In praise of genetically engineered foods (In theory)

[Marshall]

Carls saying reminds me of when I went for physical therapy after my knee replacement. I said something about how well it worked to the therapist and she agreed but reminded me that “God made is better than man made”. I agreed with her.

[near horse]

@Countymouse 22611 wrote:

Geoff, here I have to differ with you dramatically. These techniques were developed by ACADEMIC SCIENTISTS (not Monsanto, etc) in the early 80’s. They were ABSOLUTELY NOT created by industry for industry. Big corporations have highjacked this technology and have used it (as big corporations do) to increase their profit margins by focusing on whatever makes the largest profit with the least effort. Genetic engineering is simply another tool, and I place the blame of GE failures on the operator(s), not the tool.

I need to address this point and then I too will let this thread die. Andy, I don’t think I said industry scientists developed this technology but meant that academia did with the full backing/support of industry. In fact, that’s how we “sell” most research proposals – how can this benefit the private sector. Now much of the grant money comes directly from those corporations so the line between academia and industry has been blurred. If we want to consider genetic engineering a tool, that’s fine but then we have to recognize that it’s too risky of a tool to allow those “operators” to have.

[Dylan Keating]

Hi countrymouse, while i could fill some pages as to why gm is a dead end, i just wanted to say 2 things.
As an irishman i too thought for years that the potatoe famine was just that, a failure of the potate crop. However this famine like many before and after it was mainly due to foreign policy. Namely england’s foreign policy.
All throughout the famine Ireland was still exporting food, it was just like a modern day ethiopia, set up to provide food for england.
The blight on the “lumper” and “the cup” potatoes tipped this situation over in to disaster of course, but the real problem then, as now is food distribution not abundance.

I would highly, highly recommend a book called “Stuffed and starved ” stuffed and starved
My memories of the eighties are of feel good concerts and sacks of grain going to the people of africa, the thought that food was been shipped out the whole time changes it somewhat.

GM plays upon our guilt over the “poor” south. It’s another promise of a green revolution (which has failed spectacularly). There have been promises for 15 years now of “golden rice”, salt tolerant plants etc.. none that actually work have turned up yet:)

I’m sure in maybe 100 years there may be a place for gm after lots of testing, but i just don’t see the maturity to use it in the right way yet.

And to finish up, GM is so far from traditional breeding it’s a pity to see you put out that same old argument. I’d recommend, the future of food/

to give a better idea. In a future of peak fossil fuels, GM will fall by the wayside, it’s too energy intensive. Lets just hope it’s evangelists don’t do too much damage on the way down:rolleyes:

[Andy Carson]

Dylan,
Nice to meet you and thanks for your thoughts. I think golden rice is a great example to discuss, and a wonderful example of what GM food can accomplish. For those not familiar with it, a wikipedia article is quite informative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice. Vitamin A deficiency is a serious problem in developing counties, killing 1-2 million people annually and blinding a half million more. Big deal. Early versions of golden rice would have required people to eat very large amounts of rice to get thier RDA of vitamin A, but most recent versions of golden rice deliver the full RDA of vitamin A with only 75 grams eaten. But golden rice has not been widely implemented. Why??? Certainly not because it doesn’t work!!! Greenpeace is opposed to all GM food reguardless of how many people it saves. I think some of the arguments against GM foods have been laid out previously in this thread. Some I find quite persuaive, some not so much. I still do not see any important difference between selective breeding and high tech genetic modification. For me, the most persuasive argument against GM is that it might result in a lack of biodiversity. This is proabably true, and I would personally prefer greater biodiversity, but I am not sure want 1-2 million people to die PER YEAR as a result of my personal preference. To put this number of deaths in scale, the total number of deaths from the Irish potato famine was 1 million dead over about 5 years (or ~0.2 million per year). So really, the best example of a lack of biodiversity (at least the best I can come up with) kills a relatively small number of people quite infreqently. In contrast, 5-10 times that number of people die EVERY YEAR from nutritional difficiencies that could be prevented with GM foods… Some might say that these nutritional deficiencies could also be solved by giving away free vitamins, but I do not think perpetual handouts and a good long term solution and they have certainly not worked thus far. Probably getting off track a little here… I know I am going to have to agree to disagree about alot of this…

