Does GM food seem safe to you? Do you think the government should be doing more to restrict its sale? If you have concerns about it, what, specifically, are they? Do you think the humanitarian benefits outweigh any risks?

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Answers

I thought GM stood for Global Multinationals.. what an idiot I am ! Anyway, I have not delved deeply into the GM foods issue, one reason being that I am not that concerned about one more potential source of chronic toxicity, when there are literally dozens of other sources around us ( the unavoidable legacy of industrialization ) -- breathing car exhaust, lead paints, pesticides/heavy metal contaminants in food and water, stressful worklives and so on. However, as regards toxicity, I believe one CANNOT say they are safe, due to the absence of long term effects data.

As regards their humanitarian aspect, it is very noble to think that they can help solve nutritional problems in developing countries. And indeed that looks good on paper. The reality is quite different.. most of the people would be too poor to afford to purchase these "improved" grains. Even if this grain was sold at a subsidised rate ( although please note that a few years ago the IMF forced many developing countries to STOP subsidies to their farmers, so as to enable multinational agrochemical empires to sneak in the market ), there would be problems related with distribution, and with corruption ( much of this 'imported' grain would end up in the dev countries' black markets ). And lastly, most of the poor multitudes are small farmers. If the grain arrives at a subsidized rate, and even manages to reach the remote regions where malnutrition is the highest, its low price could displace what is locally grown, and then people would have to abandon their farms and move to the bursting cities. And sure, these farmers could be persuaded to grow these GM foods, you may say, however the agrochemical companies sell entire packages, from the seed to the chemicals. The seed of course is valid just for that season, and thus the farmer cannot save seed for the next year, and has to buy the package again from the company, year after year. Worsening the debt situation. Thats been the reason why the agrochem MNCS ( multinational corporations ) have been trying to get into the food market of developing nations. That would be disastrous. Then there have been serious concerns about bio-piracy and the potentially harmful ecological consequences of biotech. But that's perhaps better suited for another thread ?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

We don’t really need GM food. As Martes noted, the problem is not the supply of nutritious food but the delivery of the food to the people that need it. We’ve all read about the food surpluses in the United States and yet some people in this country are malnourished and hungry.

In addition, agricultural prices are at or near record lows. Family farmers are failing and companies like Monsanto, ADM and their corporate farmer surrogates are booming. The introduction of GM foods is likely to exacerbate this situation. As Martes stated, a significant portion of World’s population, in particular in third- world countries, derives its income from farming. Will the Magic Foods save these farmers and their way of life or will we end up in the same situation that we are in now or worse? Will we have a glut of yummy vitamin A infused rice but nobody with enough money to buy it?

ADM has already been convicted of price fixing and I personally believe that Agochemical companies have used their power to coerce farmers throughout the world to exclusively use their products in a manner that would make even Microsoft blush. Why is Monsanto providing their Golden Rice to the masses? Is it because the fine folks at Monsanto are filled with humanitarian spirit? Or is it because they see it as a means to their end plus a luscious little tax right off. I suggest that they are offering their product for publicity in order to build good will towards GM food, to capture market share, and eventually to require farmers to exclusively use their products. Let’s face it, the true purpose behind the development of GM foods is not to reduce malnutrition but rather to increase profits.

Recent human history is fraught with examples of chemicals that have been introduced into the ecosystem for ostensibly good purposes that have turned out to be disasters, for example DDT. The same thing holds true for medicines and medical practices. It’s hubris to think that we will not make the same mistakes again. Caution in this matter is essential; especially when there is no real need for GM food. (I know that GM foods are not chemicals but there is an analogy).

Don’t get me wrong, I can really see no technical difference between GM food and other types of naturally hybridized food. I realize that for millennia human beings have altered fruits, vegetables and animals. I think the taco shell responses were probably largely psychosomatic. But what do I know? I’m just a lay person. But I also think that scientists, well meaning or not, are often not the best judges of the impacts of their creations. This is especially true when there is a profit motivation. And personally as a vegetarian, I would like to at least be informed when there are fish genes in the tomato that I’m eating.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

However, as regards toxicity, I believe one CANNOT say they are safe, due to the absence of long term effects data.

True--however, you might say the same thing about non-GM newly derived plants in our food supply such as the nectarine and the seedless watermelon, both of which have been around for less than 50 years.

most of the people would be too poor to afford to purchase these "improved" grains

Well, as I pointed out in the other thread, Monsanto has already made golden rice licenses available for free. Why would they even have bothered to create golden rice in the first place if they didn't intend to use it to abate malnutrition? Vitamin A deficiency is not a problem in developed countries.

Even if you're cynical, you have to admit that agribusiness has a huge incentive for making a good-faith effort to use GM technology for the good of eradicating world hunger in that they need the P.R. badly. Perhaps I'm idealistic, but I really do believe that executives for these companies will continue to take steps to make their food products accessible to those who need them. There was a very good article about Monsanto in The New Yorker about a year ago--you can read it online here.

the problem is not the supply of nutritious food but the delivery of the food to the people that need it.

Yes, that's why work is currently underway to create GM crops that are resistant to frost, drought, floods, etc. The goal is not for American farmers to grow food that will be shipped to poor countries, but rather to use genetic engineering to either create foods which are more nutritious than what is currently being grown (as with Golden Rice--vitamin A deficiency is most widespread in Asia, where locally- grown rice is already a staple of the diet) or to create foods which can grow even in harsh climates where agriculture is difficult. Work is also underway to create foods which contain vaccines and other medications which are currently difficult to deliver due to storage and transportation difficulties.

Recent human history is fraught with examples of chemicals that have been introduced into the ecosystem for ostensibly good purposes that have turned out to be disasters, for example DDT. The same thing holds true for medicines and medical practices. It’s hubris to think that we will not make the same mistakes again. Caution in this matter is essential

I agree that caution is essential, and I think that caution has been exercised. As you point out, GM foods are not fundamentally different from the many foods which have been altered by humans by years of selective breeding. StarLink corn was not approved for human consumption by the EPA because of a potential risk of allergic reaction in some people. This shows that GM food is held to a far higher standard of safety than traditional food, as many foods known to cause deadly allergic reactions in people (such as peanuts) are perfectly legal.

But I also think that scientists, well meaning or not, are often not the best judges of the impacts of their creations. This is especially true when there is a profit motivation.

It is important to note that the scientists who have evaluated the safety of GM food do not have a profit motive in this issue. The GM industry is not being allowed to self-police on this issue. Many independent researchers and government agencies have studied the health and environmental effects of GM food, and have found it to be as safe as traditional food.

And personally as a vegetarian, I would like to at least be informed when there are fish genes in the tomato that I’m eating.

There are fish genes in every tomato--even those which haven't been genetically modified. We're all related y'know.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Why would [Monsanto] even have bothered to create golden rice in the first place if they didn't intend to use it to abate malnutrition?

The answer to that question seems pretty obvious. Monsanto intends to use golden rice to increase corporate revenue. That golden rice has the potential to reduce malnutrition is a very powerful marketing tool; of course a corporation has an interest in creating a product that was widespread, undeniable appeal.

It's naive, however, to assume that humanitarianism is the primary motivating factor in the product development of GM foods. Any business school graduate will tell you that the primary responsibility of any corporation is to provide profits for its shareholders; it's the reason--the only reason--for a corporation's existence. That's why Monsanto once produced PCBs, dioxins, and Agent Orange. Sure, it's good PR for a corporation to pursue humanitarian and evironmentally friendly goals, but if these goals are in conflict with the profit-making goal, they must be abandoned.

Wouldn't the humanitarian cause be served more effectively if nutrition-enhanced foods were freely available to anyone who needs them? Monsanto may give away its golden rice, but it doesn't give away the license to produce it. Why license new GM foods if the goal is to abate malnutrition? Because, of course, the goal is to increase corporate revenue, and if golden rice does not, in some way, achieve that goal, there is no reason for Monsanto to produce it.

Robert Shapiro is a shrewd marketer. With the development of the Roundup team (the herbicide and the complementary resistant crops), his corporation has taken a firm hold of both the herbicide and seed markets. Now, by attempting to develop "foods that take the place of drugs," his corporation is attempting to get a similarly tight grasp on the lucrative pharmaceutical market. That motivation is as conducive to the reduction of hunger and malnutrition as Microsoft's control of the operating system market is conducive to quality and innovation in the software market.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Monsanto may give away its golden rice, but it doesn't give away the license to produce it.

Actually, it does give away the licenses, as I stated in my post here.

It's naive, however, to assume that humanitarianism is the primary motivating factor in the product development of GM foods

I don't think that's what anyone is contending. My point was that at the very least, GM food companies have a strong PR incentive to continue to develop technology which will benefit those suffering from malnutrition and lack of access to basic health care. This incentive may not persist indefinitely, but the benefit of the technology they develop now will always exist, and this research will serve as a jumping-off point for scientists in the public sector to continue to improve the benefits of GM technology.

Further, I don't think you can necessarily assume that Monsanto or any other company will not pursue any technology that is not directly beneficial to their bottom line. There are plenty of examples of companies in many sectors which seek to use their corporate power to better the world, sometimes in ways which diminish their profits.

GM food has many other potential benefits. Many researchers believe that foods which naturally express pesticides will be more beneficial to the environment than foods which must be sprayed with pesticides, which leads to pesticide-contaminated air, and runoff getting into the water supply. In addition, it augments farmers' ability to use many organic pesticides, such as Bt, which tends to degrade quickly when applied topically. It also decreases labor costs for farmers, making farming more lucrative.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Jen, perhaps if you go and spend a couple of years in a developing country, working with some grassroots-based NGO engaged in rural development, you may realize that: 1. distribution of golden rice would be a pipe dream ( even if were offered at a very, very low rate ) 2. monsanto may give licenses for free, but the farmer ( who just has a hut of 4 mud walls and a roof of broken tile/thatch ) would have to buy the entire package ( seeds + pesticide ) every season. usually, a farmer saves seed for the next season. most of the crops he grows have evolved in that bioregion, and so have defenses against infestations and are suited for the weather regime. If tomorrow he were to successfully grow this magic golden rice, he'd have to use a complete suite of tools to enable it to hold its own in a strange environment. From where would he get the money to buy this package ?

