moyesii’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Clif Bars

  I was surprised to see Clif Bars on the list of companies affected by the recall, but maybe I shouldn't be. Many people who buy natural and health food products believe that they are supporting a better, alternative food system, and that the ingredients are being sourced from responsible, sustainable producers. But it seems more like "conventional" and "organic" are becoming just two chains in a complex, interwoven system. So no wonder it's all tainted.On Tainted peanut butter and our troubled food system posted 10 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Traditional breeding vs. genetic engineering

  Angelsnecropolis, You're confusing traditional breeding and genetic engineering, which are completely different in both their means and ends. This has already been discussed to death on grist before. The USDA itself differentiates these two processes.

  And why do you assume that anti-GMO people are all luddites? Just because some of us don't care to go into a dissertation here on the subject doesn't mean that we haven't done our research. According to this report, there is a very high failure rate in the cloning process, and even among those few that reach full-term, clones and their offspring often suffer from hidden genetic defects that don't manifest until adulthood or postmortem. Therefore, I don't see how anyone can claim that traditional breeding and genetic engineering are the same or even similar processes or that the end products are not radically different. And taking into account the high prevalence of disease and genetic defects among clones and their offspring, it seems quite rational that people should be concerned about the safety of consuming these foods.On Consumers demand market rejection of food from cloned animals posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The real issue is food from offspring of clones

  I think the real issue is food from the offspring of clones, and for the most part, the food industry has not taken any sort of meaningful stand on that issue. For producers, the real value of clones lies in reproducing top breeders and using the clones to breed for specific traits, such as bigger and more productive offspring. Therefore, the companies that have stated that they won't use food from cloned animals are really making empty promises since it's primarily the food from the offspring of these clones that they intend to market.

  Here's a quote from Trans Ova Genetics President David Faber:
  

  After making a $10,000 to $20,000 investment on one of these animals, it doesn't make economic sense to put them into the food supply, Faber said. "The farmers and producers who use this technology are mainly interested in capturing genetic value to produce higher quality animals," he said.

  Therefore, I don't think the companies that have pledged not to sell food from clones deserve praise for trying to spin a purely economic decision on cloning as a socially responsible one, since it's merely not profitable for them at this point to be using clones as meat animals. If they said that they would not use food from cloned animals or their offspring anytime now or in the future, that would be a real victory for consumers, but they won't ever say that.

  Here is Smithfield Foods' statement from their website:
  

  Smithfield Foods, Inc. (NYSE:SFD) reiterated earlier statements that the company is not planning to produce meat products from cloned animals. The science involved in cloning animals is relatively new. As thoughtful leaders in our industry, we will continue to monitor further scientific research on this technology.

  And here's the statement from Kraft:
  

  Basil Maglaris, a spokesman for Kraft, the U.S.'s largest food company by revenue and a major cheese producer, said the company has told suppliers it will accept only ingredients from conventional animals. "The surveys we've seen indicate that consumers aren't receptive to ingredients from cloned animals," he said. The pledge now only applies to cloned animals; the company says it will continue to monitor consumer acceptance of products from clones' offspring.

  The offspring of top breeding animals -- whether cloned or not -- can be sold to other producers for big bucks, therefore making it a profitable business to breed clones and sell their offspring. And since there's no regulation, no tracking, and no uniform policies on food from cloned animal offspring, it seems virtually guaranteed that meat and dairy from cloned animals (perhaps the spent breeding clones are sent to slaughter) and their offspring will eventually dominate the food supply as more producers switch to breeding with cloned animals and their offspring for a competitive edge. And it's no surprise that food from cloned animals has already entered the food supply, as the de facto integration is wearing down consumer resistance to the idea of eating meat and dairy from clones, thus following the same insidious path with which GMO crops were ambushed into the American food supply.

  Here's a telling statement:
  

  One thing the companies won't be able to do is identify the offspring of cloned animals. As Viagen President Mark Walton explained, "the database won't track cloned offspring because they are not clones. They are the same as every other animal ever produced from two parents."

  I don't know if animal breeds can be patented (as are their GMO seed counterparts), but as long as these cloning companies can continue to tout "new and improved" breeds, I assume that producers will want to keep buying from them in order to stay competitive. Agribusiness sees a profit in reducing the animal gene pool by cloning, and further controlling and concentrating all animal and plant genetic lines.On Consumers demand market rejection of food from cloned animals posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  laws and scripture

  Strong correlation is usually sufficient evidence in science, so I stand by the examples I've cited.

  You seem to have great faith in the infallibility of the WTO's codified agreements and rules. But just as it's difficult to prove causation (the act of one thing happening from another) from correlation (the occurrence of two things simultaneously), there is often little connection between the existence of rules established in the books and actual adherence to the law, especially among non-democratic bodies and given the known level of corruption anywhere that large amounts of money are at stake.

  But I admire the religious zeal and salesman's determination with which you defend the WTO and tout your expert knowledge. It reminds me of certain people who like to toss around passages from the bible. Unfortunately, we know that both rules and scripture are often arbitrarily interpreted, which is why it's dangerous to have a non-democratic international governing body to be overriding domestically-set regulations. The WTO model is too ungainly to adequately address the deep social and economic inequalities among the poor and rich nations, and has been more likely to exacerbate them, which is why the Doha talks collapsed anyway.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 3 months ago 108 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  pesticides and subsidies

  Regarding the MRLs: every nation has a right to determine its own domestic policies, regardless of their impact on trade. The welfare of a nation's citizens, their health, and the environment should take precedence over expansion of trade, which only benefits a few players by relaxing regulations in order to open up borders to unsafe, unsustainable products such as GMOs and irradiated foods, which have been zapped with scary doses of ionic radiation, because shipping live produce around the world contributes to the spread of invasive pests (which doesn't really help sustainable agriculture or the environment in general). By relaxing environmental regulations, the WTO has also contributed to the spread of factory farms in developing countries and has increased the risk of a global flu pandemic, which is now considered the greatest threat in the U.K., but has particularly impacted developing countries. Factory farms are a major incubator for bird flu and other superbugs, and the unregulated proliferation coincides with the spread of bird flu, which has decimated traditional backyard poultry farming in countries such as Nigeria, destroying thousands of livelihoods.

  Regarding the WTO judgment on cotton subsidies, my point was that the end result (GMO proliferation) was the intended goal, not an unintended outcome. Anyway, not all agricultural subsides are bad. For example, many sustainable ag advocates are in favor of limited subsidies, such as for specialty crops. So even on that level there is a fundamental, irreconcilable conflict between the WTO free trade agenda and agricultural sustainability.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 3 months ago 108 Responses