[Andy Carson]

By the way, I watched the video that Dylan recommended. Very well done provocative video. I higher recommend watching it. Some of the info is somewhat slanted. For example, I looked into the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser case (as the court decision as explained in the video didn’t make sense to me). The reasoning for the court ruling in Monsantos favor was that they argued that Schmeiser knew of the resistance to roundup and had purposefully chosen to keep the seed from this round-up resistant section for seed and that is how 90+% of his canola ended up being round-up resistant. It was not that (as the video stated) accidental round-up ready canola present in a farmers field would constitute infringement. Whether he actually did this is a matter of debate, but if he did than I agree that that would be patent infringement. This makes better sense to me. Now, whether there should be patents in the first place is another question… I think I was a little on the fence about this before the video, but after the video I think I lean further away from patenting living, reproducing things.

[jac]

Over on Face Book there was a piece on you tube about an agreement that monsanto is making farmers sign, a disclaimer when they buy their seed !!! apparantly ANY screw ups with the seed and it is the farmers fault ??? why would they do that if they have a safe product ?? thats a bit like Ford selling a truck and making the owner take the blame if the steering rack falls off and it wipes out a school.. all farmers need to draw up an ageement that monsanto needs to sign before there seed goes into the ground that none of the crap that happens with this stuff happens and then you would see their tune change…
John

[Andy Carson]

I think it’s all about the patent protection. I don’t think that the patents should have been issued in the first place, but if one wants to protect a patent on a reproducing thing, than I think these kinds of agreements would be necessary. What if we take the opposite view, that abundant presence of GM crops on a farmers land was NOT patent infringment. Wouldn’t everyone simply buy the cheap crop off of GM growers and use it for seed??? If caught planting, they could always fall back on the statement that they “didn’t intend to plant this” or it “must be a result of cross-pollination.” As GM crops are so common, this would be hard to disprove. So, the patent would functionally be destroyed. Destroying the patent protection is probably a good thing, but I think this is the venue of the legistators, not the courts. One of the points Dylan’s video brings ups is that while most people in the US do not believe living things should be patented, there has never been a simple up or down vote on it. I would personally love to see one. I think without the patent issue, many of the “evils” of GM foods would be deminished and perhaps the public would be a little more open to some of the potential “goods”. Food for thought… Non-GM foods are also patentable and many are patented already. If it weren’t for the dominance of the patented GM crops, I would predict we would be seeing identical issues with patented non-GM crops.

[jac]

I still dont know why they need to blame the farmer for everything that goes wrong though :confused:.. If indeed they can save these people with their crops then fine and well.. but why are the non gm crops deficient in vitamins nowadays… is this the result of mono culturing these countries for years with tobbaco or tea or some other luxury crop,instead of letting them have a proper agriculture system and feeding themselves ??..
John

[near horse]

Hi Andy-

I think you made part the case for why greenpeace and many other organizations are not onboard with GM products being placed into the environment. It’s all about patent rights (ie money). It is highly unlikely that the folks that did the work on golden rice will just ship it to India to replace the current rice strains – no strings attached.

Part 2 of the concern is the Pandora’s Box of putting GMOs in the environment at all. I personally can accept having GMO’s producing some end product (anti-malarial drugs, insulin or oil for fuel) IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT, like a lab or industrial plant (maybe). But manipulating the genome of an organism by inserting a gene into it that, in all likelihood, would never ever have occurred in nature, even with decades of selective breeding and then dumping it out in nature is going too far and is putting too much faith in our ability to control a powerful, and relatively new, technology.

Our history of thinking we know what all the consequences and ramifications of trying to manipulate our environment is fraught with stories of “unforeseen” disasters, some that we still can’t fix. Your Monsanto case is a good example, that GM pollen is now loose in the environment and indiscriminantly fertilizing both GM and non GM plants. Now, plenty of farmers who have used RR corn or canola are seeing Roundup resistant weeds like never before. Can we ever go back? No. Not until something wipes out that genome completely. BTW – my understanding of the Monsanto case was that said farmer had always saved his own seed back to replant and that when his seed was “contaminated” with a GM genome, the court decided that he had infringed on the patent rights of Monsanto. Not the same as stealing their patent, as infringement would insinuate.

