Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) came to dominate U.S. grain agriculture over the last 12 with very little real public debate. Sure, people like me have complained loudly, and groups like Center for Food Safety have mounted forceful lobbying and public education efforts.
But U.S. policymakers have ignored these criticisms and chosen to wave these epoch-making technologies from the lab to the field to the plate with minimal oversight. That's at least partially because Monsanto, the dominant GMO seed producer, has managed to place its own people in high policy-making positions -- particularly during the 1990s, when the Clinton administration opened the floodgates for GMOs. The most glaring example (by no means the only) is Michael Taylor, who represented Monsanto as an attorney in the late 1980s. I'll let his bio take it from here:
He was Administrator of the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service from 1994 to 1996, Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the Food and Drug Administration from 1991 to 1994, and an FDA staff lawyer and Executive Assistant to the FDA Commissioner from 1976 to 1981. He practiced food and drug law and was a partner in the law firm of King & Spalding for ten years and most recently was Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Company.
But if (often hand-picked) government regulators have been very, very good to GMOs and the corporations that dominate their production, academic research is starting to stack against them. From the Independent:
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
Ouch. The Independent points to a recent University of Kansas study showing that Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans (designed to withstand copious lashings of Monsanto's own weed killer, Roundup) deliver yields 10 percent lower than conventional beans. The U. of Kansas verdict comes on the heels of a similar one from researchers at the University of Nebraska.
The yield question is key. For years, enthusiasts for genetically modified organisms have argued that GM crops deliver higher yields. And since they deliver higher yields, we desperately need them in order to "feed the world."
According to the Independent, the Kansas researchers concluded that the very process of gene-splicing seems to lower a plant's productivity. GM cotton, too, has shown lower yields.
Now, wait a minute. Since their release in 1994, Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds have conquered the U.S. farm belt and now account for upwards of 90 percent of soy, 60 percent of cotton, and half of corn. Over the same period, we've seen a gusher of Monsanto's Roundup weed killer -- and an explosion in superweeds.
It's getting increasingly hard to imagine who benefits from GMOs besides Monsanto, with its monopoly profits.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Threaded
Pangolin Posted 3:18 am
23 Apr 2008
What do you think they were supposed to be good for? The farmers? Get real.
Please, somebody, jump in here and tell us that "organic agriculture can't feed the world." We're just lucky that it can.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 4:19 am
23 Apr 2008
seriously - does anyone think that real country people living in the heartland of america buys that over priced stuff?
gmo's have never been proven to be dangerous to humans, animals or insects although many people have tried to find a link
the source of info for this post are all the typical anti establishment yuppies who eat grass fed meat and organic yogurt.
what a joke - organic is .5% of the world farming and WILL NEVER feed the world - only in your bong dreams pal
as far as what good are GMO's ?
here's a link for ya while you sip your latte in some urban coffee shop cut off from the rest of reality.
http://www.aatf-africa.org/newsdetail.php?newsid=95
christ people are having a hard time feeding themselves and some folks are still dreaming of hippies and organic farming and compost? come on.......given the turn of recent world events organic farming is doomed.
many organic farmers don't see any economic benefit anymore as conventional crops sky rocket.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/business/18organic.html ...
heres a version of organic that has a reasonable chance of feeding someone other then the latte bunch
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/ ...
Permalink
In the belly Posted 5:50 am
23 Apr 2008
And, in a pre-emptive for-what-its-worth, I'd be happy to compare my "country people" bona fides against anyone's.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:16 am
23 Apr 2008
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 5:59 am
24 Apr 2008
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/hkg279964-food-gmo-organ ...
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 6:01 am
24 Apr 2008
"What are the fossil fuel inputs of fertilizers and pesticides? Anybody who thinks that's getting cheaper just speak right up"
like do some reading - GMO replaces the need for some or most pesticides.
Permalink
thomer57 Posted 2:08 am
25 Apr 2008
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=5653
Just incredible.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:40 am
25 Apr 2008
"In the United States, the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_t ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Anastasia Posted 1:26 am
28 Apr 2008
Erik Hoffner, the amount of glyphosate has increased, but it's important to consider what it has replaced. Alternative herbicides, such as atrazine, are far worse. Additionally, the use of glyphosate resistant crops has allowed more farmers to go no-till, preserving topsoil and allowing more carbon retention in the soil. These things aren't black and white.
For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:40 am
28 Apr 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
edmharris Posted 11:30 pm
05 May 2008
More here.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:46 pm
05 May 2008
Allegedly it can feed and fuel the world. Instead it is starving the world. Farmers in India who feel they must go deeply into debt for GMO seed, commit suicide at record rates when they come to a harvest that doesn't pan out.
The family land is lost, starvation and poverty is all that is left, so the men kill themselves.
GMO is corporate crime against nature, on the genetic level.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:06 am
03 Jun 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4777561.stm
>>>>>
Scientists say they have identified a gene that will allow rice plants to survive being completely submerged in water for up to two weeks.
Most rice plants die within a week of being underwater, but the researchers hope the new gene will offer greater protection to the world's rice harvest.
Farmers in south-east Asia lose an estimated £524m ($1bn) each year from rice crops being destroyed by flooding.
