Independent Research? [modified]
-
You think wanting to ban a element[^] is not extreme?
No, not on the basis of your link. It wouldn't be the first chemical to be banned[^] So what is it about Chlorine that makes this an extreme position? -- modified at 18:42 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
-
Greenpeace said a study it had commissioned that was published in the
journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Technology showed rats fed for
90 days on Monsanto's MON863 maize showed "signs of toxicity" in the liver and
kidneys.And...
"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-
reviewed journal, has proved that a GMO authorized for human consumption presents
signs of toxicity," Arnaud Apoteker, a spokesman for Greenpeace France said in
statement.I also find it interesting that a group which includes such organizations as PETA among its "comprehensive list of all [their] favourite sites[^]" would commission a study designed to induce cancer toxicity in rats. Of course, I guess that comes as no surprise. After all, they are leading global warming advocates[^].
I have access to the journal (of course, the newspaper article could have screwed up which journal it's in, which they FREQUENTLY do) but unless it's not actually published yet, searching for "maize," for "MON863", "Monsanto," or even "Greenpeace" didn't turn up anything. So if anyone else figures out where it is, let me know - I'd like to see what they think "signs of toxicity" meant. Not that I don't trust Greenpeace, of course. :rolleyes: However, let's say they did find "signs of toxicity." Well, here's Monsanto's contribution.
Hammond B; Lemen J; Dudek R; Ward D; Jiang C; Nemeth M; Burns J. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food And Chemical Toxicology. 2006 Feb; Vol. 44 (2), pp. 147-60.
The results of a 90-day rat feeding study with YieldGard (YieldGard Rootworm Corn is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology, LLC.) Rootworm corn (MON 863) grain that is protected against feeding damage caused by corn rootworm larvae are presented. Corn rootworm-protection was accomplished through the introduction of a cry3Bb1 coding sequence into the corn genome for in planta production of a modified Cry3Bb1 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis. Grain from MON 863 and its near isogenic control were separately formulated into rodent diets at levels of 11% and 33% (w/w) by Purina Mills, Inc. Additionally, six groups of rats were fed diets containing grain from different conventional (non-biotechnology-derived) reference varieties. The responses of rats fed diets containing MON 863 were compared to those of rats fed grain from conventional corn varieties. All diets were nutritionally balanced and conformed to Purina Mills, Inc. specifications for Certified LabDiet 5002. There were a total of 400 rats in the study divided into 10 groups of 20 rats/sex/group. Overall health, body weight gain, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, gross and microscopic appearance of tissues were comparable between groups fed diets containing MON 863 and conventional corn varieties. This study complements extensive agronomic, compositional and farm animal feeding studies with MON 863 grain, confirming that it is as safe and nutritious as existing conventional corn varieties.
So at face value they're even. One study shows something, one study shows nothing. Though, I can't compare the study quality if I can't find one of th
-
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
I'm staggered that you are incapable of understanding a simple response. Perhaps a more wordy response will help. There is an assumption behind your question that I reject. That assumption is that Greenpeace with an annual budget of $100 million is anything like ExxonMobil with annual revenues near $100 billion. ExxonMobil has produced research that has been scientifically discredited and was provided by organizations that exist only because of ExxonMobil funding and whose stated goal is to disprove global warming. At this point I am not aware of any evidence that the reseach done for Greenpeace is not independent. I haven't seen any evidence by anyone in this thread to support that accusation.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
You know...I'm almost convinced that you actually believe yourself. :laugh:
You know... I am totally convinced that you don't actually believe yourself.
-
No, not on the basis of your link. It wouldn't be the first chemical to be banned[^] So what is it about Chlorine that makes this an extreme position? -- modified at 18:42 Wednesday 14th March, 2007
You misunderstand the link.. CFC's are not the issue, Greenpeace campaigns against the use of chlorine in any industrial chemistry because of the potential reactions in incinerators.
-
You misunderstand the link.. CFC's are not the issue, Greenpeace campaigns against the use of chlorine in any industrial chemistry because of the potential reactions in incinerators.
I'm aware that CFC's are not the issue. My point is that Chlorine would not be the first chemical that was ever banned. So, what is it about banning chlorine that is extreme? -- modified at 19:08 Wednesday 14th March, 2007 I just noticed - That article that you linked to is 13 years old! How is that even relevant?
-
I'm aware that CFC's are not the issue. My point is that Chlorine would not be the first chemical that was ever banned. So, what is it about banning chlorine that is extreme? -- modified at 19:08 Wednesday 14th March, 2007 I just noticed - That article that you linked to is 13 years old! How is that even relevant?
