…and this is a 
A few days ago, sent you off to vote on a debate on genetically-modified crops, a debate that has continued onwards.
We didn't quite pharyngulate this poll; it has gone back and forth, and now the anti-GMO forces have a pretty good lead. One reason that we didn't pound it into the ground is that there was some dissension here, even — I think a fair number of the people who read about it here went off to vote for the antis. And then, also, I've learned that the anti-GMO gang organized their own opposition (which is perfectly fair!), which I suspect voted with much more unity than the gang from here.
Anyway, I have obtained some top secret email from the organic gang's mailing list, shown here for your amusement:
The Economist has a GM debate sponsored by BASF: "This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory."
We're currently losing and the debate rounds up in the next 48 hours.
Please vote now and vote NO - and tell everyone you know to do the same.
Message from Phil Chandler
Please - show the GM industry what you think of them with just one click - no signup, name or email needed - just go here - http://tinyurl.com/3yk4xj6 and vote AGAINST the motion.
I suspect this has been worded in an attempt to ask a 'soft' question, which sounds harmless, so that people will be fooled into agreeing with it. But the fact is that GM and sustainable agriculture are NOT compatible, or complementary, as the very presence of GM in an open space means that organic and other non-GM crops will inevitably be contaminated. This is happening wherever GM crops are grown, and is well-documented. American farmers who were sold on GM ten years ago are now turning against it - listen to my podcast at http://biobees.libsyn.com for evidence of this.
Don't be fooled by industry propaganda: GM crops are TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with sustainable agriculture.
This is not a definitive survey, but it is run by The Economist and will be used by the media as 'evidence' one way or the other.
So please, if you care about keeping our food and our bees GM-free - VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION - http://tinyurl.com/3yk4xj6 - they don't need your name or email address, and it only takes a second.
Thanks,
Phil Chandler
www.biobees.com
I've found the comments even more entertaining. There's lots of nonsense like this:
Science and nature are two parallel things. There is no comparison between sustainable Agriculture (SA) and GMOs. In SA production of food is almost natural. There is no destruction of nature and the environment remains clean. GMO is a science which tampers with biodiversity and eventually breaking the environmental cycles. The world doesn't need food produced using science rather it requires food produced using natures own ingredients.
You might want to revisit the debate and notice who is backing up all their arguments with citations of the peer-reviewed literature, and that most of the opposition to GMOs is coming from people who have this bizarre view that science is unnatural…that is, science up to the level that they are currently using is natural, but anything beyond that, anything newer, is somehow destroying nature.
Technology
Comments
Posted by: Glenn G
|
November 11, 2010 2:29 PM
I would be 100% for genetically modified crops if it weren't for Monsanto.
Posted by: iiandyiiii#0fab0
|
November 11, 2010 2:29 PM
I think the majority of the anti-GM folks have some aversion to laboratories; it doesn't matter that conventional agricultural practices like selective breeding have had huge effects on the genetics of species utilized for agriculture, what matters is that GM is done in a SPOOKY SCARY laboratory! And laboratories are where scary sci-fi stuff happens, and therefore GM ruins the environment.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
November 11, 2010 2:34 PM
The statement being debated is an oversimplification that doesn't merit a yes or no answer, but should provoke questions. Which crop? Modified how? Introduced into what environment? What regulations should be implemented on testing/labeling/disclosure, etc.
Posted by: davidhortonsblog.com
|
November 11, 2010 2:35 PM
PZ you are not often wrong (I can think of only one other occasion ...) but you are not on the side of the angels (even ones "with citations of the peer-reviewed literature") on this issue. There is a considerable difference between a genome that has evolved as an integrated whole through natural selection, and one which has had bits of DNA from other organisms, bits that could never have reached that species naturally, inserted into its genome for some imagined human benefit or commercial advantage.
The risk seems to me not so much in the direct consumption of GMO, although there are certainly possibilities for things to go wrong, but in the spread of these organisms into the habitat where their peculiar combinations of genes (especially, but not only, those involving resistance to pests and diseases) will certainly have unintended and probably irreversible consequences.
I would rather see continuing emphasis on improving domestic crops and animals by selection for performance, the way it has been done for several thousand years. There is still plenty of room for improvement, and little chance of ecological damage, using that approach. But less money, of course, for the big agrichemical and seed companies. Are they really the guys you want to support here?
Posted by: Tulse
|
November 11, 2010 2:36 PM
That of course has no impact on the actual merits of the arguments made here. Stated in the way you have, PZ, that claim is basically a variety of ad hominem, equivalent to saying "Those who think Obama isn't moving quickly enough on gay rights should notice what those folks at Little Green Footballs are saying about him! Is that the company you want to keep?!"
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 11, 2010 2:43 PM
I had to vote against GM, because I'm a Darwin worshipper, don't you know? I can't stand intelligence being behind any sort of life.
Kidding, actually. It's great to do with life what evolution could never do, think, and of course GM rather shows up ID BS, though what doesn't? That it poses some dangers that other biotech does not simply means that we have to pay attention to those dangers.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: ibyea
|
November 11, 2010 2:45 PM
@davidhorton
While I see your concern, the part where you are wrong is that the organisms human raise are not natural at all. Modern cows, pigs, cabbage, bananas, they are all artificial. For example, broccolis,brussel sprouts, cabbage, and couliflower are all descendants of one wild cabbage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea
So it is not like you can say that artificial breeding is better because they fit in the environment or something because just as the name suggest, they are artificial. What if artificially bred animals or plants can cause harm? No one thinks of that.
Although I do think that GMOs should be regulated and everything, and the corporations' hold on GMOs worry me.
Posted by: Sajanas
|
November 11, 2010 2:46 PM
@davidhortonsblog.com
Not to be too harsh, but what crops have caused major ecological damage, ever? It seems like, as a whole, our crop plants are rather delicate creatures, as opposed to say, domesticated animals that get everywhere and eat everything, like the goat. There is more ecological damage from clearing more land for more inefficient crops than from some crop plant going nuts.
Also, traditional breeding has its limitations. You'll never get a plant produce nutrients if it doesn't have the genetics to create those nutrients at all. Golden rice is not possible naturally, or it would be almost impossible.
Posted by: gillt
|
November 11, 2010 2:47 PM
I know a lot of anti-GMers never had a problem drinking Snapple, which is made up of flavors mother nature never intended but should have. Said so right on the bottle.
Hypocrites!
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
November 11, 2010 2:48 PM
David Horton--
Few of the crops we eat today evolved through natural selection. Artificial selection is not a bad thing, but neither is it the same thing: humans have tightly controlled which individuals reproduce, often producing varieties that would have difficulty surviving without humans. Consider corn or the domestic turkey.
The real problem is that there are several different questions here, and they don't all come down on the same side of a simple pro/anti GMO argument. Should the law be used to require farmers to buy new seed every year instead of saving the best seeds from their crops? (This, among other things, means that the GMO crop will not then be further improved for local conditions or by a fortunate mutation.) What sort of labeling makes sense from a health/allergy viewpoint? (That in turn, I think, comes to how much we know about what codes for allergens and other substances that people react badly to.) Are GMO crops worse for genetic diversity than other ways people are actually doing agriculture? (If the choice is between everyone buying Bt corn, and everyone buying the same non-GMO hybrid variety, probably not.)
There are probably other important questions here, even if we feel that since we're not religiously enjoined against pork or onions, or squicked by the beetles we eat, nobody else's concern about pig, onion, or beetle genes getting into their beans are valid. (If you're sure of that, how would you feel about someone splicing an H. sapiens gene into a food crop?)
Posted by: clutterwise
|
November 11, 2010 2:49 PM
I think that many of us are hesitant to vote in this poll because of the way GM crops fit into our society right now. They aren't reasonably regulated. Despite the fact that they're going out into the world to reproduce and significant problems can arise from them, both economic and environmental/health. I actually have zero problem with using GM to shuffle, say, tomato genes with other tomato genes. But the fact is, the industrial agriculture lobby would like to see no studies be required to release into the wild genetically modified crops that take genes from other species, or that resist pesticides, or that contain pesticides, or whatever. That's problematic.
With medicine, where most potential side effects just impact the individual taking the medicine, we have rigorous testing. Science demands it. So how come there's no rigorous testing requirement for something that is sent out into the world to self replicate? What we've got here is a public relations problem, not a scientific problem. A vote in this poll that favors GM will be spun by the industry as "see, people don't want ANY regulation!"
The GMO folks need to get their house in order. After we've got appropriate regulation in place, then ask me to go vote in a poll saying that GM can be sustainable. Because right now I've got to say that there is a low probability that GMOs will be developed responsibly and will contribute to sustainable agriculture, but short of zero. I'm de facto anti-GMO. I cannot know for certain, but I think responsible GMO is very improbable in our current socio-political climate, and I live my life on the assumption that regulations won't be put in place that will ensure it's responsible execution.
Posted by: ISDP
|
November 11, 2010 2:49 PM
I don't think you can argue in good conscience that selective breeding can't have the same effects you've ascribed here only to GMOs. Neither are "natural", and both have potential to impact the environment.
The argument that the companies are making a killing selling these products is irrelevant here as well. The poll asks if GMOs and Sustainable Development are compatible. I think the answer to that one is self-evident: there’s nothing about either one that makes them mutually exclusive.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
November 11, 2010 2:49 PM
The "almost" is a nice touch, though, don't you think?
I have to agree with the comment upthread which points out that this is not a simple contest between good, rational GM supporters and stupid, woo-inspired hippies. The behaviour of Monsanto is a major factor in turning otherwise science-friendly people against GM. And, just as an ecosystem can be damaged by introduced alien species, so it can be damaged by unintentionally released GM crops, I would think.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
November 11, 2010 2:53 PM
I’m all for the science of genetically modifying our food organisms.
The politics surrounding the actual practice of it, however, is terrifying.
The genetic diversity of our food crops is vanishing at an astounding rate. Where once there were dozens, if not scores, of varieties of common foods in widespread consumption, we now have monocultures.
Multinational megacorps are patenting genes and suing out of existence any small farmers whose crops have been the victims of cross-contamination with neighboring, patented crops.
Many food crops no longer produce viable seed. Farmers who plant such crops are compelled to re-buy all their seed year after year; no longer can they simply set aside a small portion of the harvest to plant again the next year. Financial dependencies aside, this presents grave dangers in times of crisis.
Many of those same crops are being engineered so as to be dependent on pesticides and herbicides sold by the same companies that produce the seed. Pesticides and herbicides are remarkable tools, true modern miracles; however, like antibiotics, overuse not only makes things worse but also renders the “drugs” ineffective over time.
There have been instances of people with food allergies having a reaction after ingesting an unlabeled food item that they’re normally not allergic to which has had genes spliced in from a food they are allergic to.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg….
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: ibyea
|
November 11, 2010 2:57 PM
@clutterwise
No, it doesn't matter if you take genes from the same species or different species. They should be regulating both in the same way. They are all genes. Taking a gene from one species and putting it in another does not make an animal half dangerous mutant or something. Genes are instructions for cells, not the organisms themselves. Any instructional change, then, should be observed until evidence shows it is safe.
Posted by: Karl Haro von Mogel
|
November 11, 2010 2:58 PM
Re: davidhortonsblog.com,
I really don't think you have been reading PZ's blog for very long, because horizontal gene transfer is one of many evolutionary mechanisms for change. Your statement here is totally false:
"There is a considerable difference between a genome that has evolved as an integrated whole through natural selection, and one which has had bits of DNA from other organisms, bits that could never have reached that species naturally, inserted into its genome for some imagined human benefit or commercial advantage."
Pretty much every genome when we look inside of it contains genes that have been shuffled around between species and within species. The view you are espousing is, to put it frankly, a creationist view of species as separate God/Nature defined boundaries that only humans have the audacity to cross. Reality is much more interesting. Now this doesn't make any genetically engineered alteration automatically safe, but it also means that neither is any 'natural' change, either.
Take a look at this paper on apples which found that by moving a gene into an apple variety with conventional breeding, that it caused unintended effects on non-target organisms living nearby, whereas doing the same thing with genetic engineering did not:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00942.x/abstract
Unfortunately, the question of whether or not genetic engineering and other forms of biotechnology can contribute to sustainability is being overlooked - in favor of complaints about how much safety research there has been (look at this list: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/), or sentences that contain a noun, verb, and Monsanto.
I agree with Antiochus Epiphanes above that the question should be answered in terms of in what manner it can contribute - what kinds of traits will help and what will not, for example. But this is all being drowned out in the noise of opposition - and opposition merely to make a point to MonSauron. Thanks PZ for plugging it again, and hopefully some more scientifically-minded folks here will see through the rigid ideologies that float around food issues and see how the different tools we have in front of us can be combined in a manner that improves the state of agriculture for everyone!
Posted by: kaceydmayer
|
November 11, 2010 2:58 PM
The question is not is it genetically modified, but what it is genetically modified to. Here is a blog that reviews a paper on the safety of genetically modified foods:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/01/is_genetically_modified_food_s.html
The paper itself is here:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
I've also heard that if the nearby weeds are related to the crops, they could incorporate the new genes with many unintended effects, such as round-up ready weeds, or milkweed that kills monarch butterflies.
Also, if the GMO crops pollinate some vegetables growing in someone's garden, who owns the resulting seeds?
I know many against GMOs are hysterically antiscience, but that's really unfortunate, because there are real issues that need to be addressed, and researced! I will go wherever the evidence leads, and if a given GMO does not hurt the environment or the people eating it, I am all for it!
Stick to the precautionary principle, bitches. We've fucked things up in the past, let's think things through before we do things like this.
Posted by: G.D.
|
November 11, 2010 3:01 PM
Can we, before debating, please fucking agree that the naturalistic fallacy is always a fallacy. That is, "X is natural, hence X is good/healthy/safe for the environment/morally acceptable" is always - no exception - a fallacious inference, as is "X is unnatural, hence X is bad/a risk to the environment/unhealthy/morally wrong". If you cannot run your argument against/for something without using the terms "unnatural"/"natural", you don't have an argument. Period.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 11, 2010 3:01 PM
Round and round (up) we go... (and as this is a new thread here's the disclaimer - I'm a monsanto employee, views herein are mine, not theirs, blah blah)
There are hundreds of varieties of corn, soy etc available which are GMed - RR or Bt or whatever you want isn't a variety - it is a trait that can be introgressed into varieties (and is, and the available traits are licensed broadly - so no, we're not losing genetic diversity of food crops (at least not because of GMing)
Only when gene presence is clearly non-accidental and even here the legal recourse of "suing out of existence" is a last resort.
Bugger all to do with GMO.
That sounds massively massively circumstantial if not just utterly made up.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
November 11, 2010 3:02 PM
For me, GM is just a tool. A powerful tool. And like any tool, there will be a**hole to abuse them. Which means that we'll need regulation to make sure industries cannot abuse it.
As of right now, I don't believe we have sufficient regulations (Monsantos, for one...)
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
November 11, 2010 3:07 PM
GI foods produce more efficiently. Therefore for the same amount of calories you need less input/space. therefore less environmental destruction which is amongst the biggest threats to bio diversity. GI also lets us feed the growing population and fend off starvation. Fear that genes MIGHT in the future make a giant Audrey II or some other monster disaster that has no real evidence that it could happen is a poor reason for fostering habitat destruction and world hunger.
Posted by: gillt
|
November 11, 2010 3:08 PM
David@#4: "There is a considerable difference between a genome that has evolved as an integrated whole through natural selection, and one which has had bits of DNA from other organisms, bits that could never have reached that species naturally, inserted into its genome for some imagined human benefit or commercial advantage."
That's not the issue because the organic corn that you find in the supermarket didn't evolve by natural selection. It's just as unnatural as Bt Corn.
Why is the huge range of phenotypic plasticity in any genome (think canines) inherently and across-the-board safer than very targeted and specific bits of inserted DNA? Why are fancy goldfish better or worse than gfp expressing zebrafish?
I would argue that by working at the molecular level to arrive at a specific function we are working toward limiting the unknowns and unexpected consequences that plague the imprecise and blunt tool of selective breeding.
Posted by: ibyea
|
November 11, 2010 3:12 PM
@gillt
That is what I think, that genetic engineering is more precise, and less likely to get unexpected consequences than blind breeding. Of course, I still think they should be regulated, and experimented for safety, just in case.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 11, 2010 3:13 PM
davidhortonsblog (#4)
An integrated whole? Are you talking about reality? Because the naturally evolved genome is, as I understand it, a glorious clusterfuck festooned with redundancies, rotting genes and viral insertion, the entirety of which is prone to mutating into a builder of host-killing malignancy at ridiculously high rates. I think you need to explain the difference better.
Posted by: Daniel Schealler
|
November 11, 2010 3:16 PM
Problem with GMO is that there are some genuinely legitimate cons to factor into the equation - corprotization of argricultural goods being one. Unintended consequences being another.
Consider: Genetically modified corn can generate a pesticide internally. Corn is tested and found 100% safe for human consumption. Corn is released, becomes a good crop.
Discarded GMO corn starts to be used as animal feed. It is found to be 100% safe for cows as well, so it is fed to the cows with no other problems.
Cows crap out GMO-corn feces. The pesticide residue in the feces mixes with other checmicals and compounds in the decomposing feces and the environment in an unexpected way and becomes particularly toxic.
The toxic substance works its way into the water table...
Don't get me wrong - I'm not interested in fear mongering against GMO. I like GMO and want to see it done well. It can save many lives and provide a vital boost to the agricultural economy in many countries - particularly developing nations where large volumes of food are needed most.
I also find the notion of GMO crops that function as vaccines to be one of the greatest inventions we've come up with in a very, very long time.
So while many of the anti-GMO arguments are stock-standard wackaloonery, there are some legitimate cons in the equation as well that we should be very concerned about controlling and minimizing.
The appropriate stance towards GMO isn't nearly so easy a question to answer as the appropriate stance towards theism.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 11, 2010 3:25 PM
#25 - GM corn is more likely to be used as an animal feed first and a human feed second (as more corn goes to feeding animals than the other way round) - at present the internally produced pesticide is the Bt toxin (or one of the Bt toxins anyway, there's a few) which demonstrably breaks down during digestion and therefore couldn't pose the threat you are suggesting (given that any GM pesticide (at least in the forseeable future, I guess it is conceivable that you could engineer an enzyme that catalyzed a reaction to create a non-protein based pesticide) will be protein (or possibly RNA based if you keep one eye on the future) you'd be pretty surprised to see much of it getting through a digestive tract unproteolysed)
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
November 11, 2010 3:26 PM
@Ing #21
That's true, and that's what makes GM great.
On the other hand, we have Monsantos who're developing a terminator gene that prevent plants from producing viable seeds.
It's not the technology, it is the people who USE those technology I'm worried about.
Posted by: gillt
|
November 11, 2010 3:29 PM
Daniel Schealler:
Your nightmare scenario is in no way unique to GMOs. In fact it has already been documented in selective breeding: google psoralen and celery.
I think you'll find that your worries are about agriculture practices in general.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 11, 2010 3:30 PM
Really? Fuck me backwards.
Posted by: Calculon
|
November 11, 2010 3:30 PM
It depends on the modification.
If the modification is that the plants are modified to not have seeds so the farmer has to buy more the next season...I am against it. This hurts poor 3rd world farmers especially.
If the modification is to have the fruit or vegetable gain size but it is mainly be water weight so they can charge more...then again no.
Most modifications that I have seen seem to have product that looks standardized and transports well...but has lost taste.
Whatever we end up with, I think we all agree it is still a good idea to have a diverse food supply. Diseases that attack plants will always find a way.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 11, 2010 3:33 PM
You seem to be confusing selective breeding with GMOs - the only GMO I can think of that was about transporting/storing well is the failed flavr-savr tomato, "most modifications" in terms of GM are herbicide tolerance or insect resistance (at least in terms of numbers) with stuff like increased/altered nutritional content and virus resistance bringing up the rear.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/XGd16BBvx4oXcw.WvBPEx1C0SVY-#2dc6c
|
November 11, 2010 3:35 PM
Ben Goren, that's almost exactly how I feel, as well. The motivating factor for GM food is the scariest part, profit. I'm on the fence about how sustainable it is, but I cannot support it because of the politics surrounding it.
Posted by: captsam
|
November 11, 2010 3:37 PM
ibyea @ #23 i do believe you have the right idea on this GMO thing.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
November 11, 2010 3:38 PM
@32
The motivation behind REGULAR non GM food is profit.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
November 11, 2010 3:39 PM
Rice? Maize?Posted by: greytrench
|
November 11, 2010 3:46 PM
I really like eating my GM broccoli, carrots, cows, etc. They taste a lot better than whatever single-celled organism first wrapped a protective barrier around a self-replicating molecule. Though I am a little concerned about things like pesticide-producing wheat making hardier pests, such concerns are not enough to overcome my desire for sufficient food production to feed the world (can somebody get on that "let's not let people starve" thing, by the way?). But my biggest concern is with a general attitude of conflating "natural" and "good", for which I will never have a better rebuttal than Douglas Adams:
"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
November 11, 2010 3:48 PM
Sajanas @8:
Just to play devil's advocate here, not all cultivated plants have undergone a lot of artificial selection to make them delicate. Fruit species in particular are often nearly wild, and in some cases are bred for characters that favor weediness, like self-pollination. Others rapidly revert to a near-wild form on escaping cultivation (like feral animals), due to persistent genetic diversity and hard selection in the wild for loss of characters that required artificial selection to maintain (like large fruit size).
Some examples of food plants that are major invasive pests I can think of right off the top of my head are coffee, various guavas and gingers, many species of passionfruit, many species of raspberries, and true yams (Dioscorea). And that's only food plants specifically; many hybrid cultivars of ornamental plants (which are also being considered for GMOs, though given the cost/benefit ratio it seems unlikely for now) are much more weedy than their natural ancestors, including some that don't even produce seeds.
Posted by: lansellion
|
November 11, 2010 3:52 PM
The general theme among those arguing against GMOs here is that corporations abuse GMOs to obtain profit. This is really an issue about capitalism. The question posed by the article is whether GMOs are compatible with sustainable agriculture. The answer is clearly yes. If properly regulated and used GMOs could easily give us sustainable agriculture if thats what GMOs wer used for, because GMOs themselves are simply a tool to be used in whatever way we want. So, to say that they GMOs and sustainable agriculture are incompatable is simply wrong.
However, capitalism on the other hand is not compatible with sustainable agriculture unless it is sufficiently regulated. Capitalism encourages generating short term profits which nearly always tends to be at odds with sustainability. Thus, everyone should answer yes that GMOs are compatible with sustainable agriculture, and then those who are concerned about capitalism should move on to the real issue they are concerned with, which is unregulated capitalism.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
November 11, 2010 3:54 PM
Again Corporations right now use Organic goods for profit. The profit thing is bull. No one MAKES a business without wanting profit.
Posted by: Karl Haro von Mogel
|
November 11, 2010 3:55 PM
Re: clutterwise,
But a vote in the poll that dis-favors GE will be spun by the anti-GE industry as "See, people agree that GE cannot contribute to sustainability!"
Greytrench, that is a great Douglas Adams quote!
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 11, 2010 4:18 PM
So, what I and others said on the previous thread is trivial. Great.
Whatever.
Posted by: Jarred C.
|
November 11, 2010 4:40 PM
I would be 100% for hammers if it weren't for Craftsman.
Posted by: Doug in MI
|
November 11, 2010 4:45 PM
Living in a heavily farmed area of the country, I have to say the fear of farming being highjacked by amoral corporations is completely unnecessary.... Because farming already has been highjacked by amoral corporations.
I'm sorry if this ruins anyone's idealized little town of all the hard-working but poor farmers who wake up at the crack of dawn and ride their tractor around the fields until sun-down, but that's just not how shit works. Farmers use some of the most advanced tools and scientific methods to grow the most crops in the smallest space possible. And then most of them (at least the successful ones) sell the grand majority their crops to corporate interests or to agricultural representatives that in turn sell their crops to corporate interests; nationally and overseas. It's all about getting the best price for your product. Go figure, it's a business.
GM crops are just the same as any other tool in the hands of the farmers. The only thing that frightens me about it is the noticeable lack of regulation for something that affects all the palnts in the area. As long as a GM crop is viable and allowed to flower, every field in the area becomes a GM crop, often drifting in between species as well. I think GM crops need to be approached cautiously, because of the damage and cost that pesticide resistant wild plants and insects can wreak, but nonetheless they are a tool that we have and must continue to use.
