The problem is that most, if not all, genetigally modified food is patented. They may give better crop, but ultimately they will leave more people starving. See e.g. http://www.biotech-info.net/basmati_patent.html or http://www.american.edu/ted/basmati.htm

Furthermore genetically produced plants do not reproduce as natural plant. Farmers need to buy seeds every year and pay for patent owners.

Finally there is no proof that these plant do not cross-breed (do not kow whether this is a correct word) with natural plants. Later patent owners will clain that farmers a violating their patens.

Starving folks all over the world?

Why is that? If we feed them then they contribute to global warming or something like that. Lets just send them all to Darfur, where they can be fed in the now open spaces the Chinese money has supplied.

Don’t you all like the world after the USA has gone? Chinese backers of the knife and the gun?

Its the world you all wanted. Be carefull what you ask for, you just got it.

The problem is that most, if not all, genetigally modified food is patented..Furthermore genetically produced plants do not reproduce as natural plant. Farmers need to buy seeds every year and pay for patent owners.

Ahhh…didn’t know that. Well, even with the yearly patent fees, I guess the advantages still outweigh the disadvantages?

fucking hippies

Some decades ago in U.S. was found cure for cancer, phnemonia and all possible deseases: injecting radioactive substance in veins. There was also new, safe, tested solution for weeds of all kind: DDT. Tobacco was also a great medicine for everything. These are only the first and most obvious examples of things once believed to be safe and blessed inventions. Giddyup, just hop on the saddle of our silver GM horse, I bet I won’t be around anymore when the shit hits the fan.
Some African country, can’t remember whitch one, was just last week on the news for giving it’s excess food, rice or corn, to starving neighbours. That’s something to help starving people all over the world. GM food is only a cure for symptom, not for the desease.

Ja maailma pelastuuuu….

Eat GMO food you nerdy phil.. and die HAHAAAAA

It was on starving African state (Zaire?) that actually refused a couple years ago a load of food aid on the basis that it contained GM food. Somebody in Zairean government must have heard the western discussions about unhealthy GM food and the precautionary principle. And not quite realized that western nations would not choose to starve in such a situation. This is a luxury problem for the affluent societies, but a necessity problem for the poor societies.

“Genetically Modified Food” are a way to robe from nature what it has created. It is the ultime step that the “free market” is getting at.

1- Don’t be fool, the people that are creating GM food (i.e Mais) are as well selling the pesticide that comes with killing all except the GM crop (i.e mais). The worse is if the neightbourg crop (i.e mais field) get cross contaminated, the farmer will have to pay royalties to the patent holder.

2-Have you heard of allergy? lots of people are allergique to some food element. So mixing gene in a pure element will create even more allergy issues. Allergy is ever increasing and will be even more: it could be as well that the pharmaceutical company will patent some GM product and provide the allergy cure, rather no since there no cure, but the medecine that calm or restrict the allergy

3-it’s a matter of time…we don’t really know the consequence of eating GM or eating animals that ate GM food…so let’s hope that the human species won’t be affected…by the way i think Bush and his collegue Dick (not a real) might have eaten quite much mais…to behave such as ass…

4-it’s a way to control farming, as they need to open trade barier to the third world ..so how to better compete than patenting as mush seed as possible…

“Ahhh…didn’t know that. Well, even with the yearly patent fees, I guess the advantages still outweigh the disadvantages?”

– In some cases it permits the crop to grow where none would grow at all.

I understand that some of Africa’s refusal to GM grain was the result of EU pressure for them to not use it. (Google: gm africa eu) It is not so simple as a ‘you can’t have it’ but something like that.

How about letting the consumer decide and actually making it mandatory to label food stuff which use GM food. Or does that conflict with libertarian morals, whose freedom of choice weights more the consumers or producers?

Protestors btw demanded that GM food should be marked.

If I were a company who didn’t use these genetically modified ingredients, I’d put a big bright orange sticker on my product that says, “NO GMO’s USED!” and let the free market decide.
In addition to the patent and “one time only seed” problems comment nr 1 mentions, GM crops also “infect” other near-by non-GM crops. (So, it hard to keep a product GM-free even if grown conventionally, if it is grown near GM crops).

