Genetically-engineered mosquitoes that cannot transmit malaria could help stop the spread of the illness, according to a report in the The Guardian and other publications.
Replacing wild strains of Anopheles with malaria-resistant GM mozzies could make a huge difference in the fight against malaria. Between 300 and 500 million people contract malaria every year, of which about 1 to 3 million die from the disease. Most of them are children, mostly poor, most living in sub-Saharan Africa.
Engineering malaria resistance into wild mosquitoes could also reduce the amount of insecticides and repellents currently used in human habitations or directly applied for protection against malaria. (I'm spraying myself with DEET as I write these words -- an evening ritual for most of us who live in the tropics.)
This development thus raises potentially difficult issues for people deeply opposed in principle to the creation and release into the wild of genetically modified organisms of any kind.
Johns Hopkins University researchers found that the malaria-resistant FM mosquitoes out bred their natural counterparts, suggesting that allowing them to breed with normal insects would spread their resistance through the wild population. The modified mosquitoes have also been given a gene to make their eyes glow red, allowing them to be easily identified.
Trials are unlikely to start for at least five years. Researchers need to do more tests to ensure that the new strain would not lead to more virulent strains of malaria, and that the genes would not spread to other insects.
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Ask Umbra on shower caps, computers, and junk mail
Comments
View as Flat
wiscidea Posted 3:09 am
20 Mar 2007
(1) Reduces use of insecticides to control mosquitoes.
(2) Reduces draining of wetlands to control mosquitoes.
(2) Leaves mosquitoes in place to fulfill their role in the biosphere... feeding birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, and pollinating plants.
(3) Reduces human suffering, so people are healthier, less inclined to have large numbers of children, and more inclined to have time to think about preserving the natural world.
(4) And probably quite cost-effective.
What's not to hate, unless you believe malaria should be allowed to kill people to keep our population down.
Forward!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:12 am
20 Mar 2007
Now I'm going to have nightmares.
www.grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:44 am
20 Mar 2007
Scientists find natural mosquito repellent
Secret formula developed from human body
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6847440/
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:16 am
20 Mar 2007
"Currently, most insect repellents contain DEET, which is a synthetic compound. Although the Environmental Protection Agency has found DEET to be safe if used properly, Pickett thinks that natural chemicals, which some of us emit from our bodies, could make for a better repellent."
I doubt that they will be extracting the newly discovered repellent from natural sources, unless they find it in a plant.
It is probably a complex molecule or mixture of molecules. For it to be useful, it will have to be produced on a large scale, by chemical synthesis (with all the by-products of manufacturing) or by putting the necessary human genes into bacteria or yeast and growing them in vats (with all the ethical questions). Then it will have to be packaged in a form that can be applied to the skin in Third World countries.
If the natural chemicals are found in plants, land previously used for growing food or for wildlife will have to be used for growing bug repellent.
A natural bug repellent produced by some humans is not necessarily the key to fighting mosquito-born diseases. Unless we can use it as a source of information for synthesizing a new chemical. Of course, everyone will be up in arms because some corporation is synthesizing a chemical that resembles a natural chemical and, if put on human skin, could be toxic.
Forward!
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 4:19 am
20 Mar 2007
Cynically, I'll admit, I see this proposal as another brain-dead way for big biotech companies to get a bunch of public cash...like the wonderful rice engineered to have more vitamin A. Why not just ensure that people eat more vegetables? It's much better to do the no-nonsense things recommended by Sonia Shah in a recent issue of Orion magazine:
http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/06-6om/Shah.html
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ great grassroots groups working for conservation and more
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:35 am
20 Mar 2007
The GMO mosquito will interrupt the life cycle of the malaria parasite, hopefully eliminating it just like we've eliminated diseases like small pox. This will protect not only humans, but other animals affected by malaria. This helps wildlife populations that are already stress by human activity and for which malaria might be the last nail in the coffin. It also helps humans by protecting livestock; thus, herders in the Third World will have a better chance of improving their standard of living.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:47 am
20 Mar 2007
"What always seems to happen when a critter like this is modified is that the causation, like the malaria, modifies itself to adapt. The old genetic arms race."
The only constant in the universe is change. Life without or with biotechnology is a genetic arms race. It is a natural phenomenon. Humans happen to be able to make a concious decision regarding how to cope with the arms race. Why is using our brain considered not natural?
I suppose we could just let susceptible people die while we wait for someone to discover and deploy the perfect plant extract. But the malaria parasite could just adapt to that and then we will have to find another plant extract. It is still an arms race.
Or we can find a different way to adapt, perhaps by using biotechnology to break the malaria parasite's cycle of infection. We preserve the mosiquito and all that depends on it. If the parasite survives and returns, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. An arms race, but a race we are more likely to win.
It is really quite simple... and natural.
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:36 am
20 Mar 2007
(Actually, that is an interesting question: The Dalai Lama is on record as avoiding swatting mosquitoes. But what WOULD he do, if he believed that the mosquito in question were likely to be a malaria-carrier?)
This is a very complex ethical issue. As undeniably noble as the aim is, to save countless human beings from miserable lives and early deaths, we cannot at present allow that single consideration to trump every other. Eliminating an animal or plant that is perceived as a threat -- and maybe really is a threat, in some fashion -- from the environment is a very ancient, boring, stale solution that human beings have tried over and over again, too often with unforeseen disastrous consequences.
If the situation of the malaria parasite were quite analogous to small pox, then this new development would be encouraging. But clearly, producing GM mosquitoes is not at all the same as discovering a vaccine to be administered on human beings.
By the same token, we should not be too hasty to condemn genetic engineers, such as our good friend WiscIdea, and assume that the sole purpose of all their work and all their hype is to make lots of money. There is good reason to suspect that such financial considerations are at work, and may influence them to make bad moral decisions. But suspicions along those lines should not be allowed to interfere with a neutral evaluation of the particular GM project.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 5:45 am
20 Mar 2007
However, genetic engineering is not natural, and it is largely unneeded. In my experience, all of the problems GMOs have been made to address are cultural ones. Bad agriculture, bad settlement patterns, economic disparity, poverty...