The area of farm-land keeps shrinking, and the population keeps growing. Unless you want to start issuing breeding licenses and stop eating meat, GM crops are our future. It's better if we accept that and approach the issue sensibly (maybe having shorter patent time limits on GM crops to foster the right kind of competition or not allowing for self sterilization genes) rather than rail against them because they're "unnatural" or "for profit."
Posted by: Glenn G
|
November 11, 2010 4:47 PM
I didn't say "GMO companies," I named one specifically.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
November 11, 2010 4:57 PM
@Glenn G #44
He did name one specifically.
Craftsman is a company that makes hammers (among many other things).
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
November 11, 2010 5:05 PM
@Ewar R #29
That does not sound sanitary.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/465222.stm
I hope BBC is considered a reliable source.
But Monsanto and terminator do bring a lot of google hits.
Good new thou, apparently they decided not to do that, on account of it pissing off everyone.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 11, 2010 5:10 PM
Well yes, and it's a shame you didn't consult the story before stating that Monsanto were developing terminator technologies - as the article is from 1999 and specifically states that they ain't.
I didn't suggest we not bathe first or forego sensible protective measures.
Posted by: ERV
|
November 11, 2010 5:13 PM
This kind of crap is why I wanted BioFortified at SciBlogs, but I was ignored because I wasnt one of the cool kids.
Cool kids left.
BioFortified doesnt need SciBlogs anymore.
But SciBlog readers still need BioFortified.
Posted by: Pseudoniempje
|
November 11, 2010 5:19 PM
The difference between GMO and human selection is that GMO can go very bad very quickly, while human selection is rather slow. So GMO should be fine as long as there is a strict regulation, intensive studying and testing. The thing is that I just don't see that happening if the government doesn't intervene, which is not going to happen in the USA, because you've got republicans, nor here in Europe, because here they have completely banned it.
Posted by: Acronym
|
November 11, 2010 5:27 PM
In addition to Midnight Ramblers list above, i'd add blackberries, which is a listed invasive weed in Australia.
Tasty, but still a weed and causes a fair amount of damage to the ecology of areas where it becomes established.
I guess using Australia as an example isn't particularly fair though, practically everything is invasive here...
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
November 11, 2010 5:28 PM
This is really an issue about capitalism.
Exactly. The issue is getting confuddled by anti-intellectualism, anti-business, anti-capitalism and(I suppose) pro-all-of-the-above.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
November 11, 2010 5:32 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/oct/06/gm.food2Sorry, I was wrong.
They already developed it.
They just "promised" not to commercialize it.
Sourced from wikipedia. Likely to be biased, but at least they listed relevant patents.
http://www.fao.org/righttofood/KC/downloads/vl/docs/AH428.pdf
There are several "terminator" patents already. Also including a few "traitor" patents (effectively, plant that can only grow when a specific chemical is present).
Posted by: nathaniel.tagg
|
November 11, 2010 5:32 PM
The problem here isn't "GMO". I agree with PZ: most everything we eat is more or less GMO.
The problem is Roundup-Ready crops (and other variations).
There are several problems:
1) They are illegal to breed, by patent. This is a Bad Thing for farmers.
2) They encourage very large doses of weedkiller to be used.
3) They give the GM companies clear monopolies.
4) They encourage monocultures, which are vulnerable to critical failure.
These problems could be dealt with in many ways, I admit, and simple outlawing of GM crops is perhaps not the best. But come on: do we really want to have Montaso in charge of everything we eat?
Posted by: marcus
|
November 11, 2010 5:35 PM
Look when will you people finally realize that the whole "agricultural revolution" thing was a big fucking mistake?//???//!!111!!! The truth is we will probably continue to develop the next great technology until we create the one that kills us. And we may have already. Combustion anyone? Hey everybody,let's harness nuclear energy! Genetic modification, no prob! Oh well nothing lives forever.
Posted by: Mikko
|
November 11, 2010 5:53 PM
The problem with GMO is that we are giving a few big corporations control over our food
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 11, 2010 5:58 PM
I advise everybody to start reading the discussion by themselves, as PZ is doing a good job of ignoring all the scientifically sound arguments given by Benbrook.
About the comments:
there are indeed several luddites among the anti-GM comments but I've seen many good comments by critical people as well. And several pro-GM comments weren't very impressive either.
So please go and form your own opinion, as PZ is not so sharp on this topic.
Posted by: Pseudoniempje
|
November 11, 2010 6:02 PM
@marcus
Even the most extreme GMO haters should be able to realize that GMO is not even close to being as dangerous as nuclear energy.
Oh, and if you hate the "whole agricultural revolution thing", you're free to return to a stone age state, with a life expectancy of 30 years and with no comfort whatsoever. Oh, and without a computer to annoy those who do appreciate the benefits science has brought us.
Posted by: davidhortonsblog.com
|
November 11, 2010 6:12 PM
Well, this does arouse passions, consistently, and rightly. What domestic crops can cause problems? Well, in Australia Canola (also a target for GM) exists as a common weed species along roads and on surrounding farms wherever it is grown. Movement of odd genes from it to other weed species is not too fanciful. Around my area, after a La Nina induced magic Spring, wild oats are flourishing everywhere. Not too fanciful to imagine genes moving from domestic oat crops into the weed variety and from there into other grass species. And similarly with the weed relatives of many vegetable crops. And similarly with feral domestic animals like pigs and goats in Australia.
I think there is some confusion about "artificial selection" compared to inserting DNA. The kinds of organisms being used for GM, and the kinds of genes being inserted are not, to my understanding, the kinds where this kind of thing can occur in nature (eg through bacterial or viral infections).
And artificial selection is really little different to natural selection. The process, survival of the fittest, is the same, it is just that the "fittest" are defined as those producing some desirable product - meat, wool, milk etc - but they still need to be able to survive. You can't create monsters in this way any more than natural selection can. Artificial selection for, say, larger lambs at birth (and this is a real example), reaches a limit at which the ewes cannot give birth to the monsters. Even though you are artificially making choices about mating patterns, the resulting organisms have to be able to function in a real world. Splice some DNA in and this doesn't apply.
David Horton
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
November 11, 2010 6:16 PM
arakrys - The thing is, Benbrook doesn't really give any scientific arguments. The one he does make is that the question of universal safety of GMOs (due to the potential for allergens etc.) can't be assured, which I think pretty much everyone agrees with.
Most of the rest of his arguments are that non-GE breeding also works (duh) and about more sustainable farming in general and not about GMOs in particular. For example, he says that "Over three-quarters of the grain from GE corn and soyabeans is fed to pigs, chickens and cows for the benefit of the approximately 1 billion richest people on earth", but I'd bet that that same proportion is true non-GE corn and soy as well. Monsanto et al. are responding to the existing market for those crops; if there was a shift to others, such as Benbrook's suggestion for more potatoes, squash, beans, and berries (though I highly doubt the latter three provide more calories per hectare), there would be more GE varieties of those produced.
I wonder what he thinks of the GE variety that saved the Hawaiian papaya industry, for example?
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 11, 2010 6:26 PM
arakrys:
I always form my own opinion, whether or not others opine PZ is sharp on any particular topic.
But I do listen.
More to the point, I think that most of the contras here fail to distinguish between the technology itself and its current application.
--
Also, too much focus is put on food crops; there are other organisms than food crops (humans, for one).
Posted by: ERV
|
November 11, 2010 6:28 PM
Im not anti-vaccine, I just think we need more testing. Scientists that support vaccination are paid shills.
HIV is a fraud because Big Pharma is just releasing antiretrovirals for the money. Big Pharma manipulates their scientific findings. Scientists that support the HIV Hypothesis are paid shills.
Evilution is a lie because if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Huh, scientists? Why didnt you think of that scientists? Scientists that support evilution are paid shills.
Amidoinitrite?
Posted by: Wonko the Sane
|
November 11, 2010 6:32 PM
Back from lurking. Living in Europe there is a strong opinion here that we don't actually need GMOs. Some of it caused by irrational fears, some NGOs can be blamed for bullshitting, but most are just sound arguments. For one thing we have a strong "Slow Food" Community. It is in opposition to factory and industrial farming and supports local foods. Older foolks might remember times when you could buy food that tasted different from town to town even in the US of Twinkies. Secondly, we already produce more food than is actually needed and then dump the rest on poor cuntries to ruin their own market prices. What good shall GM crops do to a system that is already killing itself with overproduction (and don't start painting horror scenarios about climate change here or I'll toss the first German bananas against your head).
Third, surely pest species do cost agriculture a lot of cash, but I rather pay for the insect damage then for another middle man from Monsanto or Bayer milking the farmers for what they have left. It's also better for biodiversity. And the butterflies. Now excuse me as I need to go hug a tree.
To Ewan R, you also seem to be lurking a lot until the word Monsanto appears in a given thread. I think I remember debating you, and it strikes me as though you always use the same republican debate tactics.
First denial of knowledge that is freely available, then discrediting the sources once presented as in the schmeiser case, backtracking in small steps admitting evidence, but that you need to view the evidence first and hoping that it will be forgotten anyhow, if this fails trying to change the subject to blame someone else, while at last offering your ass, which never makes for a solid argument.
I might do you wrong, and apologize for that, but are you actually working for Monsanto as a scientist in the lab? Or are you a scientist working in the companies PR department?
Btw. I like the idea of GMOs and have modified organisms in the lab myself. I would yust like to keep them there and not in the hand of companies trying to please shareholders short term.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 6:32 PM
You can't create monsters in this way any more than natural selection can.
I know of some people, who if they hadn't been killed by some artificially bred and selected bees, might beg to differ with you on that.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 6:37 PM
Fruit species in particular are often nearly wild
huh.
IIRC, aren't many of them actually hybrids (genome duplicated, no less), that must be grafted on to the trunks of other species in order to even grow?
I do recall that a great many fruit varieties (like Ray Comfort's favorite: the banana) don't produce viable seed since they are, in fact, hybrids formed from a genome duplication event.
I'd like to see someone post up just how many commercial fruits are actually "nearly wild".
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 6:42 PM
Triploid crops: apple, banana, citrus, ginger, watermelon
Tetraploid crops: apple, durum or macaroni wheat, cotton, potato, cabbage, leek, tobacco, peanut, kinnow, Pelargonium
Hexaploid crops: chrysanthemum, bread wheat, triticale, oat, kiwifruit [15]
Octaploid crops: strawberry, dahlia, pansies, sugar cane
not saying that all of these are sterile, but many are deliberate, artificially made polyploids (typically using colchicine as a mutagen) specifically bred to be sterile (so no seeds).
again, banana is a great example.
most apple orchard breeds need to be grafted as well.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 6:43 PM
Amidoinitrite?
so far.
now you just need to claim yourself a persecuted minority if someone disagrees with you.
:)
Posted by: TerraJules
|
November 11, 2010 6:44 PM
"This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory."
Sustainable what-now? I think it's great that we're having this highly academic debate about how GMOs might function in a world in which large-scale sustainable agriculture in an industrialized country was something more than a radical leftist pipe dream. A debate sponsored by BASF, btw., which would have you believe they support sustainability.
I voted yes on the poll, in the interests of being technically correct, but whilst being full of sad. I wish that sustainability advocates and like-minded folk concerned about how we produce our food would dispense with the pseudoscience and leave aside relative trivialities like GM labelling, but I'm not very hopeful on that front, and that's not the point of the debate, anyway. It's for the drive-by reader, who conflates the advance of business, science and technology. BASF is sponsoring this debate because they hope a non-trivial number of people will walk away with the idea that, not only is GM is not so bad, but the companies that do it aren't so bad either. And if these are the kinds of questions the intelligent folks at the Economist are taking time to ask about how we produce our food, the situation is probably pretty much okay.
(It's not that I don't think it's an interesting question that should be asked. I just think it's an abdication of journalistic responsibility to a) ask a comparatively trivial question about a serious issue that merits serious action, and b) let a corporation with obvious, obvious interest in the scope and outcome of a debate sponsor it.)
Posted by: stewy.cvl
|
November 11, 2010 6:46 PM
I'm trying to figure out why so many of you think we can just ignore capitalism, patent law, etc, as if it is a completely separate issue. Are GMOs and sustainability compatible? Seems the opinion is that yes they are, but only if we are really careful, completely ignore the corporate climate of the US, and patent laws regarding life, etc. I suppose I would agree with this rather useless stance, but I mean, lets be realistic. I'm all for having a right to patent your inventions, like those twirly lightbulbs, but not when your inventions can infest other things, turning every regular lightbulb into a twirly one, and expecting to receive payment for each patent infringement that has just occurred. If my heirloom crop is infested by a genetic marker (remember a lot of these crops are wind pollinated) that now makes it illegal to continue saving my seeds, then my crop becomes fundamentally NOT sustainable. We can't just assume that the patent laws will go away, or that the big guys will all of a sudden stop stomping on the little guys. These issues are all connected, and in the current climate, the ability to patent a GMO that can then be released "into the wild" to hybridize with everything else is fundamentally against everything that is sustainability. Its like a form of pollution, but then you punish the person who becomes ill, rather than the polluter. From a farming context, think of it this way: if I don't build a fence around my farm, and my cattle gets out and eats up all of your crops, I am legally responsible for the damages to your crops. Unfortunately with wind pollinated crops, it's essentially impossible for me to build a tall enough fence to hold in my pollen, so now its your problem!
That being said, if the patent laws are changed (as they should be IMO, for the reason mentioned above), GMOs could be very promising in feeding the masses... proabably even sustainably if we play our cards right. I am hopeful but not confident that this will ever happen, however. So in the current economical/political climate, no they are not compatible, but MAYBE they could be if some legal things are changed. Notice I'm saying little regarding the science/efficacy of GMO crops... I believe we are on the right track in this area. But to completely separate the law and the economy from this issue seems a bit... naive, I guess, is an ok way to describe it.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 6:47 PM
Genetic modification, no prob! Oh well nothing lives forever.
not if we manage to crack senescence via genetic modification.
gene therapy already is being used successfully to treat many genetic illnesses and cancers.
While I have little faith in the altruism of corporations, I do believe that researching genetic manipulation will be key to our future.
especially given the fact we likely won't do shit to slow global warming much in the near future.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 11, 2010 6:49 PM
Analogies? No.
Precisely the contrary, John.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2010 6:50 PM
Erm, never?
Ever heard of lateral gene transfer? Sure it's not common, but never?
How do you think GMO's are actually made? They use the exact same enzymes that mediate lateral gene transfer in the wild.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 6:52 PM
I'm trying to figure out why so many of you think we can just ignore capitalism, patent law, etc, as if it is a completely separate issue.
because while they of course don't exist independently in situ, it certainly isn't hard to discuss the SCIENCE in vitro.
I'm actually puzzled as to why you can't?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 6:55 PM
btw, in case it hasn't been posted yet, here's a brief summary of how the FDA regulates GMO's:
http://www.ehow.com/about_7216631_fda-regulations-genetically-engineered-foods.html
there are links to more detailed references in the article.
might be helpful for those unfamiliar with what laws and practices are already in place.
Posted by: bioteacher
|
November 11, 2010 7:01 PM
1) Nearly all modern crops have been artificially selected for yield, resistance to drought, etc.
2) GM crops are no different...the modification process is simply more efficient.
However, I disagree with PZ on this one. Large corporations have been modifying crops and PATENTING their seeds. These seeds grow into adult plants that propagate in the "old-fashioned" way...finding their way onto neighboring farms. These farmers did not ask for this invasion, and they cannot legally use the seeds from these crops for future use. This is fucked up.
In addition, I agree with Ben Goren @ #14. Modern agriculture has destroyed the diversity and variation so important to the evolutionary stability. We are subsidizing the creation of monocultures (which are usually high in yield - but low on taste and nutritional value) at the expense of diverse, local varietals.
I think many of you got this one wrong.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 7:06 PM
these references should also prove useful:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/hhs_biotech_0901.pdf
http://dglassassociates.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/usda-regulations-affecting-use-of-genetically-modified-plants-as-biofuel-feedstocks/
note the things the USDA HAS been monitoring closely for over 15 years since transgenics were first experimented with for commercial production:
it's not like nobody has been too clueless to figure out what the relevant issues were, and to spend a lot of effort trying to monitor and control them.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 7:09 PM
over 15 yearsover 20 yearsactually much closer to the right time scale that experiments have been run and published.
it's pretty close to a quarter of a century of research now, IIRC.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 7:11 PM
I think many of you got this one wrong.
how does conflating GMO's with monocultures equate to anyone being "wrong" about GMO's?
*shrug*
indeed there does seem to be much confusion.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 7:14 PM
again, how is PZ wrong in criticizing the essence of the email he received?
IOW, this:
GM crops are TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with sustainable agriculture.
which is in essence, if not a lie, most certainly not accurate.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 11, 2010 7:15 PM
SC,
Care to clarify?
I'd sum up the concerns expressed as one of (a) it's unnatural! or (b) it's put to amoral uses!
(a) is basically an argument from ignorance.
(b) has some merit, but (ironically) the extensive regulations (due to (a)!) have prompted means only large profit-driven enterprises can realistically develop and market GMO crops.
Posted by: stewy.cvl
|
November 11, 2010 7:18 PM
"because while they of course don't exist independently in situ, it certainly isn't hard to discuss the SCIENCE in vitro.
I'm actually puzzled as to why you can't?"
I can... I made it a point to show that I support the science, which I believe is headed in the right direction. But the question isn't "is the science of GMOs compatible with the science of sustainable agriculture?" It was a more general question (as far as I can tell anyway from PZ's rundown of it, since the actual poll is not loading for me), hence the general answer. Not to mention the link was to The Economist, so I just figured that the science wasn't the only thing that poll-takers were supposed to consider. Thats why I couldn't figure out why people were separating the issue of the science, and the issue of how it might be applied in a more social or economic context. Perhaps it was my mistake, and I am answering the wrong question completely. Either way, I do feel that my answer has merit, at least as response to the comments regarding fear-mongering hippies and Monsanto.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 7:19 PM
I voted yes on the poll, in the interests of being technically correct, but whilst being full of sad. I wish that sustainability advocates and like-minded folk concerned about how we produce our food would dispense with the pseudoscience and leave aside relative trivialities like GM labelling, but I'm not very hopeful on that front, and that's not the point of the debate, anyway. It's for the drive-by reader, who conflates the advance of business, science and technology.
I couldn't have stated my own position on this "poll" better than that.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 7:21 PM
hence the general answer.
fair enough.
Posted by: ERV
|
November 11, 2010 7:27 PM
Analogies? No.
I wasnt making an analogy. Those are the exact arguments people recognize are stupid in regards to vaccines, HIV-1, and evolution, but are apparently 'rational' points in a GMO debate. Those are the same damn arguments.
1) 'Need more testing'
2) Cant trust companies
3) Scientists are stupid because they didnt think of [obvious thing scientists have thought of, or fantastically stupid thing]
4) Scientists 'just do it for the money'
Those are the same damn arguments. Not an analogy.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 7:29 PM
Those are the same damn arguments. Not an analogy.
no, no...
now you're doin it rong!
you should have simply said:
"why are you persecuting me and being so mean?"
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
November 11, 2010 7:33 PM
Ichthyic @64:
Some are, some aren't. I'm not denying that many are (you can add plums and their relatives as well), but my point was that there are others that are not sterile hybrids. That they are not grown on an industrial scale and bred into sterility doesn't mean they're not commercial.
As I mentioned, coffee is one; in the right conditions, commercial coffee is a horrendous invasive pest. Ditto with avocado and mango. Pineapples will also set seed if they are pollinated, though I don't know how well they spread on their own.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 11, 2010 7:36 PM
But not an analogy. You're such a doofus sometimes, Abbie.
Sure. Oh, wait - I already did! In my first post on the previous thread on this.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 11, 2010 7:43 PM
One more time.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/RPuarI8Lze61hZk1PGjwDbui2fIshFKUh6U8SM6lsg--#d17ca
|
November 11, 2010 7:46 PM
I work for Pioneer Hi-Bred and of course that makes me a "shill", although I've been accused of being one long before economic problems drove this aimless biology major to job hunt in the corn belt. But it's a good company and I wouldn't work here if they acted like Monsanto (although they aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be).
Yes, there are problems with the regulatory agencies; the FDA and USDA are an underfunded mess riddled with corporate influence. NONE of our food is regulated as it should be. Bacterial contamination, herbal supplements, and imports are all terribly regulated. GM isn't changing that.
Yes, there are problems with only a few large companies having control over food. But it's too late for that. A handful of seed companies and a handful of buyers. And not all "roundup ready" crops are the same (or are even all sold by monsanto). GM isn't changing that.
Yes, there are problems with monoculture. GM isn't changing that. Although I like to think that it might help solve some that problem some day.
Yes, there are problems with low genetic diversity in agricultural crops. But seed companies aren't stupid and a lot of work goes into trying to make genetically diverse varieties. GM isn't changing that. Although once again it might have the potential to help.
Yes, there are problem with the ways farms are run in the U.S., and the subsidy system. GM isn't changing that.
Yes, there are problems with the use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, but for the most part GM is either not changing that or at least changing it for the better. A lot of work with GM goes into trying to reduce pesticide and fertilizer use which is better for the environment and the farmer. And you think the industry isn't thinking about "superweeds"? There are already herbicide resistant weeds (from good ol' fashioned natural selection) that a lot of money is going into finding out how to not only get rid of, but how to prevent.
Yes, there could be risks from allergens and other non intended effects. The same goes for vaccines, or for any new food/supplement/medicine. They need testing and regulation.
Yes, terminator or similar technology (terminator isn't going to be used unfortunately) might possibly be problematic in developing countries. But that is again a problem of corporate control. As for U.S. farmers? Most crops are hybrids bought year after year (as I do with seeds for my garden, I trust the professional breeders rather than my own inadequate resources,)and almost no one is stupid enough to take a hit in yield by replanting saved seed. Not that they are forced to buy hybrids, I've seen non-hybrid corn being sold. It's just not as good. And terminator technology has the potential to prevent GM traits from spreading elsewhere including other fields. I would discuss the "terminator technology will spread and cause mass sterility" argument, but I would like to think it wouldn't be needed in a biology based site like this one.
There is potential with GM. Potential that is constrained by the current system of agriculture that we have. A system that is unfortunately rather entrenched as seen by the quick commercialization of the organic movement which is now as guilty (or guiltier) of the same environmental and sustainability sins as the type 2 dent corn farmer.
Posted by: marcus
|
November 11, 2010 7:54 PM
@Pseudoniempje If you think that genetic modification is "not even close to being as dangerous as nuclear energy" then you are ignorant,let me just say "weaponized viruses/bacteria". @Ichthyic, I know from following your posts that you are smarter than I am. You are also optimistic, I want to be, but humans (as my old man used to say about me) "...could fuck up a 12 inch steel ball with a rubber hammer." I have no faith in God or human restraint.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 11, 2010 7:55 PM
SC, you refer to this comment:
[pullquote only, my emphasis]
I take it you'd be happier if the resolution were "This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture
arecan be complementary, not contradictory."Posted by: gillt
|
November 11, 2010 8:02 PM
@#58: "You can't create monsters in this way any more than natural selection can.
No. Psoralen is a pesticide produced naturally by plants and was selected for by growers and led to health problems among workers in the 80s when it reached toxic levels. El Natural!
"Artificial selection for, say, larger lambs at birth (and this is a real example), reaches a limit at which the ewes cannot give birth to the monsters. Even though you are artificially making choices about mating patterns, the resulting organisms have to be able to function in a real world. Splice some DNA in and this doesn't apply."
Are you saying farmers are genetically modifying sheep with larger cervices? Otherwise this comparison is nonsense.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 8:04 PM
I have no faith in God or human restraint.
this is no different than with any other issue requiring thoughtful application, though.
and, frankly, I'm NOT optimistic about how this technology, in addition to any other given technology would be applied.
I'm a firm believer in very strict oversight, and pretty much am in agreement with "coporate shill" (tongue in cheek) in #88 wrt to the current regulatory status and potentials of GM.
