BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?

Subject: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 12:48 PM

Please forgive me if this is a tired subject and I'm the last to know, but it's in the forefront of the news in the UK, and I know so little about what GM crops really mean in terms of the science- what's really known, what's feared, why there seems to be such a push to begin this now, rather than waiting for more info...My paranoia antenna goes way up on these kind of subjects and I almost immediatly think that it's some cadre of elite, nefarious multi-corporate types looking to make a killing (figuratively if not literally) on this stuff. Am I right to be concerned? Anyone know more about this to enlighten me, or send me to a lengthy thread somewhere here that I've missed? Thanks in advance..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:19 PM

My main concern with GM crops is not that there's anything unhealthy or dangerous food-wise about them, but that they are unhealthy and dangerous for the agricultural environment. GM crops are engineered to incorporate specific "advantages" into their growth patterns. Disease resistance, insect resistance, ability to withstand herbicides that are used to control weeds, and increased crop yield are some of the "advantages". The problem is that if GM crops are successful and widely planted, before long, practically every grower would be using the GM varieties. The problem with this type of monocultural agriculture, where everyone plants the same varieties, is loss of genetic diversity. What's going to happen when Mother Nature's natural propensity toward mutation hatches out a bug that just loves that GM crop? That GM corn variety everyone is growing is going to get wiped out and there won't be enough seed of other varieties available to fall back on.

There is a line of GM plants that have DNA from the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis (BT) encoded into their genetic structure. BT is a naturally occurring bacteria that infects and kills caterpillars. It is one of the handful of approved pesticides for use by organic farmers and gardeners. The introduction of BT on such a large scale, through the BT-modified crops, almost insures that BT-resistant strains of caterpillars will develop in just a matter of years. So, then, what's going to happen to all those BT-modified crops? They'll have to be sprayed with the same old nasty pesticides as conventional crops. Meanwhile, the organic farmers who haven't been growing the GM crops, but have been applying BT on an as-needed basis, and don't use chemical fertilizers, are going to see their crops get devoured by the BT-resistant caterpillars.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:22 PM

That last line should read "don't use chemical pesticides". Sorry, I was suffering from oxygen deprivation due to the altitude to which my soapbox had risen.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:28 PM

It scares me because monsanto owns a life form.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM

But you were correct, BW--Don't spray chemical fertilizers either. There are some very good organic fertilizers. Look in particular into horticultural cornmeal and corn gluten meal. Compost, green sand, lava sand, and even vinegar (used at certain times of the year) all have good fertilizer properties.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: open mike
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:41 PM

There is a canadian farmer who is suinig monsanto.
they planted genetically altered crop next to his
and seeds blew over into his field. now they say he
stole their species....i am looking for a link..
can only find this other canadian suit...canola
which i think might be safflower, is the crop.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/organicssue011402.cfm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/canadasuit012502.cfm
http://www.life.ca/nl/84/classaction.html
there is another older canadian farmer who has been travelling
around and giving talkls about his experience with this.
http://www.saskorganic.com/
can any one find info agbout the recent news?

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:46 PM

canola = rape doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: open mike
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:57 PM

O.K> i found him...Percy Schmeiser himnself is being sued by Monsanto.
please do what yo can to support him.
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2001/May/msg00062.html
# http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
# http://www.biotech-info.net/percy_schmeiser.html
# http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1022
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/canola
# http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/percy.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:01 PM

BeeDubya - states the case very well,
a safe naturally occuring pesticide such as bt may only be useful
for the next 50-100years - until resistance builds up thanks to gm modified crops containing bt.

gm crops didnt become an issue in North America until monarch butterflies started dying because of bt-corn.
Which I believe was approved only for livestock consumption, but later environmental watch dog groups found bt-corn dna turning up in a variety of products such taco shells in the US, and as far as Japan.
Even though farmers were required to keep it out of the human food chain because it was untested - it tended to aggravate human allergies. SInce theres no way to prevent some farmer selling at corn for human consumption the genies out of the bottle.

theres also the fact that simply modifying dna is more like a shot gun approach - its not that accurate and retroviruses lurking on the dna could be modified as well. You cant recall a virus once its out there.

there may well be benefits to some gm crops - such as the yams grown in Africa - that are far more productive in a dry environment so I wouldnt dismiss it entirely. BUt after various scientific failures of the past, ddt, thalidomide, bse (thanks to feeding groundup sheep to cattle) I want to be informed. At the very least gm food should be labeled.