Because it is near ubiquitous in organic chemistry, including the manufacture of many many pharmaceuticals. Chlorine is an element, present in both benign compounds and dangerous ones. Banning its use is either scientific illiteracy or ecological fanaticism, your choice. Its relevant because that policy is still on their books, and therefore illustrative of their position.
-
Because it is near ubiquitous in organic chemistry, including the manufacture of many many pharmaceuticals. Chlorine is an element, present in both benign compounds and dangerous ones. Banning its use is either scientific illiteracy or ecological fanaticism, your choice. Its relevant because that policy is still on their books, and therefore illustrative of their position.
Here is a relevant quote from the memo: "Greenpeace says the largest dioxin sources are incinerators burning chlorinated wastes, pulp mills that use chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaches, and the manufacturer of PVC (or vinyl) plastic; but all other sectors that use or burn chlorine also result in dioxin formation. Greenpeace said that the EPA should take emergency action to address these three priority areas, while long-term plans are initiated to phase out all other chlorine-based processes. . ." Nothing in that suggests that salt(for example) should be banned. It's talking about industrial use. It state there are 3 areas that should be addressed immediately, but gives no time line under which it must be accomplished, and then it talks about long term(very open-ended) plans to complete the ban. Doesn't sound particularly extreme to me. As a side note I'm curious why you would link me to the web site of the Center for Media and Democracy (sounds leftist to me) that contains a 13 year old internal memo from the Chlorine Chemistry Council that describes Greenpeace's position and it is on this website because "It offers a revealing example of the extent to which the chlorine industry is engaged in surveillance activities against environmentalists.", rather than Greenpeace's own website that, no doubt, has it's current position?
-
Here is a relevant quote from the memo: "Greenpeace says the largest dioxin sources are incinerators burning chlorinated wastes, pulp mills that use chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaches, and the manufacturer of PVC (or vinyl) plastic; but all other sectors that use or burn chlorine also result in dioxin formation. Greenpeace said that the EPA should take emergency action to address these three priority areas, while long-term plans are initiated to phase out all other chlorine-based processes. . ." Nothing in that suggests that salt(for example) should be banned. It's talking about industrial use. It state there are 3 areas that should be addressed immediately, but gives no time line under which it must be accomplished, and then it talks about long term(very open-ended) plans to complete the ban. Doesn't sound particularly extreme to me. As a side note I'm curious why you would link me to the web site of the Center for Media and Democracy (sounds leftist to me) that contains a 13 year old internal memo from the Chlorine Chemistry Council that describes Greenpeace's position and it is on this website because "It offers a revealing example of the extent to which the chlorine industry is engaged in surveillance activities against environmentalists.", rather than Greenpeace's own website that, no doubt, has it's current position?
I had trouble locating the original press release: "Why Chlorine chemistry must be phased out"[^]. If you don't think that wanting to ban an entire class of chemistry is an extreme environmentalist position, then there really isn't much point in continuing the discussion as we are tripping over subjectivity. It was certainly enough to prompt the departure of a Greenpeace director however.
-
I have access to the journal (of course, the newspaper article could have screwed up which journal it's in, which they FREQUENTLY do) but unless it's not actually published yet, searching for "maize," for "MON863", "Monsanto," or even "Greenpeace" didn't turn up anything. So if anyone else figures out where it is, let me know - I'd like to see what they think "signs of toxicity" meant. Not that I don't trust Greenpeace, of course. :rolleyes: However, let's say they did find "signs of toxicity." Well, here's Monsanto's contribution.
Hammond B; Lemen J; Dudek R; Ward D; Jiang C; Nemeth M; Burns J. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food And Chemical Toxicology. 2006 Feb; Vol. 44 (2), pp. 147-60.
The results of a 90-day rat feeding study with YieldGard (YieldGard Rootworm Corn is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology, LLC.) Rootworm corn (MON 863) grain that is protected against feeding damage caused by corn rootworm larvae are presented. Corn rootworm-protection was accomplished through the introduction of a cry3Bb1 coding sequence into the corn genome for in planta production of a modified Cry3Bb1 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis. Grain from MON 863 and its near isogenic control were separately formulated into rodent diets at levels of 11% and 33% (w/w) by Purina Mills, Inc. Additionally, six groups of rats were fed diets containing grain from different conventional (non-biotechnology-derived) reference varieties. The responses of rats fed diets containing MON 863 were compared to those of rats fed grain from conventional corn varieties. All diets were nutritionally balanced and conformed to Purina Mills, Inc. specifications for Certified LabDiet 5002. There were a total of 400 rats in the study divided into 10 groups of 20 rats/sex/group. Overall health, body weight gain, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, gross and microscopic appearance of tissues were comparable between groups fed diets containing MON 863 and conventional corn varieties. This study complements extensive agronomic, compositional and farm animal feeding studies with MON 863 grain, confirming that it is as safe and nutritious as existing conventional corn varieties.