I let the primary lit speak to the efficacy of GM, and hope that indeed we won't fuck this up, too.
it's simply not realistic to think we can simply avoid researching the potential benefits of GM altogether, no more than it was for researching atomic fission, regardless of who will inevitably end up abusing what we learn.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 11, 2010 8:11 PM
First, GE crops are only one form of biotechnology. Second, I would be happy if the resolution were:
"This house believes that all agricultural systems and technologies should be chosen and developed democratically based on people's priorities/values and the comprehensive analysis of all alternatives on the basis of the best evidence concerning a variety of [listed] considerations."
I've also provided an extensive report. Your problem with my position is what?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 8:19 PM
"This house believes that all agricultural systems and technologies should be chosen and developed democratically based on people's priorities/values and the comprehensive analysis of all alternatives on the basis of the best evidence concerning a variety of [listed] considerations."
fuck!
I'd be much happier if ANY proposed legislation or recommendation was even remotely that well thought out.
have you thought of running for office, SC?
:)
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 11, 2010 8:25 PM
Hahaha. :)
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 11, 2010 8:36 PM
#59 Midnight Rambler.
"I wonder what he thinks of the GE variety that saved the Hawaiian papaya industry, for example?"
That brings up an important point. There are almost always several solutions to a problem.
The farmers could have cleaned up virus-infected trees, keeping the disease at its usual endemic levels. Farmers could have intercropped but in stead they switched to large plantations. There is the option to plant trap-crops for the aphid vector. Spraying silicates make it way harder for the aphid to penetrate the leaves.
Papaya is not the only example where there is a choice. Take the miracle golden rice promised to be a quick solution since the late nineties. Where is it? We could have spent the money used for this crop by Potrykus et al on teaching the people to grow their own vitamin A rich plants, where possible. In other places make other sources of vitamin A available.
What else did you say: "arakrys - The thing is, Benbrook doesn't really give any scientific arguments."
Define scientific arguments? Note that I phrased it as scientifically sound arguments, now go effing read his closing remark and follow the links. He properly backs up his statements, it is not made up bullshit as PZ tries to make you believe.
@60 John Morales
"More to the point, I think that most of the contras here fail to distinguish between the technology itself and its current application."
I see what you mean. I don't know how to fix that. Well we could define what we would like to see in future applications, for instance I would like to see a new insertion method that does not potentially damage the rest of the DNA, and applications that are more sustainable.
But can we really discuss the application of GMO's in organic agriculture from future expectations? We've seen so many great promises that turned out to be no more than that, promises.
Or should we see what the technique has brought us so far and conclude that other directions are more promising?
The European organic farmers would benefit from crops more adapted to their methods. Where conventional farming is going in the direction of short straw wheat for instance, organic farmers are still using the straw. Crop development looking in that direction would be helped with MAB. See? I'm not totally Luddite.
Then, there are more ways to improve agriculture besides breeding. See above on papaya, or look up http://www.blauen-institut.ch/tx_blu/tp/tpf/f_natural_success.pdf to see how Kenians discovered how to reduce corn pests to acceptable levels.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 11, 2010 8:38 PM
SC,
I have no problem with your position; it is soundly-founded and cogent (if idealistic), and entirely congruent with your overall socio-political stance.
I guess I have a meta-problem: that your position supports and heartens those whose own is neither soundly-founded nor cogent.
--
Hmm. Dunno about you as a polly, but you're a hell of an advocate.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 11, 2010 8:44 PM
I disagree.
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 11, 2010 8:53 PM
#57 Pseudoniempje said "Even the most extreme GMO haters should be able to realize that GMO is not even close to being as dangerous as nuclear energy."
Compare for me what you think is the expected
- ecosystem effect
- chance of multiplication
- chance of spreading within the species and to other species
- persistence
of: anorganic chemical waste, organic chemical waste, nuclear waste, gm animals, gm crops, gm bacteria, gm adenovirus.
Now tell me how to compare nuclear energy and GMO's and how you assessed what you asserted.
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 11, 2010 9:07 PM
#71 amphiox
"How do you think GMO's are actually made? They use the exact same enzymes that mediate lateral gene transfer in the wild."
You surely don't expect to see a GloFish pop up just helped by your enzymes?
Enzymes? Actually it is usually done with bioballistics and Agrobacteria, which are prepared in the lab to contain a gene cassette.
Horizontal gene transfer is usually used as an argument by the other side. Because the gene cassette currently often has parts of the CAM virus which is suspected to make the genes much more 'loose'.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
November 11, 2010 9:12 PM
arakrys @96:
...all of which are far more expensive and labor-intensive in a place where land and labor are already expensive. And a "large plantation" is 100 acres; most large farms are on the order of 20 acres or less (the guy who had his trees chopped a few months ago, possibly because they were GMO, had 17 acres). More than likely, a lot of people would have simply stopped growing and they would have been imported from Central America. How is that better? Okay, maybe I should have specified for the reading comprehension impaired - scientifically valid arguments that actually address the point at hand. Go back and read my post; I notice you didn't actually counter any of it. And there was no closing remark when I looked at the site, and the links aren't working now.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 9:14 PM
Compare for me what you think is the expected
- ecosystem effect
- chance of multiplication
- chance of spreading within the species and to other species
- persistence
actually, looking at the fallout from Chernobyl, how alpha particles have become persistent in the environment, and what the effects have been, there are indeed some serious things to consider.
they don't call it "radioactive contamination" for nothing.
In fact, debating nuclear power and GMO does indeed contain some striking similarities, both in actual effects and the hyperbole used by opposing sides on each issue.
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 11, 2010 9:17 PM
Professor Pamela Ronald
"Virtually every food we eat has been genetically altered. Unless you eat wild Alaskan salmon, chanterelles gathered from your local forest, Sierra Nevada yampah and wild blueberries, your diet consists entirely of foods that have been modified by humans and domesticated in artificial, fabulous ecosystems—called farms. GE crops are the latest addition to our farms."
That's an old one. Jeez we've had that one since at least 1998, and she does not give any hint that she knows.
Posted by: bioteacher
|
November 11, 2010 9:48 PM
Icthyic @77 & 78,
C'mon, you're playing at something here, right?
You know as well as anyone that diverse gene pools help to buffer the selective pressures that occur in an ever-changing world (low species diversity = extinction).
Humans have thrived on Earth for about 10,000 years - about as long as we have been able to harness the power of local agriculture.
By promoting monocultural crops (which are resistant to many selective pressures), we are, in effect, eliminating the more sensitive, local varieties. If something should happens to the less diverse GM crops and they die out, we might find that the new niches will ultimately be filled by unpredictable, and less desirable newcomers (personally, I'd like to preserve the current conditions on Earth).
My fear is that, as our environment continues to change, in unforseen ways, the gene pool of current plant species may not be diverse enough to produce viable offspring that can sustain the current human population for the years to come.
Not to mention...I have a great disdain for corporations that seek to profit from scientific knowledge - believing instead that "we all stand on the shoulders of giants..."
As much as I revere PZ and many of the frequent commentators...most of the posts have been if favor of GM crops - and, again, I think this is the wrong viewpoint.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 10:03 PM
You know as well as anyone that diverse gene pools help to buffer the selective pressures that occur in an ever-changing world (low species diversity = extinction).
which is not directly related to the issue of GM, in and of itself. which is why I said what I did.
My fear is that, as our environment continues to change, in unforseen ways, the gene pool of current plant species may not be diverse enough to produce viable offspring that can sustain the current human population for the years to come.
read number #88.
have you familiarized yourself with the actual work that HAS been done on this?
it's not like concerns of genetic diversity in crops are something new, and it's not like nobody has done research to address the issue.
again, your concerns are more related to the concepts of HOW we grow stuff, not whether GM can contribute to better crops, or even more diverse crops, for that matter.
artificial selection itself will be unlikely to keep pace with the changing climate, for example.
GM holds the best promise of being able to address potential drastic changes in areas amenable to the growth of certain crops, like wheat and rice.
be concerned the research in the field should be properly regulated and funded (and certainly not controlled politically by industry - that IS a legitimate fear), but don't just have some kind of knee-jerk fear that it's bad because it's genetic or something like that.
focus your concerns where they should be.
GM shows great power to save us from ourselves, literally.
It of course would be better to not do idiotic things to begin with, like having planted monocultures for hundreds of years, or put trillions of metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere for decades and decades, but I simply can't see how NOT encouraging this kind of research is going to help fix the problems we already face.
Posted by: ehlsever
|
November 11, 2010 10:09 PM
I'm not anti-science at all, however, I am anti-unintended consequences. I would feel a lot lot better if there were pro-GMO voices loudly denouncing the evil shit like terminator gene 'technology'.
Posted by: red
|
November 11, 2010 10:11 PM
I think there are solid, indisputable arguments against GM crops. In addition to bioteachers statement above..
-Financial motives: crops can be bred to be infertile; now farmers must buy seeds every year. Not unhealthy, but definitely unfair. And I can imagine the cheaper seeds being "of lower genetic quality".
-strange genomes: I understand well that no crop today is truly "natural". By the same token, neither is a dog. But randomly adding bits of genome in a lab allows changes in places essential to the plant, and thus could have a strange effect.
Its one thing to breed a dog to have a thick coat, its another to add yak genes so it gets a thick coat.
I am 100% sure GM crops have the potential to be safe. But with any new technology or science, there is a point where people don't know what they are doing (see: physics/radiation in the 50s, medicine in the 15-1800s, astronomy in the 1200s, early biologists). While genetics is not THAT new, I dont feel comfortable putting it in my mouth, or my kids mouth.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 11, 2010 10:20 PM
While genetics is not THAT new, I dont feel comfortable putting it in my mouth, or my kids mouth.
what does that even mean?
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
November 11, 2010 10:38 PM
ehlsever @106:
Okay, can you (or someone else) explain the logic of this? Why do people who are againt GMOs in general, seem to be most opposed to terminator genes? That is, after all, the best way to prevent the worst unintended consequence, i.e. the thing escaping into the wild environment. If you're nervous about spreading GMOs around, you should support making it required. Sure it means the company can sell seeds repeatedly, but no one is compelling you to buy them, and as others have pointed out, many of these things are sterile hybrids anyway.
Posted by: Wayward_son
|
November 11, 2010 10:55 PM
red (#107) "crops can be bred to be infertile; now farmers must buy seeds every year. Not unhealthy, but definitely unfair."
Unfair to whom?? A farmer can buy whatever seeds he wants. If he wants to buy seeds that he can keep and plant the next year he can. If he wants to buy special seeds that will grow into a beenstock that he can climb up and fight a giant he can. If he is a farmer like my father, or my brother, or my many cousins, or my many uncles and aunts - well thanks for your concern but guess what? They have about as much interest in saving their seeds each year as I have in saving the seeds from the apple I just ate. With a few exceptions for some of them with certain crops, they much prefer buying seeds every year for a multitude of reasons and the added bonus is that each year the seeds are better. It is win/win for them. Nor is this any different than buying hybrid seeds which farmers have been doing for decades. What they would consider unfair is a bunch of other people deciding what is unfair for them.
Posted by: Misfire
|
November 11, 2010 10:57 PM
Could someone expand on PZ's statement that GE (I forget the wording) promotes or supports biodiversity? Is that because less land will have to be converted to farmland, or is there more to it?
Thanks!
Posted by: Wayward_son
|
November 11, 2010 11:05 PM
Midnight rambler: "Okay, can you (or someone else) explain the logic of this? Why do people who are againt GMOs in general, seem to be most opposed to terminator genes?"
Person 1: Through biotechnology we can produce better plants that are hardier and healthier.
Person 2: Oh my God! Those genes will get out into nature and destroy the world. This must be stopped.
Person 1: Ok, how about we make it so that the new plants can't reproduce? That way the novel genes can not get out into the natural world.
Person 2: Oh my God! The evil scientists want to destroy the world by using terminator genes. The non-reproducing plants will reproduce their sterility into other plants who will in turn reproduce their sterility into other plants and pretty soon nothing will grow anywhere.
Person 1: Well that the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but no problem, we will make the plants without the terminator technology you are so concerned about.
Person 2: Oh my God! Those genes will get out into nature and destory the world. This must be stopped.
Posted by: Misfire
|
November 11, 2010 11:41 PM
Wayward Son, I like it.
Also, almost all the crops grown in the States are hybrids. (Glancing over stats it looks like between 95 and 99%, I don't need to check to make my point.)
I had thought that hybrids just meant that, at some point in the past, the variety had been cross-bred with a different variety, but as the better-informed here probably already know, hybrid seeds must be 1st generation to grow best. Farmers can reuse the seeds if they want, but the resulting plants won't be as strong as the original hybrids.
Farmers are already buying their seeds every year.
The notion that GE foods are poised to take over nature is strange, too. I think people have the idea that GE foods are radioactive or something, and they don't know what radiation is either.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/RPuarI8Lze61hZk1PGjwDbui2fIshFKUh6U8SM6lsg--#d17ca
|
November 11, 2010 11:50 PM
@Misfire #111
While organic** agriculture has slightly higher biodiversity on farmland, the extra amount of land used is more likely to decrease the better biodiversity of unfarmed land.
Also, the ability to put certain trait genes into plants without having to use traditional breeding methods can increase the variation of the crop species able to be farmed in one field. Not as good as a polyculture, but better than what we have now.
**certain types of what is considered organic, the term is loose and some of the "natural" pesticides/fungicides/herbicides ect. are just as bad (if not worse) at indiscriminately killing off beneficial and harmful organisms than some synthetics
Posted by: Misfire
|
November 12, 2010 12:23 AM
I hadn't seen that second point, much obliged!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/4Sbxdidln.gj_yIpnR9mQHE1qmE-#7d5ec
|
November 12, 2010 12:28 AM
Hey, go vote this disturbing blog post down:
What Do You Call a Group of Atheists?
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2010/11/what-do-you-call-a-group-of-atheists
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 12, 2010 1:44 AM
The notion that GE foods are poised to take over nature is strange, too. I think people have the idea that GE foods are radioactive or something, and they don't know what radiation is either.
ayup.
i'll take "irrational fears" for 500, alex.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 12, 2010 1:47 AM
Person 2: Oh my God! The evil scientists want to destroy the world by using terminator genes. The non-reproducing plants will reproduce their sterility into other plants who will in turn reproduce their sterility into other plants and pretty soon nothing will grow anywhere.
don't forget the addon fear for the "poor farmers":
"You'll be forcing the poor farmers to buy your evil seeds!!"
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 12, 2010 1:49 AM
If he wants to buy special seeds that will grow into a beenstock that he can climb up and fight a giant he can.
??
kewl!
I can haz magic seeds plz?
Posted by: JoshK
|
November 12, 2010 1:54 AM
and they don't know what radiation is either.
I lean that way.
Posted by: ibyea
|
November 12, 2010 2:35 AM
@SC
Huh? I don't quiet get your problem with GMOs. I pretty much agree with your assessment on biotechnology above. If done right, can't GMOs be part of the democratically based, and part of the alternatives that you mention above? I know right now that there is a problem with GMOs being patented, but aren't these things being regulated? Personally, I don't have a problem with them as long as they are regulated and made sure they are not abused.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
November 12, 2010 5:24 AM
It is not the science that is the problem with GMO's
it is people. There is no reason to expect that some people will fuck things up and have a accidents of some kind it will happen just as sure as the sun will come up in the morning. We always have unexpected results not all the time but that is a corollary of Murphy's law it is unpredictable.
That is one of the biggest reasons I think using atomic energy to boil water to make electricity is unwise the results of the inevitable accident's are to big. You just have to look back at the gulf oil spill to see the results of arrogance greed, and stupidity against "nature"
The potential for problems seems to great to me. forget the potential for just reckless behavior brought on by greed and we are asking for trouble. Unless we can come up with some means to really insure that everyone will proceed in a safe and responsible way I will have my doubts.
I just do not trust just everyone. We have done a pretty bad job so far with just transportation, selective breeding the plow, the ax, the net and pollution already to have created a really remarkable biological event.
it just sounds too good to be true.
uncle frogy
Posted by: thumbnail
|
November 12, 2010 5:40 AM
tl;dr basically I agree with Glenn G in post #1.
Posted by: lordsetar
|
November 12, 2010 5:43 AM
red #107: Either you've never heard of the FDA or whatever country you live in for whatever reason doesn't have an equivalent agency.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
November 12, 2010 5:55 AM
Genetic modification isn't random, and GM crops are better studied than any non-GM. Hybridization by cross-breeding, on the other hand, is random and the resultant plants are not well studied. Certainly, more is known about the genetics, biochemistry, and nutritional content of GM crops than any non-GM.
Only GM is likely to save the banana - a staple crop for millions.
Posted by: Big Blue
|
November 12, 2010 6:14 AM
Ooops. Wrong answer.
Evan, how do you think it would sound, coming from me, MegaPharma scientist, if someone said, "There have been instances of (borrowing Erv's example @ 83) adverse events from vaccines," and I said, "That sounds massively circumstantial if not just utterly made up"?
Think very long and hard about your answer, pondering specifically the following points:
1. Adverse events, however extremely rare, do happen when your product is on the order of hundreds of millions - billions in use. If you were very diligent about your testing, they are mild adverse events, but once in a great while they can be severe (e.g. Guillain-Barre). A low number to be sure, but non-zero.
2. You have a conflict of interest, which is considered innate to your position. If a white person is told about a lynching by a black person, and the white person replies, "that sounds made up"; if a woman tells a male HR rep that her male boss harasses her and he says, "that sounds made up"; what would you think? Would you argue that white people have a unique insight into the criminality of other whites? That men have a special knowledge of other males due to their own testosterone? Remember, this has nothing to do with being right and everything to do with your own conflict of interest.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 12, 2010 6:31 AM
Big Blue, Ewan's *possible* conflict of interest is irrelevant to his point. Genes themselves are part of DNA and not allergens, so these genes must be expressing a particular antigen that people would react to.
It beggars belief that a GMO would not be tested for such expression.
I don't have any such conflict, and yet such a vague claim sounds fishy to me, too.
Posted by: solius
|
November 12, 2010 6:39 AM
Quote mined from Icthyic @ 102:
It might have led to one of the more, piss poor, better selling tunes of the time, ie, Page and Rodgers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdEmBe24Xa4
While, "Radioactive" was... meh, the rest of the album sucked!
Posted by: lordsetar
|
November 12, 2010 7:49 AM
Indeed. What most of the hippie propaganda doesn't tell you about Chernobyl is that it was the worst possible invocation of Murphy's Law. Pretty much everything that could have been done wrong was done wrong, from the reactor design itself to the unfolding of events and decisions made. If it's built like shit, staffed like shit and run like shit, it's probably going to blow up -- badly.Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 8:11 AM
What you don't get is that this isn't about my "problem with [GE crops specifically or] GMOs." I stated my position pretty clearly, I think, in my first two comments on the previous thread and in my response to John Morales on this one. I've also linked several times to the IAASTD report, including on this thread (but see the link to the specific section in my first comment in the previous thread - Morales links to it @ #90); perhaps that will help.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 8:34 AM
The whole thing is just...
o_O
This doesn't even make sense. It would if it were phrased "This house believes that biotechnology can form part of a sustainable approach to agriculture." But then the discussion would have to be about how to select among all of the competing technologies (including agroecological ones) and making sure people can make these decisions for themselves based on the best evidence concerning, well, everything I've listed (all aspects of sustainability, suitability to local needs and conditions, resiliency, effectiveness in particular circumstances, short- and long-term risks, sovereignty, and so on). But I'm guessing that's not the discussion the corporations want people to have....
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
November 12, 2010 8:58 AM
"This house believes that biotechnology can form part of a sustainable approach to agriculture."
^This^ makes much more sense than anything that I've read here yet. I am ~80% convinced that this statement is true. However, the science of biotech has always moved faster than regulation...like commercial drugs, we will need to assess and reassess our policy continually to keep up with new developments*. If you don't think that Monsanto or AstraZeneca, or whatever corporation, wouldn't release a harmful but profitable product into the market if regulations would allow it....well, you are just crazy. Of course they would, and they would seek to exert influence over regulators to the greatest extent possible.
I'm excited as hell about the science behind GMOs-- some of the developments that may result in sustainable biofuels (like, Venter's new project) are titillating. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't advise caution regarding any new technology being released into the market without a very good set of regulations and a transparent system through which regulations are updated to keep up with technological developments.
*Kind of funny that some of the same entities are involved in pharma-tech and ag-tech.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
November 12, 2010 9:07 AM
"I am ~80% convinced that this statement is true. "
That biotechnology can be part of an approach to sustainable agriculture...not that the House believes it.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 9:40 AM
To be clear, I was suggesting this as a more reasonable version of the topic to be debated, not expressing a view on the proposition itself (my position is fairly similar to the recommendations in the IAASTD report). As I said, then the discussion of course would have to be about when and where technologies would and would not be conducive to sustainability and other needs, which is what you go on to talk about in part when you bring up corporate power and the state/effectiveness of the regulatory apparatus.
:)
I think they'd do it even if regulations didn't allow it if they thought they'd get away with it or that the potential costs of being caught were outweighed by the potential profits. I also think they put a lot into shaping the regulations themselves and finding chinks.
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 12, 2010 10:33 AM
#125 Bernard Bummer
Only GM is likely to save the banana - a staple crop for millions.
Is that you, mr R. Comfort? Oh wait he would have used it to support that other God. ;)
Sorry BB that story is stale. It's a monocrop related problem.
http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2003/13120-en.html
(from http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-myths/11244-qonly-gm-can-save-the-bananaq )Posted by: ERV
|
November 12, 2010 10:44 AM
As someone who uses (and fully supports) GMOs and is an immunologist, I want to punch you all in the balls right now. I will do a post on this topic in the near future.
But then Ive seen comments here that anyone who reads ERV would know are stupid, so...
SC-- Its still not an analogy. The arguments are the same damn thing. Strawberry ice cream and chocolate chip ice cream are not analogies for pistachio ice cream. They are all ice cream.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
November 12, 2010 10:44 AM
SC@134...yeah. That is what I was getting at...looking back, you had already stated this more eloquently here.
I am really not adding much to the discussion other than expressing disinterest in the way that the "debate" has been formatted. It is needlessly polarized, and does little to illuminate any realistic solutions.
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 12, 2010 10:48 AM
#132 Antiochus
"This house believes that biotechnology can form part of a sustainable approach to agriculture."
^This^ makes much more sense than anything that I've read here yet.
Maybe you should go and read the closing statement of Benbrook. (debate currently off-line, in short Benbrook indicates what types of biotech he already accepts and what other types under quite reasonable conditions).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
November 12, 2010 10:48 AM
*snicker
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 12, 2010 11:04 AM
David Horton:-
So your assertion is that GMOs do not have to be able to function in the real world? That seems rather insane, if we GMed a sheep, to expand on your example, to have lambs 50% larger than a non-GMed sheep is it your assertion that somehow, by virtue of being GMed they’d be removed from the constraints of nature and they’d be birthable?Wonko the Sane -
GMOs are what interests me, although I think if you look around a tad on Pharyngula at least you’ll see more than just comments where Monsanto is mentioned, excuse me for commenting on the area which I have the more interest and a somewhat higher level of knowledge than I do on most other things. On republican debate tactics – I’m not aware that I’ve once said goddidit, the free market will save us, or anything along the lines of “how’s that organicy not using pesticidey working for you” so I’ll remain baffled and somewhat hurt by that statement.
Where have I denied knowledge that is freely available exactly? I’m not sure either that I discredited sources as in the Schmeiser case (I do however note now that I’ve been misspelling the guys name in the belief it had 3 S’s, so that probably counts against me) I merely highlighted that the facts presented were not the whole case and referenced what actually occurred as detailed in the court documents (if we’re going to go ahead and play the Republican blame game isn’t presenting the case and omitting vast tracts more their bit than not?)
As I’ve stated I work in the corn nitrogen use efficiency – not quite as a scientist (that job description is a couple of steps up the pay scale for me) but as a research associate (which is basically scientist-lite) – I do lab work, computer work, field work - I’ve made my demands to the PR department (jokingly, either on Pam’s blog or on Biofortified – I forget which, and bizarrely received a message from the head of the media relations team within an hour or so saying my demands were excessive)
Stewy.cvl
Technically if your heirloom crop is pollinated by anything other than itself you wouldn’t want to save the seeds anyway as heirlooms are inbred – once you start incorporating genetics from other lines you lose everything that makes your heirloom special – so you don’t need to be concerned about the incorporation of a single transgene but something in the region of 10’s of 1000’s of genes from different varieties – your argument then becomes one against growing anything other than a monoculture. Notwithstanding that unless the transgene presence in your crop is at levels which couldn’t have been accidental you aren’t going to face legal action.