You see, what has been pointed out in earlier posts in this thread are very true. Corporations exist primarily for profit. They are not philanthropists. Whe else are farmers burning MNC GM crops in India ? Why else are there massive protests in Mexico and other third world countries ? If there was a way that the farmer could grow the GM crop on his own, season after season, without having to buy it, then that would approach the goal of reducing malnutrition. YOu have to believe how poor most small farmers are, they literally have nothing. Else its just another PR move.

keep it rolling !

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

distribution of golden rice would be a pipe dream ( even if were offered at a very, very low rate ) 2. monsanto may give licenses for free, but the farmer ( who just has a hut of 4 mud walls and a roof of broken tile/thatch ) would have to buy the entire package ( seeds + pesticide ) every season.

Having Golden Rice licenses available for no charge allows charities and governments to develop it and give it to farmers for free or at a low charge, which would otherwise not be possible. Also, Golden Rice does not come as a seeds + pesticide package--it can be used with any pesticide, and as far as I know, Golden Rice does not contain "terminator" genes, so the seeds can be reused (I looked extensively for evidence to the contrary and was unable to find it).

Granted, not every farmer in the world who would benefit from golden rice will get it, but that doesn't mean that the technology isn't valuable, or that Monsanto has failed in its humanitarian efforts.

most of the crops he grows have evolved in that bioregion, and so have defenses against infestations and are suited for the weather regime.

Golden Rice is based upon rice strains which normally grow in Asia, where Vitamin A deficiency is most common. Obviously, it remains to be seen how successful this technology is in the hands of poor farmers, but it has been tested extensively, and Monsanto would be taking a huge P.R. risk by developing and then giving away a strain of rice which turned out to be unusable.

If there was a way that the farmer could grow the GM crop on his own, season after season, without having to buy it, then that would approach the goal of reducing malnutrition.

As I mentioned before, GM seeds are reusable unless they are genetically engineered to contain a "terminator" gene. As far as I know, Golden Rice does not contain such a gene.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

I'm troubled by the notion - expressed also in the Green Party thread - that if an act is in some sense in the actor's self-interest (i.e., not purely "philanthropic") then its benefits for others must be suspect. You know, since defending Kuwait against Iraqi aggression or Kosovo against Serb aggression were not *absolutely ruinous* to U.S. strategic and economic interests, these by definition could not be good interventions. Or: since developing golden rice is not bankrupting Monsanto, it can't really be a potential boon to developing countries...

This is pretty extreme reasoning. If it were common for individuals to help others without any regard for their own interests, then the very few who appear to do so would not be celebrated as saints. I get paid for the work I do - and I get job satisfaction to boot - but I don't think that means that I'm not "really" interested in how helpful my work is to others, or even that my work isn't (regardless of how I feel about it) ever "really" helpful. (Well, I can only hope!)

Certainly farmers growing non-GM - or even "organic" - food are not doing so for purely "humanitarian" reasons; they're generally not handing the stuff out for free, as far as I know. (As for the grand social experiment in production for "the common good," the bottom line on socialized agriculture can be aptly summarized in the old Soviet aphorism: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.")

So why the double standard for corporations? (Or for a nation with "corporate interests"?) The question is not whether corporations profit from exchanging goods and services in developing countries, but whether they *alone* gain. The idea that corporate capitalism benefits only the advanced economies (or their elites) and underdevelops everyone else has been widely discredited in Latin America, Asia, and Africa in the past two decades, as has been the disastrous import-substitution development model once touted by Thirdworldistas as the alternative to open markets and foreign investment.

Do markets and investments need safeguards? Of course. But outlawing self-interest has already been proven to be a cure worse than the disease.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Jen,

My main problem with your answers to my points in both the GM and the Animal Research debates are that you assume scientists/researchers are infallible and not subject to ego, profit, survival, shortsightedness, and all the other forces that motivate or hinder us ‘normal’ human beings. They are.

You also assume that the people and laws that regulate these issues are perfect and not subject to abuse or poor enforcement. Don’t forget that our friendly Agribusiness and animal research lobbyists had a HUGE hand in the writing and development of these laws. I work in an industry (environmental engineering/regulation) where even the watered down regulations are fragrantly violated on a daily basis. I can only assume that the same holds true for biotechnology.

A ten-second list of technologies/chemicals/processes that can be legitimately viewed as both having a positive and negative impact on mankind and our ecosystem.

Nuclear Power/Nuclear Weapons Chemical Weapons Internal Combustion Engines Various Pesticides/Herbicides Petrochemical Products Various Solvents Television Computers Clear Cutting of Forests Strip Mining Antibiotics (Use and Abuse) Corporate or Large Scale Farming

These technologies/chemicals/processes did not meet with any significant opposition at the outset. In my lifetime I have benefited from each and every one of these technologies/chemicals/processes. But I also believe that the world would be a much better place if we had thought about these issues a little bit more carefully when they were first developed. And I also think that we need to evaluate the true cost of these innovations. In the end, I’m hoping that we won’t add GM foods to this list.

Hindsight is easy but foresight is extremely difficult. Foresight becomes more important as technology becomes increasingly more sophisticated, and as scientists begin to understand and manipulate fundamental natural laws. Science needs to respect the opinion of even the dolts like me that don’t know what DHMO is.

Greg

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

David,

Nobody is talking about trying to outlaw self interest. What we are talking about is understanding the motivations behind certain political and corporate actions and policies. We are trying to air both sides of what is largely a one-sided debate. Unfortunately as individuals we cannot compete with the publicity efforts of corporations and large political entities. My own personal solution is to vote with my pocketbook and my conscience. And yes, I also take the promises and actions made by corporations and the government with a grain of salt but that makes me neither Marxist nor unrealistic.

Greg

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

In response to Jen's last posting, i can't seem to do the cool cut and paste you do. anyway, I would be surprised if the seeds from one GM crop could be used to grow the next season's crop, and so on. As far as i know, all high-yielding crop varieties 'developed' by agribusinesses have produced sterile seeds, as a way to lock in the source of revenue ( and profit ). But you'r right, this needs investigation, as also what exactly would be involved in growing golden rice by a poor farmer.

Another thing, you mention that golden rice is based upon strains of rice grown in Asia, but there are literally tens of thousands of subspecies and ecotypes of rice in SE Asia alone. I worked for two years with a nonprofit in western India, one of whose projects was the collection of indigenous varieties of rice, and they found 300 very different cultivars of rice in an area 400 miles by 50 miles. Some are drought tolerant, some flooding tolerant, some late flowering, some resistant to certain pests/fungus and so on. The point I'm trying to make is that there are tremendous differences in microclimate that has resulted in evolution of different rice varieties, and so there is no single rice variety that can be successfully grown all over asia, without pumping heavy doses of its specially created pesticide/herbicide complex. The last two decades have shown that in India. You may wish to read a book titled "one Straw Revolution' by Masanobu Fukuoka, to get a nice introduction into rice farming, the organic way.

I'm curious as to how you (Jen ) seem to be convinced that Monsanto is all for helping solve malnutrition regardless of profit. Let me read the NyTimes article you've provided a link on. As mOnsanto, along with DuPont have been known as having executed some of teh slimiest manoevers to establish their seed-herbicide-fertilizer packages in developing countries in the past.

Another point, the reason Monsanto has developed Golden Rice is to try take over the Asian rice market, which is way immense. Malnutrition is just a PR spin off, and really, on contentious issues, it is wise not to be swayed by one or two articles alone. Reporters may see one side of the story, depending on her/his sources, not to mention the possibility of a little bias skillfully cloaked in a report..

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

My point is not that Monsanto's motivation to make a profit negates the benefit of golden rice, but that the corporation's need to make a profit could (and generally does) come into conflict with its desire (for whatever reason) to contribute to the public welfare. When that happens, the corporation must act in the interest of the shareholders, and the public welfare often suffers.

I missed the part of Jen's original post that pointed out that Monsanto was giving away licenses for golden rice, but that doesn't mean that the corporation doesn't have a profit motive for distributing the rice. The rice is currently not part of a seed+herbicide package because Monsanto has not yet developed a Roundup Ready variety of rice; it expects to have a herbicide resistant variety ready by 2003. A resistant form of golden rice in widespread use could provide a significant source of income for Monsanto and make it considerably more expensive for growers to take advantage of the crop's benefits.

Monsanto does not yet hold the patent for the "terminator gene," but it is currently attempting to acquire the company that does. This could explain why golden rice can currently be used from year to year, but it could also imply that such a situation won't last.

It's very important that Monsanto promote the public acceptance of GM food, and giving Vitamin A to the underprivileged is the perfect way to do that. Regardless of the motivation, that's a good thing. But I'm skeptical that the free ride will last long, and Monsanto, through the use of tactics like herbicide resistance and terminator genes, stands to gain an unhealthy control of the market in the meantime. That could make rice even more expensive than it is now, and then what would become of the Vitamin-A-deficient world?

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Greg, I agree that foresight and caution are essential in developing any new technology. Most scientists agree with you too, which is why thousands of scientific papers have been published on the subject of GM foods in the last twenty years.

The problem is how you decide when you have done "enough" testing. Is there some specific standard you would like to hold GM food to before it is introduced into the market? You can never eliminate all of the risk associated with a new technology, so risk will always be an argument against developing anything new. You have to balance the foreseeable risk with the foreseeable benefit.

As far as i know, all high-yielding crop varieties 'developed' by agribusinesses have produced sterile seeds, as a way to lock in the source of revenue ( and profit ).