Percy Schmeiser the Saskatchewan farmer battling Monsanto, who sued him for growing gm canola without paying a royalty is a case to watch.
Since agriculture began farmers kept their own seed for next years crop. Now with gm canola seed must be bought each year from Monsanto.
Schmeiser refused to do this and did not grow gm canola although neighbouring farmers did and drove their trucks containing seed (covered only with a tarp) through his land. Neighbouring farmers would notice a plane flying low across their land (without notification or permission) and a week later there was a swath of dead crops. A helicopter would show up and check it. They found out from their Monsanto contact that this is the way they get audited.

MOnsanto sprays a herbicide on a patch and comes back a week later to see if its dead. If it isnt they know the farmer is growing a weed resistant canola.

Even though under Canadian law, one cannot patent a living organism, somehow MOnsantos lawyers won a right to claim that since Monsanto owns the modified gene the plant is a result of the gene etc etc.

its an insidious process, where the company goes out to remote lands and collects seeds from all sorts of crops that have undergone thousands of years of selection. THey make a slight change, patent it.
And then local farmers have to buy seed, and the resulting monoculture leads to loss of diversity - and problems such as the Irish potato blight, and the US corn blight in the 60's and others

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:03 PM

He lost that case. The courts decided in favor of Monsanto and took his crops. That goes back several years. Monsanto had people going into his fields surreptitiously and taking samples. The pollen from the neighboring fields drifted into his and caused the problems, but the courts backed Monsanto.

Canola oil is the PC American term for rape seed oil.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Skipjack K8
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:39 PM

My terms of reference are that I am an oil baron of the vegetable variety, and that I have studied this technology for as many years that it has been a commercial issue.

I had a very enlightening trip to the US in 2002, on a study tour which took in the Chicago Board of Trade, several farms and seed companies in Indiana, the regretable lap-dancing incident in Lafayette, Dow Agriscience in Indy, and the truly gargantuan floating elevators of Cargill and ADM in the Mississippi upstream from Nyawleens. The focal point of the trip was, in very general terms, the public acceptance of GM in the US, and the public rejection of GM in Europe, and there was a lot of debate about why this had come about as so satrk a difference. The concept that appealed to me most was that, again in general terms, the governments on both continents had told their peoples that GM is a good thing for the planet, but the defining difference is that the American peoples still believe their politicians, and that the Europeans do not.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Ed.
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:54 PM

the governments on both continents had told their peoples that GM is a good thing for the planet

Glad that I'm a European.

However is in charge, nobody knows what the long term effects of GM crops might be.

Personally, I'm not keen on the risk.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:13 PM

actually the case has been appealed and is still in the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:37 PM

I didn't realise General Motors had diversified, amazing what you learn on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 05:50 PM

An interestinig connected discussion here . At least I thought it interesting.

Sadly, I fear these discussions are always led by the extremes of each side - those who see no baby in the bathwater and those who value the bathwater only.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Gypsy
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:03 PM

Well, for better or worse, my county Mendocino CA, has made GMO's illegal. Not real sure how this will be enforced, especially after talking to our Agricultural Commissioner, but since our law has passed, Sonoma and Humbolt (CA) counties both plan on adding same measure to their november ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:45 PM

Folks be reasonable....drop back to your basic-introductory-biology courses.

Remember the 40plus stages of Kreb's-Cycle....the ATP to ADP back to ATP "power-plant" of all living organizms?

Break ANY link in the cycle (through carbon or phospate blockage) and the organism WILL DIE!

Now....man/woman/child are not members of the insect world....what kills the inscet....will not kill you....

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:47 PM

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 02:50 AM

It may be the only thing worth discussing. Monsanto is the biggest bully on the face of the earth. Please inform yourselves about the tactics they are using to force all farmers to grow only their seeds or die in court.

SUPPORT Percy Schmeiser. He is a humble farmer who is blowing the whistle as loud as he can. Monsanto is pure evil.

d

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 04:42 AM

I'm now glad I began this thread, and thank you all so much for contributing. I'm learning a lot, and getting more scared that what I initially thought to be true,is in fact the case. Good old Monsanto, at it again, huh?

It reminds me of all the things happening within the drug industry in the past years, of trying to patent any and everything under the sun, so the drug companies can profit like crazy. We have something going on here in the UK as well with the attempt of the drug companies to remove all sorts of things from the shelves of our stores, like vitamins, herbs...all supposedly in the "interests of the public". This seems to be the case with GM products as well.