At the very least, Monsanto could have spent more effort in manipulating the genome so that only othe GM plants could be pollinated by its GM pollen – but that costs money.

I’m glad you agree (I think) that you shouldn’t be able to patent a living organism. Too bad the court doesn’t see it that way. That’s why guys like Craig Venter are out like modern day Noahs, collecting as many various organisms as they can to allow them to patent any novel gene they happen to identify. Venter wants us to think of him like Darwin but he’s more like Midas.

Keep GMOs where they belong – in the lab.

Also, any thought to the fact that some of the food/starvation issues in the world have more to do with the agricultural policies of said country than it does with the ability to produce enough food to feed its population? Many countries that require large amounts of annual food aid to feed their own people are exporting large quantities of commodity crops like coffee and cacao to industrialized markets abroad.

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 25208 wrote:

Also, any thought to the fact that some of the food/starvation issues in the world have more to do with the agricultural policies of said country than it does with the ability to produce enough food to feed its population? Many countries that require large amounts of annual food aid to feed their own people are exporting large quantities of commodity crops like coffee and cacao to industrialized markets abroad.

Hi Geoff, I think the safety/morality/conflict of interest issues of surrounding GM foods have been beat to death in this thread already, so I am moving on. In the end, I think I have changed my mind about the patenting of living organisms, but I still think that GM has great potential for good if applied correctly. I think we will have to agreee to disagree about this, and I am fine with this.

I do think you bring up an interesting point reguarding developing countries growing commodity crops rather than subsistance crops. I have not thought about this alot, but I suspect this might be a result of free market economics. Industrialized countries (such as the US) produce so much grain so cheaply, it would be difficult for subsistance farmers to compete on a straight “dollars per pound” or “dollars per calorie” basis. Indeed, in Dylan’s documentary, a Mexican corn farmer admits that he spends more to grow his own corn (even with saving seed) than to simply buy cheap US corn. He grows it for taste, which is a large motivation for me as well. This is a luxary that starving people can’t afford… I think it makes perfect sense for farmers in developing nations to focus on crops that cannot be grown so cheaply in industrialized nations. I think coffee and cacao are perfect examples of this. I think it makes wonderful economic sense for these small farmers to grow these specialty crops and trade them for less valuable crops they can live off of. The green revolution did promise to feed the world, and was successful at increasing grain production by 250%. This should have more than doubled food avaliability, but people still starve because population growth follows global grain production very closely. In other words, there is now more food, but there are more mouths to eat it too. Though tragic, it is somewhat predictable that as long as there is food, people who don’t know any better will reproduce until it’s gone and some starve. But what to do about it? It will probably be hard to convince landowners in developing countries (especially those with a choice) to leave behind cash crops and grow subsistance crops that will yield less than if they simply traded thier cash crop for cheap western grain. Complicating the issue is that some countries don’t have enough high quality land to feed thier populationn reguardless of the techniques used. What is the purposed nature of the “agricultural policies” that fix the problem??? Are they supposed to mandate subsistance farming? How would you feel about the government telling you what you have to grow? Should the policies increase tariffs of foreign grain even if large segments of the population can’t afford the grain and starve? Should these countries subsidize grain production with non-existant coffers? Should they outlaw trade with industrilized countries? Maybe nationalize and redistribute land to people who do not know what to do with it? Are western nations really going to stand idolly by while populations starve because of these self-sufficiency policies? This is a complex problem and I do not pretend I have a complete solution for it. I do believe that providing good crops and teaching productive food production techniques is probably part of the answer. Perhaps by giving these countries the best tools and techniques instead of perpetual handouts, they will eventually obtain higher levels of self sufficiency. It is likely that there are also agricultural policies that are not optimal, but I would guess many are a result of standard capitolistic practices and globalization. Which specific policies are you refering to? Even if these policies are horrible, what should be done? Should western nations get into the buisness (even more than they already are) of lawmaking in developing countries???

Just to be clear. I do not see this as a result of GM food, this general problem has been occuring with high yielding non-GM crops for many years. One could make a very good argument that similar economic forces were at play during to Irish potato famine more than 100 years before anyone knew what genes really were, much less how to manipulate them.

[near horse]

Andy –

I don’t know why you continued to discuss the GMO issue and then decided that my comments weren’t worth addressing but that’s your choice.
So, to respond to your comments instead.