So at face value they're even. One study shows something, one study shows nothing. Though, I can't compare the study quality if I can't find one of th
How accurate any of this is ... you make your own mind up http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering[^] http://www.monsantowatch.org/uploads/pdfs/2005innovest.pdf[^] http://www.mercola.com/2005/jul/30/monsanto_report.htm[^]
-
How accurate any of this is ... you make your own mind up http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering[^] http://www.monsantowatch.org/uploads/pdfs/2005innovest.pdf[^] http://www.mercola.com/2005/jul/30/monsanto_report.htm[^]
Those links made me very sad. In general, Greenpeace's propaganda regarding genetic engineering is ignorant, potentially harmful, and makes me ridiculously angry. But I'd like to think I'd give any sound scientific evidence they came up with a fair shot. If they're actually going to present any. *crickets*
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
I had trouble locating the original press release: "Why Chlorine chemistry must be phased out"[^]. If you don't think that wanting to ban an entire class of chemistry is an extreme environmentalist position, then there really isn't much point in continuing the discussion as we are tripping over subjectivity. It was certainly enough to prompt the departure of a Greenpeace director however.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
then there really isn't much point in continuing the discussion
Perhaps you are right. You haven't really provided any reason to believe that the position is extreme. Why is banning the idustrial use of an extremely toxic and evironmentally persistant chemical an extreme position? The paper you linked to provides that there are numerous alternative to the use of chlorine. There is no timetable that would suggest that the ban be implemented immediately. The following quote comes from the link about the CFC ban that I provided a few posts back "The production and consumption of halons was phased out by Jan. 1, 1994, and of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and hydrobromofluorocarbons by Jan. 1, 1996, subject to an exception for agreed essential users. Methyl bromide was to be phased out by 2005 but a number of users of the chemical have won temporary exceptions from the ban, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons are to be phased out by 2020. (Phaseout dates are later for developing countries.)" Notice the exception provided for "essential users" as well as "a number of users of the chemical have won temporary exceptions from the ban" and the 26 year time frame for the complete phase-out(longer for developing nations). Note this statement as well: "not all parties to the main protocol are parties to these amendments" This agreement is voluntary. There is no world cop to enforce this protocol. You cannot take Greenpeace's call for a ban on the industrial use of chlorine and call it extreme without understanding the context in which it would be implemented. Remember - your link to the Chlorine Board's internal memo lists a number of serious consequences to humans from an exposure to dioxins. Why is it important to continue the use of a highly toxic chemical that there are alternatives to?
-
Those links made me very sad. In general, Greenpeace's propaganda regarding genetic engineering is ignorant, potentially harmful, and makes me ridiculously angry. But I'd like to think I'd give any sound scientific evidence they came up with a fair shot. If they're actually going to present any. *crickets*
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
I ask this question in all seriousness: Based on you statement above, Am I to assume that you are angry that there is opposition to the widespread industrial use of GMO's until we know more about the impact on our food supply and environment? If so, why? It can't be economic, the industry is barely a blip on the radar at this point. What is the problem with waiting?
-
I ask this question in all seriousness: Based on you statement above, Am I to assume that you are angry that there is opposition to the widespread industrial use of GMO's until we know more about the impact on our food supply and environment? If so, why? It can't be economic, the industry is barely a blip on the radar at this point. What is the problem with waiting?
oilFactotum wrote:
Am I to assume that you are angry that there is opposition to the widespread industrial use of GMO's until we know more about the impact on our food supply and environment?