GM crops also have been shown to have a negative effect on the environment, as they are herbicide resistant. Therefore, surrounding weeds can be 100% eradicated which has a big effect on the wildlife that depends on weeds for survival.

“Therefore, surrounding weeds can be 100% eradicated which has a big effect on the wildlife that depends on weeds for survival.”

yea, but more food is then avail for mankind to eat.

Who is better, a rat or a human? You decide.

#12: winter, even rats play a part in the biosphere. Do you?

I must say here I’m on the same page with Phil, but (maybe) for different reasons.
Those reasons being that this kind of protests are mostly based on a very romantic and naive belief that there is a “natural” and “unnatural”.
And if you really insist on such concepts then we have anyway been doing unnatural things for thousands of years.

It is true that much like with condoms and the vatican the protest movement is ruthlessly exploiting the incapacity of the african people to make informed decisions by employing very low level scare tactics like “the food is poisoned”.

The possibility of error is always there with new technology, but unfortunately in the course of human history the pandora’s box hasn’t been closed once. It is simply unrealistic to assume that science and technology will go away if you they do not fit your view of the world.

Instead (as always) reasonable risk evaluation and strict control is the way we can bring these new technologies in the market and thus make the world a better place.

Anyway for example americans have been eating (or at least tried to fed) the most abominable processed shit on earth (check out the corn business) and it hasn’t really done anything to them except made some of them a bit fat.

Of course mistake, even horrible ones happen. Like for example Mad Cow, but does MC mean we need to abandon the whole idea of farming and return to hunting & gathering?

Phil you have obviously swallowed the coporate brochure from the GM company, but there’s rather contradictory info available.

Safety : “The GM industry assures us that their products are safe to eat. Yet there is very little evidence to confirm such statements. Clearly, the millions of people in the United States who are unknowingly eating GM food (there is no labelling and hence no choice) are not dying in droves. Nevertheless, it is possible that more subtle deterioration in health is taking place. There is no monitoring for any effects of consuming GM food, and it might take years to become apparent. There was, however, one dramatic case: a nutritional supplement, L-tryptophan, caused the deaths of 37 people (before the authorities stopped counting) and caused permanent disability in 1500 more. Unfortunately, it was no longer possible to trace the exact manufacturing procedure by the time the harm was discovered. The company, which had long been manufacturing the supplement without incident, insisted that the only change in its procedure was the use of a GM source.

Very few investigations have tested the effects of GM foods on animals, and none has been carried out on human beings except for a study that revealed transfer of GM genes from a GM meal to bacteria in the human gut. The latter study has not been followed up to determine the consequences of the horizontal gene transfer (i.e., direct transfer, not passed ‘vertically’ from parent to offspring.) Experimental rats fed GM potatoes suffered damage to their internal organs. Viral DNA fed to mice was later found in the white blood cells, liver and spleen and was even passed on to the offspring. Company-sponsored studies of GM maize fed to rats and chickens, however, claimed that no adverse effects had occurred; but independent scientists who re-examined these results drew the opposite conclusions (Chardon LL Hearing).”

Environment: “It has already been shown in studies that nearly half the caterpillars of Monarch butterflies (not a target species) died when fed on pollen genetically modified with Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). Some varieties of GM oilseed rape have been found to destroy the ability of bees to detect flower smells. Other studies of GM-fed animals have been described in section 2 above. A major seed dealer in the United States has said that there is evidence that earthworms are dying from the effects of Bt maize. GM genes have also been demonstrated to transfer to soil fungi and bacteria, and the effects of this are not yet known. If, as some experts have warned, the affected fungi and bacteria then behave in abnormal ways and cease or diminish their function in breaking down organic material to make nutrients available to plants, soil could become progressively (and uncontrollably) less fertile; and, as the organisms carrying the transgenes proliferate, the soil over an ever increasing area could become ever less fertile.”