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:11 am
21 Mar 2007
I do not know why Asians are so attached to rice. I assumed that in the areas where it is a staple, conditions favor growing crops adapted to warm temperatures, high rainfall, and seasonal flooding. It might be the type of soil dominating the regions. I imagine that periodically being able to flood fields helps control weeds and replenishes nutrients.
If it would be easy to switch from growing rice to growing more fruits and vegetables, wouldn't Asians have done it long ago?
So the fellow in question decided that rice containing more vitamin A would go far toward improving human health. He decided that this would be easier than changing entire cultures and convincing them to eat a different grain, assuming the local climate even allows them to grow a different grain.
This approach -- improving the rice -- seems in harmony with nature and human culture. Just add the missing nutrient. Preserve the local agricultural system that evolved in and is suitable for the region. Allow a group of people to continue using their experience growing rice, rather than force a new crop on them. And preserve the local culture built on rice.
It is hard enough to convince people to switch from white rice to brown rice. Imagine trying to convince them to stop eating so much rice.
I'll return to the more-specific topic -- MOZZIES -- later. I'm just using the rice example because someone else brought it up and I do not believe it is fair to declare GMOs evil because they are just one more means for biotechnology companies to extract cash from people. There are actually people who support the use of GMOs, especially in academic environments, who do not rake in tons of cash by working in the area.
We SHOULD question the safety and value of GMOs, but the whole "just another corporate scam" argument is getting old.
Forward!
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:52 am
21 Mar 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Robert Delfs Posted 1:47 am
21 Mar 2007
In locations with certain climate and soil conditions (poverty is the main issue, however), getting enough vitamin A into peoples' diet turns out to be more difficult than you might realize, Erik. It takes three or four times as much Vitamin A derived from vegetables (pro-vitamin A, a retinol precursor) to get the same effect as retinol from fish and meat.
Vitamin supplements have had a huge impact in some areas. The Helen Keller organization has done truly miraculous work on vitamin and other micronutrient supplements here in Indonesia and in other developing countries. Another organization which does a lot is ORBIS - Childhood Blindness, which focuses on training doctors. In 2003, there were only 687 trained opthalmologists in Indonesia, a country of (then) 215 million people. Both these organizations are very worthy of support.
Rice is a staple food for most vitamin-A deficient populations, so finding a way to get more vitamin A into the diet through locally grown rice, in the form of genetically modified new varieties, can help a great deal.
It's easy to say that societies need better diets and that we should figure out how to feed more people with affordable fresh fruits and vegetables, and to think that this would be better than relying on GMOs. Perhaps it would, but that is not really happening, at least not enough, despite wonderful people and organizations that are doing all that they can.
Here are some more useful sites for this important topic.
IDRC Report on "Ultra-Rice"
UN Ten Year Program to reduce vitamin A deficiency
WHO Working Papers on Global Micronutrient Deficiency
ORBIS - Childhood Blindness
Robert Delfs
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:53 am
21 Mar 2007
"Millions of peoples' diets are lacking in other essentials, like vegetables, which is where humans have always gotten important vitamins from. Structurally, societies need to get better diets and dietary habits going for people."
Rice has been grown for over 8000 years. We've know about the importance of a balanced diet for centuries. Who is standing in the way of improving the health of impoverished Asians by providing them with more fruits and vegetable?
If no one has been able to solve this problem by now, it might be time to consider other approaches. Whatever we've done so far is not working.
I cannot go to Asia and tell them to grow more fruits and vegetables, to eat less rice. But I can help improve the food they choose to consume. What would you prefer I do? If you have suggestions regarding how I might earn my keep by living more in harmony with nature -- by your definition -- I'm open to suggestions.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:19 am
21 Mar 2007
My post was a pre-emptive strike of sorts. I sense that GMOs are not really appreciated here. There are few "environmentalists" who find them valuable, but plenty of people willing to reject them without consideration of their value or how we might transform them into a safe tool for preserving the biosphere.
I wanted to mention a few potential benefits of using GMO mosquitoes to encourage some discussion beyond the knee-jerk rejection of the technology. It is important for everyone to contemplate the benefits and hazards of GMOs. It is the only way to make sure the use of GMOs does not cause more damage than they are design to repair or prevent.
So, please think about the issue. Are there advantages? Are there disadvantage? Condemning GMOs because corporations are interested in them or because they are not natural is insufficient. Corporations are interested in much of what we enjoy or find valuable. And I have no idea what is meant by "not natural".
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:19 am
21 Mar 2007
My post was a pre-emptive strike of sorts. I sense that GMOs are not really appreciated here. There are few "environmentalists" who find them valuable, but plenty of people willing to reject them without consideration of their value or how we might transform them into a safe tool for preserving the biosphere.
I wanted to mention a few potential benefits of using GMO mosquitoes to encourage some discussion beyond the knee-jerk rejection of the technology. It is important for everyone to contemplate the benefits and hazards of GMOs. It is the only way to make sure the use of GMOs does not cause more damage than they are design to repair or prevent.
So, please think about the issue. Are there advantages? Are there disadvantage? Condemning GMOs because corporations are interested in them or because they are not natural is insufficient. Corporations are interested in much of what we enjoy or find valuable. And I have no idea what is meant by "not natural".
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:20 am
21 Mar 2007
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:45 am
21 Mar 2007
One of the major objections raised by GMO opponents is that most of the GMO "products" currently being developed or marketed benefit the biotech and chemical companies greatly, the farmer slightly (if and only if they embrace the technology; otherwise its a legal hazard), and the consumer not at all. This of course flies in the face of the biotech spin that GMO's will alleviate hunger, combat poverty, help farmers make a living, etc.
My own sense is that these charges appear to be largely true. Granted that Vitamin A rice may be an exception. But it's a relatively small part of the picture, as far as I know, compared to BT corn, Roundup Ready cotton, etc.
So my question is, do you believe this perception is accurate or not? Why or why not?