Americans are more gullible about these things, you're right. We still believe what our government tells us (thus a jolly war in Iraq initiated by our nonpresident, given to us courtesy of the US Supreme Court) and have been willing to do this for far too long. It takes the grass roots communities in different parts of the country to rise up and say ENOUGH...but this doesn't happen nearly enough, and each is a lengthy fight.

Any more info about GM is welcome. I just heard that milk cows in England have been fed on GM grain for quite a while now, with no one in the greater populice being informed. Terrific...xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:00 PM

Amazing how the new system.....causes some postings to DIE! and never be posted....is Kellog's underwriting Max?

Previous Gargoyle postings included the implication that while death may not be immediately emmenant...the third genereation after your death may develope a genetic defect leading to a third eye, or third ear that may be better attuned to the REAL difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:09 PM

heloo, i not sure waht gargoyle is saying, [is he a mad person?]

anyway=surely 3 ears is better than just 2, [you can hear more].

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:13 PM

Gargoyle...sorry, but if you mention Kreb's cycle to Ellenpoly, she will think you are referring to the one owned by Maynard G. Krebs of the Dobbie Gillis Show. I believe it had "training wheels".

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:23 PM

The problem with GM crops, animals or people is that we have no way to determine what the end result will be. That is, we do not know what will result in five or ten generations. That is scary. I am not in favour of opening that Pandora's Box at this time. We have had past experience with 'tested' products causing great damage. Einstein said that God does not play dice with the universe. Why do we think we should?

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:24 PM

Sad to say 2/3 of all American grain crops are now contaminated with various GM genes.

I said it years ago that no one can contain pollen in the wind.

No one could
No one did.

And now the consequences are still unknown.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:29 PM

I understood Gargoyle--in my book (my botany notebook from class oh-so-long-ago, that is) the Krebs cycle is a diagram down to the side of the much larger cycle of photosynthesis. A little loop in a much larger loop. An asymetric concentric circle, perhaps. :)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:00 AM

Krebs Cycle

In all plants and animals: a series of enzymatic reactions in mitochondria involving oxidative metabolism of acetyl compounds to produce high-energy phosphate compounds that are the source of cellular energy.

Source: Wordnet

Yep, that about sums it up!

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 07:18 AM

Ya lost me somewhere around the ninth word, brucie, but thanks for the info...xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Sweetfia
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 09:02 AM

....no! get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:08 AM

In addition to the concerns above, is the concern that the modified gene may be passed to a wild relative of the modified crop.
Here's a scenario.
Modify a strain of oats so that it is resistant to a particular pesticide.
We now have "Crazy-Oats" (sold to you by CrazyEddie Seeds Inc.) & "Crazy-Zap" (sold by CrazyEddie Chemicals Inc.)

You plant the seed, spray the pesticide, Abracadabra, all the weeds die, and the oats thrive! Whoopee!

Happy Farmer, Happy CrazyEddie!

Unfortunately, some of the pollen fertilises a weed (Called "wild oat") in a neighbouring meadow.
After a few years, the resistant "wild oat" is rampant, because you are killing all the other weeds.

A similar situation can occur with any "advantage" you give your crop; related wild plants obtain the advantage by hybridization, and natural selection does the rest.

This is the reasoning behind the UK decision to allow GM Maize (but not other crops) to be grown. Maize is a new-world species, and has no close relatives in the wild in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Grab
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:17 PM

There isn't really a "push" now - this has been happening for some years. The difference is that now the particular GM crop concerned has passed all tests and is being considered for use, after a great deal of testing.

Re BWL's comment about monocultures, I'm afraid if that's your worry then the battle was lost before your great-grandfather was born! ;-) Agriculture is *already* monocultures, and has been for close to 200 years. In the best example of the problems with monocultures, it caused the Irish Potato Famine. However, modern agriculture is still using monocultures for money reasons, and fire-fighting every time a new problem comes along. And as far as environmental issues go, American farmland is basically an environmental desert already, with nothing growing there except the corn or whatever else. Whether monocultures are right or wrong has no place in the argument over GM crops.

That's where the British study is so interesting. Turns out that no-one previously had ever checked to see how good "normal" crops are for wildlife, so the environmental difference between GM and non-GM is less significant than the difference between sugar beet or wheat. Of the three crops where GM vs non-GM were compared, only one showed GM to give any benefit for the environment, in conjunction with a specific new weedkiller. That's the crop which has received preliminary licensing; the others have been rejected. And note that it's still not free to be used everywhere - it will still be under very close examination, and the specific weedkiller has still to be investigated and licensed for use.