This is simply not true, and I am nearly certain that it is not the case with Golden Rice. If it were the case, I would expect that one of Monsanto's many detractors would have pointed this out, and I haven't been able to find any record of this.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are tremendous differences in microclimate that has resulted in evolution of different rice varieties, and so there is no single rice variety that can be successfully grown all over asia, without pumping heavy doses of its specially created pesticide/herbicide complex.

Yes, of course this is true--the rice will not thrive everywhere. But as I said before, I don't think Monsanto will have failed in their humanitarian mission if not every farmer who could benefit from Golden Rice is able to use it.

I'm curious as to how you (Jen ) seem to be convinced that Monsanto is all for helping solve malnutrition regardless of profit.

I'm not convinced of this, and I never said I was. But as I have said here twice already, even if this is just a P.R. move for Monsanto, people will still benefit from it. I think David's points on this topic were very well put. I don't think any of us are qualified to judge whether Monsanto executives really want to help people or if they are only interested in the bottom line, so I don't think it's justified to jump to either conclusion.

Another point, the reason Monsanto has developed Golden Rice is to try take over the Asian rice market, which is way immense

Well, first you're telling me that Golden Rice won't thrive in Asia, and now you're saying that Monsanto is trying to take over the Asian rice market with it!

Anyway, they're not going to be able to do it with Golden Rice now that they've given away licenses and put their rice genome database online. Anyone can now make Golden Rice and sell it if they so choose, and this cannot be undone.

The rice is currently not part of a seed+herbicide package because Monsanto has not yet developed a Roundup Ready variety of rice; it expects to have a herbicide resistant variety ready by 2003

Roundup ready rice is not going to be Golden Rice! It's a totally separate product!

Anyway, you don't have to use Roundup with Roundup Ready rice. It's resistant to Roundup, but if you don't use it, the plants aren't going to keel over and die. Nobody is going to be forced to buy Roundup Ready rice or Roundup unless they want to, so I don't see how it constitutes a threat to anyone.

Monsanto does not yet hold the patent for the "terminator gene," but it is currently attempting to acquire the company that does. This could explain why golden rice can currently be used from year to year, but it could also imply that such a situation won't last.

Yes, I'm sure the motive for Monsanto acquiring this technology is so that they can use it to fleece famine-relief organizations and third-world governments. You know how much spare cash they have sitting around!

Really, it's just silly to think that Monsanto would put a terminator gene in Golden Rice. As I wrote earlier, the licenses and genetic information for Golden Rice have been made publicly available, so if Monsanto decided they were going to make Terminator Golden Rice, 5 million other companies could just keep selling regular Golden Rice and outsell them.

I'm sure that Monsanto is very interested in acquiring Terminator Gene technology so that they can have a regular income for sales of their products. But if people don't want to buy seeds from Monsanto every year, they can just buy them from someone else.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Jen,

If other companies made Golden Rice without the terminator gene would Monsanto have a right to sue them for patent infringement? Are GM foods patentable? What would be the motivation for other companies to step in and manufacture Golden Rice without the terminator gene? More altruism?

Give us some better arguments for the need for GM foods. What do GM foods provide us that we cannot get from non-GM food sources? We can argue until the cows come home about Golden Rice but the real question is why do we need GM foods. Why should we allow these substance to enter our ecosystem without a real need?

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

If other companies made Golden Rice without the terminator gene would Monsanto have a right to sue them for patent infringement?

They would not, since these companies have licenses to produce Golden Rice. That's why they make licenses--to allow a company to use another company's patented technology.

Are GM foods patentable?

Yes, GM foods are patentable, and so are "conventional" plant hybrids.

What would be the motivation for other companies to step in and manufacture Golden Rice without the terminator gene? More altruism?

Uh, no. It would enable them to compete against Monsanto by having a more cost-effective product. I don't know why anyone would choose to buy seeds that have to be renewed every year from company X, when they can buy equivalent seeds once from company Y and never have to buy them again.

What do GM foods provide us that we cannot get from non-GM food sources?

I've already addressed this pretty extensively, but to recap: GM foods can be engineered to have higher vitamin content, sturdier growing ability (i.e. the ability to withstand drought, flooding, and freezing), they enable farmers to use environmentally-friendly organic pesticides which are not always effective when applied topically, they can reduce pesticide runoff in the air and water supply, they reduce labor costs for farmers, and they can be used to produce vaccines and medications in areas where medical supplies cannot be easily transported or stored.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

"I've already addressed this pretty extensively, but to recap: GM foods can be engineered to have higher vitamin content, sturdier growing ability (i.e. the ability to withstand drought, flooding, and freezing), they enable farmers to use environmentally-friendly organic pesticides which are not always effective when applied topically, they can reduce pesticide runoff in the air and water supply, they reduce labor costs for farmers, and they can be used to produce vaccines and medications in areas where medical supplies cannot be easily transported or stored. "

this is all very well from an academic standpoint, and indeed sounds so beautiful ! well, the reality is that a plant, to have innate resistance against pests, has to be acclimatized to the pests SPECIFIC TO THE AREA where its being grown. And because there is a TREMENDOUS variation in both biotic and abiotic environments in India alone, there are more than 3000 varieties of rice. Which the International Rice Research Institute in Manila has been trying to collect (and they are funded in part by agribusinesses, so there is a bio piracy angle but thats another story ). So, if Golden Rice ( or for that matter, almost any GM crop ) has to survive across a wide range of environmental hostilities, it'll have to have a solid arsenal of 'cides.

And secondly, as i said, the poorest farmers ( who constitute the bulk of malnutrition-afferted population, ostensibly targeted by the Monsanto altruists ), they never buy seed for the most part. They save seed from prior season's crop. They would not be able to afford any GM seeds. And as i said earlier, the third world governments had ben forced to lay OFF subsidies to farmers for buying fertilizers a few yearsr ago.. this was as part of teh global structural reforms carried out by the IMF and the World Bank.

And I agree with Greg, in that who really needs GM foods ? The problem of malnutrition is one of distribution and a host of other socioeconomic factors. Tell me Jen, while you stayed in Hyde Park in Chicago, you may have noticed that your neighbors just across Washington square were not the healthiest people. Their diet consists largely of fried chicken, pork ribs and fries. Although just across the street there are organic boutiques like Whole Foods that are patronized by the 'aware' students of U of C. Here, its mainly because of the lack of awareness, and in a minor way, they have not developed a taste for alfalfa, rice and beans. In rural India the scene is different... there the roads are poor, and people have very little money. They barely subsist on rice or wheat, a piece of potato maybe, and a few peppers or onions to flavor their rice. In the same country, in other parts there are food surpluses at times. Milk has been dumped, as dumping was cheaper than transporting it by refrigerated rail across the country where malnutrition is common. And look at the reality, if charities and governments cannot even bring normal nonGM food to the people who require it the most, how can they get GM foods ( which would undoubtadly have a higher cost). And besides, charity is required for calamity conditions like famines, but it cannot be the mainstay of a region. If a charity were ti dole out GM food to improve nourishment, can they do that forever ? what would happen meanwhile to the subsistence farnmers in that area .. they would lose the local market for their produce. and they can't afford to transport their produce to markets far away.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

According to one of the three thousand Monsanto webpages Monsanto is offering royalty-free LICENSES to SCIENTISTS for Monsanto’s technologies that can aid in the development of Golden Rice. None of us have read the license agreements. But we all know that Monsanto is savvy enough not to give everything away. I would bet that there is a no compete clause in the license along with other interesting terms and conditions.

I’m very interested in the “environmentally-friendly organic pesticides” Any links on this topic? What is the potential that these pesticides will, by natural selection, create resistant and more virulent pests? How extensively have these pesticides been studied?

The rest of the benefits that you presented really have more to do ultimately with increasing/stabilizing the food supply and improving nutrition. These issues can and should be addressed with non-GM food technology. The problem is not a lack of adequate food supply or the inability to produce sufficient food but an effective means of distribution to those that need it. Once again I point to the US where most of us are fat and happy and have an overabundance of nutritious food. And yet people in this country starve and are malnourished. How will GM food alleviate this situation and similar situations overseas? So I guess that I don’t really see these as benefits for the consumer, the starving baby in America or Asia, or the small farmer. The ultimate benefits are really for Agribusiness.

+_+_+_

Quotes from articles on the Monsanto Biotechnology Knowledge Center webpage......

"You've probably seen the poignant and inspiring national TV ads from the Council for Biotechnology Information, an industry group, touting the development of "golden rice," a genetically modified product that packs extra nutrients and vitamins into the familiar staple crop. In an ad called "The Promise," scenes showing children and farms in the developing world flash by as the announcer talks about the new miracle rice that could help prevent disease and blindness in millions of poor children each year. The music crescendos, children smile, and all is right with the world." ……

"This sudden attack of generosity can be attributed to the fact that crop biotech companies, battered by successful activist campaigns against their products worldwide, are seeking some good public relations."

……

"Are there more potential pitfalls? There are. Among other things, there is the possibility that as transgenes in pollen drift, they will fertilize wild plants, and weeds will emerge that are hardier and even more difficult to control. No one knows how common the exchange of genes between domestic plants and their wild relatives really is, but Margaret Mellon, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' agriculture and biotechnology program, is certainly not alone in thinking that it's high time we find out. Says she: "People should be responding to these concerns with experiments, not assurances."

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

with ref to David "I'm troubled by the notion - expressed also in the Green Party thread - that if an act is in some sense in the actor's self-interest (i.e., not purely "philanthropic") then its benefits for others must be suspect."

I am in no way criticizing Monsanto's profit motive.. what I am speaking against is their hypocritic misleading 'objective' of helping solve malnutrition in the developing world. There have been fears expressed of large scale uprooting of subsistence farmers, if this package is pushed by the third world governments ( which are quite often bought off by World Bank/MNC loans ).

