance genes are derived from very common organisms. If pathological bacteria are going acquire these genes, it will happen with or without GMOs.
"Thirdly, during the selection process for producing safe food that we eat today one of the processes which is important is the elimination of toxins from the parent plant. An example is the creation of canola from rape. Two metabolites were removed during this transformation. We do not know how they were eliminated."
All plants should undergo this screening, including products of conventional breeding. For example, toxins can appear following conventional breeding of potatoes and celery. This is not a GMO problem.
Regarding your specific example, Canola, we do know how the genes were removed. Recall, rapeseed oil was an industrial lubricant. When the market dried up in the 40's or 50s -- I don't know exactly when -- the Canadian government funded an effort to use a combination of radiation and chemical mutagenesis to inactivate the two genes. We have no idea what additional changes to the rapeseed genome were caused by this. Perhaps Canola oil has other toxins. It really should not be consumed by human beings. Yet a person can purchase organic Canoloa seed!!!!
There are other examples of plants produce by radiation and/or chemical mutagenesis that are widely accepted by the organic farming community.
Genetic engineering by inserting single genes and identifying precisely where there are in the genome is far more precise and safer than the technology used for creating Canola, tricale, and other accepted plant varieties.
"The genes could have been completely removed, or more likely, silenced because their induction gene was silenced. What do you think might happen if a powerful promoter gene is inserted next to the silenced toxin gene?"
See above. No one should be growing or consuming Canola. And all new plant varieties should be screened for toxins because breeding, irradiation, or genetic engineering could turn on a silent gene.
"Fourthly, every time a new strain, using the same gene inserts, is created the gene inserts go to a completely random position in the genome. Thus it is false to assume that the strain BTxyz which was created last week will be identical to BTxyz created this week.
We never treat independent events as identical plants. The level of expression of a desired gene varies based on where it ends up in the genome. I don't understand why you consider this a problem.
"Fifthly, the Bt toxin created in Bt crops is not identical to the toxin produced by Bacillus thurigiensis. It is shorter. Could this be the reason that there are more allergic problems with Bt crops than with the BT product itself?"
I don't know enough qbout Bt crops or allergy problems to discuss this. I can point out that there is more to GMOs than Bt.
By the way, there are allergy problems resulting simply from the introduction of new foods from one area of the planet to another. Members of a population never exposed to a certain "natural" food can die from allergic reactions to new fruits and vegetables consumed by other populations. All new food should be checked for potential problems.
"Sixthly, post translational modification of GMO proteins will be different. Most gene products, if they have been tested at all, have been done on proteins produced by the natural host, not the new one. This can have huge allergic consequences."
Please provide more information about this. It is a rational concern.
"Check out the report on one of Monsanto's Bt corn strains which was released in Germany, but not the US. It essentially reproduced the results of Dr Arpad Pusztai. The authors spun the results by saying that the effects were due to "natural variation", even though some results were 30-40% different from controls."
Please provide a link to this report.
"In regards to the GM sweet potato, the 10 tonne per hectare was the African average."
Please provide a link to this data. It clearly undermines my view.
"The more you post the more I am convinced that you are a shill for Monsanto. Do you know Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek? Seems to me that you are all in the same business."
I am not a shill for Monsanto. And I have no idea who Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek are.
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 9:15 am
22 Aug 2008
Neither irradiation nor mutagenesis were used
wiscedia, it seems that for someone claiming to work in developing novel agricultural crops you know very little about how canola was created.
"The three canola-quality B. juncea lines were developed through interspecific crosses between an Indian B. juncea line and low glucosinolate, zero erucic acid B. rapa line. The novel phenotype (canola-quality) has been stably incorporated into the plant by repeated backcrossing with the Indian B. juncea. Breeding history was presented to demonstrate how these three lines were selected. No novel DNA or novel proteins were introduced into the plant to achieve the low erucic acid and low glucosinolate phenotype. This Novel Food Information document has been prepared to summarize the opinion regarding the subject product provided by the Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada. This opinion is based upon the comprehensive review of information submitted by the petitioner according to the Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods."
From: http://preview.tinyurl.com/6xof2v
You also claim: "Genetic engineering by inserting single genes and identifying precisely where there are in the genome is far more precise and safer than the technology used for creating Canola, tricale, and other accepted plant varieties."
If GE was this simple it would not be so worrying. Unfortunately, the companies producing GM varieties are very reluctant to tell us what they are including in their genetic constructs. It is these additional pieces, often unknown outside their own labs which present most of the problems. Of course there are also the problems I mentioned in my previous comment. In addition insertion occurs at random and has an effect on the phenotype of the resultant variety
Maybe GMO's will turn out to be harmless but the underhand tricks used by their promoters should make us all very concerned. I for one will never play Russian Roulette with either my health or my family's health.