I think that putting all genetic modification under the same umbrella is alarmist. Take todays article, for example. In absence of the study that Greenpeace cites, all the information I've seen published on the MON638 strain has been overwhelmingly positive. It's a relatively small modification, the protein in question has years of research and plenty of well-investigated homologues. As I've said, having read the data available to me, I wouldn't have a problem eating it. Secondly, you have to realize that there is no immediately obvious link between the protein being expressed and any sort of physiological nephro/hepatotoxicity. So yes - I'm slightly skeptical about the study. I'd need to read it - not all studies are created equal. Some pretty awful ones make it past peer review. It's also completely possible that this modification may actually be hazardous. There are legitimate concerns with GMOs - but it strongly depends on the GMO in question. Every single one will be different, with different potential challenges and different potential effects on the environment and on the "end-user." So to me it's both silly and counterproductive to say "No GM!" GMOs are just a faster means of what the human race has been accomplishing for thousands of years with selective breeding.
oilFactotum wrote:
What is the problem with waiting?
Honestly? Because there are starving people in the world who would benefit immediately from sturdier crops, more pest resiliant crops, etc. Making better use of crop space is better for the environment. They can reduce the need for costly (both financially and environmentally) chemical pesticides. Etc. And, if we go too far down this road of "wait-and-see", it would be possible to wait forever. We're never going to get a 100% "safety" ruling, because that's simply not the way science or the world works. We go on our best guess. And with that in mind, I point at how the pharmaceutical industry considers the general public: as phase 4 of clinical trials. I know a lot of people find that distateful because they don't like being considered as guinea pigs - but I do think it's a necessary evil. In light of this, in order for the GMO industry to develop, it has to try implement
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Am I to assume that you are angry that there is opposition to the widespread industrial use of GMO's until we know more about the impact on our food supply and environment?
I think that putting all genetic modification under the same umbrella is alarmist. Take todays article, for example. In absence of the study that Greenpeace cites, all the information I've seen published on the MON638 strain has been overwhelmingly positive. It's a relatively small modification, the protein in question has years of research and plenty of well-investigated homologues. As I've said, having read the data available to me, I wouldn't have a problem eating it. Secondly, you have to realize that there is no immediately obvious link between the protein being expressed and any sort of physiological nephro/hepatotoxicity. So yes - I'm slightly skeptical about the study. I'd need to read it - not all studies are created equal. Some pretty awful ones make it past peer review. It's also completely possible that this modification may actually be hazardous. There are legitimate concerns with GMOs - but it strongly depends on the GMO in question. Every single one will be different, with different potential challenges and different potential effects on the environment and on the "end-user." So to me it's both silly and counterproductive to say "No GM!" GMOs are just a faster means of what the human race has been accomplishing for thousands of years with selective breeding.
oilFactotum wrote:
What is the problem with waiting?
Honestly? Because there are starving people in the world who would benefit immediately from sturdier crops, more pest resiliant crops, etc. Making better use of crop space is better for the environment. They can reduce the need for costly (both financially and environmentally) chemical pesticides. Etc. And, if we go too far down this road of "wait-and-see", it would be possible to wait forever. We're never going to get a 100% "safety" ruling, because that's simply not the way science or the world works. We go on our best guess. And with that in mind, I point at how the pharmaceutical industry considers the general public: as phase 4 of clinical trials. I know a lot of people find that distateful because they don't like being considered as guinea pigs - but I do think it's a necessary evil. In light of this, in order for the GMO industry to develop, it has to try implement
Problems with GMO is not only about the toxicity of their embedded proteins, but also on the consequences of the propagation of this protein in the wild. First, the modified genes travels, they don't stay in the field where the GMO crops are. Next, they can interact either with other plants which are 'compatible[^]' or could even affect other organisms as bacterias.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because there are starving people in the world who would benefit immediately from sturdier crops, more pest resiliant crops
People are not starving because there is not enough food. They are starving because they can not afford it. And they won't be able to buy GMO crops either - especially when GMO plants are made to produce sterile grains[^]. I'm not by principle opposed to GMO, I believe it can be a way to reduce use of pesticide and herbicide which are a huge but not mediatized enough problem. However, I think we have to be very, very careful and cannot trust the GMO makers, especially when they pay for the scientific study.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Am I to assume that you are angry that there is opposition to the widespread industrial use of GMO's until we know more about the impact on our food supply and environment?
I think that putting all genetic modification under the same umbrella is alarmist. Take todays article, for example. In absence of the study that Greenpeace cites, all the information I've seen published on the MON638 strain has been overwhelmingly positive. It's a relatively small modification, the protein in question has years of research and plenty of well-investigated homologues. As I've said, having read the data available to me, I wouldn't have a problem eating it. Secondly, you have to realize that there is no immediately obvious link between the protein being expressed and any sort of physiological nephro/hepatotoxicity. So yes - I'm slightly skeptical about the study. I'd need to read it - not all studies are created equal. Some pretty awful ones make it past peer review. It's also completely possible that this modification may actually be hazardous. There are legitimate concerns with GMOs - but it strongly depends on the GMO in question. Every single one will be different, with different potential challenges and different potential effects on the environment and on the "end-user." So to me it's both silly and counterproductive to say "No GM!" GMOs are just a faster means of what the human race has been accomplishing for thousands of years with selective breeding.
oilFactotum wrote:
What is the problem with waiting?