The issue with Mexico and US corn was not “straight dollar for pound” at all. Our gov negotiated (required) Mexico to allow US corn into their market as part of NAFTA – and I think we all know that US corn producers are a huge lobby and well subsidized. That’s how come a small farmer in Mexico growing corn can’t compete with a guy in Iowa growing 5,000 acres using hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment and 2000 miles of transportation added to it.

In other words, there is now more food, but there are more mouths to eat it too. Though tragic, it is somewhat predictable that as long as there is food, people who don’t know any better will reproduce until it’s gone and some starve. But what to do about it?[I]

Blame the people while good farm ground is kept in the hands of a few wealthy landowners for raisng cattle to provide burger for McDonald’s restaraunts? That’s what’s happening in plenty of developing nations (if you can call them that anymore) – check out lots of Latin America.

It will probably be hard to convince landowners in developing countries (especially those with a choice) to leave behind cash crops and grow subsistance crops that will yield less than if they simply traded thier cash crop for cheap western grain.

Look at the infrastructures available in those countries. US and other nations “convince” the leaderships to “invest” in providing certain crops to the developed world. Check out a film called Darwin’s Nighmare. Developing countries are still treated like the colonies they once were, just without the label.

[I]Complicating the issue is that some countries don’t have enough high quality land to feed thier populationn reguardless of the techniques used. What is the purposed nature of the “agricultural policies” that fix the problem???

How about we stop subsidizing cheap US grain production to start with?

Are they supposed to mandate subsistance farming?[/I]

Nobody is saying a foreign govt should mandate subsistence farming but why should outside corporate ag interests influence the decisions of those govts as well. This is nothing new – I’m sure you’ve heard of the term “banana republic”. And it is still wrong. Also, land ownership in many of these countries is in the hands of a few wealthy families, groups or corporations. I doubt they care one bit about feeding people in their nation. That’s why there has been an attempt at land reform in places like Brazil. Not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction.

How would you feel about the government telling you what you have to grow?[/I]

The already do in the EU (essentially) and here they tell us what we can’t grow via regulation (ask Carl and all the small meat and cheese folks in VT). The regs are also what tilts the playing field toward large commercial farms.

Should the policies increase tariffs of foreign grain even if large segments of the population can’t afford it?

I don’t understand this question but are you saying should a country like Niger increase the tariff on imported wheat to encourage local wheat production? I say why not if wheat is something reasonable to produce in Niger. That said, one BIG issue is market stability within a country. Many of theses places have no way to moderate price swings based on yearly changes in production – I know that sounds like a price support system and perhaps it is but for product used within the country – not applied to exports.

Should these countries subsidize grain production with non-existant coffers?[/I]

The coffers are existant. They just aren’t used to help produce local food for the nation. They end up in the pockets of all the “leaders” of those nations and we turn a blind eye because we got the market outlet we were after for our overproduction of grain.

[I]Should they outlaw trade with industrilized countries?[/I]

No. But you can’t sell off your nation and its people for a few pieces of gold in your own personal bank account either.

Maybe nationalize and redistribute land to people who do not know what to do with it?[/I]

Do you own land? And you’re going to say this? Wow, Andy, I think you and I both could easily be in the group that would be labelled “unworthy” of landownership. Plus, I would argue that an inexperienced landower growing food for local consumption and sale is still better than a super farmer growing soybeans that all get exported.

Are western nations really going to stand idolly by while populations starve because of these self-sufficiency policies?

We stand idle when govts commit genocide so careful about the “we’re so holy” stuff. I would say that there’s money and “feel goodness” in sending food aid and it does help the acute problem while exacerbating the chronic one.

Perhaps by giving these countries the best tools and techniques instead of perpetual handouts, they will eventually obtain higher levels of self sufficiency.[/I]

Many in US ag hate this idea. They say “Why should we “give away” technology that we spent millions on developing just so a country with a lower standard of living can benefit and we lose a market?”

[Andy Carson]

Oh Geoff, I can see you want to argue… OK, I guess… 😀 I like to argue to, I just don’t want to alienate anyone (including myself). I do think that there are good points to be made on either side. That said, here I go…

It is highly unlikely that the folks that did the work on golden rice will just ship it to India to replace the current rice strains – no strings attached.