Arakrys
The gene constructs are put together with enzymes (various restriction enzymes, polymerases, ligases (depending on your cloning method – I like using techniques which don’t require ligation, although primarily just so I can tell people that I do cold fusion in the lab) all of which are naturally occuring, the process of transformation (which at least here at Monsanto is done entirely agro mediated rather than ballistically) uses enzymes – how do you think agrobacterium does the job?
Bioteacher
GM crops aren’t less diverse than their non-GM counterparts, so GM isn’t the issue here – and surely the new niches will be filled by farmers picking the most productive alternatives for their land rather than nature sweeping in and filling the gap.
SC
I'd far rather the discussion was around all of the above rather than just revolving around the use of the commercially available and currently corporate owned traits, because even if you take it as a given that Monsanto, or Pioneer (/wave) are evil and are trying to destroy agriculture this shouldn't make the damndest bit of difference as to whether or not biotechnology can be used in sustainable agriculture - it'd jsut mean that you may not want to utilize products currently under their control, and that you'd perhaps want to push for government backed reregistration once the patent on useful traits (as decided democratically or whatever - some traits may be eternally useful in sustainable ag, others not so much) expires - the next couple of decades offer an exciting time imo as the first time that GMO traits aren't controlled by a single corporation (sucks for my 401(k) perhaps, but I'll count on our breeding organization and any new traits that come about to shore that up) - the RR patent expiry probably doesn't inspire much in the way of excitement for SC - but I'd assume that once IR traits start dropping off patent this should generate a little more enthusiasm (as they have real positive impacts particularly in developing nations and once divorced from corporate ownership I'm not sure exactly what the arguement against them would be (although I guess product stewardship could be one - without refuge they'd be a short lived solution))
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
November 12, 2010 11:47 AM
'splain?
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 11:49 AM
The analogy is between different issues. The same arguments and concerns can be valid with regard to one phenomenon and not with regard to another. Doofus.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
November 12, 2010 11:56 AM
never mind-insect resistance. Figured it out as I clicked 'submit'
SC is correctr @#142. All 3 sentences IMO.
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 12, 2010 12:03 PM
#136 ERV
As someone who uses (and fully supports) GMOs and is an immunologist, I want to punch you all in the balls right now.
Oh heavens no! Not in the balls, please!
Wait. OK changed my mind.
Hurra for GM! Huzza! Huzza!
Posted by: marcus
|
November 12, 2010 12:26 PM
SCOM FTW! (IMMHO)
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 12:33 PM
Right.
This is funny. My point was that this "framing" of the question for debate is one that doesn't make sense and presents "biotechnology" as some monolithic entity when what we're talking about is a set of technologies that itself is a subset of approaches to addressing local challenges and general problems (these are connected, of course). (The presentation of possible solutions as biotechnology on the one hand and some sort of primitive organic on the other is completely flawed and helps with leading people to ignore the variety of alternatives and the questions of local suitability.)
You know, I've done a search for the word "evil" a couple of times in this discussion and it's rather ridiculously frequent. I don't think there's even a need to respond to people who characterize the position so and ignore the actual points people have made about corporate power, influence, practices, and motivations. The evidence abounds, and you'd have to be willfully blind not to see it.
It makes every bit of difference to the question of the relative desirability the adoption of different technologies/approaches. Because corporate involvement is a significant factor in many of the considerations I listed. It is reasonable for people to choose not to adopt a particular technology at a particular time in a particular locality because they are reasonably concerned about the implications of a high level of corporate involvement, and that decision should be respected. The actual situation is one in which corporate influence on governments and powerful agencies and donors has made those decisions much less free and shunted resources and attention away from alternatives.
The question, even as I've rephrased it, is ridiculously broad. It's one thing to ask whether vaguely-defined "biotechnology" can form part of a sustainable agriculture. It's another to assess and compare specific technologies/approaches with attention to the real, existing conditions of their development and application and the implications thereof.
Well, yes. Correct. And that you may want to utilize other technologies and approaches. And that that should be respected and not mischaracterized as an anti-science position.
If something is divorced from corporate ownership (de jure and de facto), that changes the equation, obviously.
I'm not sure how many more times I can point to the IAASTD document and its recommendations concerning the use of biotechnologies and the relative significance (highly overrated) of GM to sustainably addressing the food-agriculture crisis. Anyway, there can be any number of arguments against any number of technologies, including that other approaches are better suited to a locality or appear cheaper or more promising or less risky or whatever.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 12:43 PM
Well that would be impossible in my case. Nor do I have the least interest in seeing your boobs. Guess you'll have to make an actual argument.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 1:04 PM
including that other approaches are better suited to a locality or appear cheaper or more promising or less risky or whatever.
Or, of course, more sustainable in the long term.
OK, I must tear myself away. See you later.
Posted by: tsig0
|
November 12, 2010 1:10 PM
pro-GMO:
We have the ability to make crops produce more and require less pesticide.
anti-GMO
nature good, science bad. man should not meddle with nature besides Big Evil Corp. is behind it grinding the poor farmers into the dust and using them for fertilizer
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 12, 2010 1:10 PM
SC @ #146
I may be reading you wrong but I sense sarcasm here - why exactly would this be the case? I'm passionate about GMOs, whether they're those currently under corporate control, or whether they are developed outside - I really think that GM tech could be utilized massively in sustainable ag and think that the focus on corporate control when looking at the big picture muddies the waters causing many to exclude GM as an option simply because of the involvement of big-agribusiness, which sucks especially as a lot of academic research being done is likely to not be implemented as widely as it could be because of these concerns.
On the broadness of the question - I agree that even your rephrased version is ridiculously broad, I can't fathom how the answer to either would be anything other than yes - while at the same time fully accepting that if you tagged 'corporate' infront of biotechnology then right there you'd actually have a debate which would make sense (at least in my eyes, I'm presuming you wouldn't be able to fathom how anyone could answer anything other than no to that one)
Not when the question is so broad - a no answer here by definition excludes all biotech, not just corporate, a yes answer doesn't necessarily have to include corporate controlled biotech - again getting back to the question being poorly framed.On a case by case basis yes, the involvement of corporations should categorically be examined, when looking at biotechnology and its potential to have a role in sustainable ag this broadly - absolutely not, other than perhaps a caveat in a comment about your yes vote.
On the IAASTD document - can you point me to where it says anything about the significance of GM to addressing the crisis?
My read is that the IAASTD values biotech research done on varieties and production practices utilized in developing countries actually in the areas where they'd be utilized (my take is that the WEMA project is doing exactly this - research in the countries effected, using germplasm developed in situ)
(the following appears to be the main comment on direction the IAASTD thinks biotech research should go - although they do go on at length about the possible harm of IP - which is certainly something that needs to be addressed in terms of sustainability but isn't necessarily always going to be an issue with GMOs used in sustainable ag - if they're developed by universities etc for example the IP issue should disappear, if the tech is donated as in the case of WEMA then again the IP issues are non-issues)
(included more for the benefit of those who refuse to follow SC's linky links rather than for SC's benefit - I'm assuming she's familiar...)
One more time again though
for anyone who wants to read the full report
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
November 12, 2010 1:27 PM
tsigo: Really? This all boils down so neatly?
Posted by: bernarda
|
November 12, 2010 1:31 PM
So far GMO's have not been developed to aide sustainability, but simply to make profits for companies like Monsanto. The soy and corn are used for feeding animals and that not being enough, rBGH is added which has led to more use of anti-biotics because more cows get sick.
The pro-GMO's should get the DVD documentary "The World According to Monsanto", which can also be found on youtube as "Controlling Our Food".
It can be found at the site of the European TV channel ARTE.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
November 12, 2010 1:31 PM
tsigo has evidently read zero comments before pitching in. Bad form.
Posted by: bioteacher
|
November 12, 2010 1:31 PM
I am enjoying this thread, and learning a great deal in the process.
However, I recall reading a NYTimes article this summer regarding Monsanto's Round-up resistant crops.
Essentially, the normal farming practice, known as tilling, speeds up topsoil erosion...farmers must fertilize more often...heavy rains wash fertilizers into watershed...the Chesapeake Bay becomes a giant "dead zone."
Monsanto to the rescue! Round-up kills weeds but does not affect the GM crops...there is no need to till.
Predictably, a small minority of weeds were resistant to the Round-up, were selected for, and now farmers are faced with a huge problem - pigweed that cannot be killed with this product. They must return to tilling the land.
This does not even take into account the developmental damage that Round-up causes in amphibians, and quite possibly humans.
I am skeptical of such rapid genetic change in our crops and the possible consequences. I prefer slower, more stable gene transfer to the overnight success of GMO's.
Posted by: jcbelfast
|
November 12, 2010 2:54 PM
I would have no problem with GM foods if I felt that human beings could be trusted to do the right thing once in a while, and maybe think about the long term issues. It has become apparent in my thirty years on the planet that humans can be relied upon to be lazy, greedy and selfish, maybe not all the time, just most of it. Catholicism became popular because not enough people stood up and said "these people are crazy", the Nazis came to power because not enough good people rallied against them, and big business screws with us all because we currently just accept that this is how it always was, and always will be. Sometimes I look here and despair at how many people seem to want a pat on the back for being intelligent, rather than bringing something new to the debate. I think some of you would benefit from watching Food Inc, a documentary about these issues, and other less obvious ones, not all scientific. "First they came for the communists, and I did nothing, because I was not a communist."
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 12, 2010 3:08 PM
#154 hi Bioteacher,
On minimal tillage I totally agree with you.
I do not think the rapidness genetic change is the problem, unless you refer to the impatience and the urge to earn quick and short-term money.
For the people here who did not bother to follow the debate: Benbrook also replied to no-till in his closing remarks:
I'm sure there are more statistics around, but it gives a perspective on that argument.
=====
The Economist gave the results! Not on the debate section, but here:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/11/economist_debates#comment-737320
A confusing mixture of votes given on the proper site, as well as those given on the staging site.
Seems the 'no' vote was given most often.
That should make me happy but being a skeptic I'm not so sure they got their figures in order.
I definitely doubt whether it's ok to add up the sub-counts.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 3:13 PM
Because this is how the corporations and you want people to see the issue:
- The discussion should be centered around biotechnology.
- It's a question of accepting or rejecting the proposition that "biotechnology" as a vague general entity can form a part of sustainable agriculture.
- If you reject this proposition (often because you're reading "biotechnology" as corporate-controlled GM, which is rather reasonable to do since it hasn't been defined), you're presented as illegitimately rejecting a technology a priori, and that's just silly.
- If you accept it in the abstract, then you're presented as accepting "biotechnology" and just rejecting it on the basis of corporate involvement, so you're really accepting it and the discussion can stop there because it's plausible that non-corporate biotechnology could exist.
But this presentation is stupid and misleading. It makes no difference if theoretical abstract biotechnologies can be. What should be talked about are specific options available, all of them, and the current conditions. These can be chosen or rejected on the basis of various criteria, like those I've listed above.
(The other issue that has to be dealt with at the same time is that the degree of corporate power in agriculture has negatively shaped the context in which information is gathered and decisions made.)
So you're contributing to exactly the framing problem I've identified. First, this framing is far too broad. Second, you have to make a case for particular technologies under real-existing conditions and as opposed to other approaches.
Now how could that be? Seriously. You can't seriously be arguing that corporate control is a non-issue when it comes to evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of particular technologies, and you state elsewhere that you're not.
If big agribusiness is involved in the production and application of a particular technology (I'm not talking about this vague category thing), that sure as hell should be a major factor in deciding whether to go with it as opposed to other options.
I don't think I can answer this any more clearly than I have. You still wouldn't have a debate that makes sense, because a debate that makes sense would be around creating conditions for democratic decision-making and solid research to evaluate a full range of specific competing options on the basis of criteria like I've listed.
That's my point, FFS! Posed that broadly, the question makes more sense than it's posed at the Economist, but it's still far too broad to be useful and obscures the real questions and the existence of a variety of approaches. It's a stupid question, but very useful for propaganda purposes.
Which is what I'm saying.
Sure - the whole thing, really. Specifically in Chapter 6 of the Global Report, especially beginning on p. 392 and particularly p. 393, and the recommendations in Chapter 8, especially pp. 538 and 542. Note throughout the emphasis (beyond considering public goods and services) on "traditional and local knowledge," IPM, LEISA, agroecology and ecoforestry. Their recommendations barely mention GM, and when it is discussed it's primarily in terms of problems. They don't reject it, but they clearly recommend that funding should be channeled to these other technologies and approaches (as well as to social-scientific research, I might add).
They argue that if it's going to be a beneficial part of a good and sustainable system it needs to be under certain conditions, which don't describe existing conditions to any significant extent.
But note that this is within a context of recommending other technologies and approaches very strongly.
What should be addressed are real technologies in real conditions. These hypotheticals are useless, and even more so as they fail to acknowledge what is a major point of the IAASTD report and which framings like this debate try to bury: there are other technologies and approaches being used and researched that may be highly preferable to GM on numerous grounds. That you want to focus on GM doesn't make them disappear.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 12, 2010 3:23 PM
And we have our first Godwin.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 12, 2010 3:28 PM
As someone who uses (and fully supports) GMOs
Damn straight!
how else are we going to protect our lawns and houses from the zombie apocalypse?
I mean, you think just artificial selection is gonna give us peashooters and watermelonpults?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHAbHz8iYHc
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 3:33 PM
BTW, Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF flounce from IAASTD during development of report.
Posted by: jcbelfast
|
November 12, 2010 3:53 PM
Ha! Very good OrchidGrowinMan, I rarely post comments online and had to google Godwin, I apologize for my ignorance. But, clumsy analogies aside, do you think I have a point?
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 12, 2010 4:05 PM
SC - I fully agree with how this debate is framed being wrong, and think it does need to be broken down into a case by case basis, a few ideas would be This house believes...
Bt transgenics could be utilized in sustainable Ag (possibly too broad again and perhaps requires splitting to two questions framed around before and after patents start dropping)
RR transgenics could be...
Drought resistant transgenics could be...
(and then to skip to other aspects of biotech)
MAS could be...
etc etc
suffice to say that I think we agree that the question itself in this case essentially makes the debate meaningless.
And if I appeared to there I was just being unclear I guess - if the question is ridiculously broad then it shouldn't be muddied by bringing corporate control into it - can biotech be used in sustainable ag? Yes.... now more interestingly - how (and here's where you get to stomp on (or not, depending on your preference) corporate measures - all while not being boxed into a yes or no answer (at least until you get down to individual tech uses for specific areas)
I am allowed to agree with you on occasion y'know (although they do dock my imaginary check 5% each time I do, so I'll attempt not to make a habit of it lest I default on my imaginary mortgage)Like drought tolerant corn varieites freed from IP restriction? Or using as a for instance RR sugar beets in place of non-GM in conventional Ag to reduce the environmental impact of beet cultivation?
I don't only want to focus on GM - I think that it should be a technology considered alongside all the others - it isn't necessarily a case of one or the other (which is the main thrust of Pam Ronald's book) but the potential for using the best of both worlds.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 12, 2010 4:09 PM
@SC 160
yeah, but:
How does that help?
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 4:44 PM
No, a good alternative would be either the broad question asked by the IAASTD (BASF didn't care for the answers, so now they're set up this propaganda debate on another question), or debating the variety of proposed technologies/approaches to specific local problems.
If it's ridiculously broad to begin with then we should dispense with it and ask better questions. I haven't been able to get to the debate page, but this whole "sponsored" deal looks obviously like a corporate PR ploy.
Like all technologies in all approaches evaluated comparatively on the basis of a broad set of criteria, of which I've listed some (the IAASTD report uses others as well).
You do, too. Your suggestions for a reframing of the question above are completely telling in that regard.
Which is what the IAASTD report does. Your company didn't like the answer, so they and Syngenta and BASF flounced.
Claptrap. It's not a world, and it doesn't necessarily have any "best" to add; it's a set of technologies, some of which may present favorably under some conditions. That you guys can't accept that other people using broad criteria for a proper evaluation might not agree with your assessment about the relative desirability of that set of technologies is evident from the mischaracterization and flouncing.
Well, the editorial in Nature didn't back that up with anything, and it was about a draft. It also said: "The idea that biotechnology cannot by itself reduce hunger and poverty is mainstream opinion among agricultural scientists and policy-makers. For example, biotechnology expansion was not among the seven main recommendations in Halving Hunger: It Can Be Done, a report commissioned by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. The writing team for this report included Kenya's Florence Wambugu, perhaps the strongest proponent for biotechnology in Africa."
I for one don't see how the perspectives of corporations with an interest only in profits/power and none in sustainable development, poverty reduction, or food provision were supposed to have added "balance" in the first place, and not having their approval increases the credibility of the report, as far as I'm concerned.
But as Bob Watson said: "It's very unfortunate that they have walked out even before we agreed the final version. If they can bring evidence forward that we have not been objective, or that the language is biased, then we could discuss that."
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 12, 2010 5:04 PM
No, I don't, I was attempting to stay in the bounds of the original overly broad question and have an obvious bias in what I'll think up as questions due to my area of work - I'm totally fine with discussing any other aspect of agriculture although will be more vocal on the bits I think I know more about than the bits I don't know so much about - it should have been obvious also that I didn't consider that an exhaustive list.
Seriously? I can't use a commonly used figure of speech which anyone with half a brain understands?
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
November 12, 2010 5:09 PM
From SC's link:
That's what they were saying ten years ago, when GMOs first started getting more attention.
Has there been ANY progress on producing crops that are actually drought-tolerant, heat-tolerant? Or how about salt-tolerant, that was another big selling point? I ask because I do pay a small amount of attention to these issues, and I haven't heard a thing about those particular qualities being developed. I would imagine that if there were progress being made on those fronts, they'd be trumpeting it from the mountaintops.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 5:10 PM
OK, I'm going to try once again, several hours later (*sigh*) to extricate myself. Don't think I have much more to add, anyway.
Thanks for the good discussion.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 12, 2010 5:15 PM
Drought tolerant corn is slated to be commercialized in the next couple of years, I believe some work on salt tolerance has been done academically which looks promising.
The drought tolerance gene is in its first year of testing in WEMA now I think (or it could be next year - memory sucks on this - 4 sites I believe practiced last year (or this year...) on how to run the trials and will be utilizing the transgenes next year(this year?) to see if they're efficacious in agronomic conditions applicable to the target users (as all agronomic testing is done in the US under otherwise good conditions this isn't necessarily a given)
Nothing afaik has been succesfully launched commercially in either drought, heat or salt tolerance.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 12, 2010 5:25 PM
Since my messages are apparently being tied-up until irrelevance (see my hasty and sloppy late-posted comment here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/polling_the_anti-gm_vote.php#comment-2915048), I'll put some little pieces in this new thread:
There are a bunch of people citing a small assortment of scare-stories, most of which, like the creationists’ or anti-vaxxers’ arguments, have long since been discredited and should be discarded. There are a few people who believe in the potential of this technology, but for the wrong reasons, a few who know what they are talking about (pro-, but there COULD be a con- in here somewhere), and a lot of people who really should be getting some better information: remember it’s not “half-way between the extremes” where the truth always lies.
It seems eminently worthwhile to study-up if you are interested in a topic as important as this, The Fate Of The World’s Food Supply. PLEASE take a look at the book by the Science and Technology Adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Nina Fedoroff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Fedoroff): “Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Food”: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11000
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 12, 2010 5:29 PM
Baqh, the internal link doesn't work...
Like anti-vaxx, there is a BODY COUNT attributable to irrational fears and overblown catastrophization over genetic engineering. Look-up “grain shipments to Afica turned-back.” It is touched-on in Federoff’s book, but this discusses it more thoroughly: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674033474 Do we, as representatives of rich countries with the luxury of choosing over-priced “Organic” food, have the right to prevent farmers where mal- and under-nourishment is rampant from receiving and using more productive practices and varieties? The poorest are, after all, already completely “organic” (due to lack of resources), so shouldn’t they be ecstatically happy to be living such a pure uncontaminated life so close to nature? Look at this page: http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html Can we all be a little more skeptical?
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 12, 2010 5:31 PM
There are some people who have taken-on the task of dissiminating reasonable and accurate information on this topic. PLEASE have a look at http://www.biofortified.org/ I especially recommend their arc of coverage of what’s happened in Haiti, where, just because of the name of the company offering, some activists have roused, through hysterical rhetoric and not a few lies, protests and efforts to prevent farmers there from the opportunity to choose to obtain ( for free/minimal cost and Non-GMO!) agricultural assistance. It’s shameful that some of these paternalistic liars are non-Haitian representatives of NGOs: http://www.biofortified.org/2010/06/hybrids-in-haiti/
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 12, 2010 5:34 PM
I could line-up a lot of counter-examples to some of the assertions that are gishgalloping here, including triticale, golden rice, virus-resistant sweet-potatoes for Africa, virus-resistant papayas and the recently-deciphered multi-species origin of the wheat genome, but I plead fatigue and depression at what a big job it would be. I will however address some of the more annoying memes below, though some of these have already been ably addressed by other commenters both smarter and better-informed than me.
“Terminator Seeds.” Aside from the fact that “inherited sterility” is pretty oxymoronic, please look up the history. The patented version of the technology is not used or deployed, and is in reality a manifestation of a common ordinary useful set of genetic characteristics. Seedless watermelons, seedless bananas, navel oranges, the offspring of a horse and a donkey, lots of examples exist of sterility that we don’t get exercised over. “Terminator” is just used as a scare-word. And the reason farmers often don’t save seed has nothing to do with that, nor with some grand conspiracy. Look up “maize breeding.” Jeez, I learned about hybrid vigour (heterosis) and crop uniformity in _high school_! Charles Darwin himself helped encourage the work that culminated, a hundred years ago, in the breeding, the hybridizing, of corn in a way that has dramatically increased the food we have available, and incidentally makes saving seeds of those hybrids less than useful.
http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/plantsci/breeding/corn/
http://www.ontariocorn.org/magazine/Issues/pre%20Nov%202005/ocpmag/dec99feat.html
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 12, 2010 5:40 PM
“Superweeds.” If a weed gets a trait for herbicide resistance (necessarily a crop-relative if it gets it from crossbreeding with a crop; otherwise the result of ordinary selection) it is JUST A WEED. That it is resistant to a herbicide is all there is to say: it can still be controlled by pulling, ploughing or any other of the methods that are advocated instead of herbicides. Another scare-word. (And to be clear, no, milkweed cannot get Bt genes from cross-breeding with corn any more than you can.)
“Mutates into a supercompetitor.” Silly. There is only so much solar energy per cm2, only so much CO2, water, etc. If a plant were to become 100% efficient in energy use, it might be an annoying weed, but never suitable to play the villain in some sci-fi catastrophe movie. “Mutate” is another scare-word. So is “Kudzu.” From what I’ve read, a better way to get the kind of “mutation” being referred to is a radioactive spider-bite, a nuclear explosion, or having your intrinsic field jiggered-with.
“Unnatural.” Give it up. Let me tell you about orchid breeding in the 1950s and 60s: it was found that some plants, usually especially vigorous ones, were tetraploid rather than diploid. The hybrid between a 4n and 2n then is a triploid (3n), and sterile, that is, seedless or “terminator.” But incubating a seedling or bit of meristem with colchicine could induce chromosome-doubling, and the plant grown from that tissue (via aseptic tissue-culture, natch) is a hexaploid, and invariably pretty pathetic. But it can be crossed with a diploid to make a fertile and vigorous tetraploid again. Or diploids can be converted to tetraploids for breeding purposes (useful if the “diploid” is actually an aneuploid resulting from a cross between different species). Keeping track of who got what chromosomes (or parts) was always a problem, but is easier since the 80s. No, with all this manipulation of thousands and thousands of crosses and clones, with orchids and other ornamental and economic plants, never once has some catastrophically dangerous “mutant’ arisen, and nobody has died or been injured because of the plants.