I agree with you that certainly a corporation's aim is profit first. Else it would cease to exist. However when a corporation seeks to control the basic food supply of poor countries, that is a dangerous situation ( for the poorest factions of the latter ).

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

yes, potential dangers of breeding between GM and non GM organisms is another scary possibility. No one can give assurances simply because there are so many factors and outcomes in nature. Everyone knows that know, in light of so many ecological disasters that have happend in the past century due to introduction of exotic species..

"Well, first you're telling me that Golden Rice won't thrive in Asia, and now you're saying that Monsanto is trying to take over the Asian rice market with it! " I said Golden Rice would survive across a wide variety of ecozones ONLY if it had some serious pesticides/herbicides as allies.

In general, chaos increases in the world, and we all are pretty much sitting on the branch we are sawing on !

and Jen, I did not say

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Jen,

Pulled this from the DNC webpage - 2000 Platform(emphasis mine). I know how fond you are of the DNC platform. I can only assume that meaningful labeling would include GM foods.

"We must protect not only our privacy, but the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. That's why Democrats believe we ought to have a modern, science-based food safety system, INCLUDING MEANINGFUL FOOD LABELING that also discloses where our food comes from, and that communities should have the right to know about toxins that are released into the air and water."

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

this is all very well from an academic standpoint, and indeed sounds so beautiful ! well, the reality is that a plant, to have innate resistance against pests, has to be acclimatized to the pests SPECIFIC TO THE AREA where its being grown.

These developments are not academic. Every single one I mentioned is either being used on the open market now or is in the testing phase.

As for the issue of innate resistance, GM innate resistance is very different from a plant's innate resistance which occurs over hundreds or thousands of years of evolution. We already know that plant yields worldwide can be improved by using a very small number of pesticides which can be used fairly universally. By altering the plants so that they can produce the pesticides on their own, we can bring the benefits of pesticides (which are well-established in third-world countries and elsewhere) to people who could not otherwise afford to repeatedly buy them and their delivery systems.

So, if Golden Rice ( or for that matter, almost any GM crop ) has to survive across a wide range of environmental hostilities, it'll have to have a solid arsenal of 'cides.

Golden Rice doesn't contain any pesticides. It is designed to be used alongside conventional pesticides.

And secondly, as i said, the poorest farmers ( who constitute the bulk of malnutrition-afferted population, ostensibly targeted by the Monsanto altruists ), they never buy seed for the most part. They save seed from prior season's crop. They would not be able to afford any GM seeds.

Yes, I have already addressed this point. The purpose of making Golden Rice licenses free is so that governments and charities will be able to provide the rice to poor people at prices they can afford. If the Golden Rice licenses were being sold, such groups probably would not be able to buy them. Monsanto is in the business of developing scientific intellectual property, and they are giving away their product to people who can use it to help people.

And I agree with Greg, in that who really needs GM foods ? The problem of malnutrition is one of distribution and a host of other socioeconomic factors. Tell me Jen, while you stayed in Hyde Park in Chicago, you may have noticed that your neighbors just across Washington square were not the healthiest people. Their diet consists largely of fried chicken, pork ribs and fries.

As I have repeatedly stated, improving the food supply would help abate the problems of distribution, both of agricultural and of medical supplies. One could use genetic engineering to make fried chicken, ribs and fries high in vitamins, which would improve the health of the people who choose to eat it.

And look at the reality, if charities and governments cannot even bring normal nonGM food to the people who require it the most, how can they get GM foods ( which would undoubtadly have a higher cost). And besides, charity is required for calamity conditions like famines, but it cannot be the mainstay of a region.

Again, I'm not saying that GM food is a panacea which will be able to make everyone in the world well-fed. But, it can be distributed to some people who need it, and it can be grown by some people who need it, which makes it worthwhile. As I've repeatedly said, Golden Rice seeds can be reused, so a one-time gift of seeds has the potential to permanently eradicate Vitamin A deficiency in the area where it's grown.

I’m very interested in the “environmentally-friendly organic pesticides” Any links on this topic?

Well, Bt is the most obvious one. It is discussed at length in the New Yorker article I linked in my first post. It has been used as a pesticide in this country for many years.

Once again I point to the US where most of us are fat and happy and have an overabundance of nutritious food. And yet people in this country starve and are malnourished. How will GM food alleviate this situation and similar situations overseas?

I feel like I'm having to repeat myself over and over again, but if you improve the nutritive value of a food and then give those seeds to a community that is growing the traditional version of that food, then you will abate malnutrition. If you improve the hardiness of a crop, famine is less likely to occur in the first place. If you put vaccines and other medications into plants, then you alleviate the transportation and storage problems associated with most medications (vaccines et al. usually have to be transported and stored under refrigerated conditions. This is not the case with seeds, obviously).

what I am speaking against is their hypocritic misleading 'objective' of helping solve malnutrition in the developing world...when a corporation seeks to control the basic food supply of poor countries, that is a dangerous situation ( for the poorest factions of the latter ).

I think only time will tell what Monsanto's intentions are with respect to the third-world food supply. What we can say right now is that their actions are both charitable (they are giving away for free something they spent millions of dollars developing) and that they are in no position to dominate the food supply of poor countries. (Frankly, I doubt they would want to do such a thing anyway, when there are much more lucrative markets closer to home). Giving away Golden Rice licenses does not create any kind of dependency on Monsanto or its technology.

But we all know that Monsanto is savvy enough not to give everything away. I would bet that there is a no compete clause in the license along with other interesting terms and conditions.

It's possible. All I've seen on it is this CBS news article saying that "[Monsanto] will not exercise its patent rights if another researcher develops the rice" and another article from, ironically, The Campaign to Label Genetically Modified Foods called the license "unconditional." If Monsanto put stringent legal conditions on the licensees, though, it seems to me that the whole PR thing would backfire spectacularly.

People should be responding to these concerns with experiments, not assurances.

People are responding with experiments by the hundreds, and I don't see anyone, including Monsanto's executives, saying that GM food is 100% safe or foolproof. As I said before, with any new technology, there will always be questions, and knowing when they have been satisfactorily answered is always a subjective judgement.

I can only assume that meaningful labeling would include GM foods.

Well, that's a pretty big assumption. Anyway, as I said in the other thread, I certainly don't believe in everything in the Democratic Party Platform. But I agree with it more than the Green platform or the Republican platform.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

"The problem of malnutrition is one of distribution and a host of other socioeconomic factors." (Martes)

"The problem is not a lack of adequate food supply or the inability to produce sufficient food but an effective means of distribution to those that need it." (Greg)

This is just not born out by the historical record. In the past 50 years the daily calory supply in developing nations grew from about 1700 per capita to around 2500 per capita, an increase of over 40 percent. Median life expectancy in these nations went from under 41 years to around 62 years during this period, a proportionately even larger jump.

The improvement in life expectancies was not all a function of better nutrition (witness the recent impact on the former of AIDS), but the growth in the food supply was at least a necessary, if not sufficient, factor. And while the distribution of that supply is always an important determinant of the well-being of populations, you simply could not - even under the most pefectly egalitarian scheme - distribute an average supply of 1700 daily calaries per capita in a way that would leave the typical (non-elite) developing country household as well fed as it is today receiving its less-than-egalitarian portion of an average supply of 2500 daily calories.

You could come closer if you threw the developed countries' food supply into the hypothetical redistributive pot; the world-wide average daily per capita calory supply in 1950, about 2100 calories, is probably not *that* much lower than what the typical (median) developing country person now consumes. But that's just an artifact of the truncated time-period we're looking at. Compare today's calory supplies with those of 100 years ago, or 150 years: the impact of agricultural productivity growth totally overwhelms that of distribution, any way you slice it.

Again, distribution IS important, and not only because, as Sen has shown, famines are proximately the result of collapses in means of obtaining food, not in supplies of food. (Such collapses, it might be worth adding, have often been the result of government policy, or war, not market forces. And they are increasingly rare.) But growth in the food supply is vitally important as well. There is no more justification - especially from future generations' point of view - in declaring that the world food supply of the year 2000 is "enough" than there would have been in saying that the food supply of 1950 was "enough."

Naturally this does not justify "growth at any cost." (Jennifer has cogently countered, I think, assertions that the potential costs of GM food are being cavalierly dismissed by its developers and supporters.) But there seems to be a tendency to forget in these debates that no (or low) growth has its cumulative costs as well.

Now I am going to go and NOT think about fried chicken. Not think about fried chicken. Not think about fried chicken...

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

The bottom line is companies are in business to make money. If they help people, fine. If they just sell a lot of hype, buyer beware. People need to have choices. Seed companies are consolidating, reducing choice. Seed companies are dramatically reducing seed varieties to the most popular - reducing varieties - reducing choice again. The benefit to companies developing GM seeds has to be in making hybrids or seeds with terminator genes that must be purchased annually, or in writing licensing agreements that forbid saving seed. If the trend continues, in a number of years standard seeds will no longer be sold.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Monsanto's release of its patent rights is not unconditional. They're not allowing everyone to use their genome research free of charge; they're waiving royalties only for scientists who develop golden rice. This limits the economic exposure of Monsanto's research, and the fact that they're requiring the publication of any work done with their genome data allows everyone, including Monsanto, to benefit from research done by those scientists. This is a win-win situation, but it's hardly pure charity on the part of Monsanto. If the corporation is truly motivated by humanitarian concerns, why doesn't it also waive royalties for its herbicide-resistance technology for use in undeveloped countries? Wouldn't effective weed control also make a significant impact on the ability of farmers in those countries to effectively feed the population?

Monsanto's encouragement of the development of golden rice makes good economic sense. Widespread use of the crop in undeveloped countries might help foster public acceptance of GM foods and allow Monsanto's entry into more lucrative markets with its real money-maker technologies (herbicide resistance and, potentially, terminator genes). Additionally, by encouraging outside researchers to work on golden rice, the corporation reduces its R&D expenses.