False efficiency claims: “The companies that develop GM seeds claim greater yields, reduced chemical use and general benefits from the growing of their crops. The claims, however, do not reflect realities. While some farmers, in some areas and in some seasons, may gain the claimed benefits, the usual results are disappointing. A major report by the Soil Association on the experiences of North American farmers, based on published work and interviews with farmers, concludes that most of the claimed benefits have not been realised and that GM crops have been a ‘practical and economic disaster’. GM crops have lower yields overall, except for a small increase for yields of Bt maize (but see below), and they have increased reliance on herbicides. A scientist drew attention to how Monsanto obtained the data for its claims about Roundup Ready soya beans: ‘RR soybeans clearly require more herbicides than conventional soybeans, despite claims to the contrary. …Monsanto has manipulated comparative data on RR and conventional soybean herbicide use in ways that fall between misleading and dishonest.’ (Dr Charles Benbrook) The same report, which examined the results of 8,200 soya-bean trials, shows that, on average, these soya beans yield 6% less than conventional varieties and may produce 10% less than top conventional varieties.”
Economics: “Increasingly, a small number of large biotechnology companies has gained control of the seed market. In some places, they have driven out competition, so that farmers are no longer able to buy non-GM seeds. In North America, even in places where the companies do not prevent the sale of non-GM seed, GM-free seeds may no longer be obtainable because of widespread contamination. Parts of Canada are now so polluted with GM oilseed rape that organic farming of this crop is no longer a viable option.

Farmers and economic analysts report that GM maize and soya beans have been less profitable for farmers than non-GM varieties over the six years that these crops have been grown commercially in North America. Added to the higher cost of the patented seeds is the cost of a licence fee. New seeds must be purchased annually, as farmers are forbidden by their contracts with the seed developers to save seeds. ” – Dr Eva Novotny

The idea that manipulated genes are somehow inherently more dangerous than the ordinary kind is rather silly. Everything live has DNA. It doesn’t affect us in any way; we don’t grow wings by eating too much chicken.

However, these are risks involved with these manipulated strains. As someone mentioned, their spread in nature could cause unforeseeable problems. Another risk is the homogenization of the crop DNA pool (a wide variety of natural strains being discarded in favor of one or two GM strains in a given area). As plant diseases evolve and mutate, this could cause crop failures in an unprecedented scale.

And Phil, I doubt that the benefits of GM crops will outweigh the seed purchase costs. They might initially, but look what happened to all those Southern American and African farmers who were persuaded to switch to growing tobacco, coffee, or cocoa? They became dependent on their buyers (US and EU speculators) who could than pretty much dictate the price paid for their harvests.

#16 was by me.

#15

I feel there can never be a very equal judgement except that of history with these kind oh hot topics. I don’t find talking cases and points disturbing. I find it disturbing that some people are ready to dismiss the whole technology as a concept. Which is something that should never be done. Gene manipulation is our destiny and hopefully a way out of the cage we’re currently held in.

the cage? Let me out. But don’t tell the EU.

I think the future is change, and we sure are going there.

Genetic engineering, as it is today, is messing with a very complicated system with very limited knowledge of how it works. Genes and combinations of genes produce some effects the scientists now know and a lot more they have no idea about. When people create new kinds of crops with inserting genes from, say, scorpions, they might get some good results, but I will not be surprised if they get more than they are asking for.

Just recently I watched a documentary about the issue, in which the feeding of GM corn to cattle was proven to produce systemic early termination of pregnancy in cows. The effect gradually disappeared when “ordinary” feed was used, and reappeared after GM corn was reintroduced. Of course, the company providing the corn would not admit there was anything wrong with it.

Genes are not Lego-blocks but very sophisticated multi-task units of guidance and information. Issi’s (#5) and philfree’s (#15) comments above are spot on: these GM-”creations” should not be brought to the market before they are studied exhaustively in isolated environments to determine their true implications.

There is very little information in the news about GM products, and I think that is a problem. Not all GM food is the same, not all GM is evil but some definitely is.

For example, golden rice and such could definitely be advantage in developing countries.

But now we are talking about soybeans. As already briefly mentioned in #15, soy called “Roundup Ready” is the problem. RR is a cultivar developed by agritech giant Monsanto (heavily criticized for almost everything they do, btw, kinda microsoft of agriculture). Roundup is Monsanto’s brand name for glyphosate, a herbicide, and Monsanto is the leading producer of glyphosate. RR soy is genetically modified to survive glyphosate.