No, Monsanto is not out to get you. And Monsanto is not the only breeder of seeds, either by traditional or by more modern techniques. There are for-profit corporations, not-for-profit corporations, universities, NGOs, governments and others working to “promote the general welfare” of (their) people, even if the US (and European) governments don’t want to do anything in the field. If “profit” is so evil that preventing it is sufficient reason to close-off all the benefits this technology promises, then why oppose the FREE “Golden Rice” concept? By relentlessly opposing even FREE (but vetted, tested, permitted, etc.) introductions, the only players who can survive are the biggianthuge corporations, and why would you want THAT? There’s no money in developing virus-resistant sweet-potatoes, but they would sure be valuable to certain people who are right now hungry.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 12, 2010 6:31 PM
Just signing in to say one thing:
Because Haitians can't decide on their own what they want and speak for themselves. Like farmers there haven't been fighting for years for food sovereignty and against predatory corporations. I guess they don't have anything of interest to say to Bodnar at biofortified, who can't even be bothered to quote a single Haitian in the mass of long quotes from Monsanto, and calls Chavannes Jean-Baptiste an "individual farmer" when he's (described in her own link):
Fuck you, ignorant assholes. You people are fucking disgusting.
And now I'm out.
Posted by: bioteacher
|
November 12, 2010 6:40 PM
Orchid,
I apologize if you find dissenting opinions to be "annoying" - but there is plenty of literature supporting a more reserved approach to GMO's, particulary one that does not give special consideration to billion dollar corporations (No one said Monsanto is out to get us, but they are out to make a profit).
Do you find this sort of study to warrant concern...or should we all just jump on the bandwagon?
Posted by: bioteacher
|
November 12, 2010 6:49 PM
On the other hand...
I respect the pro-GMO reasoning - and am intrigued by the possibilities.
Posted by: Big Blue
|
November 12, 2010 6:59 PM
That's what I said, it is not about being right--it's just that it sounds like a douchey thing to say, coming from an employee of the industry in question. I know that when I tell people where I work, they tend to shrink away like I am going to abduct them for Mad Scientist Experiments, and it takes a lot just to get to the point of "well, maybe you're not completely evil/stupid." And that is from my fellow scientists, mind you, not the technophobic public. Ewan's employer isn't exactly more trusted and beloved than mine, you know? Better to ask for these instances, specifically, rather than dismiss them out of hand.
It may be as fishy as three-week-old mackerel, but also bear in mind that apart from Phase I clinical trials, there is not a fabulous validated model of immunogenicity that accurately maps to humans. And when a product is widely distributed, there is always, always some weird shit that happens with it. No matter how imaginative you are, there is an idiot who is even more creative. You think, this thing isn't possibly going to get past gut epithelia, and then there's some idiot who carves corncobs into single-use all-natural biodegradable butt-plugs and there you are with a patient developing anti-Bt antibodies after anal fissure repair.
Plus, I have watched PhDs with decades of experience in pharmacology utter the most asinine, non-scientific, thought-free bullshit you have ever heard in your life, and somehow they are still executives in charge of billions of $$. Yes, you'd think that expression levels would be the basis of clone selection, that the bench scientist would have quantitated by ELISA first thing, but if you need an example of very expensive failure on basic science, look no further than GSK's Sirtris acquisition. Just saying, CROs can be extremely dumb, even when there is a lot of money and the company's future riding on it.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 12, 2010 10:58 PM
SC,
I think you have a comprehension fail: Haiti is not agriculturally self-sufficient, and hasn’t been for a very long time, and there has been a bit of trouble there recently, and they could really use some help. There’s no money there to be had, so the assistance has to be free. When an offer of assistance is made (with no strings attached, and approved by the Haitian government), but some people use threats of violence, of burning seeds, lies and damn lies in an effort to prevent farmers from having the choice of accepting that aid, just exactly WHO is making decisions? Who is having their right to a choice thwarted? If you read deeper, and then also read from other sources, including the books I recommended, you’ll find that, quite often, the most strident “missionaries” against “deadlypoisoncancerbigcorporationGMOs” are foreign to the countries they are preach…er HELPING in. But that doesn’t matter: is it the Haitian farmers who should have the choice of improving their practices and their varieties, with the permission and concurrence of their government, or hysterical organizers, foreigners, and rabble-rousers who have the superior right to PREVENT that. You’ll note that _I_ never mentioned the name of the company that offered the free hybrid seed (not GMO, despite the hysterical lies), because bigots-will-be-bigots, and come to the conclusion that the seeds, the advice, the tools, MUST be bad if they were touched by the wrong people.Bioteacher,
How many times does the question “then why are there still monkys, huh?” have to be answered? What about “How is bebe mad?” “Thimerosol is proved to cause autism!” and on and on. These arguments dredged-up here are the same. They are annoying because they have been addressed many times, but continue to be brought-up by people who aren’t sufficiently informed or motivated to find-out they HAVE been addressed, or just to BE annoying.
At least you bring-up something relatively NEW:
Do you remember the slew of stories we suffered through that were catastrophizing about the fact that prescription drugs were being detected in streams, rivers, lakes, ocean and [GASP] drinking water? It all started with a report that modern analytical techniques could now detect many substances at dilutions of parts-per-billion, or parts-per-trillion (thank be that the concentrations found were so safe: any more dilute, and we would have all died from Homeopathic Overdose). An idea was to use caffeine concentration gradients to look for sewage leaks (didn't work in Seattle; too much caffeine spilled on the ground/storm sewers). There was recently a story that scientists could now determine what species (specifically bullfrogs) were swimming in a pond: they have detection techniques that are THAT sensitive to some substances, particularly proteins. If I throw some leaves in a creek, especially if I macerate them, then I would expect that such techniques could detect them. What really bothers me is when chemicals leach from plant leaves and residue and actually POISON the soil! Join with me and we'll rid the world of horrible dangers:
BAN Juglans nigra!
Ban Oryza sativa!
Ban Aesculus!
Ban Clorogalum!
Ban Barringtonia!
Ban Phytolacca!
No More POISON!
http://primitiveways.com/fish_poison.html
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 13, 2010 12:58 AM
OGM: Such powerful rhetoric, yet you're agreeing with SC, if as I read it you're advocating empowering individual farmers to make their own choices.
Aren't you?
Posted by: jcbelfast
|
November 13, 2010 1:31 AM
Seems to me you don't agree with my point OGM, yet you demonstrate it brilliantly with your long-winded comments here. Ok, I'm maybe not as well educated as you on the subject but I think I'm still entitled to an opinion. I'm giving you a little imaginary internet pat on the back right now; good boy, well done for muddying the waters of this debate with your pedantic and patronizing messages. I'm sure you won't dignify this with a response, and that's fine by me. I don't think you have much interest in talking about general human behavior, just displaying it.
Fuck this shit, I'm off to join the Nazi Party.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 2:04 AM
John,
Why, yes, actually. I believe that the tested vetted, tested, approved, tested and traditional hybrid approach and varieties, and the tested, tested, vetted, tested, tested, approved, tested, tested and permitted "GMO" approach and varieties should be available (with advice and recommendations, etc.) to farmers as a choice, in addition to whatever other varieties might be available to them. Lying, saying that the hybrid or "GMO" strains are somehow poisonous or "Terminator" or whatever, and trying to get them banned or withheld is not acceptable.
Given the choice between starvation, serfdom and living as a mendicant in a mendicant nation versus some degree of security, stability and opportunity seems a small price to pay for the infinitesimal risk that mendacious or ignorant people inflate in order to keep the farmers in their miserable but uncontaminated, pure and close-to-nature existing state.
Many more people (thousands or maybe orders of magnitude more) have died from LACK of access to these technolgies, than heve died FROM them (0).
Here is an article DIFFERENT from the ones that were cited up-thread:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A23728-2002Jul30¬Found=true
The losers were people. The reason they lost is either honest fear induced by mendacious rhetoric, or mendacious politics enabled by mendacious rhetoric. Either way, they lose. (It is obvious that the food was not poison: I and most people here eat it regularly, and it would be epidemiologically obvious if it were poison.) There are other examples.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 2:20 AM
jcbelfast,
I knew it: I could tell your nature from the very first posting you Nazi, you. Do you have a riding-crop and monocle (squee!)
Some of us are thorough, rigorous, accurate and skeptical in forming our positions, less moved by emotion than by facts. If you think logic and facts are dismissable because they are "long-winded," then fine. I'm sure an adult will be glad to explain it to you when you're older.
In the meantime, I suggest you look at the books I suggested (they have SOME pictures) and I'll watch the movie you suggest ("Food Inc") to see if it really does explain why the Centro Internacional de la Papa, Uganda, should not be allowed to develop virus-resistant sweet-potatoes for local use.
http://www.nri.org/docs/sweet_potato_virus_e_africa.pdf
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 13, 2010 2:21 AM
GMO, I see.
Basically, you're stating that Haitian farmers are cowed dupes, and that the blame for this lies squarely with people who oppress them with lies and intimidation.
Since you wrote "There’s no money there to be had", I take it you think the motive of these alleged malicious oppressors of the farmers is irrational fear of hybrid or GE crops?
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 13, 2010 2:22 AM
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 13, 2010 2:24 AM
[meta]
I should note my transposition above of OGM into GMO was perhaps Freudian, but certainly inadvertent! :)
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 3:09 AM
John,
While I don't think the farmers are stupid, or even ignorant, I do suspect they have limited access to information, and to ways to verify the veracity of what they receive, as do we all. Also, hysterical claims, lies, and a threat of making pyres of seeds offered to them would seem a bit daunting, don't you think?
Care to venture an answer to a trick question? If the seed aid were offered by the Bahamas Department of Agriculture (http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/bahamasweb2/home.nsf/57ffd8269564d03d06256f0000703dfd/44a7a2aec902902506256f000070584e!OpenDocument), do you think there would be such a hue and cry?
If you look through the links available to you, you will find that some people express suspicion that some other people are motivated in part by a (subconscious?) desire to keep their clients dependent. I have certainly seen this human tendency in other contexts, so I look out for it. That is the most generous motivation I can ascribe to the people who promise to burn seeds in a place where they are so desperately needed. The second most generous is that they want to keep the innocent locals pure from contamination by Western Influence. Either way, it's paternalistic.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 13, 2010 3:52 AM
OGM, your linked site is not loading, so rather than wait another 20 minutes I'll respond now.
Well, then. If they're neither stupid nor ignorant, then perforce they must be aware of their limited access to information and its verification, and thus have made what they consider a rational choice on that basis.
Nope. I know farmers (I live and work in a rural area), and being daunted is not something that farmers are very good at.
I don't know, since I lack enough information.
What I do know¹ is that (a) some of the seed had toxic pesticides that require (under US EPA regulations) special training and safety equipment to deploy, (b) hybrid varieties are only reliable for one cropping cycle and usually need more inputs to produce their gains in yield and (c) they wish for aid that will enable self-sufficiency, not make them reliant on further ongoing aid.
1. Well, it may be paranoid, but is such suspicion unfounded?
2. I can offhand think of a more generous one: that they consider that such seeds are not what is desperately needed.
3. Isn't the MPP local?
4. You're saying the Haitians' own organisation is being paternalistic, but Western influence is not?
--
¹ From my reading about this topic after it was raised here.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 8:16 AM
*deep breaths*
I was so furious last night that I swore to myself that I wouldn't return to this thread, but I did. Alas.
Chavannes Jean-Baptiste founded the MPP in 1973. The coalition for which he is the spokesperson is the largest peasants' organization in Haiti. They have been fighting for years, despite tremendous repression and interference by foreign governments and corporations, to build their vision of food sovereignty (including seed sovereignty) in Haiti. (If people want to give them aid, they should ask them what they want.) But you, OrchidGrowinMan, arrogant shmuckwad on the internet, think you know more about the needs and goals of Haitian peasants than they do.
Thanks, John, but it's fairly impossible in my experience to get these people to even recognize the existence of movements like the MPP (as is shown in the very typical biofortified piece of garbage, which links to an interview with CJP and then in the next sentence, incredibly, talks about Haitian farmers being deprived by foreign organizations), even when they're faced with them directly. Never mind acknowledging that they have ideas and plans based on their experience or that they can think and act independently and have been doing so for decades. It doesn't fit with the corporate-imperialist narrative that assigns people like Haitian farmers only the role of unorganized children who need to be told what's best for them. Learning about and actually listening to them is pretty much unthinkable.
Astonishingly, given the millions poured by M*ns*nto into advertising and PR, morons like OGM assume - even as they quote corporate press releases and web sites - that it's the organized farmers of Haiti and not themselves who are manipulated. That requires a special kind of self-delusion.
Going to try to stay away again. People like OGM make me sick.
Posted by: geneticmaize
|
November 13, 2010 8:25 AM
SC OM #174
I did write a post about the seed donation to Haiti by Monsanto, the point of which was to clarify the reality of what was happening, in response to a ton of exaggerations and even flat out lies that were being posted on some other sites: Hybrids in Haiti. A lot of the information I had did come from Monsanto. Specifically, a quote explaining how the seed would be distributed, a quote describing the seeds themselves, and a quote on the seed treatments used - because other authors were completely ignoring this information. I then added clarification and supplementary citations as needed. While the opinion of farmers is important, that's not what this post was about, and I didn't actually mention Jean-Baptiste at all. I did argue that even if individual farmers (with a link to a story about Jean-Baptiste) don't want the seeds that doesn't mean that some others don't want them and that it's unfair to keep the seeds from the farmers who want them - so let each farmer decide on their own. If the idea of farmer choice offends you, well, that's your problem. You're always welcome to join the discussion at Biofortified rather than talking about me on other sites, but whatever makes you happy.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 9:35 AM
Just to note: Chavannes Jean-Baptiste started the MPP in 1973, at the beginning of the long Baby Doc Duvalier dictatorship (following that of his father). He's faced constant repression, assassination attempts, and had to go into exile. By the way, the Haitian director of philanthropic seed distributor WINNER? Jean Robert Éstimé, the brutal Baby Doc's foreign minister for years in the '80s. But I'm sure poor Haitians have no reason to doubt that people like him have their best interests at heart.
It isn't to you at all, you tremendous liar. This is quite obvious. Your post denies the existence of their organizations and shows no interest in any of their programs or anything they have to say. You don't give a flying fuck about them or their opinions. Liar.
No kidding.
My point. You linked to a post about him (which you didn't see fit to quote or discuss a word of), under "individual farmers." This was dishonest and disingenuous.
He is not an individual farmer, you arrogant ass. He's the spokesperson for the largest peasants' organization in Haiti, representing more than 100,000 peasant farmers. They don't want M*nsanto's dumped fucking seeds, about which they weren't consulted, and you yourself acknowledge that others can be affected even if they don't purchase the corporate hybrids. This is one of the most cynical acts ever seen, completely contrary to Haitian farmers' long-expressed aims, and they know what these corporations and USAID have long been about in their country. They are capable of making their own decisions, and you should damned well treat them with respect. "Farmers' choice" is letting the organizations of farmers that have been working and struggling there for decades set their own course, listening to them, and helping them fulfill their vision. Corporations like M*nsanto have spent years denying them options and trying to force their self-serving programs on them, but you neither know nor care about that reality.
Go to hell, you arrogant, politically and historically ignorant, agribusiness-ass-kissing twit.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 9:46 AM
From the post:
Is it possible for you to be more of a liar?
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 10:59 AM
Ah, but EPA and OSHA requirements aren't really relevant to them. They're just Haitians, after all. And shouldn't they have the choice to handle toxic chemicals without protection? I mean, no big deal, anyway - Mica the employee and the M*nsanto blog said so.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 2:57 PM
John,
I’ll respond to you, but not to SC: I think he’s broken.
I’m sure they have, but it seems to me that, that choice, in the face of the implicit threat of burning and the whole strident situation, has to be to do nothing to get in trouble. If a farmer knows that the claims of poison, etc, are basically lies, and that he could get a good safe nutritious harvest from the seeds much much larger than without, and improve his circumstances, he still would have to do what he is being told to in order to conserve his safety. Contrary to your claim, I think it’s possible that they CAN be daunted by the sorts of shenanigans going on. If an individual farmer were to choose to try to get and plant the seeds, what would happen? Would he be allowed to? Would his farm be burned if somebody found out?The point about the question re source of the aid has to do with prejudice. The corn varieties offered were developed, and are used, in the Caribbean. If other countries took their stocks and gave then to Haitian farmers, would that make the whole problem go away? Even if they were the exact same seeds? If so, then the issue is political not “GMO:BAD”
Here is where you are wrong wrong wrong. I think I need to invoke Dunning-Kruger: Corn breeding is not simple or easy, and the resources required to get good varieties are considerable. Look at: http://www.ontariocorn.org/magazine/Issues/pre%20Nov%202005/ocpmag/dec99feat.htmlI had heard about the pesticides, but not that they were anything unusual. I suspect that the seeds offered were not originally stockpiled and prepared specifically for Haiti. If the Haitians want to restrict certain agricultural pesticides, I’m sure they can figure that out. Since accidental poisonings with such things are so rare, compared to accidental starvation, I think a one-time use of fungicide-treated seeds is a vanishingly small problem compared to a lack of agricultural production. When I started gardening, home-gardener seeds were dyed bright pink (to dissuade you from eating them), and were treated with mercury compounds [shudder].
Inbred corn varieties are not very productive. Land races are a little more so. The Haitian indigenous varieties/races are apparently NOT elite. Worse, the techniques used by successful expert public and private breeders are apparently unknown in Haiti. A little education, and perhaps agricultural outreach, and lots and lots of money, might improve that in the next few decades, it that is ALLOWED, but right now we’re talking about one season’s crop. How would withholding productivity this year serve the purpose of getting Haiti OFF assistance? Maybe by starving-off some of the “surplus population,” to use Scrooge’s words?
Hybrids are heterozygous; that’s how they work. There is nothing to prevent planting the seeds they produce, but the next generation will almost certainly suffer a decline in productivity, and the next generation another, smaller decline, until the productivity approaches a constant level, because you have now produced a new land-race or inbred line. That’s how they do it. That line will probably be more productive than the original indigenous ones, because its origin is in carefully-chosen and developed “elite” ancestral lines. If it’s not acceptably productive, plant something else.
The big problem in countries like the US is that the descendants of hybrids are not UNIFORM. The heterozygosity of the hybrid is reassorted, and the traits are not uniformly distributed. It’s no good for mechanized agriculture to have variation in height, size, maturation rate and composition. In successive generations, the polymorphism decreases as traits are randomly lost or selected-out by the seed-saver.
Because of the decreased productivity and uniformity that results from planting seed of saved hybrids, almost all farmers everywhere choose to plant fresh hybrid seed each year: the cost is minuscule compared to the gain in productivity, and it is impractical, even on huge farms, to maintain a breeding program.
I, myself grow land-race corn, but I am not burdened with high pressure for productivity; I grow boutique sweet corn. Since, as you know, the properties of a FRUIT are determined only by the female parent (with few exceptions, including passionfruit), we can have a tree called “Gala” or “McIntosh” and not worry about where the pollen comes from. In corn, it’s different: we eat the seeds, and the pollen parent definitely DOES affect the properties. When my white-corn “Country Gentleman” http://www.territorialseed.com/product/584/191 is pollinated by “Black Aztec,” http://www.abundantlifeseeds.com/product/27/15 I get lovely ears of white sweet corn with lavender dots. But if I plant those seeds, I get vigorous productive non-tasty ugly corn, so I don’t bother.
But in Haiti, a little introgression from elite varieties can only serve to improve the diversity and productivity of the local races: it CANNOT decrease it, because no farmer would choose to preferentially select and plant seeds from the less productive or less desirable plants.
As for the “increased inputs,” that would be true for varieties bred to use increased inputs, but as I understand it, the varieties being offered are bred for the local agricultural conditions.
REAL problems do exist in the world’s corn-breeding technology though, but they are not easy to describe in simplistic terms. I’ll leave politics, economics and Evil Corporations for later, for they have no relevance on whether hybridization or any other biotechnology is inherently bad.
In corn, as in many plants, a great deal of inherited disease-resistance depends on the exclusively maternally-inherited genomes, the mitochondrial one, I believe, not the plastid one. In breeding corn, you want to control pollination: you want to make a CROSS, and not have the plants self-pollinate. So you have to prevent the intended female parent from shedding pollen, You can “bag the tassels” *(great name for a band!) or you can hire kids to walk the rows and “de-tassel” the plants, or you can make it all easy by breeding a “male-sterile” variety to serve as the seed parent. I don’t know the details (and I’m sure they vary amongst all the many species of crop that are bred that way), but what I have heard is that it requires a particular maternal genome. So that means that many many otherwise dissimilar corn varieties bred this way share the same mitochondrial genome, the same disease resistance profile. That’s bad, because it makes it easier for a new pathogen to spread. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/173/3991/67
http://www.victoryseeds.com/information/corn_panic.html
Now there’s a REAL concern to fret over.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 4:46 PM
Again, I have to break-up my message before it's irrelevant: I wouldn't want my insults to cool and get all flabby....
John,
I’ll respond to you, but not to SC: I think he’s broken.
I’m sure they have, but it seems to me that, that choice, in the face of the implicit threat of burning and the whole strident situation, has to be to do nothing to get in trouble. If a farmer knows that the claims of poison, etc, are basically lies, and that he could get a good safe nutritious harvest from the seeds much much larger than without, and improve his circumstances, he still would have to do what he is being told to in order to conserve his safety. Contrary to your claim, I think it’s possible that they CAN be daunted by the sorts of shenanigans going on. If an individual farmer were to choose to try to get and plant the seeds, what would happen? Would he be allowed to? Would his farm be burned if somebody found out?The point about the question re source of the aid has to do with prejudice. The corn varieties offered were developed, and are used, in the Caribbean. If other countries took their stocks and gave then to Haitian farmers, would that make the whole problem go away? Even if they were the exact same seeds? If so, then the issue is political not “GMO:BAD”
I had heard about the pesticides, but not that they were anything unusual. I suspect that the seeds offered were not originally stockpiled and prepared specifically for Haiti. If the Haitians want to restrict certain agricultural pesticides, I’m sure they can figure that out. Since accidental poisonings with such things are so rare, compared to accidental starvation, I think a one-time use of fungicide-treated seeds is a vanishingly small problem compared to a lack of agricultural production. When I started gardening, home-gardener seeds were dyed bright pink (to dissuade you from eating them), and were treated with mercury compounds [shudder].
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 4:52 PM
Here is where you are wrong wrong wrong. I think I need to invoke Dunning-Kruger: Corn breeding is not simple or easy, and the resources required to get good varieties are considerable. Look at: http://www.ontariocorn.org/magazine/Issues/pre%20Nov%202005/ocpmag/dec99feat.htmlInbred corn varieties are not very productive. Land races are a little more so. The Haitian indigenous varieties/races are apparently NOT elite. Worse, the techniques used by successful expert public and private breeders are apparently unknown in Haiti (at least the recent GMO developments that started in 1909). A little education, and perhaps agricultural outreach, and lots and lots of money, might improve that in the next few decades, it that is ALLOWED, but right now we’re talking about one season’s crop. How would withholding productivity this year serve the purpose of getting Haiti OFF assistance? Maybe by starving-off some of the “surplus population,” to use Scrooge’s words?
Hybrids are heterozygous; that’s how they work. There is nothing to prevent planting the seeds they produce, but the next generation will almost certainly suffer a decline in productivity, and the next generation another, smaller decline, until the productivity approaches a constant level, because you have now produced a new land-race or inbred line. That’s how they do it. That line will probably be more productive than the original indigenous ones, because its origin is in carefully-chosen and developed “elite” ancestral lines. If it’s not acceptably productive, plant something else.
The big problem in countries like the US is that the descendants of hybrids are not UNIFORM. The heterozygosity of the hybrid is reassorted, and the traits are not uniformly distributed. It’s no good for mechanized agriculture to have variation in height, size, maturation rate and composition. In successive generations, the polymorphism decreases as traits are randomly lost or selected-out by the seed-saver.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 4:55 PM
Because of the decreased productivity and uniformity that results from planting seed of saved hybrids, almost all farmers everywhere choose to plant fresh hybrid seed each year: the cost is minuscule compared to the gain in productivity, and it is impractical, even on huge farms, to maintain a breeding program.
