|
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science Indu
For starters
This is the html version of the file http://www.zef.de/download/biotech/a_then.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These search terms have been highlighted: glyphosate danger -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 1A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science IndustryChristoph ThenGreenpeace – GermanyPaper presented at the Conference “Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries:Towards Optimizing the Benefits for the Poor” organized by ZEF and ISAAA incollaboration with AgrEvo and DSE in Bonn, 15-16 November 1999.IntroductionDiscussion on genetic engineering’s contribution to securing the world’s food supply turnsmainly on particular cases and new high-yield varieties. On this basis it is explained thatgenetic engineering is able to provide specific technical solutions to the problems of worldfood. But genetic engineering and the Life Science companies have a much more far-reaching and systematic influence on the world’s food supply than can be seen from isola-ted cases.Experts talk of the development of genetic engineering in the sphere of plant cultivationbeing not “technology driven” but “market driven”. In other words, what decides in favourof the use of genetic engineering is in many cases not special technological demands butgeneral considerations of market strategy. Under the heading “Industrial strategies andconstraints”, it says in the OECD’s report on Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food (1992,overview section 9): “The main focus of attention in this sector has been the reorganisationof the seed market, leading to greater integration with the agrochemicals sector ... Amongthe marketing strategies for new products, the traditional gene technology suppier optionhas become vulnerable and is giving way to the strategy of controlling seed markets, or,more importantly, the strategy of moving further downstream into crop output markets, inorder to capture the industrial value added.”Genetic engineering is becoming increasingly detached from its real scientific contextsinto being an instrument for opening up markets across the whole area of food production.Patent rights have resulted in biological resources being put in a quite new context. As soonas genetic engineering is used, patents enable monopolistic claims – which in many casesstretch all the way from planting in fields to selling in supermarkets – to be successfullymade. The manipulated gene implanted becomes built-in copyright protection reaching farbeyond its actual technical contribution and covering seeds, crops, agricultural cultivationand foodstuffs. Genetic engineering serves as a vehicle for implementing new monopolisticarrangements.Capitalisation and concentration of the seed marketIn 1998 sixty per cent of the world’s market for seeds was controlled by just 35 companies(there are a total of some 1,500). The McKinsey business-consultancy firm in 1997 statedthat, of the more than thirty seed cultivation companies active in genetic engineering in1990, only seven big companies still remained. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 2In future the seed market will play a still more important role in market strategy becauseof patenting. Genetic engineering, capitalisation and monopolisation go hand in hand.Financially strong agrochemical and food companies will divide the seed market betweenthemselves at will and without great effort. The seed sector will become an integral part ofthe Life Science industry. From the point of view of agrochemical interests thisdevelopment is a strategic necessity. The world market volume for agrochemicals amountsto about 28 billion US dollars. The volume for seeds is estimated at 30-50 billion dollars,but only about a third of this is at present actually traded through markets. When this iscompared to the agrochemicals branch, there is thus enormous potential for growth here.If forecasts predicting a worldwide shortage of food in the near future prove correct,strategies which enable access to the world’s food resources will acquire a quite newweight.A fierce struggle for shares in the markets of the future began long ago. One of thecentral means of gaining large market shares is the patent. It destroys functioning legal sys-ems and the protection of varieties, and secures access to agriculture for foreign economicinterests with capital.The great merger rushThe struggle for the best market positions is already far advanced. The Monsanto company,in particular, has been buying up all kinds of firms. Calgene (tomatoes with delayed ripen-ing, sustainable raw materials, cotton) and the Agracetus company (patents on soybeans,rice and cotton) were bought up in 1995, and in 1996 a merger was made with DeKalbSeeds (one of the biggest seed companies). Holden’s Foundation Seed, a strategicallyimportant company in the seed market generally on account of its collaboration with one ofthe world’s biggest crop-seed producers, Pioneer Hi-Bred, was bought up for a billiondollars in 1997. In 1998 DeKalb was bought up wholesale for 2.3 billion dollars, and Mon-santo also bought shares in the multinational seed company, Cargill, for 1.4 billion dollars.In 1997/98 Monsanto spent a total of eight billion dollars – equivalent to the whole of thecompany’s turnover during these years – on acquisitions. This made Monsanto the world’ssecond largest seed company, and it now controls over 80 per cent of the US market forcotton, 33 per cent of that for soybeans, and 15 per cent of the corn market (RAFI SeedCompany chart, July/August 1998). To get acceptance from the US anti-trust authorities forits acquistion of the Delta & Pine company, Monsanto in 1999 had to sell its own cottonsubsidiary, Stoneville.Monsanto’s biggest competitor is the world’s biggest multinational seed corporation,Pioneer Hi-Bred. Pioneer Hi-Bred controls large parts of the international market, especi-ally in soybeans and corn. After DuPont had paid 1.7 billion dollars for a 20 per cent sharein the company in 1997, it was taken over altogether by DuPont for 7.7 billion dollars in1999.The European market is also feverishly merging. The AgrEvo company, a merger be-tween the agricultural sections at Schering and Hoechst, bought the PGS (Plant GeneticSystems) company for 800 million German marks. The giant corporations of Ciba Geigyand Sandoz celebrated their marriage in 1996, when the Novartis company came into being.The dowry included a comprehensive patent on genetically modified corn. In the pesticidessector the US company, Merck, was acquired by Novartis for 1.5 billion marks in 1997. In1997/98 Novartis was the third biggest seed company in the world.The development of Monsanto and Novartis and the merger between DuPont and Pio-neer Hi-Bread clearly show the agrochemical companies, in particular, are expanding in theseed market. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3 3Systematic acquisition of agricultural plantsMost of the plants we use have their origin in the countries of the South. The history of ouragricultural plants is closely interwoven with the North’s colonisation and its systematicforays through the centres of biological diversity.1The application of genetic engineering and patenting puts this on a new scale. Somecompanies are working systematically to analyse the genetic make-up of those varietiesmost frequently used in the world. Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the biggest cultivators of plantsin the world, has, for example, concluded a contract worth over 16 million dollars with theHuman Genome Science databank for analysis of the genetic material in corn. The resultsof this collaboration are of course to be protected in patenting law. The cooperative agreements below, the aim of which is to analyse, evaluate and patentthe maximum possible genetic material of the plants involved, were made betweenagrochemical firms and genome-analysis institutes in 1998 alone (data from NatureBiotechnology, vol. 16, Sept. 1998).