Doesn’t that ring any bells? It is reasonable to suspect that Monsanto developed RR mainly to boost Roundup sales. Farmers can spray their soyfield with glyphosate before harvest or after sowing. Surely there is larger propability for glyphosate traces in final product now! And what if the GM soy escapes into wild? A fine damage control would be to spray the whole compromised area with glyphosate regardless of collateral damage. But now it is GM’d to survive and all that’s left would be the runaway, and even more deadly stuff would have to be used.

Roundup is also used in Finland and I know farmers who use it. In here, it’s only used after harvest to kill green weeds that are starting to grow under crops in order to keep them away next year. That stuff is really kill-all-and-everything, and I don’t feel comfortable knowing that live crops are sprayed with it.

I can use roundup in my Guarden?

Way cool idea. I do use it under my Fig trees, as it does the job there.

“I can use roundup in my Guarden?”

Sure, at least the consumer stuff sold in one liter already-diluted spray can. The amount used and the consentration of the stuff is ridiculous when compared to agricultural stuff. There is no reason to be paranoid

Round-up does not work on seeds, only plants in green phase. I think the manufacturer claims it to be bio-degenerable and not accumulating in the food chain. Don’t know if there is contradictory evidence to these claims.

Well, you CAN eat GMP, but shortly you will become one of the fat asses you can see every second in US. I am very much against genetical modifications. If people are starving, than start building fields in Africa, and make people grow their own food, not sell it for a giant price!

What concerns me,when I read what is happening with GM foods and crops, is that the biodiversity of food may be engangered by going for GM. If it spreads,accidentally, by pollen or wind, the farmers on whose fields the GENE is found have had to destroy their own seed, developed over a very long period of time, in way that uses natural selection and also takes into consideration adaptation to soil and climatic conditions of their particular area. Without their own seed,even people who did not want any GM, are stuck with buying it from a company that holds the licence. It it good to have monopoly of food,with commercially functioning companies? -In global scale, as this movements is spreading in our times?This,of course would affect the crops widely used ; soya, corn,some varieties of vegetables,cotton…

In India the first GM crop brought up suicides of farmers in epidemic proportions. Farmers of Vidarbha used the seed of cotton that was told to be the best and latest,from scientific point of view.What does a common man do,but trust to those who have studied and researched. Crops modified for American insects,may not be resistant for tropical ones.When the need of pesticide was obvious, it was too late to save the plants. Indepted with loans needed for obtaining pesticide the farmers drank it themselves.Also, the crops dependent on rain will not do well in an area,where irrigation is rare.When goats grazed on the greens left from GM cotton crop, they lost their lives.Life stock loss accompanied the harvest loss. However, Indian government has waved acricultural loans with severely indebted farmers to help them out.

It means,when GM vegetables come,that the field that earlier was used to grow tomatoes, brinjals,coliflower for a village will have GM variety of these.Which means that the shop will just have these veggies instead of the old type available to the people. Either -or.It depends on land available.What will we put there?If farmers do not keep old kind of seed, will they have choice later on,will anyone have?

We have already lost thousands of varieties of potatoes. That may be even a greater loss than what is happening due to deforestation of rain forests.We have lost biodiversity of our food crops,due to the farming methods used (tehomaataloudelle).Just four varieties of potato exist today. When one crop is lost to disease,affecting a particular variety of a plant,another variety can be used,starvation avoided.Developing varieties of natural food plants would look a better option for our future,and survival,than letting GM take over as the dominant drop of several major prime food grains used today all over the world?

With many medicinal compounds, food preservatives,pesticides (originally developed from the invention of nerve gas in World War II)what the effect on environment,foodchains,human bodies really is has often taken even twenty years of general use to become known.That some farm animals have been reported going sterile,when fed with GM feed, laboratory mice producing litter that dies within two weeks,could that point to possibility that the effect of ingesting some of the GM plants might show up only in the next generatio?.I do not say that it is so,hope not!,but it is better to find out in time than regret later?The research,collecting of data in a wide scale,is still missing.

Anyone not being compelled to join the GM race might benefit from seeing what happens with those who have gone for it or are doing so?-To estimate the real values and consequences,their desirability to oneself.This is my sharing as contribution to discussion.