I, myself grow land-race corn, but I am not burdened with high pressure for productivity; I grow boutique sweet corn. Since, as you know, the properties of a FRUIT are determined only by the female parent (with few exceptions, including passionfruit), we can have a tree called “Gala” or “McIntosh” and not worry about where the pollen comes from. In corn, it’s different: we eat the seeds, and the pollen parent definitely DOES affect the properties. When my white-corn “Country Gentleman” http://www.territorialseed.com/product/584/191 is pollinated by “Black Aztec,” http://www.abundantlifeseeds.com/product/27/15 I get lovely ears of white sweet corn with lavender dots. But if I plant those seeds, I get vigorous productive non-tasty ugly corn, so I don’t bother.
But in Haiti, a little introgression from elite varieties can only serve to improve the diversity and productivity of the local races: it CANNOT decrease it, because no farmer would choose to preferentially select and plant seeds from the less productive or less desirable plants.
As for the “increased inputs,” that would be true for varieties bred to use increased inputs, but as I understand it, the varieties being offered are bred for the local agricultural conditions.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 4:58 PM
REAL problems do exist in the world’s corn-breeding technology though, but they are not easy to describe in simplistic terms. I’ll leave politics, economics and Evil Corporations for later, for they have no relevance on whether hybridization or any other biotechnology is inherently bad.
In corn, as in many plants, a great deal of inherited disease-resistance depends on the exclusively maternally-inherited genomes, the mitochondrial one, I believe, not the plastid one. In breeding corn, you want to control pollination: you want to make a CROSS, and not have the plants self-pollinate. So you have to prevent the intended female parent from shedding pollen, You can “bag the tassels” *(great name for a band!) or you can hire kids to walk the rows and “de-tassel” the plants, or you can make it all easy by breeding a “male-sterile” variety to serve as the seed parent. I don’t know the details (and I’m sure they vary amongst all the many species of crop that are bred that way), but what I have heard is that it requires a particular maternal genome. So that means that many many otherwise dissimilar corn varieties bred this way share the same mitochondrial genome, the same disease resistance profile. That’s bad, because it makes it easier for a new pathogen to spread. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/173/3991/67
http://www.victoryseeds.com/information/corn_panic.html
Now there’s a REAL concern to fret over.
Posted by: KG
|
November 13, 2010 5:11 PM
FIFY
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 5:24 PM
John, like I said. A reasonable person who respects Haitian farmers would, when going to make a donation, ask them what they need and how best to provide it. The only reason you wouldn't is that you have your own agenda and/or that you think of them as children. A reasonable person who respects Haitian farmers (but is ignorant of the situation) would, reading the story, think "Huh. I wonder why these people, in such dire conditions, would reject this donation. I'll look into it and hear what they have to say. I may not fully understand (which is difficult in a short time), but I acknowledge their right to choose their own path." Imperialists, in contrast, don't see any need to consult people about programs that will affect them, to acknowledge their existence, to hear or read what they're saying, to quote and respond to them respectfully, or to respect their decisions. Not once have OGM or Bodnar spoken of Haitians (Jean-Baptiste is an agronomist, BTW) like they're full human beings capable of deciding the direction of their own agriculture. And they never will. Because they don't consider them full human beings, just like M*nsanto and the US government that kidnapped their president when he didn't completely toe the line. These assholes know nothing about Haiti or its farmers. What's a little poisoning, anyway? It's a toxic gift! Scum.
I would love to see some corporation in league with a foreign government agency site a toxic waste dump or a farmland-destroying hydroelectric dam in their area, cut down all of the trees around their home, or set up an open pit mine next door to them as a form of "aid," having resisters imprisoned and killed and denying basic services for the area if they don't go along. I suspect they'd change their tune.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 7:01 PM
SC,
You're strange.
If I see a neighbor who needs help, I offer what I HAVE, and let him choose, rather than going through some silly dance deciding what I should withhold from him, or listening to a crazy lady coming down the street shouting about "Teh Ebil" and setting fires.
What Monsanto has is seeds and expertise. That's what they have offered. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything, except maybe hear criticism urging them to tell the truth and let people choose for themselves.
Nathan Bedford Forrest would have reacted the same as you if someone had offered education to certain folks he was sure he knew what was best for, and his organization also had a fetish for special fires. But, oh, no, they weren't INTIMIDATING.
I see you still contend that the people with the overblown rhetoric about bad corporations and GMOs and whatnot that is obviously patently and destructively made-up should be recognized as the voice of each one, each and EVERY one of all the farmers in Haiti. All I need to do is find one who disagrees, who knows the truth, and you are proven wrong. All you have to do is poll all of them.
Can you answer this question: Why can't the farmers, the individual farmers, each of them, be allowed to choose what they plant out of what's available? Why do you, or someone else, get to decide for each of them? Do you think they're children?
And would you care to be more specific about this "poisoning" you appear to be accusing someone of?
And are you contending that corn seeds will somehow result in toxic waste dumps and trees being cut (last I was there, there weren't many left, looking across the border from a greener place). That would be a shame.
And are you sure "M*nsanto" "kidnapped their presdent"?
If I gave you the address of someone who works for Monsanto, would you stalk and kill them?
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 7:58 PM
Is your neighbor incapable of communicating, asshole? Were the Haitian farmers given funds and allowed to choose how to use them? (I actually feel sorry for well-meaning M*nsanto employees if their donations went to this; previously they had gone to the Red Cross.)
What Monsanto has is
seeds and expertisean interest in profits and power and none in the good of Haitians.Fixed. HAITIANS HAVE FUCKING SEEDS AND EXPERTISE.
Wrong. Because, first, it's too fucking late for you douchewads who have shown your true colors. You never gave a shit what any Haitian farmer thought or said, and you still don't. Second, because if some Haitian farmers argued this, they would have to do so with their fellow affected compatriots, all 100,000+ organized and active among them, and this would have to be settled prior to any program being put in place. It's a political decision. None of this would fucking involve you at all. It would have fuck-all to do with you or your corporate crush. I could find some town-mate of yours who wants an open pit mine next to your house.
You are a moron.
I am quite sure that the governments of the US and France kidnapped their president. This was part of a centuries-long effort to get Haitians to obey their and their corporations' dictates. They won't. Take your lunatic corporate spin, you pathetic rube, and shove it.
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 13, 2010 8:12 PM
#### Ichthyic #73 the FDA, ####
did you ever hear of revolving doors? Google it. You'll find that the FDA is run by the same people earning heaps at the corporations.
Additionally, two days ago it came in the open that the FDA kept some documents hidden about the salmon. http://www.care2.com/causes/real-food/blog/fda-caught-hiding-gmo-salmon-evidence/
Also please see what I write about the FDA to Wayward Son.
In other words the FDA can hardly be described as a neutral organisation aiming for the public good.
That would be socialist.
#### Midnight Rambler #101 ####
And there was no closing remark when I looked at the site, and the links aren't working now.
You could not see the debate and commented anyway. Love it.
Here you can find a copy of Benbrook's closing remarks: http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12656-chuck-benbrooks-closing-remarks
Monsanto et al. are responding to the existing market for those crops;
They are steering the market, not just responding.
Okay, maybe I should have specified for the reading comprehension impaired -
Try to keep up appearances.
On keeping papaya virus under control:
...all of which are far more expensive and labor-intensive in a place where land and labor are already expensive.
Do you mean that you have assessed the total costs, including the export problem of the genetically contaminated organic producers (http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/papaya091604.cfm) ?
Go back and read my post; I notice you didn't actually counter any of it
Sorry mate, I am not required to respond to every line you write.
I wanted to react on the papaya remark.
Midnight Rambler #109
Okay, can you (or someone else) explain the logic of this? Why do people who are againt GMOs in general, seem to be most opposed to terminator genes? That is, after all, the best way to prevent the worst unintended consequence, i.e. the thing escaping into the wild environment. If you're nervous about spreading GMOs around, you should support making it required. Sure it means the company can sell seeds repeatedly, but no one is compelling you to buy them, and as others have pointed out, many of these things are sterile hybrids anyway.
If you are right that they are most opposed to GURT stuff, then these people probably are most worried about corporate control.
Comparing what's worse is difficult. See the nuclear waste that came up, that's hard to weigh against accidental contamination with GMO's. I also fail to see why that (comparing) would be necessary. Let's weigh the risk indepently.
Now you mention it, another thing that strikes me is that people are mostly against the GM of higher animals. Apparently cuteness is more important than environmental risks. I think micro-organisms that get out of control are way more problematic than GM livestock.
## Wayward Son #110 said ####
red (#107) "crops can be bred to be infertile; now farmers must buy seeds every year. Not unhealthy, but definitely unfair."
Unfair to whom?? A farmer can buy whatever seeds he wants. If he wants to buy seeds that he can keep and plant the next year he can.
Not anymore. There's been an immense reduction in the number of seed companies in the last 20 years, and now a few companies decide what can be bought (a clarifying link follows below).
It is like that in the US now, for soy in Brazil, and recently Australia is targeted as well for monopoly by controlling access to seeds.
http://o2wa.blogspot.com/2010/08/wa-government-partners-with-monsanto.html
Make no mistake, this is all planned. And may I add that it was all predicted by those "naive activists".
It now happened in the US with the GM sugar beet. A judge recently decided the FDA wrongfully allowed a GM sugar beet, as the Environmentally Assessment Report was non-existing. So the judge revoked the admission, now the farmers are looking for GE-free sugar beet seed and cannot get enough. (Note that the FDA poops on the judge)
http://bit.ly/duVSFq describes this and shows you a diagram of what happened to the seed market 1996-2008.
Another thing about free choice for seeds: look up the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who kept his own canola seed stock which got contaminated with patented genes (Schmeiser claims that this happened by accident, which is easily possible). Suddenly his seeds where Monsanto's. Maybe you remember the many headlines, at least here in Europe, in the nineties about 'Patents on Life'. Well this is one of the more famous results.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 8:15 PM
Why didn't they? Of course, ignoring the biggest peasants' organization for 37 years might seem odd, but no problem.
We've been perfectly specific. You've been perfectly repulsive. Are you denying the EPA and OSHA assessments and regulations with regard to the handling of thiram (for example), arguing that the biofuckified spin is accurate, or saying that poisonings are trivial to you?
Oh - that's right. The last.
Posted by: arakrys
|
November 13, 2010 8:17 PM
Midnight Rambler, Wayward Son and Ichtyic, please hang around, my response to your responses probably contained too many links and is pending approval.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 8:30 PM
They have figured that out, you imperialist shmuckwad.
I nominate ObnoxiousLyinMan to handle, without protective gear, all such fungicide-treated seeds on all farms in Haiti.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 13, 2010 8:44 PM
I am not knowledgeable in these matters, so I have little to add, other than a link to this petition from the Bassin Zim Educational Development Fund and one to the Monsanto press release.
--
(As an aside, I have no idea how the "significantly reduced price" available to farmers to purchase this donated seed compares to the cost of non-Monsanto seed).
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 8:59 PM
John, out of curiosity and having nothing to do with the matter at hand - in what army do you think you would have fought in the Spanish Civil War?
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 13, 2010 9:45 PM
[OT]
SC, hm.
Sorry, can't give you a genuine answer; I wish I could. I'd have to have been there.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 10:28 PM
HAITIANS HAVE FUCKING SEEDS AND EXPERTISE
No they don't.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 10:36 PM
Speaks for itself.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 10:56 PM
SC,
Thiram is an ectoparasiticide. It is used to prevent fungal diseases in seed and crops. It is also used as an animal repellent to protect fruit trees and ornamentals from damage by rabbits, rodents and deer. It is effective against Stem gall of coriander, damping off, smut of millet, neck rot of onion, etc. Thiram has been used in the treatment of human scabies, as a sun screen and as a bactericide applied directly to the skin or incorporated into soap.
Thiram is nearly immobile in clay soils or in soils of high organic matter. It is not expected to contaminate groundwater because of its in-soil half life of 15 days and tendency to stick to soil particles.
Wow, it might be a fraction as persistant as caffeine!
I'm shaking in my boots lest somebody plant thiram-treated seeds in my country: what would happen to all of the ectoparasites like you?
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 13, 2010 11:12 PM
EPA RED Fact Sheet (11 pp, 163 KB, PDF) for Thiram.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 11:15 PM
SC,
Do you have pictures (or preferably videos) of seeds fucking?
Maybe you were thinking of this:
http://www.w3bbo.com/forums/Goatse-Original_Ring.jpg
Love and sloppy kisses, OGM.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 11:17 PM
Again: Are you denying the EPA and OSHA assessments and regulations with regard to the handling of Thiram?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
November 13, 2010 11:17 PM
classy
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 13, 2010 11:55 PM
SC,
Here is an even BIGGER worry than thiram, or even the deadly ascorbate: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
LOOK at the MSDS, and they're right now trying to pipe this to Port-au-Prince!!!!!111!!:
http://www.dhmo.org/msdsdhmo.html
Oh, the humanity!
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 13, 2010 11:57 PM
Wow. Spinout.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 12:36 AM
Tragically, OGM's is a perverse joke.
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2010/10/background-to-cholera-outbreak-in-haiti.html
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 12:57 AM
Yeah. They had the hubris to try to bring DHMO COMPLETELY DEVOID of microorganisms right into the Capital. REAL Haitians LIKE some Vibrio with their water!
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 1:09 AM
Incredible. Scum.
***
Can you answer my question @ #212?
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 14, 2010 1:28 AM
I think that the introduction of F1 hybrid seeds about 50 years ago did in the saving of own seeds; if you used the seed company's product with its bigger, sturdier, more uniform plants, you couldn't use their seeds, the F2 generation, because half the seeds revert to one or the other parent and only half are the improved version. So you had a choice of growing the local variety or the fancy store-bought version. Almost all farmers went for the reliable F1's. Anywhere that people CAN'T afford to buy seed, they can go on using the locally grown, true-breeding varieties.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 14, 2010 1:29 AM
Agriculture itself is the most destructive of humanity's usual occupations, disrupting the ecologies of vast tracts of land.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 1:31 AM
SC,
Can you answer my question about whether pure DHMO should be allowed in Port-au-Prince?
As far as thiram (http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/TH/thiram.html), it seems a bit silly to require such precautions for a material used as a sunscreen, to get rid of ectoparasites like you and to treat fungal infections.
Still, you can never be too careful. I mean, what if there were an accidental spill of DHMO or something similar? How would we survive without moon-suits? I mean, what about THIS stuff "S3338": The protective equipment for handling it is just like for thiram, so it nust be the same toxicity, the same POISON, but nobody takes it seriously! "Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES; LAB COAT; PROPER GLOVES": http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s3338.htm
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 1:39 AM
OGM:
From the link you've provided:
--- begin quote ---
Toxicology
Toxic by inhalation, through skin contact or if swallowed. Skin, eye and respiratory irritant. Possible mutagen. Possible teratogen. May cause damage to CNS. May cause sensitization.
Toxicity data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
ORL-RAT LD50 560 mg kg-1
SKN-RBT LD50 > 5000 mg kg-1
Risk phrases
(The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
R23 R24 R25 R36 R37 R40 R43 R50 R53.
Hazard statements
H302 H315 H317 H319 H332 H373 H410.
Environmental information
Very toxic to aquatic organisms - may cause long-term environmental damage.
Transport information
(The meaning of any UN hazard codes which appear in this section is given here.)
UN No 4033. Hazard class 9. Packing group III.
Personal protection
Safety glasses, gloves, adequate ventilation.
Safety phrases
(The meaning of any safety phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
S2 S26 S36 S37 S60 S61.
--- begin quote ---
Me, I'd not be keen on using a substance known to be toxic via skin contact as a sunscreen.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 1:41 AM
I'll let your post stand.
I hope there're at least one or two people who'll read this thread and see through the corporate lies. I know there are.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 2:07 AM
John,
OK, so s3338 has LD50 of 3000 instead of 560 for thiram, so thiram is ~5.4 times as toxic, less toxic than many spices. Curiously, according to the DHMO sheets (W0600 has LD50 of >90), DHMO, which causes so many deaths a year that all the other poisons are just amateurs, is only 16% as toxic as s3338.
Remember though, if you are going to handle s3338, the MSDS recommends "Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES; LAB COAT; PROPER GLOVES" and warns
"Skin Contact:
May irritate damaged skin; absorption can occur with effects similar to those via ingestion."
s3338 is salt.
People overreact to descriptions of worst-case scenarios.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 2:21 AM
Monado,
I agree with you. Unfortunately, you make me feel more injured than all the silly insults I've been receiving, because that's what I do: convert land from wild to un-wild. I'd like to see it done minimally; that requires that agriculture be efficient. So I work to increase efficiency.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 2:57 AM
#212?
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 2:57 AM
OGM, the LD50 is used as a measure of acute toxicity in regards to mortality, and it's based on testing on rats.
Something need not kill you to make you unwell, and to possibly harm your future offspring.
--
As an aside, I find it interesting you have cited a different site to that which you used for thiram.
--- begin quote ---
Toxicology
May cause eye irritation.
Toxicity data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
ORL-RAT LD50 3000 mg kg-1
ORL-MAN LDLO 1000 mg kg-1
ORL-MUS LD50 4000 mg kg-1
IPR-MUS LD50 2602 mg kg-1
ICV-MUS LD50 131 mg kg-1
SKN-RBT LD50 > 10000 mg kg-1
Irritation data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
SKN-RBT 50 mg/24h mld
Risk phrases
(The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
R36.
Personal protection
Not believed to present a significant hazard to health.
Safety phrases
(The meaning of any safety phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
S26 S36.
--- end quote ---
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 3:14 AM
So...you have nothing other than a joke?
#212?
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 3:31 AM
SC, since you insist, I will address your contention that US law should apply to Haiti, superseding their own laws, and establishing US control over the formerly soverign nation of Haiti. If your claims are accepted, you can expect that the President will call you any moment offering you a position as Agriculture Secretary. What did Mr Gué ever do, anyway? http://haitirewired.wired.com/profiles/blogs/haiti-agriculture-grants-fromPosted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 3:37 AM
OGM, your #229 is evasive, inasmuch as you've not answered the question asked.
A simple yes or no would suffice.
(I think that your evasiveness indicates you wish to avoid answering 'yes', and realise that answering 'no' vitiates that portion of your argument.)
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 3:52 AM
SC,
Once you are in control of the agriculture of Haiti, you can immediately institute a "Workers' Paradise" where all agriculture will be efficient, productive and economical, based on exclusively indigenous varieties with no impurities from biotechnology, hybridization, genetic modification, selection, fertilizer, fungicides, insecticides, acaricides, or such unnatural practices as controlled pollenization, fertilization, irrigation or any other artificial imperialist imposition on the inherent perfection of nature. The people will worship and adore you, and you will lead them into the new world where technology, science, industry and agriculture are forgotten concepts, where the Eloi have the perfect society.
Congratulations on your inevitable triumph
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 3:59 AM
OGM, you should be aware that SC is an anarchist when composing your intended gibes, so they don't fail quite so much.
Also, your content-free evasiveness is noted.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 4:03 AM
John,
Unless you believe that US law applies to Haiti, then a question of whether US EPA and OSHA rules should be enforced there is rather embarassingly silly. I personally think the US rules regarding water, salt, soap, alum, borax, IPA, NH4SO4, baking soda, thiram, etc. are silly and irrelevant to whether 1) biotechnology can be used within the context of sustainable agriculture, and 2) Whether Haitian farmers should be prevented from accepting free agricultural aid.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 4:09 AM
John,
I'm playing a game, and lots of people are laughing. I have tried to make it more accessible by marking the quotes or using obvious references. Google "Eloi," would you, old bean?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 14, 2010 4:13 AM
the people in your head don't count.Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 14, 2010 4:16 AM
I have a couple of minor points to make around the whole Haitian seed donation - SC is painting the situation as if Monsanto just up and decided to dump (to paraphrase SC) seed onto Haiti without consulting anyone - this isn't an accurate reflection of what went on - Monsanto consulted the Haitian ministry of agriculture on how best to go ahead with the donation thus including the Haitian people rather than simply imposing a donation from above.
As far as I am aware the pricing is in line with other seed prices - the idea being that the seed be allocated to seed distributers and sold via them so that a donation of seed doesn't wipe out the distribution framework (which is always a risk with donated food/seed etc)
On Thiram - not mentioned yet but I find it somewhat odd that gloves are required for use, given that most gloves are latex, and thiram is used in latex... which is suspected to be the cause of latex allergies - toxicologically I don't see it as a vast threat (or even a small threat - LDLO 1000 mg/kg for man seems to me to be a very minor threat indeed - average human weighs what 50-80kg? So you'd have to ingest 50-80g of Thiram for a lethal effect, or inject a significant amount for muscular effects, or essentially bathe in the stuff for a toxic effect on the skin - all of this is also highly dependant on the actual dosage one might be exposed to - given current limited time the first thiram link I came across was for Thiram 600, a seed treatment that contains 600g/L - used as per the label here I find it kinda hard to believe any individual farmer would be likely to suffer adverse effects given that you're directed to use 1.7-4L per tonne of seed, which would equate to 2.4kg thiram per tonne in a worst case scenario (assuming all the product adsorbs to the seed) which I think equates to about a gram per kg of seed (so to hit minimal levels which have caused a fatality you'd have to consume 50-80kg of treated seed which seems unlikely).
Toxicology being what it is you really need to consider the actual amounts you're likely to be exposed to aswell as the ratings of 'low, medium high toxicity' because otherwise you jump to irrational conclusions (ie that this is toxic seed)
Although the above is using an example I grabbed due to relatively limited time - the numbers could be marginally higher or lower for the seed treatment on Monsanto's seed, although I find it unlikely that this would be an order of magnitude in either direction
Something one would assume the Haitian ministry of agriculture would have assessed, particularly as it appears from a brief google search that previously Haiti had rejected donations of seed for similar reasons (something about herbicide in/on seed)
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 14, 2010 4:22 AM
Oh and 2 things which are less likely to be savaged viciously by SC.
1. To assuage SCs fears on Monsanto employee contributions - these did not go towards the seed, nor was the cost met by the monsanto match - it was entirely seperate.
2. OGM - even though ostensibly I'd be assumed to be on your side rather than laughing I'm cringing somewhat. You could just come out and say that yes the EPA and OSHA guidelines do require the use of PPE rather than dancing about on the matter - whether these guidelines are overly cautious or not is a different matter entirely as to whether the guidelines exist in the first place or are applicable to other nations (and frankly most EPA and OSHA guidelines, regardless of how cautious, would be a great thing for nations who don't have standards quite so high to adopt - its all well and good laughing at measures for worker protection when you're covered under their umbrella already)
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 14, 2010 4:27 AM
the Haitian ministry of agriculture is not the Haitian people. Considering that the government the Haitian people want keeps on being taken away from them violently by the US and France, claiming that the actually existing Haitian government speaks for the Haitian people is about as coherent as saying the Iranian Shah, or Saddam, or Sosa or any other puppet-government is/was speaking for the people of the countries they rule.the Haitian people spoke for themselves; they were not consulted originally, and they rejected your precious gift quite loudly and vigorously.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 14, 2010 4:29 AM
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 4:43 AM
OGM:
I refer you to what Ewan wrote.
You're new here, I guess.
Did you seriously think that was an obscure allusion?
--
PS Appeal to Lurkers is a common last resort for those who are losing an argument.
We're pretty familiar with that particular rhetorical tactic.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 4:55 AM
Ewan, your points regarding the toxicity of Thiram are noted; clearly, those guidelines are precautionary and intended for workers who may be in regular contact with the product on a regular basis for long periods.
(The issue of synergy with other toxic substances workers may be exposed to is possibly another consideration, but I'm speculating here. I'm not knowledgeable on this issue.)
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 5:16 AM
Ewan R,
Personally, I have to say you are an ass, for various reasons, but I also think that many of your positions are right, and I seriously resent and react to mischaracterizations and misrepresentations regardless of whom they are directed against.
I actually work for a famous company against which many people hold grudges. I have to watch who's present when I reveal where I work. Meanwhile, my employer is a leader in %salaries converted to charity. I am sorry if it offends SC that some of that may have gone to Haiti.
I won't prevaricate: I think the EPA/OSHA/etc rules on substances are stupid, overprotective and counterproductive. SC thinks that the fact that a substance has an MSDS at all PROVES that it is so dangerous that it needs a package warning, which proves it needs a bottle warning, which proves it needs a special-handling warning, which proves it needs an isolation warning, which proves it needs a special lab, and so on. Hysterics in motion.
