I've just been listening to Radio 4 and heard a news item about GM Foods. I was listening very carefully, because this is a subject that interests me. GM Foods are still officially illegal in the UK, but there has been pressure for some time from the US for Europe and the UK to get 'on board' with GM crops. The public here is against it. So am I.
Radio 4 is, well, it's Radio 4, for god's sake, but I noticed in this news item, which had several 'experts' interviewed, that absolutely no dissenting opinions were given whatsoever. My impression is that the BBC have sold out bigtime here and that the British public is being 'made ready' for things that others have already planned.
If anyone interested in GM foods Googles this blog entry, please leave whatever links and information you can here about GM foods and especially about any news stories that might have been suppressed about the harmful effects of GM foods.
Thank you.
This is certainly a contentious subject. In taking a ‘stand’ against the idea one must also be honest with one’s self. Is it the ’emotional thought’, the abstract idea, of ‘genetic modification’ of the food(s) that is the nub of the emotional onslaught? But before you start to put on your sparring gloves I have not told you where I stand on the issue. As always, I am ‘teasing’ out of you, attempting to obtain, ‘rational’ responses (but I do not imply you are ever being irrational!) in order for me to then engage in a debate that is essential, if we are to discover the reasons – apart from the crass consideration of commercial interests alone – as to why anyone should ever, in the first instance, want, or ‘need’, to modify crops. I am not sure the BBC has “sold out”. On the one hand the Beeb is accused by some right wing pundits of pandering to the “left”. On the other hand it is accused of “selling out” (presumably by not provoking a more, or any, virile discussion in a balanced debate) and one could infer this is intended to imply the BBC is ‘pro – big business’ (and big business is not usually, or ever, “left wing” ) and thereby the BBC is pandering to the ‘right’.I am probably talking nonsense and am sure you will put me right (no pun intended) on all of this.
You make good points. It is late now and my intellectual “energy level” is depleted. I will return again and see if I can contribute an informed response to your reply.
Thanks for commenting. I do want to learn more about GM crops, and would be perfectly willing to change my mind on the subject, if the circumstances were right, and depending on information. My general attitude at the moment is that we don’t know in the long run if GM crops are going to be harmful, but they are being pushed through for commercial considerations.My biggest worry is that of biodiversity, but there may be other worries, too. I thought it was incredibly suspsicious that only one side of the argument was given on the item I heard, which was not a brief news item, but a supposedly in-depth current affairs programme. I’ve mentioned this before, and I want to look into this more – there’s so much going on at the moment – but I have heard rumours that the US government has actually forbidden foods from being labelled as GM food.Another worry is that of patented genes. You can bet that the person holding the patent for the crops that will eventally be all that’s keeping the world from starvation will be… let’s see… Hugh Grant of Missouri? Someone like that.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/7426054.stmThat article is almost identical to the radio item, except that it is slightly more balanced. There doesn’t really seem to be much of a spirit of enquiry about it, though. It’s a rather blase, GM crops? America are doing it, we might as well. After all, we’ve only done everything America’s done for the last god knows how long anyway. Who cares? La-di-dah. Can I have my money now, please?The radio item also said GM crops were illegal in the UK and this says they’re not. So, my own feeling is, in about ten, twenty, maybe even thirty years time, I’ll be saying… “I told you so.”
abbass writes:
http://www.etcgroup.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAFII haven’t checked them out in a long time.. Used to get most of my info on GM foods and ‘biopiracy’ from RAFI back in the day.
Thank you. That looks good. I shall check that out further over the weekend.