Even if it seems unlikely that golden rice will significantly reduce malnutrition in undeveloped countries, it doesn't look like there's any real down side to nutrition-enriched rice. But what about Monsanto's other technologies? Although it was seen as unlikely that Roundup Ready rice would lead to the development of herbicide resistant weeds, just such a problem is apparently beginning to show up in Australia and California. Could this be argued to be a case in which GM foods are "bad"?

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Monsanto's release of its patent rights is not unconditional. They're not allowing everyone to use their genome research free of charge; they're waiving royalties only for scientists who develop golden rice.

I think you may be confused--waiving their patent rights and allowing scientists to use their genome research are two totally separate things, but Monsanto is actually doing both. They have made much of their rice genetic information freely available to the international rice genome database project, which is maintained by academic researchers and is freely accessible to anyone who wants it. In addition to this, they are making licenses available free of charge to anyone who wants to develop Golden Rice and their other vitamin A- enriched rice varieties.

Normally, when a company like Monsanto develops a new plant variety, they spend many years and dollars developing it, and then when they finally have a result, they either manufacture and sell the product themselves, or else they sell a license to do so to another company. That way, they can recoup the costs spent on development by adding it into the price of the product.

In this case, Monsanto has given away the license for free to multiple groups. This will result in a drastically lower price for the end product, because it will not include development cost, and also because multiple companies own licenses, there will be competitive pricing, which normally doesn't occur.

If the corporation is truly motivated by humanitarian concerns, why doesn't it also waive royalties for its herbicide-resistance technology for use in undeveloped countries? Wouldn't effective weed control also make a significant impact on the ability of farmers in those countries to effectively feed the population?

Well, first of all, I don't think you can question Monsanto's committment to philanthropy just because they're not giving ALL their technology away. If I gave $25 to an AIDS research foundation, would you say that I don't really want a cure for AIDS because I'm not giving all my money away? This goes back to the point that David raised.

But also, I think there are several valid reasons why Monsanto has chosen to give out free licenses for Golden Rice and not for, say, Roundup Ready Corn. For one thing, Roundup Ready products are all designed to be used under agricultural conditions in the developed world. They require that the Roundup herbicide be used along with them, and I doubt that most poor farmers have the ability or technology to deliver regular doses of Roundup to their fields.

In addition, unlike Golden Rice, which is designed to replace very similar strains of rice already being grown in Asia, Roundup Ready products are not optimized for growing in third world countries, and may not be a part of the normal diet in much of the world.

Finally, if Monsanto were to give away Roundup Ready plant licenses for charitable reasons, they would also have to give away Roundup licenses or the whole point of the plants would be fairly moot (you could still grow them, but they wouldn't be any better than any other plant). Doing this would create a huge potential for piracy back home. Roundup is Monsanto's cash cow product, and making it available in the third world at a dramatically reduced cost, through multiple sources, would virtually ensure that much of it would end up back here in the black market and not in the hands of those it was intended to help.

Although it was seen as unlikely that Roundup Ready rice would lead to the development of herbicide resistant weeds, just such a problem is apparently beginning to show up in Australia and California. Could this be argued to be a case in which GM foods are "bad"?

I haven't heard any confirmed reports of Roundup resistance occurring in the wild, but I have read one scientific paper in which gene transfer did occur between GM plants and their weed neighbors. However, this paper was widely criticized for its methodology. Obviously, resistance could be a major problem, just as it is with any traditional herbicide or pesticide, which is why scientists are right now studying how this could be avoided or minimized.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

"I think you may be confused--waiving their patent rights and allowing scientists to use their genome research are two totally separate things, but Monsanto is actually doing both."

As I understand it, the waiver of patent rights means that anyone who uses Monsanto's research to develop golden rice will be able to distribute the rice commercially royalty-free. I also understand that although Monsanto's research (along with that of many other corporations) is being used to develop golden rice, Monsanto isn't, itself, developing the rice. Therefore, Monsanto can charge royalties or block the distribution of golden rice, but it does not have sole control over the distribution or development of the rice. Is that correct?

"Well, first of all, I don't think you can question Monsanto's committment to philanthropy just because they're not giving ALL their technology away. If I gave $25 to an AIDS research foundation, would you say that I don't really want a cure for AIDS because I'm not giving all my money away?"

No, I'm saying that you weighed how much you want a cure for AIDS against how much money you thought you could spare. You concluded that the cost you could bear was $25, even though $1000 would help more. All I'm saying about Monsanto is that the true cost to the corporation of giving away patent rights to golden rice is negligible (it stands, actually, to gain significantly if GM foods are widely accepted). I'm suggesting that if the true economic cost to the corporation was significant, the corporation probably wouldn't be such a humanitarian, and all I'm arguing against is this statement: "I really do believe that executives for these companies will continue to take steps to make their food products accessible to those who need them"

"Roundup is Monsanto's cash cow product, and making it available in the third world at a dramatically reduced cost, through multiple sources, would virtually ensure that much of it would end up back here in the black market and not in the hands of those it was intended to help."

But if even some of it remained in third world countries, it would help. However, it would be financially damaging to Monsanto, so it won't happen.

"Obviously, resistance could be a major problem, just as it is with any traditional herbicide or pesticide, which is why scientists are right now studying how this could be avoided or minimized. "

But isn't there the potential for an increased rate of resistance development with the introduction of genetically altered resistant plants? And aren't Roundup Ready corn and soybeans already on the market? If they are, and if scientists are still studying the potential problem, isn't this a legitimate reason for concern about the use of these particular GM products?

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Therefore, Monsanto can charge royalties or block the distribution of golden rice, but it does not have sole control over the distribution or development of the rice. Is that correct?

Typically, such licenses grant the licensees free rein over the distribution and development of the technology. I would expect that this one would be the same, because otherwise the license would be pretty much pointless.

All I'm saying about Monsanto is that the true cost to the corporation of giving away patent rights to golden rice is negligible (it stands, actually, to gain significantly if GM foods are widely accepted)

The cost to Monsanto is certainly not negligible. Monsanto spent millions developing this technology, and it will not be able to recoup any of those costs. It probably knew going into this project that their chance of recouping their costs were slim-to-none, but they decided to pursue it anyway.

But if even some of it remained in third world countries, it would help. However, it would be financially damaging to Monsanto, so it won't happen.

Yes, I imagine Monsanto would not be stupid enough to give away a product of questionable value to third world farmers and risk driving their own business under in the process. But as I said, being unwilling to take serious financial losses for humanitarian reasons does not mean that the company doesn't have a legitimate philanthropical intent in the charity they have shown.

But isn't there the potential for an increased rate of resistance development with the introduction of genetically altered resistant plants? And aren't Roundup Ready corn and soybeans already on the market? If they are, and if scientists are still studying the potential problem, isn't this a legitimate reason for concern about the use of these particular GM products?

Concerns about an increased rate of resistance have not been borne out by studies. And yes, Roundup Ready plants have been on the market for some time.

As for concerns about the use of the products, yes there are some. But as I see it, the only party with serious reason to be concerned is Monsanto themselves, as this technology may have the potential to make one of their most successful products worthless. The environmental impact would be nil, since basically we would just be going back to the point before we had Roundup. Farmers using it might temporarily suffer some loss, but it's certainly possible to grow crops without using Roundup--the vast majority of farmers are already doing so.

So, if you are suggesting that Roundup Ready plants should be withheld from the market until concerns about resistance are "resolved," I would disagree. All biocidal products, such as antibiotics, create problems of resistance, but as long as we can manage the resistance, and the benefits of using those products outweigh the risks it doesn't seem reasonable to withdraw them from the market.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

"As for the issue of innate resistance, GM innate resistance is very different from a plant's innate resistance which occurs over hundreds or thousands of years of evolution. We already know that plant yields worldwide can be improved by using a very small number of pesticides which can be used fairly universally. By altering the plants so that they can produce the pesticides on their own, we can bring the benefits of pesticides (which are well-established in third-world countries and elsewhere) to people who could not otherwise afford to repeatedly buy them and their delivery systems. " ( jen w )

"Golden Rice doesn't contain any pesticides. It is designed to be used alongside conventional pesticides. " (jen w )

a bit of contradiction there, by some chance ?

meanwhile some small bedtime reading... http://www.i-sis.org/jaguar.shtml http://www.i-sis.org/rice.shtml http://www.commondreams.org/voices/080200-101.htm

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Nope, no contradiction at all. Some GM plants contain genes making them resistant to pests, and others don't. The first quote obviously pertained to the former group and the second to the latter.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

in the late 60s, the Govt of India began the 'green revolution' by distributing high yielding crop varieties along with the fertilizer/pesticide package at extremely subsidized rates to farmers throughout the country. Some scientists warned against intensive chemical input based agriculture, but then the argument was that India should feed herself. Yes, in the ensuing two decades, yields went up. The socialist state of India could manage to heavily subsidize farmers so that the latter could afford to plant these high yielding varieties. Massive irrigation projects were also coimmisioned. It was actively ( in cases forcibly ) encoiuraged upon farmers to replace their 'traditional varities' with high yielding ones developed by agro instiutes/ agrochemical companies. two decades later, cracks started appearing. Large tracts of land became sterile owing to lack of organic matter being put back into the soil. fertilizers were mainly nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, without any trace elements. the high yielding varieties had much less foliage as comapred to the trad varieties, and the practices of the farmers was drasticaly altered. the foliage used to be burned and then added to teh fields between harvests, and now this was not done anymore. the wheat granary of india, the punjab is now seeing salinization of lands.. meanwhile many traditional cultivars have disappeared. those are being frantically collected by the IRRI in Manila, one of those who provided the rice varieties to the development of Golden Rice. withoiut a continued use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides, the land shall produce no crops no more.