As I pointed-out SALT, yes, TABLE SALT, has the official requirement of GOGGLES; LAB COAT; PROPER GLOVES. 'Kinda interferes with a regular post-coital "get to know you" breakfast if you know what I mean.....
Since they don't apply outside the US, and many of them are silly anyway, why should I believe recommend or accept that they apply in Haiti? Personally, I think it's more important that the children get fed than that form 28(b)/Z-56(c) gets filled-out properly.
BTW, was I right on Zea genetics? It's been a while.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 5:23 AM
John,
I'm not alone here. When I say "I have tried to make it more accessible by marking the quotes or using obvious references," that's exactly what I mean.
Besides, how ist that relevant to whether 1) biotechnology can be used within the context of sustainable agriculture, and 2) Whether Haitian farmers should be prevented from accepting free agricultural aid.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 5:26 AM
OGM:
Do you work with any of these substances, yourself?
If so, do you ignore these guidelines, in accordance with your belief?
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 5:36 AM
OGM:
I take it you refer to my response to your claim that "I'm playing a game, and lots of people are laughing."
I see no evidence of this on this thread. Care to adduce some?
I responded to your comment, so it has as much relevance as that comment to which I responded did.
Nonetheless, I'm on record as opining that (1) is a true statement, and in regards to (2) I have yet to see convincing evidence that any Haitian farmers have been prevented from accepting free agricultural aid.
--
I'm pretty sure that if cold hard cash had been offered, this whole issue would have been moot.
Why did not Monsanto do just that, and why, if it truly wishes to help, does it not now (given the furore over its previous offer)?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 14, 2010 5:38 AM
OrchidGrowinMan #242
I'd like a reference to the OSHA rules on salt. My company does a lot of food service and, while we have a fair number of MSDSs for detergents, sanitizers, etc, I've never seen one on salt or any other substance which is eaten. Please give me a link to the MSDS on salt.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 5:41 AM
John,
Yes, I regularly use several MSDS substances, including the ones I quoted that are so so scary:
Water
Salt
Sand
Thiram
IPA
Acetone
HCl
HNO3
NaOH
KOH
LiOH
LiAlH4
AgNO3
Na2S203
and many others. These all have pretty much the same warnings, which is silly, and has no bearing on the actual threats posed by the substances. Neither does it bear on whether 1) biotechnology can be used within the context of sustainable agriculture, or 2) Whether Haitian farmers should be prevented from accepting free agricultural aid.
o
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 14, 2010 5:47 AM
Never mind, I found the MSDS on salt.
Hazards Identification
Emergency Overview
--------------------------
WARNING! CAUSES EYE IRRITATION.
SAF-T-DATA(tm) Ratings (Provided here for your convenience)
-------------------------------------------------
Health Rating: 1 - Slight
Flammability Rating: 0 - None
Reactivity Rating: 0 - None
Contact Rating: 1 - Slight
Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES; LAB COAT; PROPER GLOVES
Storage Color Code: Green (General Storage)
-------------------------------------------------
In other words, the LAB protective equipment is googles, lab coat and gloves. Food workers and other users are not required to suit up to sprinkle salt in their soup.
Shabby, OrchidGrowinMan, very shabby.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
November 14, 2010 5:49 AM
'Tis:
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s3338.htm
There's also this:
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 14, 2010 5:51 AM
they have prevented themselves from it. in regular English, that's called rejecting something.Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 5:59 AM
OGM, I note you've evaded answering the second part of my question. I'm pretty sure you use PPE when dealing with hydrogen chloride, for example. :)
--
Regarding your querulous raising of (1) and (2), the former is not at issue and the latter relies on your claim that the Government and corporations think it's a good thing, and the peasants' association doesn't, which means that the peasants are, um, preventing themselves from accepting this aid!
Have you forgotten already that one of the reasons they gave is that the seed had been treated with toxic pesticides?
You dispute the degree of toxicity, but it's not me you have to convince that such is a non-issue, but those who are doing the rejecting.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 6:03 AM
[meta]
Oops Jadehawk, didn't see yours before I posted mine. But it seems so obvious, doesn't it? :)
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 6:06 AM
John,
There are people physically here, whom I keep up-to-date on the decisions as to what the fate is to be of Haiti.
Monsanto apparently had seeds and expertise available, and maybe offered those thinking those would be the most valuable thing they could offer. Do you think they should be punished (fined, prosecuted, etc) for making such EVIL offers?If they offered money now, it's pretty clear it would be rejected as "Imperialist Aggression", as would the contributions from my company. So I have directed the office to stop disbursements for Haiti as soon as the current round is complete. There are plenty of places needing help, and it's important that the money be spent efficiently.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 14, 2010 6:38 AM
OGM:
So you can't adduce evidence, other than that I should believe your claim.
I withhold judgement on the matter, but as I noted, it's a common claim, and the priors are all against your claim.
1. But they didn't ask the recipients of the aid themselves, but rather the government. Which is one of the things SC pointed out.
2. Of course not.
Really? You seriously think that acknowledging their initial offer was unwanted and offering no-strings-attached cash would be rejected?
I disbelieve you (in every sense).
This is true.
However, there has been no money offer in the instance under discussion, has there? :)
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 6:58 AM
John, John, John,
Every day I process 7-10 litres of HCl solution without any sort of special clothing, without reading the MSDS, and without any problems. Likewise I process hundreds of litres of acetone solution, and various other substances. Then I get out of bed.
Seriously though, handling HCl H2SO4 and HNO3 is, for many people like me, both safe and free from silly gits trying to make you wear special clothing. Did you never use lye to unstop a drain at home? Do you know the rigamarole you have to go through at work to do the same thing? What about bleaching the lab coats at the laundromat? I'm pretty sure I freak-out the proprietors when I show-up with a face-mask and plastic suit to do one load. If I suited-up to use the Windex, everybody would laugh at me.
And the "peasants' association" .... that's representative of the local farmers like... the mehdi army in Iraq, right? Or the Cosa Nostra, or maybe Gen. Forrest's group that I mentioned before. When their leader says that the seed offered is GMO and Poison, deadly poison that instantly kills anyone who even thinks about planting those seeds: you'd BETTER believe it!
Oh and 'Tis Himself,
If ppl are going to cite the handling requirements worst case, to "prove" the hazardousness of a substance, doesn't it make sense to compare apples-to-apples?
_I_ am not very scared of salt. If I can explain the hazards of other substances in a meaningful way with "salt" as a reference, that would be a GOOD thing, right?
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 7:05 AM
John, John, John,
Every day I process 7-10 litres of HCl solution without any sort of special clothing, without reading the MSDS, and without any problems. Likewise I process hundreds of litres of acetone solution, and various other substances. Then I get out of bed.
Seriously though, handling HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 is, for many people like me, both safe and free from silly gits trying to make you wear special clothing. Did you never use lye to unstop a drain at home? Do you know the rigamarole you have to go through at work to do the same thing? What about bleaching the lab coats at the laundromat? I'm pretty sure I freak-out the proprietors when I show-up with a face-mask and plastic suit to do one load of stained laundry. If I suited-up to use the Windex, everybody would laugh at me.
And the "peasants' association" .... that's representative of the local farmers like... the mehdi army in Iraq, right? Or the Cosa Nostra. When their leader says (loudly) that the seed offered is GMO and Poison, deadly poison that instantly kills anyone who even thinks about planting those seeds: you'd BETTER believe it!
Oh and 'Tis Himself,
If ppl are going to cite the handling requirements worst case, to "prove" the hazardousness of a substance, doesn't it make sense to compare apples-to-apples?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 14, 2010 7:15 AM
that's just awesome.
his company? fucking saints, trying to save poor haitians, whether they want to or not.
the largest Haitian peasant association, made up of the very people to whom this "gift" was supposed to go? well, they're terrorists and/or the Mafia.
I conclude from this that your organization (and monsanto) was trying to fund terrorists and/or the Mafia by giving them free supplies.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 14, 2010 8:54 AM
If I was loading a 100 ton rail hopper with salt from an overhead tower then you'd better believe I'd be wearing protective clothing. If you weren't stupid you'd do exactly the same thing. For you to pretend OSHA requires a diner wear goggles and gloves to sprinkle salt on her baked potato is ludicrous. That's what you were doing. So don't prattle to me about apples-to-apples. You're the one stretching the point, not me.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 14, 2010 9:09 AM
Here's how coal gets loaded into rail cars. Mined salt is loaded the same way.
Here's the MSDS on pine sawdust. You'd figure "sawdust is about as harmless a thing as possible." Or you'd figure that if you were an idiot.
Back in the bad old days, before automated machinery, logs were cut into planks in saw pits. Two men using very large buck saws would cut each plank. Hard, back-breaking work. But the guy in the bottom of the pit had an addition problem. This was before the concept of eye protection became fashionable and he'd get sawdust in his eyes. It usually took about a year for a bottom sawyer to become blind.
No, asshole, those MSDSs for "innocuous" materials aren't the bureaucratic stupidities you like to think they are.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
November 14, 2010 10:01 AM
You must be very large indeed.
Look, the rules are to wear (minimal) protective clothing--cotton labcoat, eyeshield, gloves--when handling any chemical at all in a laboratory situation. But that's simply common sense, really. Sticking that in the MSDS for salt is just boilerplate--boilerplate with justification.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 10:54 AM
I think you're making an unwarranted assumption. I don't read "chemical resistant gloves" as latex gloves.
***
OGM is a horror. I would enjoy watching him display his ignorance, moral bankruptcy, utter contempt for Haitians, and profound dishonesty (the response @ #217 is just one astounding example) if it didn't make me sick to my stomach.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 14, 2010 1:16 PM
Win.
OGM, do you pipet with your mouth?
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 14, 2010 1:48 PM
Well some groups did, I'm not sure the seed donation was entirely rejected - the WINNER program appears to be reporting a degree of success so I'd have to assume that donated seed played some role in this here
from the article I'm assuming that at least some Haitian farmers are for using the seed
Clearly Jean-Baptiste doesn't speak for all Haitian farmers.
75% increases in productivity seem like a good thing to me, particularly for a country that is in the red to the tune of $500M p/a on food alone (again if memory serves) - imo farmers should have the choice as to whether or not to use the seed, rather than not having the option. I would however be interested to see if there was more data around the exact seeds used etc and the success thereof (If I remember I'll see what tainted info I can garner from our PR folk on Monday)
I'm glad you've found some common ground with SC, I'm personally torn between noting your concern and making reference to pots and kettles - I will cogitate on this somewhat and get back to you.
And you're happy saying that living and working in conditions where those rules offer you a protection sadly lacking from people in other nations - I stand by the assertion that in countries where the rules are more lax than OSHA and EPA rules people would be well served having these rules adopted (they may not be perfect but they're better than nothing)
Keep in mind that even after the donation farmers are completely at liberty to accept it or not - they still have to buy the seed from dealers (done this way so as to not collapse the infrastructure which provides agricultural services which would be a very real risk if you just handed everyone free seed)
Really? I wish I had the bravery you do then. Here I am working for world reknowned humanitarian non-profit organization Monsanto and using my actual name, I'm pretty much convinced that fear of retaliation for this is as unfounded as fear of fungicides on seeds.Posted by: Tmax01
|
November 14, 2010 1:49 PM
I don't care how ignorant they may be, they are still less dangerous in their certainty than the "let's experiment with our ecosystem in ways we barely understand" side you represent, PZ. It doesn't matter how wacky they are, it doesn't matter how many scientific articles you use, you are naively helping the corporatist plunderers (which is where all the danger of the technology comes from, not the scientific principles of genetic modification.) The more certain you are that there could not possibly be any unintended consequences, the more useless your certainty becomes, the more scientific your assurances become, the less impressive your science is. I will repeat, this is not like the black holes at LHC. This is more like if you were demanding that everyone carry black holes around with them. You are so sure of yourself you're willing to mandate your approach for everyone else on the planet. We're used to seeing that from the other side.
You cannot discredit anti-GMers by pointing to the anti-GM wackos and whatever random fallacies they believe, Professor. If you think there is any scientific information anywhere that provides evidence that GM food couldn't possibly ever cause massive problems in some way or other, then you are mistaken. Your failure of imagination is not a point in favor of your position.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 2:27 PM
A lot of farm work in Haiti is done by women (this of course includes women who are pregnant or nursing) and children.
The WINNER program is am arm of the US State Department run (AFAICT) in Haiti by a criminal. US corporations and the US government have one interest, their own, which has been clearly expressed in their actions for the past several decades. I wouldn't believe a word of their spin (which in this case gives no citations or details), and would also note that such programs work via shutting out or making difficult other options. That is the goal of US policy - to make it preferable to choose dependency-fostering (and self-serving to the US and its corporations) courses of action. And even then, they've been remarkably unsuccessful.
Farmers and all affected people should have the right to set their agricultural policy. This right has clearly been denied them in Haiti. They should also have the right to prevent some farmers from "selecting" options that can affect them (as even the asshole at biofuckified acknowledges). By the way, your (correct) contention that "people would be well served having these rules adopted" appears to have vanished. Do you have evidence that these alleged farmers, if they did use those seeds, were provided with adequate information/protection/training?
That's why labor organizations have been fighting for centuries for the right to choose toxic and other dangerous working conditions. People want to be freed from such burdensome "protections."
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
November 14, 2010 2:34 PM
Material-handling safety rules are meant to reduce injuries and deaths. For these to be "counterproductive" they would have to be increasing injuries and deaths instead.
I guess you meant "inconvenient" or "nibble slightly at profits" instead?
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 2:41 PM
FFS, the US government, when the Haitian president didn't go along with them completely, fomented and funded violent opposition and then KIDNAPPED HIM. Could anything be a clearer indication that Haitians are denied sovereign choice, and that any "choices" made are within a terror set?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 14, 2010 2:46 PM
I think you're making an unwarranted assumption. I don't read "chemical resistant gloves" as latex gloves.
and a good thing, too!
...it would be like making the claim that paper bags are water resistant.
did someone actually say that latex gloves are used when chemical resistance is needed?
oh wait, this is all OGM, right?
*sigh*
OGM:
Seriously though, handling HCl, H2SO4 and HNO3 is, for many people like me, both safe and free from silly gits trying to make you wear special clothing.
uh huh.
what's the molal conc. of those?
I'd like to see you wash your hands with 2M sulphuric acid sometime.
that would be a gas.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 3:07 PM
SC:
Obviously you don't understand sarcasm: you were all up in it catastrophizing about some substance or another, and I showed you the sites that tongue-in-cheek catastrophize about DHMO. The remark at 217 was an attempt to get you to realize that DHMO is WATER.
I have been supporting and paying attention to efforts to get clean water into the Capital, lest water-borne diseases start spreading, but it looks like it's too late.
Sven, no, I'm counting the total recirculated fluid. I was pipetting by mouth last night, and I'm afraid I overdid it: now the process solution is apparently WAY off-spec, and probably more dangerously toxic than usual.And the lab-coat, MSDS and such is all tangential. When I found out SC was hinging her accusations of "Giant Multinationals POISONING Haiti" on a few grams of THIRAM(!) I couldn't stand it. Thiram-treated seeds are very common, and many if not most seeds sold at the grocery store are among them. (Or were, I think it's withdrawn from some such uses recently.)
I'm wondering though: what if we had a big disaster here in the USA, and the Haitian corporations, people and government tried to come to our aid? Whom would they work through? I mean, if in the present crisis, our working through the Haitian government instead of Jean-Baptiste-whoever was such a big mistake, insulting to the local Power who demands respect, then how can such a mistake be avoided? I mean, if you just ask "who's in charge here?" I'm not sure you'll get a useful answer, especially where there are pre-existing power struggles you have no reason to be aware of, and no interest in, like in Somalia. Since going through the government isn't the right way, then how to choose? Should they talk to different people about different issues, establish a whole bunch of separate channels for aid? I suppose they could go through the Rodale Institute for Ag aid, Salvation Army (of course) for clothing and hand-bell aid, Montana Militia for Security, American Chiropractic Association for medical aid (or should that be the Scientologists?), etc. I mean, if the Haitians just rushed over with the things they could pull-together and offered whatever they had without doing research, developing relationships and showing deference to the local power-brokers, getting permission for what they bring-in, that would be TERRIBLE wouldn’t it? What if they brought-in buckets of seeds inappropriate for Iowa: we’d have a Big Problem!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 14, 2010 3:17 PM
Obviously you don't understand sarcasm: you were all up in it catastrophizing about some substance or another, and I showed you the sites that tongue-in-cheek catastrophize about DHMO. The remark at 217 was an attempt to get you to realize that DHMO is WATER.
uh, you must have missed #228.
here, let me repeat it for you:
yeah, because none of us have ever heard that joke before.
OTOH, I would admit to not having heard it since I was in middle school.
It was pretty weak even then.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 3:30 PM
#216 pointed you to a report suggesting:
The only thing I'm unsure about is the proportion wrongness due to idiocy and that due to intentional dishonesty.
Let's see... You want to help Haitian agriculture. I think you would start with the largest organizations of Haitian farmers.
If you distrust major organizations within the country, then donate to PIH or the Red Cross.
[citation needed]
When is recently? Withdrawn why? Your point is...?
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 3:42 PM
Yes.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 14, 2010 3:44 PM
When is recently? Withdrawn why? Your point is...?
lemmee guess...
recently = when us treehuggers got all uppity
why = for no other reason than to placate treehuggers
point is = treehuggers is teh bad for everyone!
that about right, OGM?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 14, 2010 3:44 PM
By that measure, every introduction of a new conventionally bred variety is an "experiment with our ecosystem in ways we barely understand".
The real new danger lies elsewhere: in the development of corporation-specific varieties. Roundup Ready® corn by Monsanto and the herbicide Roundup® by Monsanto go together, for instance. Add to this that you can't save seeds, you have to buy new ones every year, and you get farmers dependent on a corporation.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 3:47 PM
Ichythic,
Generally I use 0.01M test solutions in
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 3:48 PM
Monsanto's profits (in hundreds of millions)? Cost of this "gift"?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 14, 2010 3:50 PM
Generally I use 0.01M test solutions in
which, of course, explains why you remain unconcerned.
OSHA's safety regs are for people even dumber than yourself, that simply can't tell the difference between .01M and 1M.
seriously.
you, of course, would have them make exception for your genius.
laws and regs simply don't work that way, or hadn't you noticed?
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 3:59 PM
No, they're for people who don't give a fuck about their employees' safety.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 4:15 PM
Barely understand?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 14, 2010 4:20 PM
I've been the keeper of the MSDS binders (4 X 3") for my department for about 10 years now. We get yearly safety training on the handling of hazardous materials, which pretty much means everything we do handle with very minor exceptions. Only non-toxics like sugars, some salts, water, and very dilute solution like OGM use can be handled outside of fume hoods. Given his attitude, I smell liberturd. Oh, and I realized what DHMO and "salt" was the first time it was mentioned, and never considered it funny, just pathetic. Some of us are really trained in chemistry...
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 4:29 PM
So did I. That was the point of #216.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 14, 2010 5:39 PM
nobody didn't get that old joke. OGM is just pissy because nobody responded to it in the way he wanted. #269 is such a pathetic example of "why didn't you laugh at my joke? here, let me explain how it's funny".
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 5:41 PM
Ichythic,
I'm really surprized that you, of all people, would make such unjustified and completely off-base assumptions. My respect for you has taken a big hit.
You would be very surprized just how far you are from the truth, and that whole "treehugger" comment trying to imply that I would use dismissive and derogatory terms like that would be easy to dismiss as the jibe of a backwoods uneducated fool.
As a Botanist, I am quite likely more aware than almost anyone here about the necessity of better stewardship of our environment than we hitherto have practiced, but I also understand a lot of topics that my fellow environmentalists often do not, like risk assessment, economic analysis, chemistry and biology, agricultural science and quite a bit of farming practices (within a limited area). I also teach classes at the local and long-established Organic Gardening association, and for various of the local horticultural special-interest groups, and occasionally at the local university.
And the whole silly dustup over my being "opposed to any regulation at all," and a "libturd" also are unjustifiable extrapolations. I was at one point trying to point-out that you shouldn't panic just because a substance has an MSDS that calls for protective clothing: the first one I found for NaCl does not qualify its recommendation of PPE by saying "laboratory use."
In fact, there are a great number of instances when a strict reading and application of MSDS or other restrictions is just silly, like donning PPE before using vinegar to remove a hard-water stain or kill some Marchantia, or before using reference and storage solutions for pH probes and such, or using proprietary cleaning products at the laundromat. The comments way up above that got people so upset (acetone and HCl) were extreme examples of silliness: when I say “I’m going to use an HCl solution to extract the nutrients from this cookie, and I’m not going to put on goggles first” what you would actually observe is that I will put it in my mouth, chew and swallow. And I happen to have a bit of acetone floating through my bloodstream, like most people.
As for whether, when and why thiram use on consumer seeds has changed, frankly I don’t care. If you’re so interested YOU look it up. Thiram is really of no concern to me: it has a short soil half-life, and a lot less toxicity than many other things I am more worried about; I really can’t be bothered. Juglone is a bigger problem!
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 14, 2010 5:47 PM
that's because everyone here is a high-school dropout. Or, at best, a Fachidiot. None of the posters here are nearly as well-rounded, knowledgeable, and accomplished as you.of course.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 14, 2010 5:48 PM
derogatory terms like that would be easy to dismiss as the jibe of a backwoods uneducated fool.
then you might want to rethink how you are handling yourself in this thread, because there aren't any other scientists, myself included, that would consider my mocking appraisal of your "likely" response to be out of line with what you have posted so far.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 6:03 PM
I have to wonder if there's anyone at all at this point with a shred of respect left for this dishonest assclam.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 14, 2010 6:05 PM
Don't worry OGM, a mere botanist like you doesn't even get our attention. Much less your inane opinions about other scientific subjects. What makes you think there aren't any scientists in other disciplines here? What makes you think your ignorance on why certain safety factors have been put into place are justified? Not making a very good impression this thread, you are...
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 14, 2010 6:06 PM
Exaggeration that I quoted because how far exaggerated it is isn't relevant to my point.
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 6:13 PM
Jadehawk,
Don't be dense: There ARE "environmentalists" outside this forum, and I actually KNOW some of them. Once, I even talked to a GIRL!
And the original references to DHMO and Salt were not intended to be jokes at all, but insults to SC's exciteability. Imagine my mortification when she actually took them SERIOUSLY! I don't really like to make people look that foolish.
Posted by: echidna
|
November 14, 2010 6:22 PM
OGM: another person educated beyond his ability to think.
Posted by: lordsetar
|
November 14, 2010 6:32 PM
OGM, your use of 0.01 mol/L concentrations without safety equipment doesn't magically make OSHA regulations wrong. Or haven't you ever heard the phrase "the dose makes the poison"?
I think you'd change your tune pretty damn quick if you had to handle, say, 6M NaOH without gloves.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 14, 2010 6:33 PM
The roundup ready trait may be owned by Monsanto but roundup ready corn can come from any seed producer who licenses the trait (which includes all the major competitors aswell as many minor players), and it goes together with any glyphosate herbicide, not just roundup.Having to buy seeds every year is no new thing to anyone who utilizes hybrids, the option remains to save your own seeds if you wish - and the choice of seeds that you buy are, as stated above, from any number of other corporations - currently if you want to plant a RR crop then yes, you're beholden unto Monsanto for the availability of the trait (but can get the seed from anyone, and the herbicide from anyone also) - and this situation will go away in the next decade as the first generation of RR traits go off patent (Soy first, then I believe cotton then corn (if I remember my history right))
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 14, 2010 6:37 PM
none of whom you're talking to at the moment, so your precious moment of attempted bragging didn't quite work. you think she took it seriously? OMFG, you're a moron. what she took seriously is your ability to crack jokes at the expense of dying people.Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan
|
November 14, 2010 7:06 PM
Jadehawk,
I SAID, don't be dense! Nobody's dying from thiram! And the MSDS for water might be a joke, but has little to do with the current Vibrio outbreak.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 14, 2010 8:59 PM
oh yeah. i'm the one being dense. [/sarcasm]
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 9:09 PM
? My post was about the relative extent of understanding.