Wouldn’t the more logical approach to feeding the world, be to genetically modify humans, into being highly energy efficient midgets, who are totally and utterly sustained by light alone? :confused:I don’t see what the whole brew-haha (hoo-hoo) is all about on this subject really. All they’re doing is mixing plants genes together, to diversify them in genuinely useful ways. It’s not as if they’re trying to cross palm trees with Boy George or anything, that would be universally morally wrong! 😡
“Wouldn’t the more logical approach to feeding the world, be to genetically modify humans, into being highly energy efficient midgets, who are totally and utterly sustained by light alone?”I’m completely behind you here. “I don’t see what the whole brew-haha (hoo-hoo) is all about on this subject really. All they’re doing is mixing plants genes together, to diversify them in genuinely useful ways.”Well, as I said, my biggest worry is that of bio-diversity. I also want to learn more about the subject to get a clearer picture, but bio-diversity does seem to be an issue with crops.Interestingly, GM is given as the means of increasing bio-diversity to save bananas, here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2664373.stmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jan/16/gm.scienceHowever, if you get an immensely successful crop, of, say, soya, that has been engineered, and other forms of soya go into decline as a result, then there could be all sorts of knock-on effects, especially if we get a scenario with soya similar to the banana one – or so I am currently guessing, hoping to learn more.Apart from that my suspicions are raised by this sort of thing:http://practicalactionpublishing.org/?id=wssd_africa_resistsThere's a big, aggressive commercial push, from the US, for GM crops, and it seems to be, as the article says, a kind of imperialism by food. Perhaps the worst kind of imperialism imaginable. And some people wonder why the world hates the US.
Okay, I think it’s time I put a number of related links here:http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gmafrica.htmlhttp://www.sustain360.org/index.php?s=0b1d8bf723ce83a57cf4d043383587b1&showtopic=559&pid=2003&st=0&#entry2003From that link we have:The US outdid itself at this Codex meeting. It actually bullied another country into withdrawing its submission because the paper South Africa submitted in favor of Mandatory Genetic Modification labeling was so strong and undercut the US position that no labeling should ever be permitted.
South Africa is a sovereign nation, with its own concerns, laws and issues, but it was forced by US bullying to rescind its submission because of the international tantrum the US threw. And more.http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE3/Catholic-Bishops-Statement14nov01.htmFrom that link we have:In November 2000, the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) issued a press statement supporting the campaign calling for a five-year freeze on genetic engineering and patenting in crop and food production. The Bishops’ stand is mainly based on the precautionary principle. So far, no rigorous long term testing has been carried out to ascertain the effects of genetically engineered crops and foods on humans, animals, plant-life and soil. Doubts about the safety of the new bio-technologies have been confirmed by the results of scientific studies and many scientists are warning that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) pose risks to health, for example, increasing the incidence of allergies, toxic reactions and antibiotic resistance.
In 1999 the British Medical Association called for an open-ended moratorium until there is greater scientific certainty about the safety of GM seeds and derived products. In February 2001 the Royal Society of Canada added its voice to the call for a moratorium. Many scientists around the world have joined the call, along with farming organisations, especially in the USA, which are advising farmers to discontinue GE practices.
Because safety-testing on these foods is not strict, their long-term effects on our health and on the environment are unknown. Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, new living organisms, bacteria and viruses will be released into the environment to reproduce, migrate and mutate. They will transfer their new characteristics to other organisms. These changes can never be undone or contained. The effects of genetic mistakes are largely irreversible and irretrievable. Therefore, at this stage – as the Bishops declare in their statement, “It is morally irresponsible to produce and market genetically modified food.”And this:Genetic engineering is a new technology which, according to its promoters, was created to improve food production and increase yields to feed the growing world population. During a meeting of UN Food and Agricultural Organisation in 1998, 24 delegates from 18 African countries representing their respective governments, declared:
“We do not believe that agro-companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.”And more.http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-13-03.asphttp://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/gmos/archives.htmhttp://sunflowerstrewn.wordpress.com/From that link:In August of 1998, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a nutrition researcher in Scotland, suggested that a few strains of genetically modified potatoes may actually be toxic to laboratory rats (5). Pusztai claimed that his experiments showed that rats fed on potatoes which had been genetically engineered to express a lectin suffered serious damage to their immune systems and had stunted growths. The lectin is also toxic to insects and nematodes and supposedly toxic to mammals (3).
Pusztai’s experiments were sent by The Royal British Society and reviewed by six independent experts and regarded that his data was not adequate enough to support the claims he had made for a number of reasons. Subsequently, Pusztai sent his results to 24 independent reviewers, who disagreed with the conclusions drawn upon by the previous review committee (3).