This was exactly the plan with golden rice. It’s called a humanitarian license and excludes everyone producing less than $10,000 of crops from the patent issues.

Part 2 of the concern is the Pandora’s Box of putting GMOs in the environment at all. I personally can accept having GMO’s producing some end product (anti-malarial drugs, insulin or oil for fuel) IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT, like a lab or industrial plant (maybe). But manipulating the genome of an organism by inserting a gene into it that, in all likelihood, would never ever have occurred in nature, even with decades of selective breeding and then dumping it out in nature is going too far and is putting too much faith in our ability to control a powerful, and relatively new, technology.

Instead of simply being afraid of things that we don’t know, lets look at data. How many deaths have GMOs caused? By comparision, how many deaths have “natural” organisms caused??? this would include, of course, pathogenic viruses, bacteria, poisionous plants, poisonous animals, allergic reactions to bees and other agents, etc. These are natural everyday killers that have evolved (in many cases) specifically to case harm. Even when man has purposefully tried to make organisms that are dangerous, they are only slightly more dangerous that the natural versions. Remember post 911 bioterrorism scares? NATURAL antrax. NATURAL smallpox. The “scariest” was antibotic resistant antrax, which is a tiny tweek and could easily be selected from nature without GE. Where was the “super scary” “frankenstein” virus? Not there… So, the argument that “natural” means “safe” is definately erroneous. Alternatively, the argument that GMO is unsafe is largely without precedent. I have heard of allergies, but I am sure these are a tiny tiny fraction of the total allergies that come from “natural” sources.

Our history of thinking we know what all the consequences and ramifications of trying to manipulate our environment is fraught with stories of “unforeseen” disasters, some that we still can’t fix.

Ouir history is also fraught with examplesof things that SHOULD have been fixed and were not. There have been sucesses and failures in human history, but I do not think this means we should give up. Nor could we. Breathing manipulates the environment, as does farming, livestock raising, eating, having children, driving, using electricity, etc. Which manipulations are OK, and which aren’t? What are the criteria and who is the judge???

BTW – my understanding of the Monsanto case was that said farmer had always saved his own seed back to replant and that when his seed was “contaminated” with a GM genome, the court decided that he had infringed on the patent rights of Monsanto. Not the same as stealing their patent, as infringement would insinuate.

The farmer did save his seed for many years. The courts decision was that he knew of the Monsanto seed (because he sprayed it) and elected to specifically save it. The farmers denies this, but the fact that over 90% of his crop tested positive of GM seed, along with his intentional destruction of his own seed, does not help his case. If plants are going to be patented, than cases like this would be needed to enforce patent law. Again, I do not think GMOs ought to be patented, but I think this is a venue for the public and lawmakers, not courts.

That’s why guys like Craig Venter are out like modern day Noahs, collecting as many various organisms as they can to allow them to patent any novel gene they happen to identify. Venter wants us to think of him like Darwin but he’s more like Midas.

Exactly, the patenting of GMO’s paved the way for the patenting of non-GM plants. If not for GMO’s, we would talking about how Monsanto is throwing it’s weight around enforcing it’s patent on some popular non-GM crop. This is not a problem unique to GMOs.

The issue with Mexico and US corn was not “straight dollar for pound” at all

It is exactly dollars per pound to the Mexican farmer who is deciding whether to grow corn or not. I wonder if a small Mexican farmer could compete on a straight dollar per pound basis without US subsidies… I really don’t know… Either way, that same small Mexican farmer could definately grow crops that (if he could get them to the US) would be worth more than his corn. I can guarantee that.

Blame the people while good farm ground is kept in the hands of a few wealthy landowners for raisng cattle to provide burger for McDonald’s restaraunts?

Economics produce sad and unfortunate consequences… If the wealthy landowner decides to feed the people instead of growing cattle to sell, he’s not going to be a “weathly landowner” much longer… Still nothing to do with GMO’s here…

Look at the infrastructures available in those countries. US and other nations “convince” the leaderships to “invest” in providing certain crops to the developed world. Check out a film called Darwin’s Nighmare. Developing countries are still treated like the colonies they once were, just without the label.

Maybe the industrialized world ought to butt out of developing countries entirely. This would include, by the way, telling them they ought to grow more of thier own food, and that they shouldn’t grow export items.