This is not the world Haitian farmers want to live in, and for very good reason. Try reading what they've said about local seeds and seed banks.
Again - extreme stupidity or conscious dishonesty?
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 11:10 PM
That would be because the US government (including USAID), beginning in the 1980s, forced Haiti to adopt policies and foisted programs upon them with the explicit intent of destroying Haitian agriculture. Pretty hard to deny given that Bill Clinton apologized for it earlier this year. Not that this admission means that they're not continuing to act in their own and US corporations' interests, as WINNER provides clear and consistent evidence of.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 14, 2010 11:23 PM
Again - extreme stupidity or conscious dishonesty?
considering at least 2 people already pointed out he was wrong, I'll go with density unbecoming a scientist, AND conscious dishonesty.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 14, 2010 11:53 PM
I'll note that the country's most popular party, Fanmi Lavalas, is barred from participating in the "elections."
Only a complete idiot would think that Haiti offers conditions in which the adoption of US programs could be a free choice.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 15, 2010 2:01 AM
Well, not the world that some Haitian farmers want to live in - the participation of 200+ farmers organizations in WINNER indicates that some haitian farmers do want to participate - democracy doesn't mean listening to the biggest organized group, and afaik doesn't involve rejecting technologies outright even if the majority don't want to use them - nobody is stating that farmers that don't want to utilize hybrids or fertilizers should have to - simply that this is an option that should be available to those Haitian farmers who want to do so - if people wish to use locally produced seed varieties etc there is nothing about having one section of the ag sector using hybrids from elsewhere that will effect this.
Also the comment wasn't about Haitian Ag per se just attempting to correct David's misconceptions about how traits are actually sold in the US - it should also be noted that it ain't just corporations you can buy seed from, and that your selective quoting does a good job of ignoring that my whole point was about farmers retaining the ability to save seeds if they wish to do so and generally having a choice in what they grow (at least in terms of varieties etc - clearly there's an economic aspect to actual crop choice such that crops that ain't gonna make you money ain't gonna be grown).
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 15, 2010 2:31 AM
in magic lalaland maybe. in reality, it does affect people.this is the same ignorant argument trotted out against communities that don't want Wal-Marts: "if you don't like it, don't shop there, leave others the choice to shop at Wal-Mart; it doesn't affect YOU where other people shop!"
complete crap, pretending people are isolated islands like that.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 15, 2010 2:56 AM
there's an economic aspect to actual crop choice such that crops that ain't gonna make you money ain't gonna be grown
so there's technically choice.
just not realistically.
interesting view of choice you have there.
Posted by: stewy.cvl
|
November 15, 2010 3:06 AM
"Technically if your heirloom crop is pollinated by anything other than itself you wouldn’t want to save the seeds anyway as heirlooms are inbred"
Alright... and you don't see a problem with this? Now I can't save any of my seeds just because I'm within a couple miles of a similar "roundup ready" crop. It would be different if it was just a "natural" non-patented crop (because at least you could still grow the seeds next season)... but if I am aware of the contamination, in this case by a patented crop, then my family's crop and the seeds from it can essentially become contraband.
It should also be noted that "heirloom" can be used in other ways than the strict definition you used. It can simply mean a seed variety that has been developed (via care-taking and artificial selection) by a family or community, passed down for generations. And as far as I know, they are almost always open pollinated (though also often true-bred), thus not necessarily inbred.
Posted by: stewy.cvl
|
November 15, 2010 4:32 AM
Also, in regards to what Ewan said "unless the transgene presence in your crop is at levels which couldn’t have been accidental you aren’t going to face legal action."
and this from the other thread "there has to be presence of transgene at a level which is inexplicable by anything other than consciously selecting for the gene – drift simply won’t do this."
If you have a farmer/breeder in the mix, wouldn't it be possible for them to select for the gene without knowing what gene it is that they are selecting for? I mean, since to a small farmer without a lab at his/her disposal, that farmer can only select for phenotype, but he could unintentionally be selecting for a patented gene within the plant's genotype. I'm thinking this could happen to a farmer who actually does use the roundup product elsewhere on his farm, or if other nearby farms use it, leading to a residual amount in the air or soil. This might cause any specimens with the roundup-ready genes to thrive while the others suffer and are ignored by the farmer during the selection process. I just wonder where the cutoff for accidental contamination is, and if it might be possible that it is fallible.
And to those who claim that no one has saved seeds for decades, I'm thinking you may only be referring to those people involved in the agribusiness machine. Whether you want to accept it or not, there are people out there who currently are, or who wish to be, growing food from their own seeds. Percy Schmeiser is one well known example of this on a large scale, but there are many others, probably even around your own town. Many sticklers for sustainability see seed saving as a must, and it is very common for smaller operations, or those meant mostly for personal, non-commercial use.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 6:43 AM
By no means, even if it's true (which would be a refreshing change of pace for USAID/corporate propaganda) does it indicate that under existing conditions.
Democracy? Are you joking? There is no democracy in Haiti. The US government (including USAID) has long forced agricultural policies and projects on the country, including those with the explicit intent of destroying its agricultural system. They coerced the president to adopt completely unpopular policies, and when he didn't comply fully enough they engaged in destabilization efforts, funded and trained armed groups, and then kidnapped him. The country's most popular political party isn't allowed to participate in elections. Peasants' organizations that oppose corporate/USAID dictates live in a constant state of terror. (The director of WINNER should be tried by the International Criminal Court, by the way.) Haitian farmers were never consulted about this program, and their protests have been ignored. This is not democracy. This is not free choice.
So nothing about whether any farmers (allegedly) using the seeds have been provided with the proper information/training/equipment for handling the seeds in accordance with safety regulations? I mean, it's starting to sound like you don't really care about this at all and your disagreement with OGM was just so much posturing.
Importing these seeds and implementing this program are political decisions about agricultural policy and should be made democratically. But they can't be, because Haitians are not allowed democracy. In a context in which conditions are controlled from outside in this manner, it's impossible to speak of free choice - to vote for candidates or policies, to work in sweatshops or in dangerous conditions, to participate in US/corporate programs,... For you to call your corporation's and the US government's decisions about what should be "available" to Haitian farmers, what should be imported or established there, democracy is obscene.
Further, for like the fourth time, even biofuckified acknowledges that the seeds, if used, can and will contaminate existing varieties. Chemical inputs have environmental effects that affect far more than the people using them. Haitians should be making their own policy, free of coercion, concerning imports, programs, and their environment. You don't have a clue what democracy is.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 7:49 AM
To you it means pretending they don't exist, as far as I can tell.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 9:36 AM
Ewan is speaking not of real democracy but of the corporate parody of it, in which people aren't citizens but actual or potential clients or customers (or "labor"), and only the relationships of isolated individuals with corporations are of interest; people only "speak" through their purchasing power; "choice" and the freedom to choose means among those options dictated by corporations, and long-term policy visions and definitions of public interest that conflict with corporate profits are anathema and repressed.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 15, 2010 10:46 AM
I don't see how this holds - if a farmer wishes to maintain his own varieties of say, corn, on his farm he can do so - just has to sacrifice an area of production acreage to be an area of breeding acreage - she can then grow from that breeding population year in year out without ever having to purchase another seed. The only downside (as I see it) is that her crop is likely to be less productive than a crop using elite genetics and therefore her income may be lower - but this then becomes an arguement about whether or not it is acceptable to work more efficiently - the availability of hybrid seeds (be they hybrid seeds from Joe the local breeder, or from Pioneer) doesnt impact her ability to save seeds one jot.
I don't see a huge problem with this no - as the 'anything other than itself' there would also include different heirlooms grown by your neighbour - in this case how do you choose which heirloom variety gets to be grown and which doesnt? First to plant?
How so? So long as you aren't actively selecting for the RR gene (the presence of which would only be remotely likely on the borders of your property which is a stupid place to do controlled breeding on anyway) there are no problems.
You simply don't get that amount of residual in the air or soil - the only instance I can imagine it happening is if you had an instance of spray drift onto your breeding plots and if that occured you'd absolutely know it was the case as you'd lose your plot other than any plants that had the transgene there by accident - you'd then be well aware that they had the transgene in them and that selecting them was a breach of patent law.
In this case there wouldn't be an issue as a farmer that stupid wouldn't be in business for long enough that legal action could be instigated.
So if farmers groups are supporting WINNER this doesn't mean that some farmers want to participate in the WINNER program? Interesting.
I was simply pointing out that your assertion that hybrid seed not be donated to Haiti simply because the largest organized group of farmers doesnt want it isn't democracy - I'd go so far as to say that even in a democracy it would not be right to deny farmers who wanted to utilize hybrid seed the opportunity just because a large body didn't wish them to (if conventional farmers in the US up and decided they didn't want organic farmers to be allowed to operate this likewise woulnd't be fair despite potentially being democractic)
I honestly don't know to what extent farmers are trained - looking at the USAID blurb on the WINNER program it appears that ~250 farmers per year are receiving extention training (at one training centre, not sure how many there are)
Just checked our chemical resistant gloves at work and initially thought I'd made a massive error mentioning latex as all the neoprene chem resistant gloves have 100% latex free on them - however as I was leaving the store room I noticed the heavy duty chem resistant gloves sitting gathering dust on the bottom shelf - checked em right quick - sure enough there on the back "warning contains latex" - so yes, latex (or at least latex containing) gloves are used when chemical resistance is needed (I'm assuing that on safety grounds we stock non-latex gloves to avoid allergenicity problems)
Yes, I'm pretending they don't exist by acknowledging their existence and right to choose not to use certain agricultural practices for themselves while at the same time opposing the idea that they should be allowed to oppose others the freedom to choose, you are correct.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 12:07 PM
According to a propaganda piece, and "supporting" is your inference.
It can't be read, in such an undemocratic and controlled situation, as indicating that, as I've explained. If governments and corporations remove other options or make them less appealing and theirs more in some ways (by, e.g., blocking or eliminating policies that provide support for local farming practices while offering it for those who go along), the choices are not genuine and it's not proper to speak of them as free. This is especially the case when basic democracy is denied, so the field of options is not set by the farmers themselves. If your farmland and system of agriculture has been destroyed from without, taking sweatshop work might be an option you "choose." If your government is forced to virtually eliminate tariffs and your country flooded with cheap imports, buying imported products might be an option people "choose." If your country is invaded and occupied you might "choose" to work with the occupiers. But you haven't been responsible for setting the options and it's improper to talk about people wanting these options.
Look, asshole, Haitian farmers have been denied the right to democratically choose their country's policies, and they weren't consulted with regard to this one. They have left at the moment only the opportunity to protest and resist, which they have done on a large scale. (And yes, in such a situation of limited options, such broad protest is a serious indication, and one consistent with everything I've seen of Haiti for years, of the direction Haitian farming communities want their agriculture to go and would choose if they were given that choice. This is especially true given the powerful and ruthless forces arrayed against them that have forced policies on them for a long time. It's sick that you ignore the fact that democracy has been denied them and then argue that "democracy" means ignoring their wishes when these are expressed in the only form available to them.) If you cared about democracy, you would be fighting for it to be allowed in Haiti, which means that people could make policy decisions that aren't in your interests. (And if people acting democratically choose policies that I disagree with, I'll listen to them and criticize, but respect their right to do it.) This is exactly what corporations and USAID will not allow and has not allowed, and their response to democracy in this hemisphere has been very clear on that score.
People have the right to decide what's imported into their country if it affects them. If people decide democratically that they don't want that coming in, that is their right. What do you think democracy is?
People everywhere have the right to decide on policies that affect them, and to do so without coercion from corporations or foreign governments. The nature of farming is such that inputs and practices have effects beyond individual farmers. They are a public matter. Of course, agricultural policy in the US isn't made democratically either, but largely by giant corporations and their government lackeys. A situation in which communities decided their agricultural policies for themselves and received funding for them would be a vast improvement.
So you don't know whether the farmers allegedly using the seed are receiving protection and safety training. So much for your claim that such regulations are important. Guess for Haitians not so much. If they want to handle taoxic substances without protection, that's their free choice, eh?
From my post above, one more time:
Further, for like the fourth time, even biofuckified acknowledges that the seeds, if used, can and will contaminate existing varieties.
Do you acknowledge this? Do you acknowledge that this (aside from increased foreign/corporate involvement in their agricultural system, the use of other inputs, the diversion of funds from other projects, and the possibility for greater dependency) affects farmers who do not use the seeds?
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 12:27 PM
So no problem!
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 15, 2010 12:29 PM
Is this really the case with the seed aid offered? It's priced at or around the price of seed - farmers have to pay for it, the system appears to me to be set up in a manner that doesn't destroy the fundamental underlying economic framework of agriculture and I'm going to assume that the 100,000+ farmers who Jean-Baptiste represents aren't going to utilize the project - so how exactly aren't they free to choose? Clearly there is the ability to either utilize the aid, or not Not even remotely - just because I don't know something doesn't mean I don't think it should be the case or that it isn't the case - it simply means that I do not know the answer to your question. My assumption is that as USAID is providing extention training to farmers participating in the program that how to use the seed safely would be part of this training, however I do not know whether this is the case either way.Only if the farmers who do not use the seeds are as stupid as OGM appears to believe they are - people have been breeding and selecting varieties with pollen flow from other varieties existing since people have been breeding plants - unless all Haiti has only a single variety of each crop plant (which seems highly unlikely) then this is a non-issue - the introduction of hybrids can in this case only increase the genetic variation available to select from - farmers can continue to select the varieties which perform best and replant them the next year.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 15, 2010 12:32 PM
Exactly - because if you have spray drift onto your own breeding plots it's your own fault (keeping in mind the scenario we're discussing is one where it is the farmers own spraying that caused issues, and that even if it weren't you aren't going to have breeding plots at the periphery of your farm because of the risks of spray drift and gene drift from other farms) - if the RR gene hadn't introgressed into your breeding plots you'd have destroyed the entire plot anyway.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 12:44 PM
You were responding to : "I'm thinking this could happen to a farmer who actually does use the roundup product elsewhere on his farm, or if other nearby farms use it..."
Because all farms, including in Haiti, are big enough for set-aside breeding plots situated absolutely safely away from other farms. (Even biofuckified sees through this.) And of course that's no effect on farmers at all.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 15, 2010 12:51 PM
That's a non-issue in Haiti as RR crops aren't grown there.
Even if only discussing gene flow for crop selection there is exactly the same issue with different varieties already in existence on Haiti - I presume there is some mechanism in place to retain varietal traits and I see no reason that this same mechanism wouldn't be effective regardless of what varieties your neighbors are planting.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 12:53 PM
And I'm sure for poor farmers getting compensation for the effects of spray or gene drift (including for the consequent loss of, say, organic designation) is quite simple. No effects at all.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 1:08 PM
For good reason. But the issue of pesticide application more generally is an issue.
As is well recognized. The varieties already in existence there are what farmers there want to maintain. Apparently they don't have a problem with and can manage flow with regard to these varieties. The corporate hybrids would be a new introduction, and it's up to them to decide if they want to accept it. biofuckified's "Importing heirloom or open-pollinated seeds [which, as far as I know, is not what people there are talking about] would 'contaminate' the local varieties as much as the seeds from M*nsanto" and
"There are actually potential benefits of crossing the donated seeds with the local varieties" are typically corporate-imperialistic statements. Neither corporations nor we get to decide for them that this import is the same as any other or that it's beneficial. You have been claiming that this import/program has no effects on the farmers who don't use the seeds, and that is untrue (in more than one sense).
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 15, 2010 1:09 PM
SC @ #315 - if we're still discussing roundup drift then as stated this problem doesn't arise from the introduction of hybrid seed as the seed donated isn't transgenic, the issue of gene drift similarly does not apply as transgenics aren't part of the donation (even in a country where transgenics are allowed it really isn't likely that presence of the transgene will reach levels which would threaten organic designation given that organic designation allows for ~0.9% presence of GMOs (if I remember right) and you're not likely to see higher levels of contamination than this from cross pollination.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 2:03 PM
I know I grafted it oddly onto your other conversation - I'm referring to pesticide application and contamination.
Unlikely or impossible? Anyway, I was talking about pesticide drift there I think.
Absolutely. I've explained the coercive context in a good deal of detail.
They already accomplished that. For the past three decades. That's the situation.
Are you this stupid? They a re desperately poor. Their democracy has been destroyed. Their agriculture has been virtually destroyed. They do not have free elections, and their country is basically occupied. Democratic choice is the possibility to decide your options, not to choose amonst the limited set of those imposed by others in a coerced environment whose terms you weren't allowed to participate in establishing. Seriously - this is fucking ridiculous. Affected people fighting to reject the import of a product is an affront to your democratic sensibilities but the context of complete denial of democracy to and terrorization of those people doesn't even register? They are the antidemocrats? How fucked up is this?
The farmers there have been fighting for years for implements, support for the storage of local seed varieties, cisterns, loans and support for organic techniques, and technical assistance (and education for this). The choice of accepting or using the corporate "aid" [!} to which technical "assistance" and support tied in a program run by a former member of a (in the words of the Guardian) murderous kleptocracy is not a full choice. This isn't anything close to a democracy.
And don't care. It certainly appears from the public statements that they have wanted to present the seeds as perfectly safe and not mention safety precautions at all, and you're happy to go along with that. Haitians don't have a basic human right to be protected from toxic chemicals.
You don't get to decide whether it's a non-issue or whether it's beneficial. They do. (Or they would if they were allowed to govern themselves democratically.) It's a fact that people who don't use the seeds are affected by their use.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 15, 2010 2:33 PM
The two discussions, to me at least, are totally different things - I don't think it would be right for the views of a single, or a few, groups of farmers to prevent others from using technology offered as aid (I actually don't think that it'd be at all right for a majority of farmers to dictate that other farmers cannot use hybrids for instance, in the same way it'd be utterly wrong if in the US conventional farmers decided en masse that Organic farming was no longer allowed) - this has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I think about denial of democracy to this same group. The two issues are separate in my mind, this doesn't mean I can't care about both, or that my views on one automatically mean that I have a set of views on the other.
Even if I'm hopelessly naive in my approach it is completely true that the reason I personally want this seed donation and aid to be available to Haitian farmers is because I want their lives to improve and in my eyes this is a great step in that direction - so essentially you can fuck right off telling me that I don't care.
In terms of plant breeding it is a non-issue, it's not a matter of personal opinion, if a system exists which can deal with the presence of multiple varieties while maintaining varietal integrity then it is a non-issue. The potential for it to be beneficial is also not a matter of personal opinion - if you can introduce genetics which improve your varieties in ways that you want I cannot see how it is remotely possible to argue that this isn't beneficial - so the presence of hybrids, in a system where you can maintain varietal integrity anyway, categorically is either neutral (assuming it provides no positive changes to your breeding program) or positive (if it provides benefits).
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 3:34 PM
That is supremely idiotic and a nonresponse to my arguments.
You are naive and ignorant, and to some extent willfully so. Whether you're hopeless remains to be seen.
If you really did, Ewan, you would try to gain an understanding of their situation and what Haitian farmers themselves see as improvement. You would be fighting for democracy in Haiti and ending corporate and US government coercion there rather than promoting it.
You said that you think safety regulations are important and should apply everywhere. One of the criticisms of this "gift" is that people in Haiti lack the protective equipment to handle them safely. As far as I've seen, you didn't even acknowledge that this was an issue prior to its being raised on this thread, and tried to downplay it then. You went along with the framing at biofified. Now you pointed to claims of participating farmers without even bothering to try to find out.
More generally, if you care you'll make an effort to learn. Being naive isn't an option for people who care.
No, it isn't, because the introduction of nonnative hybrids is an issue for them. They are the ones affected, and they know better than you do what their situation is.
And are you saying that contamination from the hybrids wouldn't render some portion of the local seeds unsuitable for saving and replanting?
Perhaps by looking at history (and recognizing the agenda behind the "gift"), which has shown a massive reduction of seed biodiversity around the world as these corporate seeds have been introduced. Regardless of claimed possibilities, they haven't in practice led to an expansion of diversity or the maintainence of local stocks but to the opposite and the dependency and lack of resiliency to changing conditions that entails. But the point is that they - affected people - weren't consulted and many do not see the introduction as beneficial.
This is where you don't understand democracy. Nothing is categorical. They wish to maintain and develop their local varieties without dealing with an introduced hybrid. You do not get to tell them what is positive for them and impose on them what they don't want.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 3:41 PM
What makes you think it does?
You do not get to tell them what is positive for them
And this is true even for those who have the best and most selfless of intentions, which M*nsanto and USAID patently do not.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 15, 2010 3:54 PM
I'm relying here on your assertion that Haitian farmers have seeds and expertise.
If they don't have expertise then my comment about a system existing to deal with the presence of multiple varieties is false.
In the instance under discussion I'm not telling anyone what is positive, just that if they're doing plant breeding the introduction of more genetic variation to the gene pool will either be neutral or positive - positive how is entirely down to the breeder themselves - perhaps some of the new genetic material confers drought resistance, increased yield, better capacity to tolerate heat stress, better capacity to tolerate crowding, better capacity to tolerate fungal infections - the list goes on and on - if you're discussing plant breeding and make the assertion that greater diversity to select from isn't a positive then you're doing plant breeding wrong.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 4:40 PM
I said "Haitians," not every Haitian farmer. And they can have both but lack elements of a strong system.
Except that, contrary to your suggestion, the introduction of corporate seeds has in practice led to a tremendous loss in biodiversity. What part of they don't want these corporate hybrids introduced into their pool do you not understand? You're claiming that any introduction of seeds will be neutral or beneficial, but this is by no means necessarily true (and what about the saving/replanting question?), and many people who are affected and know more about their situation and capacities than you do disagree with you about the probable effects and about the understanding of beneficial.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 15, 2010 6:33 PM
I have to wonder why. It is not in keeping with the IAASTD report or remotely with the expressed aims of Haitian peasants. Hundreds of scientists from around the world reviewing the mass of evidence and tens of thousands of organized Haitians with knowledge of their circumstances and history. But you think you know better. It's odd.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
November 15, 2010 8:05 PM
Jesus Christ, really?ok, let me as a far more basic question: do you understand why "right to work" laws are bad for workers?
how can a discussion about democracy, and a discussion about democracy, be two different things?Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 16, 2010 10:54 AM
SC - as noted in the thread I'm taking a brief hiatus from this discussion, more incapable than normal of making coherent posts (that won't stop me making poor attempts at humor on the thread however!), have inquired internally with the individual who went to Haiti to see about what was done regarding PPE and training at least, so hopefully I can offer something more meaningful than an I don't know on that front (assuming the reply email isn't emblazoned with company confidential blah blah blah) whenever I feel up to it.
Posted by: SC OM
|
November 16, 2010 11:11 AM
*wipes brow*
Extremely happy to hear that. I find these discussions, for the most part, more upsetting than pleasant, and wasn't looking forward to continuing this one. Glad you're making inquiries.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 16, 2010 11:15 AM
#327 (breaking my hiatus already - although with meaningless ephemera so that probably doesnt count) - shame I rather enjoy it and despite outward appearances do actually learn a lot from our back and forth.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
November 17, 2010 11:04 AM
SC - re inquiries I am making - somewhat unexpectedly our director of development partnerships invited me to meet with her after thanksgiving to discuss the Haiti seed donation specifically - I thought rather than having this just be a self congratulatory echo chamber I could possibly bring some of your concerns/suggestions etc to the table and at least air them out with someone who in intimately involved with the donation and has actually been to Haiti - so, given that I'm not going to set fire to her, or beat her with a stick (I reserve such actions for direct colleagues and people under management level), or ask questions like "why don't you jsts leave haiti the hell alone", and will be being rather civil, what would you suggest I bring to the table question/suggestion wise (I'm guessing number 1 on the list will be flat out asking Jean-Baptiste's organization (sorry too lazy to scroll up and see what the name is... will do prior to the meeting however) what they want and then making every effort to supply this without adding any coprorate spin to it - so you can take it as a given that this is a suggestion I'm going to at least put forwards)
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnSwAMGq8UNbaUabvVNuuUoyCJXWdvACl4
|
November 18, 2010 9:27 PM
I'd say all non-monsanto GMOs are good, but the Monsanto ones that are engineered to survive poisons or even emit poisons are not good for the environment and are very dangerous.