For what it's worth, I share your perspective that GE is a potentially useful technology that is unfortunately being painted with too broad a brush by both its proponents and its opponents. On the other hand, I am very skeptical of any form of the technology that calls for open-field planting or a wild release of a reproductively viable organism, due to the potential for contamination of the wild and/or organic gene pool (in the case of plants), and the potential for unintended consequences (in the cases like the mosquito proposal). Since an extreme interpretation of the precautionary principle is almost impossible to satisfy (due to the impossibility of proving a negative), this pretty much relegates GE technology to the lab and to closed bioreactors (e.g. for insulin). So I guess that's another question for you: Is there, in your opinion, any way to validate a wild release of a GMO as being safe? If so, how?
Permalink
Robert Delfs Posted 3:58 am
21 Mar 2007
Uncritical chauvinists of civilization long argued that the invention of agriculture some ten thousand years ago meant an improvement in peoples' lives. Now, of course, we know that agriculture wasn't really "invented" so recently, that "proto-farming" can be dated back at least 40,000 years.
What really happened in the Neolithic Revolution 10,000 years ago was the inception of large-scale cereal focused agriculture, involving intentional manipulation of the environment (ploughing, irrigating, etc.) and the development of new plants (grain crops) different from their wild ancestral forms (non-shattering wheat, modern rice, multiple-kernel corn from teosinte, etc.) combined with new forms of human organization.
It's clear that our ancestors only gave up hunting and gathering when there was no other choice. Living as a hunter-gatherer had many charms. Farming, on the other hand, is hell, and so is a grain-based diet. "In the sweat of thy face though shall eat bread," as one influential Neolithic diety put it to his hard-pressed people.
A diet consisting mainly of grain does keep people alive, offers a somewhat secure (albeit monotonous and not very healthy) supply of food. Grains can be stored and consumed over a winter, or a dry season. Agriculture makes it possible to concentrate large numbers of people permanently at a stable location, opening up opportunities for new forms of military, political and social organization.
Paleo-pathological studies consistently show that our ancestors suffered catastrophically shorter life expectancies, more chronic infections, greater incidence of diseases like yaws and tuberculosis, more intestinal parasites and infections, more anemia and general malnutrition, reduction in stature, and dental problems after they were forced to give up the good life of hunting and gathering for the dull grind of agriculture, raising cereals (grains). And that was before germs and other pathogens discovered what easy marks we were living crowded together in proto-urban settlements.
(See Bruce Caldwell, "Was there a Neolithic mortality crisis", from Journal of Population research (2003), available here .
So why did they do it? There were certainly different combinations of factors in different times and places. But one key factor most places was undoubtedly the Pleistocene overkill, as human hunters all over the world slaughtered so many mega-fauna that the diminished stocks of game could no longer support a hunting-and-gathering lifestyle for all the humans. (See Paul Martin, Quarternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution (1984).
We're still in that awkward nutritional bind, by which I mean most people in the world, who either grow their own food (and go hungry when it runs out), or who buy most or all of their food, but nonetheless rely on some cereal as a staple food, like most people on this planet. If it were just a matter of telling ingorant Asians to grow more fruits and vegetables and eat less rice, this would all be very easy. But The problem consists of people who simply cannot afford (or cannot grow, hunt, fish or catch) sufficient vegetables, fruit, and meat, and fish to maintain a healthy life. Those of us on this planet who shop at the Berkeley Bowl or its equivalent and can choose among five varieties of arugula and sixteen kinds of acorn squash are a fortunate and special case.
I have to ask: Are there people in this forum actually believe that it is remotely feasible - through some combination of lifestyle, political and economic system change - for the entire world (all 6.6 billion of us) to enjoy a healthy diet made up mostly of fresh fruits and vegetables, year-round and over the entire planet, relying primarily or exclusively on local produce?
See Colin Tudge, Neanderthals, Bandits and Farmers (1998) (and all his other books).
Robert Delfs
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:47 am
21 Mar 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:24 am
21 Mar 2007
What in the world could the evidence be? At a site in Belgium, say, is there a burn level containing a charred bow, with a stamp on it saying "Made in Belgium," while in the next level up there is a plough with a stamp on it saying "Made in Iraq"?
Farmers do not move, they stay put. They have to. They have committed their lives to a piece of ground. The idea that farming works is what moves.
For that reason, the usually sensible Robert Delfs is unconvincing when he writes,
<<
It's clear that our ancestors only gave up hunting and gathering when there was no other choice. Living as a hunter-gatherer had many charms. Farming, on the other hand, is hell, and so is a grain-based diet. "In the sweat of thy face though [sic] shall eat bread," as one influential Neolithic [?] diety [sic] put it to his hard-pressed people [sic].
>>
Hunting/gathering may have its charms (for some, perhaps, but it cannot be believed that everyone relished the obligatory periodic nomadism), but so does watching your children grow to adulthood.
Farming does not appeal to everyone either, needless to say. And yet there is obviously something about it which has made it a preferable lifestyle for most cultures.
Eating food made from cultivated grain can hardly be described as "hell." Eating no food but that is surely boring and unhealthful. But did anyone ever actually do that?
It is interesting to see how agriculture was spreading in temperate North America prior to the arrival of Europeans. The great cultural areas that tended not to adopt it, and yet had large populations, were California and the Pacific Northwest, where the peoples were blessed with abundant resources on the land and in the rivers and the ocean.
Perhaps the only example in all history of a reversion from an agricultural lifestyle to hunting/gathering nomadism is what we see in the case of many of the Plains Indians. But in their case, there were extraordinary cultural circumstances, most important being the introduction of the horse by Europeans.
On the Bible: There is nothing illegal about injecting mockery of people who belong to biblical religious traditions in one's quotations from the Bible; as to whether it is a violation of etiquette, I shall withhold my opinin; but it certainly improves the quality of the conversation if one can avoid looking abominably ignorant about what one is quoting.
In Genesis 3:17-19, Yahweh is NOT talking to "his people," he is talking (symbolically) to all humanity, (literally) in the person of Adam, who has just eaten the forbidden fruit: "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, ... In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ... "
The narrative traditions of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, show strong Mesopotamian influences. And in Mesopotamia (mostly modern Iraq), farming was indeed a very difficult task (unlike in Egypt, where the soft central African silt deposited annually by the Nile made planting a good bit easier).
It is worth noting that the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve had been living, is a garden, it is not wilderness. They were not hunter/gatherers, according to this myth -- unless you call picking fruits and vegetables from plants in your garden "gathering."