I suggest you do a check on Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, this will give you a good idea of the nasty tricks played by Monsanto.
And remember, Google (Scholar) is your friend. GMwatch's archives used to be the best searchable archive until some nasty person broke into their web site and destroyed their site. Hopefully they will be able to recover the archives.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:24 pm
22 Aug 2008
Mr. Forrester...
You are not digging deep enough.
For someone claiming to be concerned about the safety of their food and having 40+ years of experience related to the issue of genetic modification of plants, you seem remarkably unaware of key features of the development of Canola oil.
The reference you directed me to -- Health Canada -- tells us about the origin of a "Canola-quality" line of B. juncea derived by crossing B. junca with a low glucosinolate and zero erucic acid line of B. rapa.
But where did the low glucosinolate and zero erucic acid line come from? Well... After attempts to take advantage of natual mutations, two Canadian scientists -- Keith Downey and Baldur Stefansson -- resorted to using chemicals or radiation to induce random mutations in rapeseed and then screened the seedlings for those low in the toxic chemicals. (By the way, this is considered conventional breeding!)
They eventually obtained two plants, each low in one of the toxic chemicals, which they were able to cross and generate what would eventuallly be called Canola. The first variety, called Tower, was released in 1974 and used for breeding additional varieties.
If you go to the Mutant Varieties Database (mvgs.iaea.org), maintained by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, you'll see that at least 15 B. napus varieties that were products of "direct use of induced mutant" were introduced between 1956 (I think) and 1997. These are all acceptable for conventional breeding.
So, the B. juncea lines you point toward are descendents of plants that were irradiated or exposed to chemical mutatgens to induce random mutations. We do not know what additonal genes might have been turned off or on during the process or subsequent crosses with other Brassica species -- note, other species -- to create "Canola-quality" plants.
Do you really think a plant variety that was toxic and a source of industrial lubricant a mere 50 years ago is really safer -- via irradiation, chemical mutagenesis and crossing with other species -- than a plant created by moving a single plant gene from one species to another? Less than 40 years have passed since the addition of Canola oil to the human diet. Has enough time passed to call it "generally recognized as safe"?
Perhaps you have confidence in government agencies that rule food safe, but I'd like to point out that rather intense marketing campaign by the Canadian rapeseed industry was necesary to persuade the Canadian government to approve Canola for human consumption and Canola oil might have been judged safe not by direct tests but by convincing regulators it was essentially similar to other edible oils. Sound familiar?
Care to discuss triticale next? One can buy organic triticale seed, but I wouldn't call it organic.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:16 pm
22 Aug 2008
error
B. napa! Not B. rapa!
sorry
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 2:50 am
23 Aug 2008
Please provide a quote and citation for this
wiscedia said: "But where did the low glucosinolate and zero erucic acid line come from? Well... After attempts to take advantage of natual mutations, two Canadian scientists -- Keith Downey and Baldur Stefansson -- resorted to using chemicals or radiation to induce random mutations in rapeseed and then screened the seedlings for those low in the toxic chemicals. (By the way, this is considered conventional breeding!)"
Please provide a quote and citation for these comments.
I cannot find any information that D&S used mutagenesis during their early work on LEAR.
Here is a quote from a thesis from the University of Manitoba:
"In 1959. researchers identified a line. Liho, in oilseed rape that contained low levels of erucic acid. A program of backcrossing and selection was initiated to transfer the low erucic trait into agronomically suitable cultivars for western Canada. Further selection for low erucic acid levels led to the development of zero erucic acid varieties and allowed Canada to set a maximum level of 5% erucic acid in the edible oil. Rapeseed meal was considered an excellent source of protein, with a favourable balance of amino acids, but high glucosinolate levels lead to palatability and nutritional problems. The variety Bronowski from Poland was found to be low in glucosinolates and the trait was incorporated into new varieties (Downey and Rakow, 1987).
In order to distinguish the new "double-low" varieties. with their altered oil and meal properties, from common oilseed rape, the term "canola" was trademarked in 1978".
http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstream/1993/813/1/nq236 ...
No mention of anything but traditional plant breeding.
Mutagensis has been used in later development to introduce various resistance factors into canola but the original canola appears not to have used that technique, if you have cites that contradict that please let me know.
Downey produced his first low erucic acid variety as early as 1964.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:44 pm
26 Aug 2008
Status Report for Mr. Forrester
Hello.
Before I post my comment, I'd like to thank you for pressing me on this issue regarding Canola. I sincerely recall reading about this use of radiation and chemical mutagenesis in the creation of Canola and thought it was a well established fact. I've been digging through literature and found, for the most part, only cryptic references to "new breeding techniques". I'll clearly have to go to the original research papers. Since much of the work was done before journals were put on line, I have to set aside some time to go to the library. Thus the delay in responding.