• AgrEvo and Gene Logic (exclusive 3-year contract for 45 million dollars)• DuPont and CuraGen• Novartis and Nadi (600 million dollars to be invested over ten years)• Zeneca and Alanex• Monsanto and InCyte PharmaceuticalsAgrEvo, DuPont, Novartis, Zeneca and Monsanto are among the ten biggest agro-chemical and seed companies in the world. Their activities and cooperative agreementsaffect the countries of origin of the varities of plants involved as much as they do countriesin the northern hemisphere.These companies are at present striving increasingly to gain direct control of the seedmarket in developing countries. Having gained the cooperation of the reputable IndianInstitute of Sciences in Bangalore, Monsanto in 1998 bought the biggest public seed-growing company in India, Mahyco. One reason control of this seed market is economi-cally significant is that 80 per cent of sowing in Asia, Africa and South America is done byfarmers re-using their own harvest. A study made in the Netherlands by the Rabobank putsthe total world market for seeds at 45 billion dollars. Only about 15 billion dollars of this isseed that is commercially traded.2Patent protection can to a very large extent put an end tore-sowing, i.e. farmers using their own crops. In addition, plants’ natural reproductiveability can be blocked by genetic changes, thus making it biologically impossible forfarmers to re-sow their own crops. The US company, Delta & Pine, which was bought upby Monsanto in 1998, has registered a patent to this end in Europe (WO96/04393); this“Terminator” seed has been heavily attacked internationally from many sides. Whether it bethe result of licensing contracts, the “Terminator” technology or the increased use of hybridseeds, the effect on farmers is the same – every year they have to buy their seed anew.China, Brazil, Mexico, Morocco, India and Pakistan are regarded as major markets for theexpansion of trade in commercial seed.1see Michel Flitner, Sammler, Räuber und Gelehrte, die politischen Interessen an pflanzengenetischenRessourcen 1895-1995, Campus Verlag, 19952see Saatgut, Buko Agrardossier 20, Schmetterling Verlag, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 4 4Biopiracy a new form of colonialismVandana Shiva, an Indian scientist, author and Alternative Nobel Prize winner ofinternational repute, is one of the major critics of this development. “Since colonial times,”she says3, “land, resources and people’s rights in developing countries have been usurpedby the colonial masters. Today this process is taking place more subtly. The northernhemisphere’s multinational corporations are trying to obtain exclusive rights to the ThirdWorld’s biodiversity and the genetic resources of its plant life. They are seeking to expand“Intellectual Property Rights” through institutions like GATT, in what is in effect mono-polising ideas and debasing the knowledge of people in the Third World. IPR are the key toabsolute possession and control of the Third World’s resources and markets.”Unequal weaponsFavouring the industrialised countries of the North, patent law lays down what innovationis, what intellectual property rights are recognised, and who will profit in the hunt for“green gold”. Only what is discovered in a laboratory is protected under patent law. Know-ledge collectively acquired, and the innovations connected with it, e.g. the preservation ofadapted agricultural varieties, on the other hand, remain unprotected.Patent law can, for financial and legal reasons, also be easily controlled by companiesoperating internationally. Patents can be registered for a hundred countries all at once(“world patents”, which are processed at the European Patent Office). Effectivelyregistering patents is on the other hand almost impossible for farmers, or those withmedical training, in developing or newly industrialised countries. About 90 per cent of thepatents issued in the countries of the Third World belong to companies which have theirhead offices in industrialised countries.4The extent of genetic engineering corporations’ patents can be seen, by way ofillustration, from the Monsanto company’s patent (EP 546 090) on herbicide-resistant soy-beans. This applies to genetically modified plants which have been made resistant to thecompany’s own weed-killer, Roundup (glyphosate). The following kinds of plant are listed:“corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton, sugar-beet, oilseed rape, canola, flax, sunflower,potato, tobacco, tomato, lucerne, poplar, pine, apple and grape”. The patent also applies toagricultural cultivation of the plants. “Planting these ... glyphosate-tolerant plants” is alsopatented, as is “applying an adequate amount of glyphosate herbicide to agricultural plantsand weeds”.Impacts of genetic engineeringAn assessment of the impact of genetic engineering on world food must take a number ofaspects into account:• in its scientific methodology, plant cultivation is increasingly oriented not on diversityof varieties or species but on specific genes• the loss of agrarian diversity, the advancing “genetic erosion” which has been able to beobserved for decades now• the reduction of the biological diversity still remaining to economically taxable geneticresources• the ousting of traditional farming cultures and regionally organised systems by global-ised markets3translated back from the German in booklet put out by Kein Patent auf Leben4Süd Magazin 3/1997, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Swissaid/Fastenopfer/Brot für alle/Helvetas/Caritas, Bern -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 5• the debasement of innovations in cultivation through copyrights like patents whichreward only what is “discovered” in industrial laboratories• the increasing monopolisation of the whole sphere of food production from seeds tosupermarketsSince genetic engineering means completely transforming and in part destroying existinginfrastructures and forms of innovation and knowledge, it is in a special sense a hazardoustechnology. The hazards lie not only in new risks for consumers and the environment, butin the world’s food becoming increasingly dependent on the economic goals of a smallhandful of corporations. |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
In article m,
"" wrote: This is the html version of the file http://www.zef.de/download/biotech/a_then.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...nload/biotech/ a_then.pdf+glyphosate+danger&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden"
wrote: "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
In article m,
URL:mailto:@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote: Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These search terms have been highlighted: glyphosate danger Pete, You -like- google so why not use it to read our response to the last time you trolled your trumped up glyphosate scare? You'll find all the answers there. Cheerio, -- http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/ |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. but you will already been eating large amounts of stuff which has been reared using GM soya (all that cheap brazilian chicken in ready meals (obviously I am not accusing you of being so lacking in taste as to eat a ready meal, I use the word 'you' in a very casual sense) and gm derived corn syrup is in large amounts of product.Indeed the cardboard package may well include gm corn starch. And with the CAP reforms cutting the level of EU food output and the rest of the world growing more GM, the population of the EU will eat more GM Jim Webster |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
... "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway. If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that make you sweetcorn? -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
... "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway. If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that make you sweetcorn? -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
wrote in message