Is Yahweh a "Neolithic deity"? Oh, sure, why not. But he created the stegosaurs, so he is also a Jurassic deity; and he created the pelycosaurs, so he is also a Permian deity.
In fact, if the biblical characters who are most associated with the origins of the cult of Yahweh, namely Abraham and Moses, actually existed, they most likely lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, a period that historians of antiquity consider part of the so-called Bronze Age. Is the Bronze Age "Neolithic"?
The oldest biblical texts seem not to have been composed or written down till fairly early in the 1st millennium BCE, the Iron Age. Is the Iron Age "Neolithic"?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:38 am
21 Mar 2007
One of the major objections raised by GMO opponents is that most of the GMO "products" currently being developed or marketed...
benefit the biotech and chemical companies greatly...<<
Agree, but I do not work for a biotechnology company. I'm just assuming that they have to make a profit or they would not produce and market the product.
>>the farmer slightly...<<
Disagree. Using Roundup Ready crops as an example, the result is in a net reduction of inputs. Several expensive chemical herbicides can be replaced with one inexpensive and relatively safe herbicide. Reduces fuel consumption by permitting broader use of no-till practices and reducing number of herbicide applications. Additonal benefits: reduces farmer's exposure to herbicides and related healthcare costs, reduces collateral damage to environment by a variety of chemicals, reduces wear on machinery, no-till practices preserve soil quality, reduces CO2 emissions, and perhaps improves yield.
>>the consumer not at all...<<
Disagree. Reducing the farmer's cost will help ensure a continued supply of food. Using Roundup Ready crops as an example again, most of the farmer's benefits carry over to the consumer. Fewer herbicides are used and they are applied less frequently. Less chemical residue. If less fuel is consumed, our own costs for energy are suppressed somewhat. Reduces CO2 emissions that are harming everyone on the planet. Reduces manufacture of other herbicides and the emission of toxic waste that is harming everyone on the planet. Reduced erosion of soil harming water quality.
>>Granted that Vitamin A rice may be an exception. But it's a relatively small part of the picture, as far as I know, compared to BT corn, Roundup Ready cotton, etc.<<
I believe hostility toward GMOs is blocking the most beneficial applications of the technology. The example I constantly go on about is the GM potato that is resistant to late blight. It substantially reduces the use of fungicides for controlling the disease, which should reduce a farmer's costs and reduce the amount of land that has to be cultivated. It does not require purchasing a different chemical, just lowers cost of growing the potatoes, reduces harm to the farmer, and reduces harm to the environment. There is no organic solution to this problem. Breeding has not yet created a viable variety of potato resistant to late blight. Nutritional value does not appear affected. All new varieties of potatoes have to be tested for toxic compounds which occur naturally in the species and can emerge when new varieties are created.
There are other examples of GMOs that reduce inputs without requiring the farmer to purchase a different product. There are examples that simply add value to a crop.
It is my opinion that the examples you mention -- GMOs people have not managed to defeat -- are the most profitable and therefor a corporation can justify investing in the effort to make it through the regulatory hoops. Just like orphan drugs, I think there are orphan GMOs that could help farmers living on the edge. But the general hostility toward all GMOs prevents anyone from overcoming this problem.
>>On the other hand, I am very skeptical of any form of the technology that calls for open-field planting or a wild release of a reproductively viable organism, due to the potential for contamination of the wild and/or organic gene pool (in the case of plants), and the potential for unintended consequences (in the cases like the mosquito proposal).<<
I agree. We must be cautious. But the terminator technology was not well received.
>>Is there, in your opinion, any way to validate a wild release of a GMO as being safe? If so, how?<<
I don't know. I posted my first remark on the Grist site not to advocate unrestrained use of GMOs, but to stimulate some sort of dialogue and learn more about the issue. GMOs are not the solution to all of our problems. But they are not inherently evil. I am trying to understand this issue. It might be hard to believe, but several people who comment here have raised very serious concerns and substantially reduced my enthusiasm for GMOs, especially SMLowry.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:35 am
21 Mar 2007
It is not clear what Sonia suggests the human species do as far as malaria is concerned. An excellent history describing the spread of malaria and how it is all do to the West's desire for resources. There are valid points, though someone had to be interested in selling those resources. But we cannot go back in time to correct the matter. Here is what I perceive her no-nonsense solutions are...
(1) All Europeans susceptible to malaria should leave tropical areas immediately.
(2) No more resources should be removed from tropical areas and shipped to areas not yet invaded by malaria.
(3) All non-natural canals, lakes, wetlands should be drained.
(4) People should move away from natural low areas that might harbor malaria.
(5) If is child is not born with natural resistance, do no treat them with synthetic chemicals. Give the the apprropriate organically grown medicinal plant to chew on. If the die, it must be God's will.
(6) Areas affected because malaria was introduced by migration or trade... tough luck. You're experiencing the results of bad karma.
(7) Anyone who does not follow this no-nonsense advice should be left to die. It is God's will.
I'm not being sarcastic here. This is what I feel the article is saying.
Forward!
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:44 am
21 Mar 2007
Farmers have babies.
nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6322/abs/351143a0.html
EUROPEAN agriculture originated in the Near East about 9,000 years ago. The Neolithic reached almost all areas suitable for agriculture by 5,000 yr BP (before present). The routes and times of the spread of agriculture through Europe are relatively well established, but not its manner of spreading. This could have been by cultural diffusion with few genetic consequences. By contrast, Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza proposed that the spread of farming increased local population densities, causing demic expansion into new territory and diffusive gene flow between the neolithic farmers and mesolithic groups. We have now tested observed genetic patterns against expectations derived from the demic expansion hypothesis. We found significant partial correlations of genetic distances with a distance matrix especially designed to represent the spread of agriculture on that continent, when geographic distances are held constant. These findings support the hypothesis of Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza and invite further investigation into Renfrew's hypothesis on the origin of the Indo-European languages.
Hmmm -- "diffusive gene flow". Perhaps it was not a case of total racial-extermination, but one of "raping the women and wasting the men".
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:02 pm
21 Mar 2007
"And I have no idea what is meant by "not natural"."