The findings have been published in the science journal Nature.
The team from the University of California, Davis, US, and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) based in the Philippines says the gene, called Sub1A-1, will give the plants greater protection against damaging flooding.
They say it will also offer farmers greater crop protection, especially those who live in vulnerable areas.
Flood risks
Although rice production has doubled over the past 40 years, demand is continuing to grow. The crop is the staple food for more than three billion people around the globe.
Many rice growing regions in southern Asia are located in low-lying areas that are at risk from flooding during the monsoon season.
Plants submerged in water for longer than a few days are deprived of carbon dioxide and soon wither and die.
Dr David Mackill, from the International Rice Research Institute and one of the paper's authors, said scientists had been trying for half a century to develop a water resistant crop.
"Several traditional rice varieties have exhibited a greater tolerance to submergence, but attempts to breed that tolerance into commercially viable rice failed to generate successful varieties," he explained.
Another member of the team, Dr Pamela Ronald from the University of California, Davis, added: "Our research team anticipates that these newly developed rice varieties will help ensure a more dependable food supply for poor farmers and their families."
Takuji Sasaki, from Japan's National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, said the researchers had succeeded where others had failed.
"The particular impact of this study lies in [the] accurate and effective introduction of Sub1A-1 into local rice varieties subject to seasonal flooding."
The team members said that they were confident that "even more important" discoveries were in the pipeline.
>>>>>
The identified gene could be put into cultivated varieties preferred by farmers in various regions, preserving genetic diversity. It does not increase the use of pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals, synthetic or natural. The gene is found in food we already consume. It is a plant gene, not a fish gene! It does not raise the cost of growing food. It helps a farmer still harvest a valuable crop when there is unexpected flooding, perhaps due to global climate change.
Why can't this technology be combined with organic farming practices to reduce suffering, help farmers earn a living, and preserve our environment?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:42 am
04 Jun 2008
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/TNAU-ventures-into-d ...
>>>>>
New Delhi, May 25 Tamil Nadu Agriculture University (TNAU) is developing transgenic hill banana, which would be resistant to bunchy top virus (BBTV).
Speaking to FE, P Balasubramanian of the TNAU's centre for plant molecular biology said, "We are planning to engineer resistance in the hill banana cultivar, Virupakshi against BBTV. A full-length 850bp replicase gene of BBTV from infected hill banana was isolated in our laboratory. ... The isolated replicase gene may be cloned into RNA silencing (RNAi) vector ... sourced from Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Japan. The silencing gene construct developed may be used in hill banana transformation."
Balasubramanian further said that that in addition to hill banana, TNAU was working on transgenic transformation of the popular Cavendish banana cultivar, Robusta (AAA). ... Successful regeneration of a diploid banana, Ney poovan (AB) has also become possible.
Hill bananas are perennial in nature and are found at an altitude of 2,000 to 5,000 feet above sea level in the region of well distributed annual rainfall of 1,250-1,500 mm. Hill bananas are the ruling crop of the lower Pulneys hill ranges, Sirumalai and Kolli hills of Tamil Nadu from the 1940s. BBTV has been the sole cause for reduction in hill banana cultivation from 18,000 hectare in 1970s to a mere 2,000 hectare at present.
>>>>>
The identified gene could be put into cultivated varieties of bananas preferred by farmers in various regions, preserving genetic diversity. It does not increase the use of pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals, synthetic or natural. The gene is found in food we already consume. It is from a virus that infects plants, not a fish gene! It does not raise the cost of growing food. It helps farmers harvest a traditional crop that used to cover 18,000 hectare in 1970s, but now, due to the virus, is now grown on only 2,000 hectare.
Why can't this technology be combined with organic farming practices to reduce suffering, help farmers earn a living, and preserve our environment?
Permalink
elbarto Posted 10:09 am
04 Jun 2008
Who owns the genes? How many $billions have the Ag science corporations invested in developing and patenting the genes?
Does anyone seriously think that the "kind and benevolent" Ag corps are going to give their technology to poor starving people for nothing?
What a joke!
Think about this; Ag corp X splices in a gene for resistance to virus Y. Virus Y now only affects 1% of crop instead of 20%. Whoops, in a few planting generations, virus Y has now strengthened and again affects 20% of crop. Back to the drawing board for Ag corp. This is a viscious cycle that ensures continued dependence on Ag corp for version 1.X of crop seeds.
If anything, GMOs are going to feed less and less people simply because the technology is more expensive.
The world has enough food. Rich people waste enough food to feed those that don't have enough. That's the real problem.
Want to solve world hunger? - give those poor people some food - then teach them how to grow their own using sustainable permaculture. They can't afford the oil and chemical fertiliser for broad scale monocrops but they have human power.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:12 am
29 Jul 2008
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=BD4 ...
>>>
Super-Tobacco Sees Red at Land Mines
Tamar Kahn
Science and Health Editor
CAPE TOWN -- Scientists from the University of Stellenbosch have teamed up with Danish biotechnology firm Aresa to test a genetically engineered tobacco plant that turns red when it grows near land mines, offering hope of a cheap way to help clear fields in post-conflict zones.