How about we stop subsidizing cheap US grain production to start with?

OK, I like that too.

Nobody is saying a foreign govt should mandate subsistence farming but why should outside corporate ag interests influence the decisions of those govts as well.

Noted, I will add that to the list of solutions that are NOT being proposed. I’m curious what solutions will end up on the list…

The already do in the EU (essentially) and here they tell us what we can’t grow via regulation (ask Carl and all the small meat and cheese folks in VT). The regs are also what tilts the playing field toward large commercial farms.

Clearly, this type of regulation is not something you are insupport of. I will add this to the list of things that are NOT being proposed.

I don’t understand this question but are you saying should a country like Niger increase the tariff on imported wheat to encourage local wheat production? I say why not if wheat is something reasonable to produce in Niger. That said, one BIG issue is market stability within a country. Many of theses places have no way to moderate price swings based on yearly changes in production – I know that sounds like a price support system and perhaps it is but for product used within the country – not applied to exports.

Again, added to the list of things that are NOT being proposed.

The coffers are existant. They just aren’t used to help produce local food for the nation. They end up in the pockets of all the “leaders” of those nations and we turn a blind eye because we got the market outlet we were after for our overproduction of grain.

OK, I think you like this one. It doesn’t matter, of course, because we all know anyone evil enough to steal from thier own people is not going to invest in local food production…

No, but you can’t sell off your nation and its people for a few pieces of gold in your own personal bank account either.

One more for the list of things that are NOT being proposed.

Do you own land? And you’re going to say this? Wow, Andy, I think you and I both could easily be in the group that would be labelled “unworthy” of landownership. Plus, I would argue that an inexperienced landower growing food for local consumption and sale is still better than a super farmer growing soybeans that all get exported.

I think you are also not in favor of this, one more for the list.

We stand idle when govts commit genocide so careful about the “we’re so holy” stuff. I would say that there’s money and “feel goodness” in sending food aid and it does help the acute problem while exacerbating the chronic one.

I agree. I also do not think this is a long term solution. But what is?.

Many in US ag hate this idea. They say “Why should we “give away” technology that we spent millions on developing just so a country with a lower standard of living can benefit and we lose a market?”

Many may hate this idea (although I haven’t met them) but I think it would still be a good way to give a hand up (as opposed to a hand out). I personally like the idea alot, and thnk there is potential here. Either way, this really doesn’t have anything to do with GMO’s (other than in a few cases) and our best technology includes GMO’s. GMO’s that might, for example, produce food and essential vitamins at the same time.

[mitchmaine]

hey andy,
all smoke and mirrors. it’s not about the quality of food and vitamins as much as it is about control and access to the same gmo foods and then the foods that have the conveinient patents applied, until its all food and feed, and its you and me and geoff and the canadian farmer on the outside and monsanto holding the patents and the price, decision, ownership, and control.
imagine a quota on how much food you can grow this summer. hard to imagine? canada tells its maple producers how much maple syrup each producer can make in a season. trying to keep a lid on surplus and prices. supply and demand. i can see it happening.

[near horse]

Here’s a comment regarding “the golden rice project” (and BTW – why in the world do you think a company like Syngenta would give away something like this – if not for dollars, at least for PR. Remember, they have shareholders to satisfy.)

ISIS believes science as much as scientists should be socially and ecologically accountable, and has launched a sustainable science audit project jointly with the Third World Network

“Some 70 patents have already been filed on the GM genes and constructs used in making the ‘golden rice’. It is a drain on public resources and a major obstruction to the implementation of sustainable agriculture that can provide the real solutions to world hunger and malnutrition. ……..Rockefeller Foundation, the major funder by far, has reportedly abandoned the project to ” shift its agricultural funding focus to support research that will have a more direct benefit to subsistence farmers” Also – note that there are other deficiencies associated with a rice only diet AND that there is such thing as Vit A toxicity and would be more likely in a popultation subsisting only on Vit-A enhanced rice.