I would like to mention the following information from "High and Low Euricic Acid Rapeseed Oils: Production, Usage, Chemistry, and Toxicological Evaluation", edited by Kramer, Sauer, and Pidgen, 1983, academic Press.
Stefansson, reviewing the status of the development of Canola in 1983, points out...
"A reduction in the linolenic acid content would improve the flavor and oxidative stabiltiy of these [canola and soybean] oils used in liquid form"
"A rapeseed oil of this type might povide an economical subsitute for olive oil."
"Screening procedures ... carried out in several countries, have been relatively ineffective in establishing genetically controlled low levels of linolenic acid in rape and turnip rape. For this reason, large-scale mutation experiments were initiated in Germany (Robbelen and Rakow, 1970) and France (morice, 1975). Levels of 3.5% linolenic acid in low-erucic acid summer rape selections from mutation experiments have been reported (Robbelen and Theis, 1980a)."
"... breeding programs aimed at reducing the linlenic content of rapeseed oil are in progress in Canada, France, Germany, and Sweded (Jonsson, 1977b). The low linolenic mutants reported by Robbelen and Theis (1980a) apparently carry deleterious effects from exposure to mutagens; therefore, the genes conditioning low linloneic acid content will have to be transferred to healthy, vigorous plants by crossing and backcorssing."
So, in the 1970s, when Canola breeding was underway, researchers were using mutagenesis and backcrossing to alter the genetic structure of rapeseed and canola and the oil content of the seeds.
The question appears to be whether this technology was used to create the earliest lines used for breeding "safe" rapeseed and Canola. I admit I might be wrong there, would like to track down original research papers rather than accept your word on it.
I think it is safe to say, however, that current Canola varieties products -- including organically grown Canola -- are products of large-scale induced mutational breeding and my ealier questions remain... Is it safer to change hundreds of genes by irradiation for breeding purposes vs. changing a single gene? Can one really consider Canola, which first appeared in the late 1970s, a safe and organic product? Or is is an abomination of nature worse than a GMO?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:54 am
27 Aug 2008
Mr. Forrester...
In a different thread, you wrote...
"wiscidea seems to have a problem with consulting the scientific literature and finding any papers which contradict the PR put out by the Biotech industry"
You seem to have a problem consulting the scientific literature and finding any papers which contradict the PR put out by the organic agriculture industry.
I noticed you have not responded to my questions regarding use of neem oil and other organic practices. Considering your familiarity with organic agriculture, I'm surprised you cannot readily defend every single minute aspect of the philosophy. I'm surprised you are not aware of the problems created by growing and distributing "natural" pesticides. I'm surprised you cannot quickly dismiss my concerns regarding invasive plants recommended for cover crops and building soil.
I'd like to point out once again, I do not oppose organic agriculture. This is not an either/or problem. I simply think that GMOs can help us return more land to wildlife and eliminate ALL chemicals from agriculture. There is no reason we should have plantations devoted to growing pesticides instead of food for human beings or wildlife. There is no need to apply toxic metals or pesticides to the soil and water, even "natural" ones.
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 3:13 am
27 Aug 2008
I'm not pro-organic
I'm not pro-organic but I am anti-GMO. The reason for my anti-GMO stance is related to the predatory practices of the GM companies.
Initially when GMO's were discussed I was against them for two reasons.
Firstly, I never believed their comments regarding use of less chemicals. I could foresee that resistance would build up thus causing the use of more and more chemicals. This has been verified by numerous US Dept of Ag reports.
Secondly, I did not think that farmers would benefit since they would become more and more reliant on the GMO companies and that their choice of seeds would be severely curtailed.
I was not concerned about health effects, after all how could the addition of one new gene and gene product have any health effects.
However, after doing much more reading and the fact that the companies had to be a bit more open on what they were doing I discovered that it was not just one gene that was added but several, most of which have big question marks as to their safety.
Then we started to get reports of health effects in animals. The companies kept all their animal tests confidential until Monsanto's report on MON 863 maize was released in Germany. This report, according to scientists who were asked to review it, showed that there were indeed problems, even though Monsanto claimed that the differences between control and experimental groups were just "biological variation".
Thus there is enough information in the peer reviewed scientific literature to make me completely doubt the safety of at least some of the products produced by genetic engineering.
As far as organic farming. I'm neither for or against it. If farmers see a niche that they can fill and make some money doing it let them.
I have always been a proponent of adequate testing of pesticides, whether natural or man made. Some of the most potent toxins are natural in origin.
Canola was extensively tested before getting its GRAS approval in 1985 (I think).
GMO's got immediate approval since US Dept of Ag considered them "substantially equivalent" which is utter nonsense.
Permalink