More than 80 countries are affected by land mines. Angola, Afghanistan, Burundi, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chechnya, Colombia, Iraq, Nepal and Sri Lanka are worst affected.
Land mines are cleared by explosives experts who put a stick in the ground to locate them, or they use remote devices or sniffer dogs, which are all costly and dangerous processes that typically involve a random check of just a fraction of the area . If the genetically engineered tobacco plants prove successful, they would offer a simple way to assess an entire field.
Aresa has already developed its "RedDetect" technology in a weed called Thales cress, which turns from green to autumnal red when it detects nitrogen dioxide leaching from mines buried in the soil.
However, scientists realised the Thales cress would not be practical because it was too small to be spotted easily from a distance, said Stellenbosch researcher Estelle Kempen.
Aresa has now turned its sights on tobacco, which grows easily in most parts of the world.
Field trials are already under way in Serbia, and researchers from Stellenbosch have applied to the registrar of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act for permission to conduct similar research.
Scientists want to assess how the genetically engineered tobacco responds to drought and extreme temperatures, Kempen said.
The trials, if approved, would be conducted at the Welgevallen experimental farm on the outskirts of Stellenbosch. The plants would be analysed and destroyed before they began flowering to minimise the risk of environmental contamination, she said.
The plant would be used solely for humanitarian purposes, and there were no plans to seek a commercial permit.
Tobacco plants usually only produce red plant pigments in their flowers, which arises from a natural compound called anthocyanin, which is found in fruit such as apples and tomatoes. The technology developed by Aresa activates anthocyanin in the tobacco plant's leaves if there is soil contamination from explosives such as land mines.
>>>
This sounds like a very useful GMO that will help people in areas still plagued by military conflicts that ended years ago. No need to poke sticks in the ground, use sniffer dogs, or use expensive equipment to find land mines. Just look for the red tobacco plants. By helping people clear areas of land mines once and for all, this GMO will make it possible to rapidly return former agricultural land to cultivation. It also helps eliminate a general hazard to human beings and wildlife. It does not increase the use of pesticides or other chemicals.
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 7:50 am
29 Jul 2008
In summary: pretty much nothing, verifiably, other than making the GMO companies rich from taking control of the world's food supply and charging extortionist prices to growers through terminator technology simply because they can. Taking a cue from the oiligarchy playbook and putting an intellectual property stamp on living things.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
The water junta tried it in Bogota. Let's never forget that environmental politics are never "just" about the environment. They're about monolithic corporations taking control of the things people need to survive in order to rake in profits.
But you all knew all of that already...right?
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 8:23 am
29 Jul 2008
Maybe agricultural transgenics can do good someday. The current crop just isn't making the cut. It's time to relegate them to the laboratory, where they belong until it's proved otherwise. It's called the precautionary principle. Get to know it.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:17 am
29 Jul 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:24 am
29 Jul 2008
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:42 pm
29 Jul 2008
The MARKET will determine whether genetic tampering is a good idea, and the use of any other system of thought for evaluating the suitability of this technology is time-wasting ideology.
Because the belief in markets as the proper arbiters of goodness is not an ideological statement at all ...
Just as when Stephen Colbert says to Al Gore "Hey, I believe in global warming, because you're movie is the top-grossing documentary of all time. The market has spoken."
The 5% Project
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:42 pm
29 Jul 2008
What will that look like? Will it remake nature in a corporate image? GMO tree farms instead of forests? GMO fuel crops instead of prairies? GMO food crops grown on dead posoined soil?
Will lining up economists against a wall stop it? Is it worth a try, even if it doesn't work? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:21 pm
29 Jul 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/27/221942/699
and then let's discuss. If you want to cherry-pick and throw strawmen around, I'll pass.
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:44 am
30 Jul 2008
"Are you pro-GMO folks getting paid by the transgenic lobby, or are you just indulging in wishful thinking?"
I don't consider myself pro-GMO. I don't blindly support or defend every GMO created or thought of. There are useful GMOs, useless GMOs, and dangerous GMOs. I'm pro reducing harm to the environment by rational research and application of technology and not ignoring something useful for ideological reason. If there is a non-GMO solution, fine. If GMOs can help, fine.
I'm a researcher who creates GMOs for producing large amounts of useful enzymes that can displace chemicals or energy-intensive process and GMOs that reduce the use of fungicides for growing food. I'm not paid by some transgenic-plant lobby or indulging in wishful thinking.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:00 am
30 Jul 2008
The goal is not growing tobacco as a crop. No need to plow, plant in rows, and carefully tend it and keep it free of weeds. In fact, it was chosen because it grows taller than the weed, so it will be clearly visible.
The fine seed could be scattered over the field, where it will germinate and grow among the weeds. You'd have to ask the specific researchers whether it can cope with the competition or might require watering where this will be tried. My experience with tobacco suggests that it can pretty much take care of itself -- if you don't care about the quality of the leaves -- if you scatter the seed and water it.
Again, the goal is to use it as an indicator of where the mines are, not maximize yield and/or quality of tobacco leaves. Tall spindly plants with bug-eaten leaves would do the desired job.
Permalink