s.com... On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden" wrote: "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . ridiculously huge SIG snipped LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in your head..nothing... -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
wrote in message
s.com... On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden" wrote: "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . ridiculously huge SIG snipped LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in your head..nothing... -- Tumbleweed Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:15:30 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote: wrote in message ws.com... On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, "Cob Nobden" wrote: "Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is snipped... / This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it. However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does it present real risks associated with release of this technology into the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful. This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have. But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . ridiculously huge SIG snipped LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in your head..nothing... That post was not mine, it was forged by derek moody aka M saunby aka T N Nurse the notorious troll. Apologies if the original author actually thought it was me. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message after me... But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway. If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that make you sweetcorn? No because all the genes in me are supposed to be there no matter what else they are in, whereas, if you insert a gene that is specific to another species that can then be passed on to it's new hosts progeny is it still the same thing or is it something new, a new species? If it is a "new" species then it cannot be called what the original was called i.e. GM Soya should not be called Soya at all but needs another name both scientifically and generally. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Tumbleweed" wrote in message after me... But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to go to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling to me. Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Many of the genes in a frog are in you and the non GM sweetcorn anyway. If there is a gene in you which is also in sweetcorn (there are), does that make you sweetcorn? No because all the genes in me are supposed to be there no matter what else they are in, whereas, if you insert a gene that is specific to another species that can then be passed on to it's new hosts progeny is it still the same thing or is it something new, a new species? If it is a "new" species then it cannot be called what the original was called i.e. GM Soya should not be called Soya at all but needs another name both scientifically and generally. I think that the definition of a species runs along the lines that any set of all those living objects which can breed with one another constitute a species. (Yes, I know there are occasional cases of interspecific breeding. I too don't understand that). Franz |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
No because all the genes in me are supposed to be there no matter what else they are in, whereas, if you insert a gene that is specific to another species that can then be passed on to it's new hosts progeny is it still the same thing or is it something new, a new species? If it is a "new" species then it cannot be called what the original was called i.e. GM Soya should not be called Soya at all but needs another name both scientifically and generally. So how about (naturally evolved) occurring blackgrass that is dimfop resistant? Would you call that a new or different species or just a different strain of the same species? or (naturally evolved) roundup resistant ryegrass (as found in australia)? or (naturally evolved) species of timothy grass that is bright red? Normally one does is partly by whether it can interbreed (if it can it's the same species) or sometimes by location where they are effectively separated and (usually) have a slightly different morphology although the latter is increasingly NOT considered to be a different species if it can interbreed. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... I think that the definition of a species runs along the lines that any set of all those living objects which can breed with one another constitute a species. A bit of a primary school definition. (Yes, I know there are occasional cases of interspecific breeding. I too don't understand that). I imagine. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message , . Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . ridiculously huge SIG snipped LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in your head..nothing... I would never and could never be on Pete's side, according to all that know me I'm sane :-) I don't just want all GM banned, full stop, like Pete the AR Troll, even though it's being done for financial gain for the firms involved not for the good of the world. Indeed, GM doing any good for the world has yet to be proved. I would like a lot more environmental research on the lasting effects of growing these crops in the way they are intended to be grown (i.e. high use of Roundup in some cases) and on the long term effects on the wild population of flora and fauna. If it takes 10, 20, or even 50 more years to be certain, so what. For example when they allowed the GM Parsley to flower and then cross with the wild parsley in France what happened? Have we now got a "super weed" that herbicides can't kill? Or is the wild plant now resistant to it's usual caterpillars, so will that specific species of butterfly/moth now die out? etc, etc. I've said it before, if they wish to use GM now it must be with plants that cannot flower, are genetically engineered not to flower, or we could be heading down a very slippery path where all our crops, indeed, a lot of wild flora, are contaminated with genes that should not be there and it will be too late to reverse the process. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:55:06 +0100, "Bob Hobden"
wrote: "Tumbleweed" wrote in message , . Is Sweetcorn modified with the genes of a frog still sweetcorn? Or is it frogcorn? :-) Prick. AT least we know whats inside your head anyway. . . . . . . . . ridiculously huge SIG snipped LOL, you're the prick, this person was on your side! Now we know whats in your head..nothing... I would never and could never be on Pete's side, pete who? according to all that know me I'm sane :-) Liar, some of us still you're a innane prick! I don't just want all GM banned, full stop, like Pete the AR Troll, even though it's being done for financial gain for the firms involved not for the good of the world. Indeed, GM doing any good for the world has yet to be proved. I would like a lot more environmental research on the lasting effects of growing these crops in the way they are intended to be grown (i.e. high use of Roundup in some cases) and on the long term effects on the wild population of flora and fauna. If it takes 10, 20, or even 50 more years to be certain, so what. For example when they allowed the GM Parsley to flower and then cross with the wild parsley in France what happened? Have we now got a "super weed" that herbicides can't kill? Or is the wild plant now resistant to it's usual caterpillars, so will that specific species of butterfly/moth now die out? etc, etc. I've said it before, if they wish to use GM now it must be with plants that cannot flower, are genetically engineered not to flower, or we could be heading down a very slippery path where all our crops, indeed, a lot of wild flora, are contaminated with genes that should not be there and it will be too late to reverse the process. Mind you, a prick that has the ability to learn, you'll do. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message in reply to me No because all the genes in me are supposed to be there no matter what else they are in, whereas, if you insert a gene that is specific to another species that can then be passed on to it's new hosts progeny is it still the same thing or is it something new, a new species? If it is a "new" species then it cannot be called what the original was called i.e. GM Soya should not be called Soya at all but needs another name both scientifically and generally. So how about (naturally evolved) occurring blackgrass that is dimfop resistant? Would you call that a new or different species or just a different strain of the same species? or (naturally evolved) roundup resistant ryegrass (as found in australia)? or (naturally evolved) species of timothy grass that is bright red? Normally one does is partly by whether it can interbreed (if it can it's the same species) or sometimes by location where they are effectively separated and (usually) have a slightly different morphology although the latter is increasingly NOT considered to be a different species if it can interbreed. No, those are results of natural evolution at work (albeit because of mans work in some cases), the genes of these plants have changed the way they work naturally, by selection. A new variety they might be. They have not had the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could never get there by natural means. Lots of species can cross, and some do it naturally, so whether they do that or not is no certain sign of a species. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
No, those are results of natural evolution at work (albeit because of mans work in some cases), the genes of these plants have changed the way they work naturally, by selection. By mutation and selection, actually. Just how the bacterium that degraded roundup arrived. A new variety they might be. I doubt that, they interbreed freely and look completely identical to their brothers and sisters without the gene (except the red timothy, of course, cos it's red). They have not had the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could never get there by natural means. Well even that's not true. I don't know if the resistance to roundup in the australian ryegrass is the same gene as monsanto's, but it's clearly very similar, probably just a few bases different. In any case of course the gene could get there by natural means, the single gene attackpoint of roundup (and dimfops) makes this quite likely. Lots of species can cross, and some do it naturally, so whether they do that or not is no certain sign of a species. Indeed so (to some extent), because the concept of species is a fuzzy one. Would you say a pekinese dog is a different species from a great dane? Certainly a variation in a single gene is never itself considered to constitute a separate species unless it prevents interbreeding. Otherwise there would be billions of different species of human. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
I would like a lot more environmental research on the lasting effects of growing these crops in the way they are intended to be grown (i.e. high use of Roundup in some cases) and on the long term effects on the wild population of flora and fauna. Generally it is not possible to farm a crop where you have uncontrollable weeds. Ultimately most can be 'controlled' by breaks, but the demand for the break crops is rather low and they themselves suffer from weed problems. That's why you typically do not find much in the way of weeds in farmed fields. If it takes 10, 20, or even 50 more years to be certain, so what. The major reduction in in-field weeds occurred between about 1950 and 1970. For example when they allowed the GM Parsley to flower and then cross with the wild parsley in France what happened? Have we now got a "super weed" that herbicides can't kill? No, although it might be resistant to one herbicide. This may be a problem in a field to a farmer, but not to wild parsly growing wild. Or is the wild plant now resistant to it's usual caterpillars, so will that specific species of butterfly/moth now die out? etc, etc. No this one IS a concern. I would be highly against introducing insecticide resistance to any crop that is known to hybridise with wild relatives for precisely this reason. Now in practice this isn't a problem for most crops, in fact I can only think of rape and the herbage grasses (UK) where this might be a problem. However this is so obvious I have been pointing it out for very many years. I've said it before, if they wish to use GM now it must be with plants that cannot flower, are genetically engineered not to flower, or we could be heading down a very slippery path where all our crops, indeed, a lot of wild flora, are contaminated with genes that should not be there and it will be too late to reverse the process. Multiplication of seed would be impossible, and in any case this isn't necessary. All that is required is calm and rational assessment of the risks to take a rational decision. Further, it's worth remembering that plants are packed with toxins already, which is why each plant typically has only a small number of pests. Only those resistant to the plant toxins can survive on them. Chemical warfare between plants and pests has been going on for hundreds of millions of years, and not a single plant has outwitted the insects. The reason for the differences (usually visual) between insect species probably owes as much to preventing the wrong species breeding as to anything else. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message ... Bob Hobden writes .... They have not had the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could never get there by natural means. Well even that's not true. I don't know if the resistance to roundup in the australian ryegrass is the same gene as monsanto's, but it's clearly very similar, probably just a few bases different. In any case of course the gene could get there by natural means, the single gene attackpoint of roundup (and dimfops) makes this quite likely. ... And what's particularly fascinating to me about the fear of GM is that although all sorts of technical/biological arguments are advanced it seems to have more in common with the relatively recent fear of machine looms, etc. than of the real danger that has always faced mankind, the dragons and other mythical (though clearly man-made by implication) beasties. Yet will those not employed in agriculture really feel any impact on their lifestyles? Perhaps yes if we ban all imports from countries that do choose to grow GM, but surely no otherwise. Just how many people are killed by technology each year compared with the natural nasties such as bacteria and viruses that are clearly out to get every single last one of us if we give 'em a chance? I'm sticking with technology, even deliberately destructive technology is relatively benign compared with diseases and starvation. It's said that rat borne diseases alone have killed more people than all wars - who'd have thought those lovely cuddly rats have it in for us on such a big scale? Michael Saunby |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:34:15 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