So the scientistsand agrocompanies have carved a niche fior themselves. keep fighting with the pest resistence.

and now we think that GM foods are the answer ? jen W states that pesticides have been successful in third world countries ... yes, but for a few decades. now the irreversible effects are showing. and the broader picture i scarier, in terms of wildlife and human health impacts. farmers were not taught how much pesticice to spray, nor how harmful they are. they sprayed the stuff wearing shorts, wading in the paddies in thigh deep water.

again i say its a problem of distribution. there are many alternatives to get Vit A from foods already grown there. people can't afford them, that is the bottom line.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

OK, so Golden Rice does require a pesticide ally. This whole package would then have to be given at a very low price to the farmer, underwritten by the govt. what if the govt is cash strapped ? How long can the govt keep subsidizing the package ? even if the seed does not have a terminator gene, which is extremely unlikely in the future, simply because most high yielding varieties of crops ( nonGM ) being pushed in India are single season only. yes, even if the seeds from one crop can be used the next and so on, there is teh cost of the pesticide.

then ecological concerns -- introducing an element into the vast unknown witrh possible grave consequences in predominantly agricultutral societies, and lab trials are not sufficient. many alarmists and anti science fundamentalists may also harp on this, but one cannot discount this totally.

and thirdly, when there are traditional crops and vegetables that can proviode a balanced diet, why go in for GM ? The problem as i have said before is in people being afford to buy all the items required for a balanced diet. The principle of balanced diet has been arrived over thousands of years, with foods that have been around for at least hundreds of years ( for the most part ). Vitamin pills are allright as a supplement, not as the mainstay provider.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

in the late 60s, the Govt of India began the 'green revolution' by distributing high yielding crop varieties along with the fertilizer/pesticide package at extremely subsidized rates to farmers throughout the country.

I don't see how these failures of the Green Revolution reflect poorly upon the potential for GM technology. None of the problems you cite--ongoing dependence upon government benefactors, use of toxic chemicals without adequate training, and soil depletion, are inherent to GM foods.

Further, contrary to your assertions, the Green Revolution was not an all-out failure. It did produce lasting increases in crop yields, which persist even today. Unfortunately, these increases have not been sufficient to keep up with the tremendous population growth India has experienced over this time. I think this article contains a very objective of the costs and benefits of the Green Revolution.

OK, so Golden Rice does require a pesticide ally.

No, it does not require pesticide. Plenty of farmers grow rice in Asia without pesticides now, and these same farmers will be able to grow Golden Rice without pesticides. Pesticides would probably improve yield for these farmers, but it is not a requirement.

even if the seed does not have a terminator gene, which is extremely unlikely in the future, simply because most high yielding varieties of crops ( nonGM ) being pushed in India are single season only

Why do you think that it is "extremely unlikely" that non-terminator Golden Rice will continue to be available? Multiple companies have acquired licenses to distribute Golden Rice, and they will all be competing against one another so it seems unlikely that they would all decide to add terminator genes to it without some sort of illegal collusion. In addition, this would be a PR nightmare for Monsanto, which is something they can't afford anytime in the near future.

then ecological concerns -- introducing an element into the vast unknown witrh possible grave consequences in predominantly agricultutral societies, and lab trials are not sufficient.

Golden Rice has been tested extensively in the lab and in the field. The only way it differs from conventional rice is that it contains a vitamin A-precursor producing gene. What is your basis for saying that the lab trials which have been done are not sufficient? What criteria would you apply in determining whether this product is beneficial or not? What possibly "grave consequences" do you foresee?

and thirdly, when there are traditional crops and vegetables that can proviode a balanced diet, why go in for GM ?

Well, obviously people aren't getting adequate access to those traditional crops for whatever reason. Nobody is saying that Golden Rice is a substitute for a balanced diet. Nobody is saying that Golden Rice or even GM foods in general will end world hunger. However, it does provide a simple method of substituting a commonly grown food with one which has superior nutritive value, which will help combat a very common form of malnutrition.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

"The cost to Monsanto is certainly not negligible. Monsanto spent millions developing this technology, and it will not be able to recoup any of those costs."

The cost is relatively negligible. Unless I misunderstand, Monsanto is just one of many patent holders who have a claim on golden rice, so there's not going to be any Monsanto's Golden Rice on the market--at least not without Monsanto paying royalties to all the other patent holders (or buying the rights and/or corporations, or some other similar deal). Since Monsanto is not going to be able to easily recoup its losses from the sale of golden rice, it makes sense to get someone else to finish the development and distribute the product in the third world. Presumably, the loss of royalties will be balanced by savings in R&D and distribution costs. In the meantime, golden rice saves the starving third world children, Europe and the U.S. decide that GM food is OK after all, and Monsanto sells lots and lots of Roundup Ready corn and soybeans, Roundup, and whatever GM crops it manages to develop in the meantime. It's a great marketing plan.

Saving starving third world children is great, and I don't see any danger in growing golden rice extensively. However, if you think Monsanto's action is a convincing indicator of philanthropic intent, you're more easily convinced than I am. Monsanto has a product (GM food) for which a substantial (or not as substantial as Monsanto would like) market does not yet exist; giving away golden rice (which is *not* the product for which Monsanto is trying to create a market) to people whose fear is overridden by their malnutrition is a great way to create a market--by demonstating that GM foods can be beneficial-- for the corporation's real money-making products. Once GM foods are widely accepted and Monsanto can sell its drug-food products wherever and whenever it wants, will it still be giving stuff away? Jen thinks yes; I think no.

"As for concerns about the use of the products, yes there are some. But as I see it, the only party with serious reason to be concerned is Monsanto themselves, as this technology may have the potential to make one of their most successful products worthless. "

Won't farmers, and ultimately consumers, be hurt when they invest lots of money in expensive weed control products which gradually become ineffective?

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Unless I misunderstand, Monsanto is just one of many patent holders who have a claim on golden rice, so there's not going to be any Monsanto's Golden Rice on the market--at least not without Monsanto paying royalties to all the other patent holders (or buying the rights and/or corporations, or some other similar deal).

It's true that Monsanto would have to deal with patent issues in bringing this product to market. But this is true of ALL their biotechnology products. Nearly every biotech or pharmaceutical product made by anyone these days enlists the use of someone else's technology, and the cost of using that intellectual property is factored into the price of the product.

I suspect you are right, though, that Monsanto never had a chance to make any money off of Golden Rice. However, I'm certain they were fully aware of this going into the product. Monsanto has traditionally made agricultural products geared toward farmers in developed nations, because that's where you make money. Selling crops to impoverished third-world governments and charities is just not profitable, and for the most part, these groups can't afford Monsanto's technology. It seems overwhelmingly likely that they embarked on this project in hopes of improving world nutrition, not in hopes of making money, or even breaking even. Certainly this effort may have been an attempt to gain public acceptance but Monsanto would have had to be pretty stupid to think they were going to earn back their investment on this one, so I think the fact they pursued and finished this project at all really says something.

Won't farmers, and ultimately consumers, be hurt when they invest lots of money in expensive weed control products which gradually become ineffective?

Maybe in the short term, but using Roundup is not really an "investment"--you buy it, you use it, and if it doesn't work, you can use something else. In my opinion, the benefits of Roundup far outweigh this risk.

Would you also suggest that antibiotics be withheld from the market because of the (proven) risk of antibiotic resistance?

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

"Would you also suggest that antibiotics be withheld from the market because of the (proven) risk of antibiotic resistance? "

No, but I don't think that the argument is as clear-cut as you imply. The misuse of antibiotics is a major factor contributing to the development of resistant strains of bacteria, so perhaps tighter regulation of the use of antibiotics would decrease the rate of resistance development. Eventually, just as you argued about Roundup, resistant strains of bacteria will return us, effectively, to the days before antibiotics, but perhaps we could put off that day by restricting access to antibiotics. I'm not advocating such action, but it at least makes logical sense.

There are, however, significant differences between antibiotics and resistant plants like Roundup Ready corn. With antibiotics, we're introducing into the environment an agent which triggers the development of resistance; with Roundup Ready corn, we're introducing the resistance itself. Isn't that skipping a step and (potentially) significantly increasing the rate of resistance development?

Secondly, the exposure of the environment to antibiotics is much more easily controlled. When I take an antibiotic, I don't pass that antibiotic to my wife, my pets, the grass in my front lawn, and the squirrels in the park. Thanks to the wonders of pollen, the genetic material from genetically altered plants is spewed over a relatively large area.

Finally, there's a difference in our level of understanding of the two situations. We understand how antibiotics cause the development of resistant strains of bacteria, so we can pretty easily manage the risk. From the little I've read, it seems that there's some question if or how herbicide resistance can spread from crops to weeds. If we don't know what the danger is, it's not easy to manage the risk.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

With antibiotics, we're introducing into the environment an agent which triggers the development of resistance; with Roundup Ready corn, we're introducing the resistance itself. Isn't that skipping a step and (potentially) significantly increasing the rate of resistance development?

It's possible. However, that prediction has not been borne out by the research that has been done thus far. There is no evidence that Roundup Ready plants are any more capable of spreading their genes around than plants which have developed resistance to Roundup naturally.

Secondly, the exposure of the environment to antibiotics is much more easily controlled. When I take an antibiotic, I don't pass that antibiotic to my wife, my pets, the grass in my front lawn, and the squirrels in the park.

Yes, but the problem causing antibiotic resistance is not the spread of antibiotics, but the spread of the resistant bacteria. If you develop antibiotic-resistant bacteria, you will spread them to everyone you come in contact with, and some of those people will also develop disease which can't be treated with antibiotics.

We understand how antibiotics cause the development of resistant strains of bacteria, so we can pretty easily manage the risk. From the little I've read, it seems that there's some question if or how herbicide resistance can spread from crops to weeds. If we don't know what the danger is, it's not easy to manage the risk.