I certainly object to the actions of Monsanto and other big agribusinesses. However I also object to the attitudes of some objectors, particularly those who tried to ruin this study and who abused and threatened the people carrying it out. As it turned out, the people running the study were 100% incorruptible and did a thoroughly excellent job.

My other concern with objectors is that of shifting standards. The original intention with GM crops was to make them sterile - the pollen or seeds would then be of no concern. That was the original intention of the companies, and it certainly wouldn't have hurt their profits if everyone had to buy new seed each year. But then the protestors said "But what about people (especially in the Third World) who save seed from year to year? You'll be grinding them down by making them buy from you every time." So the protestors *forced* the GM companies to change to producing GM crops with viable seeds. And now there's complaints about the seeds and pollen staying around and "contaminating" the surrounding area. Personally I can only say that objectors taking that line are intellectually dishonest.

On that line, plants bred by "normal" methods (which may involve interbreeding of multiple species which normally can't, in labs under other-worldly conditions) have been used for decades. Many of those plants are sterile and don't produce viable seed, due to chronic inbreeding (the best examples being domestic flowers such as roses). With these new varieties, field trials are conducted to see how they shape up in the real world before they're sold. Resistance (or lack of resistance) to pests is one trait for which crops have been bred for years, and no-one has claimed before that resistance bred by those methods (most of which are decidedly unnatural) is a problem, despite the fact that fields full of "regular" wheat may be directly alongside the test plots. The use of direct genetic modification therefore isn't as big a change as claimed - the main thing as with other new varieties is to make sure that plants are tested in the labs first to make sure as much as possible is known before they get outside, AND to make sure that the results of testing are known.

As far as the "waiting for more info" side goes, there literally is *nothing* else that can be done in the lab for this particular crop. The scientists have opened these things up to the limits of current genetics knowledge (which is pretty damn good these days). What's left is field trials to see what happens in the real world. Note the difference between the UK and the US. In the US, there were no regulations, and there are now quite a few GM crops going around. In the UK, it's gone through seriously tight regulations with some serious scrutiny (serious enough to prompt the study I mentioned). I am absolutely in favour of putting GM crops through as much scrutiny as possible, but if they pass every test then again it is intellectually dishonest of objectors to continue complaining.

If the objectors wish to suggest further tests or conditions to make extra sure, that's fine by me - the more scrutiny, the better. What would be totally wrong though would be to impose some arbitrary restriction on GM crops, such as "no crops to be grown for the next 5 years" or "we need more research in the lab", which makes no sense from a scientific point of view. The only intention of the former is to force agri-companies out of business (or at least to force them to halt research) by putting the pay-off too far away, and the only intention of the latter is to frighten people (possibly like yourself) who don't realise the scrutiny which these things have already been through. By all means have 5 generations of field trials if you think that's necessary, but if they pass that then at some point we have to say that enough is enough.

I can't say whether this particular crop is safe enough or not. But there has to be an acceptance that GM organisms are not inherently any more dangerous than any other organism, that is, they are only as dangerous as their particular function dictates in their particular environment. My problem with the objectors is that a fair proportion are arguing that GM organisms can *never* be safe, and that is an invalid belief.

Graham.

PS. Brucie, Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe" in response to Heisenberg's theories of quantum mechanics. He was proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: open mike
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:39 PM

some countries are regulating the import of possibly GM grains by allowing only processed (corn meal) grains, not whole grains, to be imported so no seeds can be grown which might contain the modified
genes.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 05:01 PM

Yeah, you're right, Grab. However, the point remains. We don't have any effin' idea what might result in a few generations, and I think that's sufficient reason to leave it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 02:26 PM

Grab -

My objection isn't to the safety of genetically modified seeds but to Monsanto's bid to control all farming activity and create a dependence on their seeds. Read about Percy Schmeiser.

Monsanto will sue (and apparently have the right) anyone farmer caught growing their seeds without a license. When the wind, birds, etc. carry the pollen or seeds into a neighboring field, they threaten to sue the unsuspecting farmer unless they pay Monsanto up front. Monsanto is a huge corporate bully intent on creating a monopoly on seeds.