wrote: "Oz" wrote in message ... Bob Hobden writes ... They have not had the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could never get there by natural means. Well even that's not true. I don't know if the resistance to roundup in the australian ryegrass is the same gene as monsanto's, but it's clearly very similar, probably just a few bases different. In any case of course the gene could get there by natural means, the single gene attackpoint of roundup (and dimfops) makes this quite likely. .. And what's particularly fascinating to me about the fear of GM is that although all sorts of technical/biological arguments are advanced it seems to have more in common with the relatively recent fear of machine looms, etc. than of the real danger that has always faced mankind, the dragons and other mythical (though clearly man-made by implication) beasties. Yet will those not employed in agriculture really feel any impact on their lifestyles? Perhaps yes if we ban all imports from countries that do choose to grow GM, but surely no otherwise. Just how many people are killed by technology each year compared with the natural nasties such as bacteria and viruses that are clearly out to get every single last one of us if we give 'em a chance? I'm sticking with technology, even deliberately destructive technology is relatively benign compared with diseases and starvation. It's said that rat borne diseases alone have killed more people than all wars - who'd have thought those lovely cuddly rats have it in for us on such a big scale? Yes, a lot of people blame rats because man cannot be bothered to wash his hands often. A bigger killer would be the car, do we blame the cars or the driver? . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"W K" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... I think that the definition of a species runs along the lines that any set of all those living objects which can breed with one another constitute a species. A bit of a primary school definition. On the contrary, Darwin's definition, as in "The Origin of Species" by the man himself. If you knew a better one you would not have refrained from stating it. (Yes, I know there are occasional cases of interspecific breeding. I too don't understand that). I imagine. As usual, you appear not to have anything to contribute. Or do you understand how interspecific breeding occurs? Franz Franz Franz |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message after me again ((snip)) I've said it before, if they wish to use GM now it must be with plants that cannot flower, are genetically engineered not to flower, or we could be heading down a very slippery path where all our crops, indeed, a lot of wild flora, are contaminated with genes that should not be there and it will be too late to reverse the process. Multiplication of seed would be impossible, and in any case this isn't necessary. All that is required is calm and rational assessment of the risks to take a rational decision. Further, it's worth remembering that plants are packed with toxins already, which is why each plant typically has only a small number of pests. Only those resistant to the plant toxins can survive on them. Chemical warfare between plants and pests has been going on for hundreds of millions of years, and not a single plant has outwitted the insects. The reason for the differences (usually visual) between insect species probably owes as much to preventing the wrong species breeding as to anything else. Assessment of risks can only take place when we have full knowledge of the possible risks and understand the processes fully. I don't think we do yet. Still scientists working in this field get unexpected results, especially as inserted genes turn on latent genes, proof they aren't yet in control of the process, haven't yet mastered the subject. It's a bit like when they got soldiers to stand up and watch a nuclear explosion just to see what happens, this time it's the whole world they are making stand up. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World’s Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
Errr? you say it's not true then go on to quote a case study that shows just that??? The mutated gene you mention was chosen by natural selection. It was not a completely foreign gene from another species or even genera that got inserted. I think you are having trouble following who said what, in a multi-quoted post. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message in reply to me Assessment of risks can only take place when we have full knowledge of the possible risks and understand the processes fully. Factually incorrect. Assessment can take place at any time. It's accuracy may depend on our depth of knowledge, and usually does. Note that we have quite a bit of knowledge of genes and introductions. Perhaps I should have inserted Worthwhile or Meaningfull at the beginning. Still scientists working in this field get unexpected results, especially as inserted genes turn on latent genes, proof they aren't yet in control of the process, haven't yet mastered the subject. Mutations happen all the time and produce quite unexpected results. The whole biosphere is in an orgy of reproduction that produces billions of mutations annually. It's what biological systems have been doing for a billion years. Nothing new there. Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action. It's a bit like when they got soldiers to stand up and watch a nuclear explosion just to see what happens, this time it's the whole world they are making stand up. I think you underestimate the resilience of biological systems, particularly to point mutations. I have little doubt that GM will not cause the total destruction of life on earth, however, it will cause change, possibly some destruction of species, more use of chemicals in farming, inability of farmers to save their own seed for the next crop, contamination of other crops/wild flora......... Will it be change for better or worse? Do we know yet? Other than those companies involved making lots more money I don't think so. I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years anyway. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
"Oz" wrote in message in reply to me Assessment of risks can only take place when we have full knowledge of the possible risks and understand the processes fully. Factually incorrect. Assessment can take place at any time. It's accuracy may depend on our depth of knowledge, and usually does. Note that we have quite a bit of knowledge of genes and introductions. Perhaps I should have inserted Worthwhile or Meaningfull at the beginning. WE know quite a lot about agriculture, ecology and genetics. However no scientist worth their salt will EVER guarantee anything. Still scientists working in this field get unexpected results, especially as inserted genes turn on latent genes, proof they aren't yet in control of the process, haven't yet mastered the subject. Mutations happen all the time and produce quite unexpected results. The whole biosphere is in an orgy of reproduction that produces billions of mutations annually. It's what biological systems have been doing for a billion years. Nothing new there. Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action. Mutations (natural) do that all the time. yawn It's a bit like when they got soldiers to stand up and watch a nuclear explosion just to see what happens, this time it's the whole world they are making stand up. I think you underestimate the resilience of biological systems, particularly to point mutations. I have little doubt that GM will not cause the total destruction of life on earth, Clearly so. GM without life is nothing. however, it will cause change, Change has been happening for 1000,000,000 years without ceasing. Big deal. possibly some destruction of species, Species have been being lost for 1000,000,000's of years. Big deal. Best avoided, but it's actually quite hard to take a species to extinction, particularly insects, unless you remove their ecosystem. The field is already a species-deficient zone, being essentially a monoculture of necessity (even organic fields). more use of chemicals in farming, Unlikely. Most/all gmo's use fewer chemicals because if they didn't there would be no point using them at all. The reduction of insecticide use in BT cotton has by all accounts been huge for example. inability of farmers to save their own seed for the next crop, Been going on for decades (see hybrids), and in any case I very much doubt this will be the case in the EU, and doesn't appear to be the case in the 2nd/3rd world. contamination of other crops/wild flora......... If genes are transferred from some crop plants to some wild plants then this has been going on for millennia anyway. The question is whether the new genes give a significant advantage or disadvantage in the wild (cos wild plants live in the wild). Whilst I can see a mechanism for GM insecticides, I cannot see one for herbicide tolerance. It's also worth remembering that apart from some very closely related species (typically the brassicae) this is known not to happen (see selective weedkillers for example). Will it be change for better or worse? As a farmer, the ability to use fewer, safer, sprays is highly beneficial. Remember by far the person most at risk is the sprayer operator, who is handling bulk quantities of concentrate. Do we know yet? The US (and elsewhere) experience is that it's for the better overall. Otherwise they wouldn't continue to increase their area of gm cropping. Other than those companies involved making lots more money I don't think so. Farmers are most certainly not making lots of money, anywhere in the world. In any case one might just as well, and with much more justification, say the same about pharmaceutical companies. You know, the guys who sell you life-saving drugs at a truly vast margin. I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years anyway. Depends if the evidence counts or not. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip) Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action. Mutations (natural) do that all the time. yawn True, they do mutate, and that is natural and part of evolution, they don't insert themselves from one species (or even genera) to another . BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly and cause unexpected results in the Lab . I feel that is proof that the science is not good enough yet to be allowed out of the Lab and into our world. The scientists don't know whats going on! however, it will cause change, Change has been happening for 1000,000,000 years without ceasing. Big deal. possibly some destruction of species, Species have been being lost for 1000,000,000's of years. Big deal. Best avoided, but it's actually quite hard to take a species to extinction, particularly insects, unless you remove their ecosystem. The field is already a species-deficient zone, being essentially a monoculture of necessity (even organic fields). From those comments I understand you don't mind if there is significant change brought about by GM. Here we differ fundamentally. more use of chemicals in farming, Unlikely. Most/all gmo's use fewer chemicals because if they didn't there would be no point using them at all. The reduction of insecticide use in BT cotton has by all accounts been huge for example. Not what I've heard. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with more herbicides. inability of farmers to save their own seed for the next crop, Been going on for decades (see hybrids), and in any case I very much doubt this will be the case in the EU, and doesn't appear to be the case in the 2nd/3rd world. Wrong! Only in the case of F1 hybrids is it not wise to save seed as they are first generation crosses and the second generation follows the normal rules. Seed CAN still be saved though and you would still get a crop of sorts. contamination of other crops/wild flora......... If genes are transferred from some crop plants to some wild plants then this has been going on for millennia anyway. The question is whether the new genes give a significant advantage or disadvantage in the wild (cos wild plants live in the wild). Whilst I can see a mechanism for GM insecticides, I cannot see one for herbicide tolerance. It would be the only plant other than the crop that could survive the herbicide use. Will it be change for better or worse? As a farmer, the ability to use fewer, safer, sprays is highly beneficial. Remember by far the person most at risk is the sprayer operator, who is handling bulk quantities of concentrate. I would agree if I thought it true that there would be less spraying/herbicide use but as some of the companies involved in GM are also Agro-Chemical companies I somehow doubt it. Do we know yet? The US (and elsewhere) experience is that it's for the better overall. Otherwise they wouldn't continue to increase their area of gm cropping. If there was money to be made they would increase it no matter what. I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years anyway. Depends if the evidence counts or not. But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is controlling this science and why. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
"Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip) Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action. Mutations (natural) do that all the time. yawn True, they do mutate, and that is natural and part of evolution, they don't insert themselves from one species (or even genera) to another . Hardly matters because each species has the opportunity to mutate to resist whatever pressures are brought to bear. RR ryegrass for example. Further the number of really new molecules that get used by life is surprisingly small, just compare haemoglobin and chlorophyll, rhodopsin and vitamin A for example. BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly and cause unexpected results in the Lab . Indeed, that's why the plants get screened first. In fact they probably go through a conventional breeding program as any 'useful gene' does, with plenty of time to check any aberration. So far I don't think there is a single example you can point to in the field. I feel that is proof that the science is not good enough yet to be allowed out of the Lab and into our world. The scientists don't know whats going on! Inability to predict isn't the same as not knowing what is going on. After all that's far more true of conventional breeding techniques where they haven't the slightest clue what the (conventional) genes are doing, whilst at least they do know precisely what the rather simple GM gene is doing. They identified it, extracted it, implanted it and can track it. however, it will cause change, Change has been happening for 1000,000,000 years without ceasing. Big deal. possibly some destruction of species, Species have been being lost for 1000,000,000's of years. Big deal. Best avoided, but it's actually quite hard to take a species to extinction, particularly insects, unless you remove their ecosystem. The field is already a species-deficient zone, being essentially a monoculture of necessity (even organic fields). From those comments I understand you don't mind if there is significant change brought about by GM. Here we differ fundamentally. You have a short memory. I already made comment about inappropriate use of insecticidal genes. None the less I know of no insect rendered extinct by conventional pesticides, which are far more profligate in their effects than GM insecticides. I suspect you grossly overestimate man's abilities and underestimate nature's. more use of chemicals in farming, Unlikely. Most/all gmo's use fewer chemicals because if they didn't there would be no point using them at all. The reduction of insecticide use in BT cotton has by all accounts been huge for example. Not what I've heard. Then you heard wrong, and further are not thinking. Why would a farmer pay to use more expensive chemicals by buying more expensive seed, when he can just use whats already available? You seem not to realise that the main aim of a farmer is to spend as little on sprays as possible, which means using as few as possible. Many are over $200/can, and are a serious drain on any profitability he might have. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with more herbicides. No. So they can use one cheap spray of environmentally benign roundup instead of a cocktail of many expensive ones. Please think. inability of farmers to save their own seed for the next crop, Been going on for decades (see hybrids), and in any case I very much doubt this will be the case in the EU, and doesn't appear to be the case in the 2nd/3rd world. Wrong! Only in the case of F1 hybrids is it not wise to save seed as they are first generation crosses and the second generation follows the normal rules. Seed CAN still be saved though and you would still get a crop of sorts. sigh You missed the point completely. Hybrids are used to STOP farmers saving their seeds. Having a 'crop of sorts' isn't exactly conducive to making a living. Using hybrids occurs primarily in the US, where there doesn't appear to be any regulation of seed royalty. In the EU (as an example) saved seed still carries a royalty and there is much less pressure for hybrids. In the 2nd/3rd world there are no royalties, and it's saved - but this doesn't look like changing, and laws don;t look like changing either. So outside the US, no problem. If genes are transferred from some crop plants to some wild plants then this has been going on for millennia anyway. The question is whether the new genes give a significant advantage or disadvantage in the wild (cos wild plants live in the wild). Whilst I can see a mechanism for GM insecticides, I cannot see one for herbicide tolerance. It would be the only plant other than the crop that could survive the herbicide use. sigh If it's close enough to x-breed with the crop then it's unlikely to be hit by any conventional selectives either. So the farmer isn't any worse off. So no bigger problem. Anyhow it's the farmer's problem. As a farmer, the ability to use fewer, safer, sprays is highly beneficial. Remember by far the person most at risk is the sprayer operator, who is handling bulk quantities of concentrate. I would agree if I thought it true that there would be less spraying/herbicide use but as some of the companies involved in GM are also Agro-Chemical companies I somehow doubt it. That's because you are ignorant of the reality. The US (and elsewhere) experience is that it's for the better overall. Otherwise they wouldn't continue to increase their area of gm cropping. If there was money to be made they would increase it no matter what. Precisely, and since most have been working hard to earn nothing for years any small profit feeds the wife and kids. I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years anyway. Depends if the evidence counts or not. But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is controlling this science and why. No, I think the difference is that you cannot place your knowledge accurately into the reality of both farming and nature. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... Not what I've heard. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with more herbicides. simple thought will tell you that that must be wrong herbicides cost money GM seed is slightly more expensive why would you pay more money for seed on which you have to use more herbicide, again spending more money? Jim Webster |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message Not what I've heard. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with more herbicides. simple thought will tell you that that must be wrong herbicides cost money GM seed is slightly more expensive why would you pay more money for seed on which you have to use more herbicide, again spending more money? Bigger yield? So why have they developed herbicide resistant crops then? So they can use "roundup*" to spray the weeds off instead of using mechanical means of weeding which cost lots of money. Perhaps you have another explanation for their development? *Roundup...a Monsanto product, like a lot of the GM crops. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip) [snip] Mutations (natural) do that all the time. yawn True, they do mutate, and that is natural and part of evolution, they don't insert themselves from one species (or even genera) to another . Ever heard of natural interspecific hybrids? BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly and cause unexpected results in the Lab . Mother Nature cannot predict these "mutations" caused .......(sic) The scientists *can* predict the primary result of a gene modification. Do you think they waste their time randomly mucking about in the hopes that something useful might turn up? : I feel that is proof that the science is not good enough yet to be allowed out of the Lab and into our world. Your feelings do not constitute a scientific argument. The scientists don't know whats going on! On the contrary. The scientists involved know one hell of a lot about what is going on. That is why they can make controlled genetic changes whereas Mother Nature just does it by sucking and seeing. [snip] Species have been being lost for 1000,000,000's of years. Big deal. Best avoided, but it's actually quite hard to take a species to extinction, particularly insects, unless you remove their ecosystem. The field is already a species-deficient zone, being essentially a monoculture of necessity (even organic fields). From those comments I understand you don't mind if there is significant change brought about by GM. Here we differ fundamentally. May I take it that you eat no domesticated animal meat at all, and that you restrict your vegetable intake to natural species of wild wheat and crab apples? more use of chemicals in farming, Unlikely. Most/all gmo's use fewer chemicals because if they didn't there would be no point using them at all. The reduction of insecticide use in BT cotton has by all accounts been huge for example. Not what I've heard. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with more herbicides. I think you have missed a very important point. The resistance involved is a very specific resistance to glyphosate and glyphosate only. If one sprayed with any herbicide other than glyphosate, one will have no crop. And if one sprayed with more glyphosate than necessary, one is a fool who ought not to attempt farming. [snip] I think you would have made a more valid point if you had not mixed up the science involved in genetic modification, with the interests of the Agrochemical companies involved. But such is the nature of capitalism..... Franz |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Reply-To: "Bob Hobden"
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-83-78.in-addr.btopenworld.com (81.129.83.78) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065303451 15063547 81.129.83.78 (16 [93475]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!eusc.inter.net! fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-129-83-78.in-addr.btopenworld.COM!not-for-mail Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:51916 uk.rec.gardening:168730 uk.rec.natural-history:17714 uk.business.agricultu131034 "Franz wrote in message why would you pay more money for seed on which you have to use more herbicide, again spending more money? Bigger yield? How do you generate a bigger yield by spraying with more glyphosate than the minimum amount necessary to kill the weed growth? Think you have misinterpreted what I said. They will now be able to use Roundup instead of mechanical removal of weeds. Never said they would use more than necessary, but there will be a much greater use of herbicide overall because the farmers can now use it whilst the herbicide resistant GM crop is growing without killing the crop too. There will be no need to control weeds by mechanical means. This will make it cheaper to grow, more certain, give a weed free crop, and will increase yields (no weed competition). The company making the GM seed and providing the herbicide will also increase their income which is why they are doing the research. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Franz wrote in message Ever heard of natural interspecific hybrids? Yes, but they are normally within the same genera and if you had been following this discussion you would have seen me mention frog genes added to sweetcorn. So that happens naturally? BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly and cause unexpected results in the Lab . Mother Nature cannot predict these "mutations" caused .......