quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
They may not realize that they are being anti-scientific, and supporting hunger and possible famine, but often times they either do not understand the real consequences of the "solutions" they seek, or they are so ideologically driven that they do not care.
Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

The overall environmental impacts of GMO foods has not been adequately studied, since not so much as an EIS was required. The 9th has found that one will be required for roundup ready sugar beets. So, we shall see. Of course, the EIS is a product of the same captive agencies. On the other hand, they are going to have to address the issue of gene flow, which is a big concern to those of use who are concerned about sustainable farming practices.
In the meantime, ken and firm, eat hearty. I would elect not to eat GMO products, but I don't get a choice, because of the labeling issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Why is moving a gene from one animal or plant to another animal or plant bad, wrong, or inherently dangerous to our health?

I think you guys need to learn a bit more about the things you are discussing.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

It is still nothing more than the speeding up of previous methods. We can more effectively, and quickly add different "software packages" of DNA into other organisms, or even code new ones ...

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
The monoculture issue is much more important in my viewpoint.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

The effect on pollinators is the most pressing. Here in Ohio where bees should be plentiful no matter the year there is a severe shortage. Rain and weather play a part yes but there is the combined effect of pesticide use both on the farm and in the household. We have to learn not to kill what God put here to help us survive. I agree, today it is a farmers decision to use terminated seeds or not. There could be good reason to always use terminated seeds but then again...............who controls vigorous seed development.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I do like the other topic as well. Who is going to govern this. I think that there would have to be total public access to any and all data at a given time if there was truely going to be a biogen'd revolution. If it can't be totally open then someone is going to get fucked. If that means that companies back away and there is no impetus on research then so be it. There needs to be as much emphasis put on this sort of thing on a global basis as there is on weaponry..since the ability to alter the production of food is the greatest weapon of all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

As for the Gov't. vs. Industry. Outside of Tuskegee those other two were well publicized and know events.....You can even say agent orange was a known event. But, PCB's and the Dioxin that comes along with them wasn't a known event unless you were within those companies. Give me something I can see and fight against rather than something that is hidden and I can never know the truth of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

OK then, if it's so good then why isn't it a selling point ?

The only reason it must be kept secret is because a large contingent is likely not to want it. So in essence they should be sold what they don't want against their will, regardless of who is right or wrong. The decision must be taken out of their hands, is that right or did I misunderstand ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Now, ungrateful wretch that I am, I shall hoist you with your own petard.... : )

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"In other words, their "labeling" position is nothing more than a method to make demonizing easier and more effective, not any real attempt to give "choice and freedom" to people. "

Seems to me that this is all about competitive positioning. Let's use an analogy. Let's say that Big Bakery produces apple pies with whatever cheap apples they can find. Small Bakery decides that they're going to use a blend of Jonathan and Delicious apples only. Clearly, the Small Bakery can't tell people that the Big Bakery isn't using apples- but they can certainly identify their apples by strain and imply that they're worth paying a premium for, i.e. Buy our Pie- we only use Delicious and Jonathan apples!

Does this work? Well, today I bought a half gallon of milk that was labeled No BST and No antibiotics used. Was it more money? I suspect so- I didn't really look. However, I grumble about the use of antibiotics in animal feed- just breed antibiotic resistant bacteria and I'm not sure whether a low level of antibiotics in our diet is a good thing.

So to me the issue isn't whether Monsanto has to label their wheat at GMO wheat. It's still wheat. However, the organic folks (and I'm using organic here as the marketing term, i.e. no pesticides, antibiotics, limited fertilizer etc.) missed their shot- they should have banded together and advertised that their products DIDN'T contain GMOs- and then let the market decide. I think some farmers have finally woken up and are starting to do this. As far as I'm concerned- this is just good marketplace competition. If they need to charge more money- well, clearly, I'm willing to pay it. But I agree with you Firm, that Monsanto should not be forced to label their wheat as something other than wheat- unless the characteristics have changed dramatically. And from what I've seen, they haven't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

But in terms of the monoculture issue that both HillBilly and I have raised- nope, don't buy your seed bank as a means of keeping our food supply safe. First, it's clear that we're not talking large factors in terms of production differences between monocultures and multiple strains. Maybe it's 15% overall- enough to make a difference in the bottom line, but where safety is concerned?