Well GMOs aren't natural. They are combinations of plants and plants or plants and animals that could not exist naturally without human intervention. The bizarre technology used is not akin to natural or unnatural selection where humans choose crosses between creatures that naturally can breed. We have no understanding what kinds of outcomes we should expect from such experimentation, though the Starlink debacle serves for an example. GMOs don't fit the precautionary approach at all. It's all develop and rush to market to recoup the investment. I might be the only one on this thread concerned about that, but I think it's risky.
RE: The Sonia Shah article: right, not sure where I remember the thoughts on approaches to aid the problem were: maybe in a sidebar of the print article.
And I just gotta say, biotech crops are not automatically good for business and farmers...when Europe and Japan refuse to buy agricultural products that are modified, that's bad for everyone. The proposed introduction of GM wheat in North Dakota a couple years ago caused an uprising there among the growers that caused Monsanto to pull the plug. Farmers saw their markets under threat.
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:31 pm
21 Mar 2007
By the Coulters and Limbaughs. Drudges and Pielkes.
My prediction. A new strain of malaria will quickly evolve that defeats the genetic engineering. An industry will develop to genetically engineer every organism on the planet that can result in additional corporate revenue.
Ooops, that already is happening. And they are paying shills and lobbyists to further their cause. Good luck with this, planet earth and all your inhabitants.
What Halliburton did to Iraq? These genetic engineering contractors are going to do to this living planet. Modify the mosquito, then you need to modify something else. Exponentially spreading effects needing to be corrected for. With more and more genetic engineering.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:56 pm
21 Mar 2007
Regarding "not natural", you wrote... "They are combinations of plants and plants or plants and animals that could not exist naturally without human intervention."
At the risk of heading further down this tangent -- though it is related to the original topic -- and annoying the Grist administrators, you could help me get a handle on "not natural" by providing an opinion on the following matter. I've asked about this elsewhere, but never seen response.
Canola is a product of human intervention. Originally used as a source of lamp oil and an industrial lubricant, it was modified by a combination of chemical mutagenesis and radiation to reduce the amount of a natural toxin it contains. In my opinion, this is worse than modern genetic engineering -- which can introduce a single gene in a precise location -- since we do not know what other genes were altered by the chemicals and radiation used to "improve" Canola. Furthermore, there might be other toxins we are not yet aware of. It is not natural to consume Canola. No one should be permitted to label Canola "organic". Do you agree with this? Should a person who opposes GMOs also oppose Canola?
Triticale is an artificial hybrid of rye and wheat, a product that would not exist without human intervention. Efforts to create this abomination failed until someone realized they could use the chemical "colchicine" to foster viable hybrid embryos. It contains a mixture of rye and wheat genes that are not combined in nature to form a viable plant. Oddly, one can purchase organic triticale and it is an ingrediant in health food. By your definition, no one shoud be able to label triticale "natural". Do you agree with this? Should a person who opposes GMOs also oppose triticale? Incidentally, the top producers are Poland, Germany, and France. Those opposing GMOs might want to demand that farmers in those countries to stop planting triticale.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful responses to my questions.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:11 am
22 Mar 2007
I'm just saying there might be something of value here.
And I did not accuse individuals who oppose GMO mosquitos of genocide. There ARE other methods of controling the problem.
I do, however, believe that people who consider malaria a product of earlier human behavior and that the appropriate action is to shut up and accept the consequences... I accuse them of engaging in genocide. Our ancestors made very serious mistakes. It is not right to punish those who did not create the problem.
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:09 am
22 Mar 2007
On the Sonia Shah article: She does not actually use such expressions as "bad karma" and "God's will," but I agree with WiscIdea that she presents a very disturbing and even frightening global situation, with little practical to suggest by way of a solution.
The article is very informative, I thought, no matter how depressing. I did not know about the different species of Plasmodium, the malaria parasite, which cause the disease in different degrees of virulence. And I did not know that increasing resistance to DDT is spreading among mosquito populations.
As for the remark which she quotes, that environmentalists who are unwilling to authorize the use of DDT are responsible for the deaths of African children, well, I do not know the whole story. The title of Rachel Carson's classic, "Silent Spring," refers of course to the reduction or elimination of songbirds, as a result of DDT toxicity in their environment. Environmentalists have subsequently been strongly opposed to the broadcast application of DDT and some other pesticides in large, open-air spaces, such as fields, orchards and bodies of water. But I do not know that they should be similarly opposed to what has been recommended in Africa for malaria prevention, the much more limited spraying with DDT of the interior walls of houses.
I also learned from Sonia Shah that Jains sometimes go so far in their refusal to consume animals that they will not eat even Pepperidge Farm Goldfish! I doubt that even the fiercest of vegans in this country would refuse to eat Goldfish or Animal Crackers, given that they were made with acceptable ingredients.
In the context of malaria in India, Shah seems to find her Jain relatives' aversion to swatting mosquitoes rather pathetic. There are serious moral implications, though: Since infected human beings spread the Plasmodium to uninfected mosquitoes, which then develop the parasite and spread it to other human beings, there is a moral responsibility to prevent ourselves from becoming infected, and to refuse to tolerate the presence of disease-bearing mosquitoes. All the more reason to send her article to the Dalai Lama.
The spread of malaria, and the difficulty of treating it, make it clear enough that the GM mosquito with resistance to Plasmodium is worth continued study. But there are still important questions to answer. E.g., what is the nature of the resistance? Why should there not be a strain of Plasmodium which is not affected by it?
And also, there remains GreenEngineer's important question, How can we ever really know that the wild release of a GMO will be safe?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
svb Posted 2:23 am
22 Mar 2007
"Cynically, I'll admit, I see this proposal as another brain-dead way for big biotech companies to get a bunch of public cash..."
I can tell you firsthand that the vast majority of researchers in academic medicine attempting to have an impact on malaria treatment and control by working on transgenic mosquitoes and other equally creative (and often controversial!)approaches are struggling for funding to do their work..."big biotech companies" are, essentially, nowhere to be found.