Actually, I don't think we're able to manage antibiotic resistance very well at all. The way we are presently "managing the risk" is by trying to keep up with the bacteria by developing new antibiotics as quickly as possible and hoping that we can stay one step ahead of their evolution. And in the case of Roundup resistance, horticulturists do have a long history of herbicide resistance to build on, and they have techniques for preventing its spread.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

David,

I have to respond to your post about our assertions that the root cause for starvation/ malnutrition is distribution and socioeconomic factors and not the supply of food (or in my mind the potential supply of food). In your post you state that:

“This is just not born out by the historical record. In the past 50 years the daily calory supply in developing nations grew from about 1700 per capita to around 2500 per capita, an increase of over 40 percent. Median life expectancy in these nations went from under 41 years to around 62 years during this period, a proportionately even larger jump.”

Doesn’t this in fact prove our argument? The per capita calorie supply available in these markets is close to what the FDA considers a normal diet (2,000 to 2,500 calories per day). And yet people are starving and malnourished in these markets and also in developed nations. So what is the problem? Lack of supply or poor distribution? Well your statistics indicate that the supply is adequate so it must be distribution. In addition, the statistics that you present also indicate that food supplies can grow without GM foods. Witness the per capita increase in calorie supply.

Is your argument that supplies should be increased so that prices fall? What consequences would this have on farmers in developing nations? Would this lead to larger scale farming? If so how would this impact smaller farmers?

If your argument is that no distribution system is 100% efficient then I would completely and absolutely agree with that. We need an oversupply of calories to efficiently meet the need/demand.

Fundamental to your argument is the notion that technology is the cause for “inadequate supply.” Could it simply be that Farmer X has no market incentive to produce enough food to supply Peasant Y? Could it simply be that Government A has no political reason to ensure the Peasant B has and adequate food supply? Do you have any proof that lack of adequate agricultural technology/productivity is limiting the growth in food supply?

Fried chicken? Do you really need the additional hormones?????

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

What are the moral implications of not labeling GM foods when consumers may have religious or ethical dietary constraints? Jen brushed aside my comment about wanting to know whether there are fish genes in my tomato by saying “There are fish genes in every tomato-- even those which haven't been genetically modified. We're all related y'know.” Scientifically this is true but is this morally and ethically true?

Muslims or Jews eating food, which may have been modified using the genes of pigs or shellfish? Hindus eating food modified using the genes of a cow or vegans eating food modified using the genes of an animal?

Just questions. I don’t know the answers but it seems like this could eventually be a dilemma for the devout.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

"Plenty of farmers grow rice in Asia without pesticides now, and these same farmers will be able to grow Golden Rice without pesticides. "

ah yes, but these varieties grown are the traditional ones, that have been grown for many centuries, and such are locally adapted to the environment. Yes, pests do attack these varieties, but the effect is low, unless there is a locust invasion or some other 'random' event. On the other hand, Golden Rice would be required to grow over large areas having very different environmental factors -- the latter has given rise to more than 300 varieties in a 400 mile by 50 mile strip of coastal India alone. Therefore it would have to have some kind of resistance to a wide variety of pests and weather conditions. Hitherto, the varieties that have been grown over wide areas all have chemical packages supporting them. I'm talking about varieties here.

I guess i need to read more as to whether Golden Rice indeed has an accompanying package, however it seems very unlikey that it can survive without any pesticide, where none other can ( across a wide range of conditions ).

"Why do you think that it is "extremely unlikely" that non-terminator Golden Rice will continue to be available? "

well, because that has been the experience so far with agrobusiness products in S.Asia -- either the seed would be single season use, or it wouldcome attendant with a chemical input package ( fertiliozer + pesticide + herbicide ). And as Evan has said quite a few times, the underlying intent for Monsanto and other agrobusinesses is to get their products locked in worldwide, so as to generate revenue. You also may have heard of lossleaders in grocery shops...

"Well, obviously people aren't getting adequate access to those traditional crops for whatever reason. " yes, and the main reason, at least in S.Asia is primarily that the nutritive food is unaffordable by most people. It would certainly cost less to grow vegetables than GM food ( which as i have said would require pesticide packages ).

"Golden Rice has been tested extensively in the lab and in the field. The only way it differs from conventional rice is that it contains a vitamin A-precursor producing gene. What is your basis for saying that the lab trials which have been done are not sufficient? What criteria would you apply in determining whether this product is beneficial or not? What possibly "grave consequences" do you foresee? "

the gene comes from a bacterium and a flower. Lab trials are NEVER sufficient in an ecological study, as labs are simplified controlled environments. There have been many fears raised about gene leakage into wild plants, and that cannot be disproved. It may happen next year, may happen after thirty years.

As regards criteria for determining whether Golden rice is beneficial or not, pray consider the foll possibilities: 1. Dangers of gene leakage, which can have many serious consequences, most of which may not even be known at this stage, as mankind's understanding of specific ecosystem functions is very little. and if this happens in a predominantly agricultural society, it can cause havoc. For instance a weed may acquire a gene and start spreading like wildfire. Pests would evolve to meet this new plant in the field, and in one stroke render existing pest control methods ( of plants and organic farming, as much of subsistence farming is organic ) ineffectual. 2. Even if Golden Rice were grown, how would it be ensured that the poorest would be able to afford it, year after year ? Not the govt, nor charities. If they could have done it, they would have done it so far with existing nutritional alternatives, that are not costly and have been around for many hundreds of years, and which are taken for granted in urban areas. 3. When the technology for growing a crop moves out of teh farmer's hands, into that of governments and corporations, the farmer ends up the loser as he is now at their mercy. The past two decades have borne this in S.Asia. Just a reminder that agroeconomics in the US are very different from that in S.Asia, where a lot of it is subsistence level, small plots of land with maybe a bullock to plow the field.

my point 1 is not anti-progress, it is just that gambling with nature and food supplies are very high stakes.

I am not technically against any GM food, as pointed out by some one else, farmers have been crossbreeding for millenia. However, when a farmer crossbreeds, he tests it in the field straightaway, and it is a local application. And in most cases the genetic transfer is between closely related organisms... now i do not know enough of genetics to know whether there can be any dangers in combining genes of unrelated organisms.. so I do not have a definite idea about GM foods per se, as I pointed out before.

My main point is regarding the futility of the assertion that Golden Rice shall aid malnutrition abatement in third world countries, and that especially being made by Monsanto, who has been a symbol of extortion in third world agriculture, albeit with the collusion of governments, the World Bank and research institutes like the IRRI.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Hi David and Greg,

“This is just not born out by the historical record. In the past 50 years the daily calory supply in developing nations grew from about 1700 per capita to around 2500 per capita, an increase of over 40 percent. Median life expectancy in these nations went from under 41 years to around 62 years during this period, a proportionately even larger jump.”

I'd like to add that these stats of life expectancy are country-wide averages, and there is a lot of difference in economic classes in developing countries. The factions affected with starvation/ malnutrition have grown too, owing to numerous causes.. isolation, displacement due to land infertility, deforestation, government usurping land for various projects, the list can go on.

The thing is that to reduce malnutrition, the problem lies not in charity ( which is necessary only in disaster areas ), but in empowering people with education and jobs, so that they become aware of the importance of nutritive foods, and more importantly, are able to afford them.

This is the conclusion most NGOs have reached, over how to reduce malnutrition, poor sanitation and other developing country problems.

and fried chicken ?! well, i guess it wont' hurt having it once in a while.. ( provided one is not a vegetarian ) !

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

What are the moral implications of not labeling GM foods when consumers may have religious or ethical dietary constraints?

This consideration may seem novel, but in fact, GM food really brings nothing new to this dilemma. As I said before, nearly all living things on this planet share genes because of our common evolutionary origins. In addition, gene transfer between species can (and frequently does) occur through virus infection and other means. For this reason, I don't think that individual genes are a good measure of an organism's identity. If they were, vegetarians wouldn't be able to eat anything!

And as Evan has said quite a few times, the underlying intent for Monsanto and other agrobusinesses is to get their products locked in worldwide, so as to generate revenue.

Yes, and as I have said quite a few times, there is nothing to indicate that Monsanto is attempting to get a chokehold on the third world market. It's not a lucrative market, and it can't afford to pay the prices they would need to charge to make back their R&D costs. Further, Monsanto has no infrastructure established for third world distribution, which is probably one reason why they're licensing out the distribution rights to other companies.

It would certainly cost less to grow vegetables than GM food ( which as i have said would require pesticide packages ).

Again, you're making several big assumptions here (that users of Golden Rice will be required to buy pesticide packages, that Golden Rice will be more expensive than other seeds). I guess only time will tell whether you are right, but I don't think you can say that these things are foregone conclusions.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Even on the evolutionary scale it has been a loooooooong time since cows diverged from potatoes. Now we are faced with the potential for potatoes that contain first generation genes from cows (to make pre- buttered spuds I suppose). Not only this but a Hindu may by unwittingly be eating a potato that required the slaughter of a cow for it genetic modification. I would say that these are indeed very new and yet very old dilemmas.

By your logic, since we are all practically the same genetically, animal testing is the moral equivalent of testing on human beings. And cannibalism is okay because we share a large part of the genetic makeup of a bannana.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

By your logic, since we are all practically the same genetically, animal testing is the moral equivalent of testing on human beings. And cannibalism is okay because we share a large part of the genetic makeup of a bannana.

Actually, that would be your logic, since you're saying that having a cow gene makes you part cow. As I just said in my last post, I don't think that individual genes should be used as a basis for determining an organism's identity. Those judgements should be made on the basis of the whole organism.