No thanks, I'd rather save my seed or buy it from whomever I choose. Trouble with Monsanto is that they want to eliminate choice.

d

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Grab
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 03:42 PM

Brucie, I agree that on some things (probably quite a few things), people don't know enough. How far pollen spreads from plants, how easy some plants can interbreed. I totally agree that we need research on that. The thing is, if we assume that experimental crops are potentially hazardous to the environment, this research should have happened about 200 years ago when Britain invented intensive agriculture. ;-) After all, some of the thoroughly unnatural cross-breeds achieved in the lab through "traditional" techniques (which basically involves cross-breeding a zillion strains until random chance gives the particular genetic mutation or mixture you want) could equally well be a problem waiting to happen. That the research didn't get done until GM crops came along is a major failing. Pollen spread is a good example - the research done during the GM field trials showed pollen spread an order of magnitude further than previous theories for oilseed rape (canola).

By all means, check this out for several generations of plants under heavy test conditions, and see what the results are. I don't agree that not knowing the results of the tests is a reason not to try it, though. If we knew what the results would be, we wouldn't need to do the tests! ;-) But the lab research suggests that things aren't going to go haywire. I absolutely agree that we need as much labwork as possible before field trials, but at some point things have to come out of the lab and be tried in the real world. There's no reason why GM crops should be any different from any other field (sorry! ;-) of science in that respect.

Dianavan, I know that Monsanto are a thoroughly nasty bunch, or at least that the moral-free sods who picked on that farmer are. Maybe that poor guy's example is a reason for a new law on what constitutes theft with regards ownership of a particular breed of plant - after all, laws don't usually get changed until there's some obvious miscarriage of justice. I don't think this is a reason to rule out GM crops though - it's a problem with a specific company and not with the crops themselves. Henry Ford was an exploitative, racist, anti-semitic piece of crap, but that wasn't a reason to ban the motor car. ;-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 04:55 AM

The risk of a new gene having unforseen dangerous consequences is tiny.    But releasing the gene is irreversible.

Since this is the only planet we have got , is it sensible to carry out the experiment?

Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Gypsy
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 09:53 PM

My big question............does anyone really want the worlds food supply in the hands of a very few? I AM a farmer, and we grow clean produce............if bugs won't eat it, neither will we. But down the road, what if we have no alternative because we cannot save seed or runners? I'm straddling the fence on this one, but have some major questions.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM

We have always modified food through selective breeding. We have wheat that matures more quickly, and cows with the percents of fat we wish, etc. I guess it's the genetic part that bothers me. If there was w ay to test it where the seeds could NOT escape, I'd be for it. I do not object to research, and I don't think all research is bad, but this I have serious doubts about. Kinda like developing mutated strains of Ebola and thinking we will, 100% of the time, keep the stuff in our control. I don't doubt that various governments are working on just that even as we sit in our respective chairs. And, probably, so far, it's been kept under wraps. However, I wouldn't want to be around if it ever escapes.

I'm familiar to a small degree with epidemiology, and I have a layman's understanding of spread factors. However, on this one we just don't know. To me, that's sufficient reason to keep on not knowing.

You (Grab) state your case very well. Just take me as the guy who always had more questions than answers, and who really wants the answers before the stuff happens.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 05:25 PM

grab,
I am not completely against gm crops; for instance theres good evidence that in places like drought ridden africa - major food crops such as yams can be modified to grow better and bigger than the normal yams.
the problem I have is taking BT which is a safe and naturally occuring insecticide and putting it into corn for instance. BT-corn
is currently approved for animal consumption but not human, as so far
tests have indicated that people who are sensitive will have allergic reactions to bt-corn. But BT corn has shown up in cornproducts across the US and as far as Japan, because either some farmer got it mixed up or said to hell with it, I can sell it as regular corn. and now its out there.

now that you have the insecticide in the corn, it will only cause the insects and pests to build up faster resistance, and an insecticide that can be used by organic farms and other farmers other now may only have less than a 100 years of use, all thanks to monsanto taking it and modifying it for their own corn.

(I also question a lot of other practices by monsanto- ie drugs to dairy cows to produce more milk, (every cow not given the drug is lost profits - according to their promo video) - when there's an oversupply of dairy farms and the market has to be regulated)

there's also the issue of retroviruses lurking in dna, that may be c
released with genetic manipulation: since its not a completely perfect science. Theres a lot of great advances thanks to science, but that doesnt mean we should blindly accept what scientists say after all we have them to thank for creating the bse problem (by feeding ground up sheep to cows etc)

at the very least gm foods should be labeled, so that we have the option to know what we are eating.

Subject: RE: BS: GM Crops... is this worth discussing?
From: Gypsy
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 08:47 PM

Yes, there is a HUGE difference between selective breeding, and gm. When we had sheep, all we did was selective breeding, which is all any stock person does. But not in a laboratory, and not mixed with other species.