Picture scientists spending at least a third of their time seeking funding by writing grant applications to NIH and other public and private sources of research funds and another significant amount time on clinical or teaching duties required of them by their institutions before they even get to the lab, and you will have a much more accurate idea of the culture of medical discovery.
The level of public funding for work on tropical medicine and other underdeveloped world health issues is dismal and there is little incentive for business to invest in this work which has little potential for a good rate of return.
Private funding is growing...the most visible being very generous Gates Foundation allocations spent on malaria treatment and control in Africa...but this investment has short term benefit and does not contribute to the development of desperately needed, innovative approaches to diseases that exact an enormous toll on the populations in the underdeveloped world.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 7:09 am
22 Mar 2007
About the natural-ness of canola and triticale, as manipulated as they were, chemistry and radioactivity are naturally occurring mutagens that have caused evolution in critters to their benefit and detriment for millenia. These two examples represent an extreme that I'm uncomfortable with, though.
However, the techniques employed for genetic engineering are not at all natural. And they are not precise. Taking one critter and putting it in a blender, and then shooting pieces of its DNA at the DNA of another kind of critter in a spot that is thought to be the right place, over and over, until one sticks, is not my idea of natural. That's Dr Moreau stuff.
Anyhow, all of this assumes that genes are the sole factor in how organisms develop, evolve, function, etc, when it's been shown that many other factors are also in play that we don't understand yet. Factors turn genes on and off seemingly willy nilly. Environmental, toxicological, the cellular environment inherited from our parents and ancestors may all play a role. (Lamarck?!) So inserting a gene, if it is even kinda accurate, may not behave in the way we think under new and different circumstances.
Anyhow, this all is too much to type. Call me at the Orion office tomorrow, it'd be great to actually talk to you. And it's utterly free: 888-909-6568
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:48 am
22 Mar 2007
Anyway...
Correct. Chemicals. Radiation. Natural mutagens. But the levels used exceeded natural levels. This creates an interesting puzzle.
There is natural horizintal gene transfer between different bacteria. So, it is okay for humans to accelerate this process? GMOs are okay if they are limited to bacteria?
There might be natural horizontal gene transfer from plants to bacteria. So, it is okay for humans to accelerate this process? GMOs are okay if we are putting plant genes into bacteria?
If someone discovers a virus -- or other type of organism -- that transfers DNA from one species to another, will it then be acceptable for humans to accelerate the process by using that organism to move DNA? It would be a natural process, though the rate would exceed what is observed in nature.
Thank you for the invitation. Friday is not a good day, but I'll send an email so we can figure something out.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:41 pm
27 Mar 2007
My understanding is that farmers who give up tilling altogether wind up breeding resistant weeds, which actually leads to a greater application of herbicide over the long term (and at some point, they have to resort to nastier chemicals, like 2-4D).
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:25 pm
27 Mar 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:31 pm
27 Mar 2007
Then neither genetic engineering,chemicals,oil, or human labor is necessary. Huge industrial farm fields organically farmed? This is the way to do it cost effectively.
I can't imagine having to rationalize making a living from genetic engineering wisci. That has to be painfull. Maybe at least explore this robotic farming idea on your down time?
I think it could boost productivity, vastly reduce fossil fuel use in farming, and restore organic soil that sequesters carbon.
Genetic engineering is extremely dangerous. Especially at the microbial level. The more basic the genetic assault on nature is, the more deadly to our living planet.
Look at what the hormone mimicking compounds alone have done. The pesticides, herbicides, and growth hormones used on farm animals. And that doesn't even rise to the horror of GMO farming.
This robotic organic farming revolution is necessary.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:18 pm
27 Mar 2007
I'd swear I read about this somewhere before. Did you mention this elsewhere... on the Grist site or your own blog? You might want to find out if anyone is doing this already and play it up a bit more. Solar-powered robots. The military probably has the necessary image-recognition sofware. And they can all be programmed to look for Bin Laden while they are out plucking weeds.
Unfortunately, I think some folks might not view robot-tended crops as organic. And, no doubt, corporations will own the robots and rent them out to farmers... who will become dependent on them. If the man does sell the robots to the farmers, he will force them to buy a new and improved robots every few years to keep up with the Joneses or charge huge fees for maintenance agreement. And they will leak fluids and drop parts all over creation, poisoning the soil with their doped microchips, titanium shells, et cetera. We'll find wild birds choking on the parts as they mistake them for food. Hmmm... robots are not sounding so good.
And... I'm still waiting for my jet pack, hover craft, and personal servant...
Forward!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:07 am
28 Mar 2007
This technology could inject liquid organic fertilizer for each plant. Vacuum bugs off the plants. Spread mulch. And allows alternating planting of different plants that prevent monocrop infestation,repel bugs, and attract and support natural bug predators.
Plant, harvest, recycle ..the whole labor intensive organic farming cycle.
Not organic? Without the back breaking hand labor of millions of peasants planting and weeding (rice in china for instance) or using toxic chemicals and oil based fertilizer and fuel.
Imagine millions of migrant workers weeding corn, soy, and wheat fields! By hand!
Hehey, keep riding to work on genetically modifying mother earth in your hovercraft. Zooom!! And I'm evidently the unrealistic idealist? Life is certainly comical.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 12:56 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 3:02 am
28 Mar 2007
I know theres been some disagreement about whether the farmers moved, or the ideas.
According to cavalli sforza, whom I think has had the last word in that particular debate, the anthropological evidence suggests that the spread of agricultural techniques was slow, and moved at a rate commensurate with expected population growth, instead of along trade routes or other idea-transmitting paths in the ancient world.
>>Is Yahweh a "Neolithic deity"?
I have always wondered whether Exodus was a story about the relationships between monocrop agriculture and plagues. Grasshoppers... murrain... sounds like a plantation, or a factory farm, before the advent of pesticides and antibiotics.
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 3:19 am
28 Mar 2007
My 2 cents though this is way outside my field. I wonder whether a comparison between crop blight and Malaria resistant mozzies is useful or not.
In both areas, there is a concern that nature will take an end run around the technology through adaptation. But the selective environments of a fungus and a monocrop... as opposed to a multi-host parasite... are very different.
Selective pressure dictates that most parasites do not kill their hosts before they can reproduce, and eventually, that they evolve into symbiotes. Except... when humans are not the primary host, as in bubonic plague, malaria, toxoplasmosis, etc... there is less or no selective pressure on the parasite to keep the human alive because the parasites reproductive environment is actually a flea/mosquito/cat.
I feel like the wrong way to approach malaria is to try and exterminate it - the selective pressure is still for malaria to find a way around the exterminator, be it an immune system, a drug, a mosquito net, what have you. And the probabilities are all wrong. In the millions of the mosquito-malaria match-ups that occur, there will be a few mutations in the malaria or the mosquito that result in survival, and then ... those mutations will spread.
The right way to approach malaria is to create selective pressure in the host animal so that the only strains of malaria that survive are not as deadly to human beings - in effect, creating a selective environment that duplicates that of a parasite-host, rather than a parasite-host-incidentalhost.
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 3:22 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:13 am
28 Mar 2007
With the panel on the robot! Woooo!!! Hitech.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:55 pm
28 Mar 2007
I'm not familiar with the details, but someone is working on the issue of resistant weeds. I think the strategy involves putting two or three distinct herbicide-resistance genes in the desired plant. Then, instead of using solely Roundup, the grower rotates through two or three different herbicides when weeds appear -- not simultaneously, just not the same herbicide every time one is needed. It is unlikely that a weed developing resistance to one of the herbicides will survive treatment with the next herbicide. Thus, no emergence of superweeds.
This does not require more herbicide or more applications. Instead of using a given amount of Roudup, the grower uses less of three different herbicides. The benefits of using this strategy for no-till agriculture assume some effort to choose three relatively low-cost and safe herbicides. If the total chemical use matched that of "conventional" agriculture, I would not argue that this helps the grower reduce costs or protects the people in the fields.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:37 am
29 Mar 2007
Superweeds are hardly the only problem associated with agricultural GMO's. There's also the issue of crossing with wild plants. GMO canola seems to have crossed with wild brassica weeds, but it's hard to be sure, because who's funding the research? And then there is the whole intellectual property issue. I assume you have heard about Percy Schmeiser?
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:13 am
29 Mar 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:14 am
29 Mar 2007
In my opinion, it is Monsanto's responsibility to contain their GMOs if they do not want someone to grow them without permission. If there is a field of GMO canola and it pollinates someone elses plants, it is Monsanto's loss. It is essentially trespassing and gives the pollen to Percy Schmeiser. He should be allowed to do whatever he wishes to do with the plants -- they are his -- even take advantage of the herbicide resistance himself or by selling the material to someone else. Monsanto relinquished control over the GMO pollen as soon as it left their field.
Instead of rejecting GMOs because of Monsanto's behavior, farmers should push for the right to use genetic material that blows onto their plants as they see fit. It essentially becomes part of the natural commons. This would also motivate companies like Monsanto to contain their GMOs.
Is anyone aware of efforts to accomplish this. It seems like a no-brainer. I suspect a corporation would quickly claim ownership of anything that lands on their property!
Just my two cents.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:26 am
29 Mar 2007
I have tried to communicate, repeatedly, that I do not believe GMOs should be unleashed without any consideration of how they will interact with the wild organisms around them. Each plant is different, depending on which genes are altered or added and where the plant will be grown. Rather than reject the entire technology, I would like to see the indivdual GMOs evaluated for potential benefits and hazards.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:14 am
29 Mar 2007
I entirely agree with you in principle. The technology should not be rejected, or accepted, across the board. It's use should be based on careful consideration of and independent research on the potential impacts.
However, the reality of the current market is that GMOs are being forced down our throats without sufficient consideration or study. They are being used as legal weapons in an attempt to own the genetics of our food supply. The science is being distorted by inappropriate relationships between researchers, institutions, and GMO companies (ask Dr. Chapela about that last issue).
Unfortunately, at this time, to support agricultural GMOs is to support Monsanto, their tactics, and their abuses. To oppose Monsanto, at least politically, is essentially to oppose agricultural GMOs. It may be that researchers and workers in the field can apply pressure more selectively, but there is little that the public or the activist community can do, in terms of exerting subtle influences.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:39 am
29 Mar 2007
"Unfortunately, at this time, to support agricultural GMOs is to support Monsanto, their tactics, and their abuses. To oppose Monsanto, at least politically, is essentially to oppose agricultural GMOs... there is little that the public or the activist community can do, in terms of exerting subtle influences."
All of the effort activists put into opposing GMOs for the wrong reasons, publishing books that mislead and frighten the public, spreading blanket condemnations of GMOs when each one is different depending on how it is modified and where it is grown... all of that effort could be put into demanding public control over genetic resources and ensuring that farmers have the right to use plant material they purchase as they see fit.
The activists who care so much about farmers clearly have time and resources to devote to pushing for such changes. But they apparently prefer that the farmer in Africa have to use twice as much land for his crops and have his children work in the fields rather than increase the amount of food he gets from a given plot of land and send his children to school. They would prefer to destroy valuable forest, expanding agricultural land and depriving wildlife of a place to live, than to find a safe way to grow more food on less land... just because they don't want to help refine the use of GMOs.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:31 am
29 Mar 2007
I'm familiar with the persuasion materials. They often emphasize the wrong things, in that they focus on lesser threats that are more visceral or comprehensible to the public. The intellectual property issues around GMOs are too esoteric for most people, but they understand having pesticides built into their food. The IP implications are probably far more dangerous, in point of fact, but they aren't going to get traction with the public that way. On the other hand, the issues they focus on are for the most part real issues, even if they are not the most critical issues. Whereas the opposition lies through their teeth, constantly and without shame.
It's sausage-making politics, trying to do the right things for the wrong reasons, and trying to get a distracted and frankly uneducated public to care about a subject that is both esoteric an complicated. Welcome to the real world of activism. It's not pretty, but it's the battleground on which we must fight.