Also, as for your argument about evolutionary distance, you might be surprised how little that matters when it comes to genes that are essential for survival. Those change very little, and it is not unheard of to find genes between such divergent organisms as humans and yeast which have greater than 90% base pair identity.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Oh yeah, and I forgot to address this:

a Hindu may by unwittingly be eating a potato that required the slaughter of a cow for it genetic modification

You don't need to kill an animal to get DNA to use for genetic modification. Copious amounts of animal DNA can be isolated from any tissue, including blood, semen, hair, etc. I can't concieve of any circumstance in which anyone would kill a cow for the purposes of genetic engineering.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

"You don't need to kill an animal to get DNA to use for genetic modification. Copious amounts of animal DNA can be isolated from any tissue, including blood, semen, hair, etc. I can't concieve of any circumstance in which anyone would kill a cow for the purposes of genetic engineering."

The real question is how will the consumer know if the animal is harmed or not? A devout vegan would have problems with all of your genetic harvesting methods.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

“….. I don't think that individual genes should be used as a basis for determining an organism's identity. Those judgements should be made on the basis of the whole organism.”

Damn, I knew that you were going to call me on that. Genetic modification is the extraction of the genetic essence, in whole or in part, of a species and inserting it in another species. The part that is extracted and inserted is part of what makes a cow different from a potato. What is the new creation? Is it a cow or a potato? Is it a cowtato or potow? It looks like a potato but it shares characteristics of a cow’s creamy goodness. Where is the dividing line between cow and potato? What if the potato has hair and lactates? Is it a mammal? How much genetic modification has to occur before the potato stops being a vegetable and becomes an animal?

I’m sure that you all will be sorry to hear that this will be my last post before the weekend. Have fun!!!! Suddenly I find myself strangely hungry.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000

Greg and Martes (and anyone else), hope you're still reading. Otherwise, for the record:

"The per capita calorie supply available in these markets is close to what the FDA considers a normal diet (2,000 to 2,500 calories per day). And yet people are starving and malnourished in these markets and also in developed nations. So what is the problem? Lack of supply or poor distribution? Well your statistics indicate that the supply is adequate so it must be distribution."

I've been arguing that both matter. Living standards aren't a function of just how large (or equitably distributed) a food supply there is, but also on the cost of obtaining that supply. If average calorie supplies in developing countries have grown to nearly "adequate" levels, nevertheless the share of income absorbed by food outlays - both for the typical household and the society as a whole - still remains very high by modern developed nation standards. Which is another way of saying that agricultural productivity remains pretty low in developing nations, and that there is still vast scope for improving the welfare of their populations via growth.

The high share of developing country income (and output) given over to procuring food means, among other things, that even small fluctuations or disruptions in earnings can deprive many households of the means to adequately feed themselves - failures in distribution or demand, in other words, are intertwined with costs of supply. It also means that less income can be given over to other outlays vital to improving welfare - for example, education. Here again, a distribution issue is also a growth issue.

"Is your argument that supplies should be increased so that prices fall? What consequences would this have on farmers in developing nations? Would this lead to larger scale farming? If so how would this impact smaller farmers?"

Well, yeah, making agriculture more productive and food more affordable - that is, reducing the share of national and household income absorbed by outlays on food - by definition does mean dropping the prices of food products relative to other prices, which equivalently does mean reducing the share of labor given over to food production. There is basically no way that a developing country can become a developed country otherwise. The transitional issues are, of course, challenging. But consider how your own standard of living and opportunity for self-expression would be diminished if food outlays absorbed 30% of your income or 50%, instead of the typical 15%.

"Fundamental to your argument is the notion that technology is the cause for 'inadequate supply.'"

I've never argued that growth is only about technology.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

David and others, greetings ! yes, we're still reading, although this thread has been shifted off to the topic folder ( does that mean its not current anymore ?)

"Well, yeah, making agriculture more productive and food more affordable - that is, reducing the share of national and household income absorbed by outlays on food - by definition does mean dropping the prices of food products relative to other prices, which equivalently does mean reducing the share of labor given over to food production. There is basically no way that a developing country can become a developed country otherwise.."

I agree with David to some extent in his last post. However, if the share of labor for agriculture is reduced, what happens to all those people ? Industrialization would not neccesarily absorb all of them. Predominantly agricultural third world countries cannot follow the same model of development as the first world countries.. their populations are much higher, per capita resources lower and oftentimes the high cultural diversity makes for difficulty in strong effective leadership of a nation. then comes environmental aspects of development -- pollution, overconsumption of natural resources...no, third world , especially tropical countriues have to follow their own model. Small countries like singapore, taiwan and uruguay can be an exception.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Yeah, I'm planning on watching the show. They also have a pretty good website here.

-- Anonymous, April 24, 2001

The Kenya scientist (i think it was) made a very good point about the perspective of indigenous people to having the world's so-called surplus food shipped to them. No pride or self-sufficiency, in growing their own (be it GM or not), but as Greenpeace would RATHER have it, delivered to them on trucks, planes, or whatever.

And the point that the costs of organic farming is for those that can afford it, seems valid.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001

It depends. If we are just talking about a basic cut and/or paste, it's probably ok. If we are talking about creating new genes (or new base pairs for that matter, as has recently been done) then we could be asking for trouble. When designing new genes or creating mutant strains of existing genes (same thing, I guess), there could be some protein interactions that we might not have considered. This would probably result in cell death most of the time, expected results some of the time, and a rare chance that we create something nasty that we cannot control. Secondly, if we get into the business of creating new species, chances are we will create species that we think are "perfect" and we will decide to lean towards monocultures even more heavily than we already do. Another danger is that we design some "supergene" that we want to put in every single plant. One day, a virus could come along that targets the products of that gene. Potentially, we could instantly lose all the crops in a country resulting in a potential famine, and economic chaos. In fact, if we become proficient at designing genes, we may use this as a warfare technique. It's not worth it. Evolution has created diversity for a reason -- it's successful. Take that diversity away, and you assume huge risks for the ecosystem.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2002

I couldn't resist posting a little more info about GM foods. There was a book I read a while ago with a huge write up on Potato Lectin (which is related to Bt somehow, I think). I can't remember the name of the book, but when I searched the web, I turned up a page talking about the subject in general:

http://www.stats.org/newsletters/9903/gm_food.htm

The bottom line was that Monsanto paid huge sums to discredit the scientists research showing some problems with a potato lectin. It seemed that Monsanto used brute force and PR more than science to squelch the research results.

Monsanto is definately *not* a friendly company. I seem to remember my Human Genetics professor telling me that monsanto engineers it's seed to be sterile in the second generation. This forces you to buy Monsanto once the neighboring crops have been cross pollinated, and effectively killed. My professor was pro-GM foods, having some hand in the FlavorSaver(TM) tomato, if I remember correctly. I definately remember that he owned a large amount of stock in the company. Technology has the potential for good or evil. It just takes one creep to screw things up for everyone. GM foods are not worth the potential risks given that human beings are the mediators, rather than god or nature.

-- Anonymous, March 17, 2002

Hello jen and others, here's some more injection of life into this old horse !

Friends of the Earth Europe

PRESS RELEASE 30 April 2002 - For immediate release

KEY SCIENTIST ADMITS SAFETY RESEARCH ON GM MAIZE IS FLAWED Friends of the Earth calls for a EU-wide ban on GM maize *****************************************************************

Brussels, Today Friends of the Earth is calling on the European Commission and the member states of the European Union to suspend a controversial GM maize after a key scientist in the UK admitted that the safety research should have been reanalysed and that the tests were not good enough to draw any conclusions over its effects on chickens.

The GM maize, called T25, was approved for marketing in the EU in 1996. It is produced by the biotech company Aventis and is resistant to Aventis own herbicides. At an on-going public hearing in the UK serious scientific concerns have been raised including:

• The maize had never been tested on cows even though its only purpose is to be fed to cows • When it was tested on chickens, twice as many chickens fed the GM maize died, compared to those fed conventional feed.

In an interview for the BBC (1), Professor Alan Gray who chairs the UK Government’s GM advisory committee (ACRE), agreed that the chicken feeding tests should have been reanalysed and that the research wasn’t good enough to say what the possible impacts of the maize is. Professor Gray was also on ACRE when this Committee gave its original consent to commercialise the GM maize in July 1996. The chicken feeding study was the only study submitted by Aventis to support its application in 1996 which used whole maize grains. In the same BBC report, scientists from Bristol University, who have subsequently analysed the chicken research, called it “thin science” and that it was "not really good enough to base a student project on, let alone a marketing consent for a GM product". (2)

Adding to the statements of the scientists, UK’s Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth said that it is “wholly unacceptable” that the GM maize variety is already being grown in the fields. Mr. Ainsworth also said that the admission by ACRE that the agency made a misjudgement about the safety of the GM maize “points to a serious loophole in the existing arrangements.” (3)

Geert Ritsema, GMO campaign coordinator of Friends of the Earth Europe said: “ The admission by a key European scientist that the science behind this controversial GMO crop is inadequate is shoking. This GMO should never have been approved in the first place. The European Commission should withdraw its consent immediately.”

Contact:

Geert Ritsema, office (+ 32-2) 5420182, mobile (+ 31 (0)6) 290 05 908 Adrian Bebb, office (+ 44-113) 389 9952, mobile (+ 44 (0)7712) 843 211

Notes 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1954000/1954408.stm

2. A full assessment of the chicken study by Bristol University is available from: www.foe.co.uk/resource/evidence/analysis_chicken_study.pdf 3. Quoted from BBC Radio. A full transcipt of the BBC interview is available from Friends of the Earth

Friends of the Earth is the largest grassroots environmental network in the world campaigning to protect the environment and to create sustainable societies. Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) unites more than 30 national member groups with thousands of local groups.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/Kv0qlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------- ~->

*************************************************************** Distributed by the World Environmental Journalists Egroup(WEJEG) List Owner:Sri Lanka Environmental Journalists Forum(SLEJF) PO.Box 26,434/3-Sri Jayawardenapura,Sri Lanka. phone:(+94-1)873131/827810Fax:(+94-1)883187Email: Archive Join the list:Send e-mail

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002

Um, you know that that's just a press release by an advocacy group and not an actual piece of journalism, right?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2002