GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

14-05-2003, 04:56 PM

In article ,
(swroot) wrote:

wrote:

Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my
questions help me compile useful statistics.

I will respond to some of your questions and comments.

First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in
traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific
agriculture.

I have no fear or distrust of 'scientific agriculture' _per se_.
I do, however, both fear and distrust the motives, greed and selective
blindness of the multinationals driving the production of genetically
modified crops.

Absolutely right. Companies like Monsanto have a long history of abusing
public trust, harming public health, lying like crazy, falsifying
scientific data, & let's face it, killing people. They now are using
political might to limit or remove the public right to even know.

Even if it were the utopian solution to all mankind's problems as
propogandized, the people in charge have already proven time & again they
are the poorest of all guardians of the public interest.

Since the chemical industry dominates transgenic research & owns nearly
all the patented seed, a lot of what they are peddling is designed to
increase chemical sales. Monsanto, caught falsifying data on extremely
dangerous weed retardants, peddles crop seed that can survive having more
of these chemicals dumped on them so they can sell more weed-killer.
That's just one of the obvious self-interests of these giant companies
that is diametrically opposed to public health interests. At every stage
they use what might or might not be a wonderful science to cause harm, &
"spin" it with happy-faces to increase profits, all the while doing
everything they can to destroy farmers' right to choose, & public's right
to know.

-paghat the ratgirl

I would point out that, at one time all of these old
technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of
cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional
crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction
of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an
example.

Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants
will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The
primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased
pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please
document your accusations.

Hmm. I no longer follow the debate as closely as I did, but I recall
being horrified to note that the companies encouraging farmers to switch
to Bt cotton first denied there was any chance that this new crop would
speed the development of BT resistant bollworm, then (once research
proved it possible), recommended small 'normal' refuges, then larger
ones. Then there's the complexity of the possible refuge strategies...
Foliar sprays were a better way of utilising Bt.

Then there's the speed with which weeds are developing glyphosate
resistance. Once it was thought impossible, then there was ryegrass.
Used with care glyphosate could remain a useful herbicide for decades;
spread about with gay abandon by those growing GM crops, resistance will
develop more quickly. GM herbicide tolerant/Bt crops are a short term
solution to a problem that was crying out for other solutions.

Then there's the problem of GM traits spreading into wild relatives of
that crop. A specific example would be the probability of virus
resistance spreading from cultivated GM squash to its wild relative
_Cucurbita pepo_, which is already an agricultural weed in the southern
US, thought to be restricted (somewhat) by its vulnerability to those
viruses.

Then there's the business of the monarchs dying after eating leaves
dusted with pollen from GM maize. [Don't comment yet]

Then there's the research showing that populations of insect predators
such as lacewings suffer as a result of eating caterpillars that have
fed on Bt maize. Novartis' safety tests had found no such effect because
they were conducted in apparent ignorance of the way in which lacewings
feed.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the fuss over monarchs was
discredited after further research, but that entirely misses the point.
Which is that these topics should have been researched in detail BEFORE
GM crops were released into cultivation. The fact that companies
developing GM crops failed to accurately examine even the most obvious
ecological effects has completely destroyed their credibility as far as
I'm concerned. As a result I will not knowingly support them, or their
research.

And then there are the effects on those who grow GM crops...
inadvertently.

While I don't know whether Percy Schmeiser was guilty or not, I do know
that oil seed rape now grows freely in road verges across the UK. The
chances are good that if GM OSR was grown here, some of those plants in
the verges would be herbicide tolerant, contaminating non-HT crops in
adjacent fields. Leaving organic farmers without their certification,
and perhaps leaving other unfortunates in court facing prosecution for
growing GM crops without a licence.

There certainly are beneficial uses for the technology, but they are
limited. Bananananas come to mind. Golden rice is often cited as
miraculous, but a rice researcher posting to the biotech mailing list at
the time it was announced commented that there are existing varieties
producing more beta-carotene. And it's very likely that those growing
golden rice would have to use more fertilisers and more pesticides.
Better to address Vitamin A deficiency by providing a proper balanced
diet including the green leafy vegetables that were more commonly eaten
before intensive rice cultivation became so widely practiced.

Some comments deserve a direct response.

One respondent implied that modified plants are not likely to have an effect
on airborne toxics or oderants in homes. I can assure you that both of
these goals are practical.

Another respondent suggested that it was perverse to remove pollutants from
air rather than prevent their formation in the first place. I agree, but
odors are unavoidable, and pollutants are an unfortunate fact of modern
life. Airborne pollutants come from chlorinated water used to shower and
washing, releasing chloroform into the air; from clothing that has been dry
cleaned (perchloroethylene and methyl chloroform); from attached garages
(benzene and toluene); and various household products (methylene chloride
and many others). You may avoid dry cleaning and other sources of toxic
volatiles, but chlorination of water is the rule in the US and most of the
UK, so your house air does contain chloroform, and short of a whole house
carbon filter, well maintained, there is no way to avoid it. Isn't a
practical way to reduce that risk to your family worth considering?

Certainly. Why not open a window and provide efficient ventilation? If
the air outside is worse, why not invest in public transport to reduce
air pollution in urban areas? Lots of knock-on benefits there. Why rely
on the application of layer upon layer of technology to solve problems
that might be better, more easily solved by stripping away
*inappropriate* technologies?

[-]

I hope this answers your questions.

And, with the greatest respect, I hope this at least suggests that my
stance on GM/GE is not based on ignorance. Remember, one man's prejudice
is another's informed, intelligent distrust :-)

regards
sarah

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/