I would also point out that you are presenting a false dichotomy, between permitting GMOs and helping African farmers, and opposing them and hurting said farmers. Unfortunately, the companies that are currently (irresponsibly) pushing (poorly tested, potentially dangerous) GMOs have absolutely no demonstrated interest in the good of the farmer, in this country or elsewhere. They roll right over farmers in the developed world, except in rare cases where the farmer has the means or the will to fight back. Can you imagine what they would do to the farmers of Africa, who have no money and no access to western courts? The corporations pushing these technologies are not humanitarians. They care about profit and control, nothing else.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:58 am
29 Mar 2007
Wouldn't it be better to educate the public regarding the most serious threats so that people are motivated to ask for real and lasting change? One can continue to try to suppress the technology using fear tactics, but the information is out there and there will be countries that are not afraid to permit it. I think it would be more productive in the long run if the public acquired control over the technology and had more say in how it is used and who benefits.
"The intellectual property issues around GMOs are too esoteric for most people, but they understand having pesticides built into their food."
No, they do not understand having pesticides built into their food.. because not all GMOs have pesticides built into them. And not all GMOs are used for food. Your are considering only one type of GMO. Please do not conflate several issues here. In many cases, a natural gene that confers resistance to a virus, pest, or herbicide is being moved from one perfectly edible plant to another edible plant. It might be a slightly different form of a protein that we already consume. Yes, it should be tested to ensure the new plant is not toxic or allergenic, but this has to be done for at least some products of conventional breeding (e.g., potatoes). When activists say GMOs contain pesticides... they are referring to a class of GMOS that includes Bt plants. Fine, reject Bt plants because of the pesticide. But they cannot be referring to virus-resistant or herbicide-resistant plants. They should be told how this technology works before being told to reject it. Then, if they have concerns, those separate issues should be addressed.
"The IP implications are probably far more dangerous, in point of fact, but they aren't going to get traction with the public that way."
But the IP implications are the real problem here. Everything else is a distraction. As long as corporations have tight control over genes, which should belong to everyone, the activists cannot win. Consider this -- I've not given thought to this before, but it might be relevant -- if the IP issue can be resolved, the money that drives the corporations to "force" GMOs on farmers will dry up. It will then fall upon public institutions to decide how and when GMOs will be used.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:03 am
29 Mar 2007
"Welcome to the real world of activism. It's not pretty, but it's the battleground on which we must fight."
So it is acceptable to distort information and use scare tactics to persuade the public to pursue a policy you believe they aren't intelligent enough to understand? Or perhaps you are afraid they won't make the "right" decision if they do have all of the information?
Pardon the analogy, but right now a certain conflict in Iraq comes to mind.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:15 am
29 Mar 2007
(1) Farmers barely surviving because they cannot afford to practice "conventional" agriculture.
(2) Farmers purchasing all the chemicals they can afford in order to increase their yields.
(3) Farmers using GMOs to reduce input costs and increase yield.
The fourth option, I assume, is organic. But I do not know enough about it to discuss whether it is a viable alternative. One example I read about discussed growing potatoes in South America. The organic potatoes looked pretty good at first... the yield actually exceded the yield of conventional potatoes by a slim margin. BUT... a very significant "but" ... for every acre of organic potatoes, there was an acre of lupines that had to be cut and moved to the field of potatoes for mulch and nitrogen. As far as I'm concerned, the yield of organic potatoes was about half the yield of conventional.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:47 pm
29 Mar 2007
The more I learn, the less fearful I am of the proposed GMO mosquito. The scientists in question are working with a Plasmodium species that specifically infects mice. Why does this reduce my concern?
The proposed effort to eliminate the Plasmodium species that infect humans should have minimal effects on other natural cycles. My primary concern when this post first appeared was that by eliminating malaria we would remove a natural check on some other species that could then become a pest -- perhaps some rodent population is suppressed by the parasite. But this is not the case. A focus on preventing transmission of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax would protect only human lives... and a few other primates. Other cycles of life and death would not be affected.
Indeed, it might be a bonus that by protecting humans we protect a few other primates. This strategy could be used to protect other species we've pushed to the edge. For example, if there is a endangered bird that is susceptible to malaria, find a way to stop transmission of that specific Plasmodium as well.
I know... none of this is natural. But do we back off and accept the fact that we've done massive damage to Earth's ecosystems -- let nature clean up the mess, even if more species are lost before things settle down again -- or make some effort to prevent further decline in biodiversity over the next few thousands of years?
Forward!
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 12:50 pm
27 May 2008
For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 1:02 pm
27 May 2008
As for who's funding the research - damn right it's the corporations. Thanks to organizations like FOE, research dollars from the public sector and non-profits disappeared. It makes me crazy that people use this as an argument against the safety and/or efficacy of genetically engineered crops, when their own voices are the cause of the problem.
For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 1:35 pm
27 May 2008
I also find it strange that people condemning Monsanto completely eliminate logic from their arguments. Monsanto, just like any other company, goes to great lengths to ensure that they release products that are as safe as possible. If the products were that bad, farmers wouldn't buy them. I doubt that Monsanto, the regulatory agencies, or the farmers are that inept.
The argument that GMOs don't help small poor farmers is tired. Put it to bed already. Bt crops have allowed farmers to spend less on inputs and benefit from increased yields (due to decreased insect damage). Why else would farmers in China be clamoring for them? The situation in India is a little different due to poor government regulation, but we can't blame politics on science.
More recently, despite a lack of funding from NGOs and GOs, there has been a explosion of crops that will undoubtedly directly benefit farmers - virus resistant, submergence resistant, nitrogen use efficient, drought resistant, nutritionally enhanced, and so on. These are (like all GM crops and unlike non-GM crops) tested intensively for safety before they are even presented for release. In cases when the price of seed would be too high for poor farmers due to licensing fees, companies have followed the example of Golden Rice and granted free or low cost seed to those farmers. These things all take time to develop (especially when public pressure has dried up funding), but we can't deny their existence.
The anti-GM activists have done far more than directly destroy research. They have prevented farmers in Africa from even having the choice to use agricultural technology. Genetic engineering is by no means a silver bullet but it can help to solve specific problems faced by these farmers. If the battlefield of activism is the lives of starving people, count me out.
I'm sorry if my manner is rough, normally I am careful to be gentle with my comments, but I'm frustrated with seeing the same lame arguments again and again. Oh, and before you say it - no, I don't work for Monsanto.
For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.
Permalink