Honestly? Because there are starving people in the world who would benefit immediately from sturdier crops, more pest resiliant crops, etc. Making better use of crop space is better for the environment. They can reduce the need for costly (both financially and environmentally) chemical pesticides. Etc. And, if we go too far down this road of "wait-and-see", it would be possible to wait forever. We're never going to get a 100% "safety" ruling, because that's simply not the way science or the world works. We go on our best guess. And with that in mind, I point at how the pharmaceutical industry considers the general public: as phase 4 of clinical trials. I know a lot of people find that distateful because they don't like being considered as guinea pigs - but I do think it's a necessary evil. In light of this, in order for the GMO industry to develop, it has to try implement
I appreciate the response. I find this link interesting: http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/is161205.txt[^] I include it to illustrate the difficulty of predicting or controlling the consequences of introducing GMO's into the environment. According to this post "the vast majority engineered for just two traits - herbicide tolerance and Bt pesticide, or stacked with both". Perhaps neither of these 2 traits have any possibility to cause problems in humans who consume them. But that doesn't make them safe. As noted in the article cross-pollination in the wild with other plants has led to "super weeds" that are also resistant to herbicides. Considering the enormous gains in understanding genetics that have occurred in just the past 10 years, I see no reason not to wait a while longer to allow for even better understanding. Let me address one point in your post.
Fisticuffs wrote:
And with that in mind, I point at how the pharmaceutical industry considers the general public: as phase 4 of clinical trials. I know a lot of people find that distateful because they don't like being considered as guinea pigs - but I do think it's a necessary evil. In light of this, in order for the GMO industry to develop, it has to try implementing its solutions in the real world.
I don't feel that is a very good comparison. If the drug turns out to be bad you end up with a drug recall as what happened with Vioxx. If a GMO is released into the environment, there can be no recall. The genie is out of the bottle.
-
I appreciate the response. I find this link interesting: http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/is161205.txt[^] I include it to illustrate the difficulty of predicting or controlling the consequences of introducing GMO's into the environment. According to this post "the vast majority engineered for just two traits - herbicide tolerance and Bt pesticide, or stacked with both". Perhaps neither of these 2 traits have any possibility to cause problems in humans who consume them. But that doesn't make them safe. As noted in the article cross-pollination in the wild with other plants has led to "super weeds" that are also resistant to herbicides. Considering the enormous gains in understanding genetics that have occurred in just the past 10 years, I see no reason not to wait a while longer to allow for even better understanding. Let me address one point in your post.
Fisticuffs wrote:
And with that in mind, I point at how the pharmaceutical industry considers the general public: as phase 4 of clinical trials. I know a lot of people find that distateful because they don't like being considered as guinea pigs - but I do think it's a necessary evil. In light of this, in order for the GMO industry to develop, it has to try implementing its solutions in the real world.
I don't feel that is a very good comparison. If the drug turns out to be bad you end up with a drug recall as what happened with Vioxx. If a GMO is released into the environment, there can be no recall. The genie is out of the bottle.
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't feel that is a very good comparison. If the drug turns out to be bad you end up with a drug recall as what happened with Vioxx. If a GMO is released into the environment, there can be no recall. The genie is out of the bottle.
Yup, very true. Karl also made some good points. I can say that I don't have as great an understanding of the ecology as I do of the genetics, but I'll just say that the article you quoted (as with the Greenpeace articles) says just enough wrong or misleading things to make me question the article overall - like this: Moreover GM DNA is in the European human food chain via GM animal feed (“DNA in food and feed” SiS 23), but milk and meat are not labelled as such, and are considered safe by the UK Food Standards Agency. See, this is true but remarkably inconsequential. DNA is chewed up in the gut into individual nucleic acids just like anything else (unless you're a nematode, heh). It's not ever, EVER going to be expressed in a mammalian system. It's a non-issue. Naturally, it doesn't mean that the other concerns they point out are wrong - they're obviously very important environmental concerns. I know enough to say that things like spreading into the wild or inducing resistance in other species is definitely problematic, but not enough to intelligently discuss how problematic. I'd like to look into it more when I get some free time (hah). I think my initial point stands though - consider every GMO on an individual basis (though it kind of sounds like the vast majority ARE the herbicide/pest resistant strains that all carry the same environmental baggage :( ).