Let's look at the seed bank strategy- and I'll use another analogy. I don't like the idea of leaving technology in a vault to be pulled out when you need it. It's like Pearl Harbor, where the ammunition was locked up when the Japanese attacked. Or it's like a homeowner who buys a gun and cartridges and locks them in a safe, announcing his family is protected because he owns a gun. Except that in order to use a gun to defend yourself, you have to know how to load it, cock it, aim it, fire it, and to be able to correct your aim when you miss. Shooting a gun isn't intuitive like in the movies. In short- use it or lose it. Well, if something's important, and we agree that starvation is a bad idea- well, I'm also partial to the idea of use it or lose it in terms of crops. In other words, there are tricks to growing stuff that you only learn or develop with practice. If we have to pull those cultures out of the vault, the environmental conditions may have changed enough so that we get more crop failures. I don't like this idea- food is important to me (I do like eating, I try to do it every day), and I like redundancy in critical systems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

The idea that Monsanto will look after its bottom line and make sure we don't starve? Well, sorry, but I don't really intend to put my faith in corporate boards when safety is on the line, their track record is pretty grim. So in terms of food production- no monopolies allowed- nor should monocultures be allowed to dominate production of any of the handful of grains that humans can actually eat. And it looks like Monsanto has a near monopoly in some markets. This is a problem for me....

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

You are going on about gmos being the solution to famine.

GMOs have been around for 20 years now, yet there is still hunger and famine.. If Monsanto (who controls 90% of the gmos) is the worlds savior, why is there still famine? If gmos are the solution to famine, why have gmos not ended it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

"Genetically Modified Seeds

Coinciding with the establishment the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, another important historical change has occurred in the structure of global agriculture.

Under the articles of agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO)), the food giants will have unrestricted freedom to enter the seeds markets of developing countries. The acquisition of exclusive "intellectual property rights" over plant varieties by international agro-industrial interests, also favors the destruction of bio-diversity.

Acting on behalf of a handful of biotech conglomerates, GMO seeds have been imposed on farmers, often in the context of "food aid programs". In Ethiopia, for instance, kits of GMO seeds were handed out to impoverished farmers with a view to rehabilitating agricultural production in the wake of a major drought . The GMO seeds were planted, yielding a harvest. But then the farmer came to realize that the GMO seeds could not be replanted without paying royalties to Monsanto, Arch Daniel Midland et al. Then, the farmers discovered that the seeds would harvest only if they used the farm inputs including the fertilizer, insecticide and herbicide, produced and distributed by the biotech agribusiness companies. Entire peasant economies were locked into the grip of the agribusiness conglomerates."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

It doesn't take much to change the balance of chromosome. Some fairly critical diseases in humans are the result of a change in one base pair in one gene.

Naturally occurring cross hybridization is one thing, but genetic engineering is another. The currently technologies have not been around long enough to determine a long range effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

I for one am not convinced that genetic engineering in food is entirely safe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

It isn't that simple. Your description makes it sound like "stick tab B into slot A" and genetics is so much more complicated than that. Not all genes are arranged in a linear fashion. Genes overlap. http://www.ijbs.org/user/ContentAbstractPage.aspx?VolumeNO=3&StartPage=14&EndPage=19&Number=1 So where the coding starts and ends for one gene, the start of another gene may fall inside the first gene's sequence. There is ongoing research in this area. Not all human genes have been mapped. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/seqfacts.shtml#post

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Firm, it is a problem with terms. The terms you are using aren't correct. A food can be non-organic, and not be GM. Those are different things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I have no problem with organic foods being labeled as such. I even have no problem with buying non organic food, if I choose to do so. I have a big problem with buying GMO food, and I don't see the problem with labeling it as such so I can make that choice. And you can go on and on about GM going on for centuries. Bullshit. But if you prefer, let's call it roundup ready food. If I choose not to eat it, and want the information to make that possible, what's the problem?
As for the monoculture issue, this is huge in terms of health and the environment. It is simply impossible to buy any processed food without corn or a corn product in it. Who knows what the affects of that will be. As my mother always pointed out, they fatten hogs on that stuff. That certainly seems to be the case as you look at the average person in this country. Americans have a corn based diet now, and I don't think most of them realize it. It isn't because corn is so healthy, or even particularly easy to grow. It is very water, fertilizer and pesticide dependent. However, it also has some unique characteristics that make it profitable for a company like Monsanto.

As to the GMO issue, look what they modified for. Not to take less water, not to be less fertilizer dependent, not to make it more adaptable. Just to make it resistant to a poison Monsanto sells. Damn right I don't want to eat that shit, and I shouldn't have to.

quote:

I've already given at least one example of a "naturally GMOed" food .. lager beer.  I've given information about the fact that it occurs naturally ... yet, here you are wanting to define it a certain way, just to fit your own biases ....