Although the results of Pusztai’s experiements are still largely contested, what followed was a European backlash of genetically modified foods. Today, there are strict guidelines and regulations for GM foods in the European market- including labelling and DNA bar codes. Recently conducted surveys still suggest that the public has a negative opinion of GM foods. In fact, third world countries in Africa have even rejected international food aid that have any trace of genetic modification (5).
Opponenets of genetically modified food often refer to genetically modified foods as “Frankenfood,” after the monster in Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, for whom the book is named, in response to the decision of the FDA to allow the marketing of genetically modified food (3).And this:The majority of GM agricultural products are developed specifically for toxin-resistance- namely higher doses of herbicides/pesticides sold by the largest producing companies, like Monsanto, even though the industry’s marketing pitch claims that bioengineered seeds and plants will help the environment by reducing toxic herbicide and pesticide use.
Cultivating genetically cloned (and thus compositionally identical) seeds and plants has historically led to a loss of survival means, where infections and diseases in plants will spread like wildfiress. The variety of a particular crop provides adaptability, creating a constant resource to combat these infections.
Genetically modified plants have alternative ways to create photosynthesis- they are hyper-tolerant and thus can be sprayed repeatedly wtihout killing the crop. However, residues are left on the plant, which the consumer will ingest. It was recently revealed that the government (to accomodate Monsanto, the leading GM corporation) raised pesticide residue limits on soy products from 6 parts per million to 20 parts.
Glyphosphate, the active ingredient of Ready Roundup, an herbicide produced by Monsanto, was the third leading cause of farm worker illnesses.
Klebsiella planticola, genetically modified bacterium, is meant to break down wood chips, corn stalks, and lumber wastes, actually renders the soil sterile. It killed essential soil nutrients. A similiar study with the GM bacteria Rhizbium melitoli showed that the toxins were lethal to the Monarch butterfly.
Scientists speculate that Monsanto’s wheat will hybridize with goat grass, creating an invulnerable superweed. The manifestation of a superweed will not only make the problem of weeds worse, but it may also lead to plant invasions like that of the kutzu vine.
There is an attempt underway to implement GM trees or “supertrees” throughout international forests which can be sprayed from the air to literally kill all surrounding life except GM trees, which are often sterile and flowerless. These GM trees are in stark contrast to the floral and fauna found in the rainforests, where a single tree can be host to thousands of unique species. This kind of engineering is often referred to as “death-engineering” rather than “life” or bio-engineering.
Marine life is threatened by accidental release of GM fish currently under development in several countries. Trout, carp, and salmon have been shown to grow several times the normal size and growing up to six times as fast, which potentially wipe out their competitors in the wild. One accident has already happened in the Philippines, which threatens local fish supplies because there are currently no regulations for containment.
Genetic pollution, caused by insects which are likely to pollinate organic plants and trees with transgenic elements, can reproduce itself forever in the wild, unlike chemical pollution, which eventually is dismantled or decays in the environment.
The marketing of GM foods augments the centralization of power within the hands of giant corporations, like Monsanto. Two bioengineering firms have announced a GM vanilla plant, where vanilla can be grown at significantly lower costs. As a result, this could eliminate as many as 100,000 farmer’s jobs around the world. In fact, it is estimated that the biotech industry will find at least 14 billion dollars of substitutes for Third World farming products.
Given the present rate of application of GM crops, in 50-100 years, organic foods may no longer be organic in composition.
The nuaturally occuring pesticidal bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis, used as a tool to target insects and pests which feed off of crops will no longer be effective as a farming aide. Because genetically engineered Bt corn, potatoes, and cotton secrete this natural pesticide, the targeted insects and pests will grow immune to the naturally occuring pesticide. Therefore, it will be necessary to come up with stronger pesticides. And more.http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htmhttp://davisiaj.com/content/view/107/95/Actually, the more I read about it, the more my fears are confirmed. It looks to me like the US promotion of GM crops is shaping up to be a huge disaster.