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Problems with GMO is not only about the toxicity of their embedded proteins, but also on the consequences of the propagation of this protein in the wild. First, the modified genes travels, they don't stay in the field where the GMO crops are. Next, they can interact either with other plants which are 'compatible[^]' or could even affect other organisms as bacterias.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because there are starving people in the world who would benefit immediately from sturdier crops, more pest resiliant crops
People are not starving because there is not enough food. They are starving because they can not afford it. And they won't be able to buy GMO crops either - especially when GMO plants are made to produce sterile grains[^]. I'm not by principle opposed to GMO, I believe it can be a way to reduce use of pesticide and herbicide which are a huge but not mediatized enough problem. However, I think we have to be very, very careful and cannot trust the GMO makers, especially when they pay for the scientific study.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Very good points. However...
K(arl) wrote:
First, the modified genes travels, they don't stay in the field where the GMO crops are. Next, they can interact either with other plants which are 'compatible[^]' or could even affect other organisms as bacterias.
I'll just say I agree with the website you quoted: Prospective ecological consequences of an out-crossing event need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The out-crossing of an herbicide resistance gene to a wild relative should not be considered particularly important, because herbicide is rarely used outside of the field or the farm. Aside from this, I really don't think there's much we can do about the unintended consequences, but hopefully (with proper regulation of the GMO industry) we can learn from the consequences when they occur.
K(arl) wrote:
People are not starving because there is not enough food. They are starving because they can not afford it. And they won't be able to buy GMO crops either - especially when GMO plants are made to produce sterile grains[^].
Part of the reason they're made to produce sterile grains is to prevent the spread of the transgene into the wild, which helps address the environmental concerns in your first paragraph. (It certainly doesn't hurt the GMO maker's pocketbook, though). Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways. I also recall an incident where an African nation outright refused a (very likely) safe GMO crop donation simply because it was GM. This was largely due to Greenpeace's lobbying, IIRC. I don't think that's productive or helpful. It is a very difficult issue.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Very good points. However...
K(arl) wrote:
First, the modified genes travels, they don't stay in the field where the GMO crops are. Next, they can interact either with other plants which are 'compatible[^]' or could even affect other organisms as bacterias.
I'll just say I agree with the website you quoted: Prospective ecological consequences of an out-crossing event need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The out-crossing of an herbicide resistance gene to a wild relative should not be considered particularly important, because herbicide is rarely used outside of the field or the farm. Aside from this, I really don't think there's much we can do about the unintended consequences, but hopefully (with proper regulation of the GMO industry) we can learn from the consequences when they occur.
K(arl) wrote:
People are not starving because there is not enough food. They are starving because they can not afford it. And they won't be able to buy GMO crops either - especially when GMO plants are made to produce sterile grains[^].
Part of the reason they're made to produce sterile grains is to prevent the spread of the transgene into the wild, which helps address the environmental concerns in your first paragraph. (It certainly doesn't hurt the GMO maker's pocketbook, though). Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways. I also recall an incident where an African nation outright refused a (very likely) safe GMO crop donation simply because it was GM. This was largely due to Greenpeace's lobbying, IIRC. I don't think that's productive or helpful. It is a very difficult issue.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
Fisticuffs wrote:
there's much we can do about the unintended consequences
Study, study and study again. We can not afford a biogenic Chernobyl.
Fisticuffs wrote:
we can learn from the consequences when they occur.
It depends of the consequences, and if there's still somebody to learn.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Part of the reason they're made to produce sterile grains is to prevent the spread of the transgene into the wild,
No, because it does not prevent pollen spreading but make grains sterile. The "terminator" gene is made to oblige farmers to buy new crops every year and make them dependent of Monsanto and Co.
Fisticuffs wrote:
It is a very difficult issue.
Absolutely. That's why we should not trust GMO industries. We should apply the Precautionary principle[^]
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true.
:rolleyes: I don't think I've ever seen you formulate a thought that wasn't based entirely on who is delivering the message. Greenpeace: unbiased Mansanto: biased
Both are gonna be biased. The difference is what's public. Monsanto doesn't want their biased study to stand up to the rigors of scrutiny, yet the biased Greenpeace study is available for scrutiny. Heh, do you just dismiss the word: "probably"? This implies a guess.
This statement was never false.