Here’s the link which details the concerns with the gene constructs etc- (not wikipedia) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rice.php

…..”natural” organisms caused??? this would include, of course, pathogenic viruses, bacteria, poisionous plants, poisonous animals, allergic reactions to bees and other agents, etc. These are natural everyday killers that have evolved (in many cases) specifically to case harm

You’re reading things into my responses that aren’t there. For example: I’m not afraid of something I don’t understand – to the contrary, it’s the fact that I do understand the technology AND human beings that makes it scary; also with regard to “scary frankenvirus” or whatever you said – I never said natural was safe and synthetic unsafe – ever. I do believe that natural is just that natural and that sythetic is not natural and therefore is “in addition to” natural – good or bad. In fact, it sounds more like you’re afraid of nature – watch out for the killer bees! “Bees and ivy and oaks, oh my. Bees and ivy and oaks, oh my.”

Breathing manipulates the environment, as does farming, livestock raising, eating, having children, driving, using electricity, etc. Which manipulations are OK, and which aren’t? What are the criteria and who is the judge???

Just because being alive uses resources doesn’t then mean that all manipulations of the environment, like releasing GMOs into the environment is alright. Who should judge, I’m not sure now when science is tainted with private grant money. The public hardly gets enough truth to have a prayer of understanding and deciding …..

Okay – let me try to explain how NAFTA screwed the Mexican corn grower. Senor Clinton and his minions negotiated an agreement to allow US subsidized corn to be sold to mills in Mexico – it’s unclear where the benefits were to Mexico but might be explained in the previous post about Niger – bonus to the gov). So corn producers all over the mid-west got to have their 200+ bushel/acre corn with price supports, loan supports and other taxpayer cash (note no additional jobs created) shipped to Mexico to “compete” – I use that term almost in jest – with a small local producer. What is the straight dollar per pound cost of each? One can hardly make a comparison of heavily subsidized vs unsubsidized grain unless those subsidies are removed. Then, US corn = not so good. Funny that we complain when the Canadians do the same thing to us – they get > $2000 for $600 worth of powdered milk. IMHO – that’s fine IF you restrict sales to in country. Unfair when on a global scale – and that’s why we do it – because it is unfair, in our favor.

Economics produce sad and unfortunate consequences… If the wealthy landowner decides to feed the people instead of growing cattle to sell, he’s not going to be a “weathly landowner” much longer… Still nothing to do with GMO’s here…

Perhaps I should have used the RR soybeans being produced by wealthy landowners instead of beef. I thought you had shifted your focus here from GMOs to global food policy

Also, many of those “wealthy landowner”s came by those holdings under pretty nefarious circumstances and shouldn’t be “wealthy landowners”.

….that same small Mexican farmer could definately grow crops that (if he could get them to the US) would be worth more than his corn. I can guarantee that.

Like what? Marijuana? How can you guarantee this without any idea of his situation? Why not just tell him he can make more money if he’d just move to the US and get a job? Oh, that’s because he already has since his livelihood and community were obliterated by our foreign policy.

Again, I do not think GMOs ought to be patented, but I think this is a venue for the public and lawmakers, not courts.

What? We should allow the legislature to decide whether something is patentable? That’s a slam dunk for corporate interests from the get go. Plus, isn’t there a something called “patent law” with “patent lawyers” who review whether some new idea is considered patentable? Courts aren’t perfect by any means but good grief – the other 2 options can be swayed too easily by “da money”.

….our best technology includes GMO’s.

As long as you don’t let them out in the environment – maybe. The food GMOs absolutley not.

So since you want answers here’s my short list (and I’m no diplomat).

Stop price US supports for exported food.
Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and any other …AFTA.
Tie financial, military and diplomatic assistance to in country support of its people via establishment of sustainable food systems.
Demand that countries that are exporting foodstuffs to the developed world provide adequate food/land to their own people or boycott said product(s) – This should include other importers of the product as well.

Companies that are importing food products from countries whose own population is unable to access food, will be taxed at an extreme rate to provide incentive for them to lobby the govt of country X to make sure its citizenry are able to raise, find and buy decent food.

Rewrite or destroy the Codex Alimentarius. (read it).

That’s what I would do on my first day!

[jac]

Can someone PLEEEEEEEZE tell me how non GM crops dont have the vitamins any more and why farmers have to sign an agreement to plant seed in land they own and with seed they own.. BTW Geoff you got my vote but im afraid there is a red dot on your suit as we speak :D…
John

[Author]

Posts