(sic) The scientists *can* predict the primary result of a gene modification. Do you think they waste their time randomly mucking about in the hopes that something useful might turn up? Please read what I have written and it's context, my comment was to show why I don't think GM is ready for release from the Lab. The scientists don't know whats going on! On the contrary. The scientists involved know one hell of a lot about what is going on. That is why they can make controlled genetic changes whereas Mother Nature just does it by sucking and seeing. These genetic changes they are making, it is very doubtfull they would happen in nature so what they are doing is un-natural, no harm in that when they are fully aware of what is happening and what will happen (no second chances with this science). But are they? I think you would have made a more valid point if you had not mixed up the science involved in genetic modification, with the interests of the Agrochemical companies involved. But that's the point, they are linked, indeed they are the same companies which is why I don't trust the science too much. Too much pressure. But such is the nature of capitalism..... Too true. Too true. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Jim wrote in message Not what I've heard. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with more herbicides. simple thought will tell you that that must be wrong herbicides cost money GM seed is slightly more expensive why would you pay more money for seed on which you have to use more herbicide, again spending more money? Bigger yield? Not necessarily, just lower cost So why have they developed herbicide resistant crops then? So they can use "roundup*" to spray the weeds off instead of using mechanical means of weeding which cost lots of money. Perhaps you would explain to me the mechanical means of weeding either OSR/Canola or Maize, especially late season? These have always been sprayed, unless of course you are volunteering to hand hoe your share? Perhaps you have another explanation for their development? Check no-till agriculture for one thing *Roundup...a Monsanto product, like a lot of the GM crops. Actually the chemical is generic now, produced by scores of firms all over the world and sells for perhaps a third of what it used to Jim Webster |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
" "Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip) Hardly matters because each species has the opportunity to mutate to resist whatever pressures are brought to bear. RR ryegrass for example. Further the number of really new molecules that get used by life is surprisingly small, just compare haemoglobin and chlorophyll, rhodopsin and vitamin A for example. Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly and cause unexpected results in the Lab . Indeed, that's why the plants get screened first. In fact they probably go through a conventional breeding program as any 'useful gene' does, with plenty of time to check any aberration. So far I don't think there is a single example you can point to in the field. I am sure and indeed hope that there is sufficient study done to ensure nothing seriously wrong gets into the environment, but you obviously agree such things do turn up which rather proves my case. , Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with more herbicides. No. So they can use one cheap spray of environmentally benign roundup instead of a cocktail of many expensive ones. Please think. This has been answered by me elsewhere. .. Hybrids are used to STOP farmers saving their seeds. You mean F1 Hybrids only I assume. Having a 'crop of sorts' isn't exactly conducive to making a living. True, but I was thinking mainly about the 3rd world when I wrote that. But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is controlling this science and why. No, I think the difference is that you cannot place your knowledge accurately into the reality of both farming and nature. Interesting comment! Don't forget big business here too, or have you conveniently forgotten who is controlling most of the GM science and why. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? bacteria swap genes about that are completely foreign and bacteria then get into everything Jim Webster |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
" "Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip) Hardly matters because each species has the opportunity to mutate to resist whatever pressures are brought to bear. RR ryegrass for example. Further the number of really new molecules that get used by life is surprisingly small, just compare haemoglobin and chlorophyll, rhodopsin and vitamin A for example. Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? A gene is a gene. Where it comes from really isn't important. Genes have always been somewhat promiscuous, many parasites and hosts exchange genes. If an identical gene is naturally produced or introduced it doesn't make any odds, the effect is the same. The main reason for organisms blocking gene transfer is the very low likelihood of the result being useful (typically infertile). The result would thus be wasted. BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly and cause unexpected results in the Lab . Indeed, that's why the plants get screened first. In fact they probably go through a conventional breeding program as any 'useful gene' does, with plenty of time to check any aberration. So far I don't think there is a single example you can point to in the field. I am sure and indeed hope that there is sufficient study done to ensure nothing seriously wrong gets into the environment, but you obviously agree such things do turn up which rather proves my case. Lots of mechanical designs go wrong at the design stage. That doesn't mean you scrap the design completely, normally you refine it to overcome the problems. Almost nothing (electrical, mechanical, whatever) brought to market avoids this refining stage. Consequently I cannot see anything novel or worrying in your argument. Hybrids are used to STOP farmers saving their seeds. You mean F1 Hybrids only I assume. Having a 'crop of sorts' isn't exactly conducive to making a living. True, but I was thinking mainly about the 3rd world when I wrote that. Strangely even the 3rd world farmer has to make a living. Or often in this case, feed their family. Bit hazardous with a 'crop of sorts', particularly when they starve. But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is controlling this science and why. No, I think the difference is that you cannot place your knowledge accurately into the reality of both farming and nature. Interesting comment! Don't forget big business here too, or have you conveniently forgotten who is controlling most of the GM science and why. Big deal. The car manufacturers 'control' cars, electronics manufacturers 'control' electronics and drug manufacturers 'control' drugs. The seed manufacturers get their patents and copyrights ripped off by 2nd and 3rd world farmers within 12 months. If that's what you consider 'control' then its an odd use of the word. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... [snip] I am sure and indeed hope You are just spinning words. If you are sure, as you aver, why do you have to hope? that there is sufficient study done to ensure nothing seriously wrong gets into the environment, but you obviously agree such things do turn up which rather proves my case. I don't understand why you wrote that last clause. It is not at all obvious that Oz agrees with you on anything of substance. [snip] Franz |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Reply-To: "Bob Hobden"
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com (81.129.95.83) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065356770 14970810 81.129.95.83 (16 [93475]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.COM!not-for-mail Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52022 uk.rec.gardening:168854 uk.rec.natural-history:17739 uk.business.agricultu131108 "Jim wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? bacteria swap genes about that are completely foreign and bacteria then get into everything With what do they swap genes? -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter