GM: Will it end world hunger or posion us all?

GM food has polarised the nation. Those in favour are sure GM will lead to an efficient, healthier, even more environmentally- friendly food industry. Those against say it will squeeze out traditional and organic crops allowing multinationals to seize control of our food.

With only 14% of the UK in favour of GM crops and a whopping 56% against, it seems the public have already made up their mind.

So are we right to be so set against GM food?

gm is gonna be the final nail in nature's coffin. i don't see any worthwhile argument in favour of it.

I don't reckon there's anything to worry about. I'd eat it, I mean, it's not as bad as feeding cows to cows.

We've been genetically altering farm produce for centuries and only 1 in 10 is reported to be born with webbed feet.

Quack

It's not the health imlications that concern me. That's a bit of a straw man, if you ask me. What's really worrying is the degree to which these corporations are prepared to go to gain control over our food chain.

One particularly nasty little development is the inclusion of a gene in crops that will make the next generation of seeds sterile, thjus ensuring that the farmer has to buy the next lot of seeds from the company. Now, you might say that it's up to the farmer if he or she wants to lock themselves into that cycle, but these genes have been shown to spread into surrounding crops. Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, has been sued by Monsanto after accidental contamination:

"On April 3, 2000, a 70 year old Canadian farmer, named Percy Schmeiser, was just ruled to pay Monsanto over US$ 15,000 plus damages which could amount to another US$ 75,000 after his canola crop was contaminated by GM canola. Monsanto trespassed onto Schmeiser's property and investigators found Monsanto's gene patented canola growing in his field. Even though Schmeiser did not intentionally plant this seed, he is now having to pay the price to use it"

The story is here, although I first saw it in The Independent: http://www.anarac.com/effects_gm_could_have_on_crops_a.htm

Don't trust these fucking pirates.

Crops go through an endless amount of genetic modification just by interacting within the environment, the small changes that man makes to crops don't really compare but there are going to be situations where there are problems as a result and situations where there are benfits as a result.

I think the point has to be that mistakes are learned from and communicated in an open manner, so it's a question of intent which is a difficult thing to pin down. If you don't understand it then theres still no end of research material out there or alternatively you can ask for help, sooner or later someone will point you in the right direction.

You might be familiar with the concept of the butterfly effect, this states that the flap of a butterflys wings can cause a hurricane somewhere else. What's easy to miss about the concept can be the fact that the concept itself is a proposition and if you look at the proposition you can also see that it fails to imply that what may have caused the butterfly to flap it's wings was the gentle winds on the edge of a fading hurricane.

If that is the truth of it or not, is a matter of speculation and semantics.

Err.. care to explain the above? I have no idea what you're talking about...

I'll do my best, but you'll have to be more specific.

I'm sorry, I've read your entire post again, and still don't understand your opinion on GM products.

From what I can tell, Moxie seems to be suggesting that GM is the same as evolution. Hmm...

GM is GM

Evolution is theory.

Different.

I share Dazzla's concerns regarding the sterility of the GM crop. Not so much about the lack of seed propigation, but the possibility of cross contamination, resulting in all seed crops going sterile due to dominant traits. Thats a slippery slope that shouldn't be walked; some genetic fiddling is ok, disease resistance and climate adaptation - yes, possibly extinting all grown food crops - no.

moxie spouted:
GM is GM

Evolution is theory.

Different.

And how exactly is evolution theory?

Different thread perhaps?

Because it is. Evolution is a theory, just as the theory of gravity and the theories that make up quantum physics are theory.

OK let's get back on topic.

I believe that GM is a natural progression of human-kinds desire to control and modify this planet to suit its own ends. Insofar as it could be used to feed more people, it could be seen as a bonus. However, what is happening is that the rich nations are going to use it to hold the poor ones to ransom (again). The countries which dont need it will over-produce and sell to the countries which cant produce enough.

The problem I have with this, is that the world is already over-populated. Evidence is clear from the rapid reduction of natural resources that there are more people on the planet than it can comfortably cope with. In the past, drought and famine have served to reduce over-population and keep each region at a sustainable population level. Natural levels of agricultural production ensured that a regions population remained balanced over the medium to long term.

The companies behind these crops may spout altruistic reasons "for the good of all", but the reality is that they simply want to arrive at a situation where everything we eat and drink is a patented product and makes them money. The side effect is that the worlds population grows ever larger, due to the reduced mortality rate, creating more potential consumers for all the other products which need an ever growing market.

The bottom line is that these products are the result of our market system which says that if a business doesnt keep growing year on year then it will be destroyed by the financial markets. Take that to its logical conclusion and you have a system which requires that the world population continues to grow inexorably or the economic system collapses.

GM crops will not benefit the masses to any significant extent, they will however, benefit the companies producig them by millions if not bilions of dollars.

The idea that GM crops will feed the starving masses is a bit of a red herring for me. Most people starve because they can't afford to buy food, because of drought, or because of war: GM won't change any of those things.

I got flaming mad at Margaret Beckett on the radio the other night when she was asked about the UK public's overwhelming opposition to GM. She pretty much said 'No, that's not what the public are saying at all'. The interviewer said 'But your own consultation exercise has show this to be the case'. She said 'It was a consultation, not a referendum'!

I wish she had just had the guts to come out and say 'We don't give a fuck what the public think: we're going ahead anyway'.

CT

Call it evolution or not, things adapt naturally to interact more efficiently with their environments. By forcing this, there is a danger of things going wrong. Just look at skin pigmentation, for example. People living in hot countries develop a darker pigmentation over the generations out of necessity to protect their skins, but forcing this change (i.e. tanning) can cause abnormalities and mutations in the skin. See what I'm saying?

GM is terrible, and I highly doubt they are going to feed the starving people. Poison them, more like. What is also bad is that they're taking out farmers who have done it for generations and making it impossible for them to make a living.

What we have here is a classic knee-jerk reaction to something new.

When trains were first invented, people said ridiculous things such as travelling at such speeds would cause the air to be pulled from passengers' lungs, and their eardrums to implode. We now know that these claims are ridiculous

Now, we have this new invention - and I think that fifty years down the road we'll all be wondering what the fuss was about. These scientists know what they are doing - if there were any serious side-effects they'd have been discovered by now. I am an advocate of change - I believe that if we are able to do something, then we should do it, if there are positive benefits in doing so.

GuinnessMeister spouted:
What we have here is a classic knee-jerk reaction to something new.

When trains were first invented, people said ridiculous things such as travelling at such speeds would cause the air to be pulled from passengers' lungs, and their eardrums to implode. We now know that these claims are ridiculous


Fair point -

Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872, spouted:
Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction

Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873. spouted:
The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.

Mark Thomas once pointed out the remarkable difference between British and American views towards GM - the Americans have a much more gung ho, suck it and see attitude, it'll take decades before the truth is known, I don't have decades, I want Monosodium Glutomate growing with my vegetables.

ChocolateTeapot spouted:
The idea that GM crops will feed the starving masses is a bit of a red herring for me.
It's a lot of a red herring.

Take Monsanto's proposal a few years ago to produce rice with enhanced Vitamin A. Vitamin A is found in yellow/ orange fruit/ vegetables, such as carrots and tropical fruit. Places where people have rice as a staple of their diet tend to feature Vitamin A deficiencies, which lead to eye and liver problems.

In Indonesia, they produce a lot of rice and a lot of tropical fruit. Indonesian rice farmers earn on average $150/year: papayas (rich in Vitamin A) can earn $5 in a Western shop. Imagine spending 12 days' pay (before tax) on a piece of fruit - what a bastard if it was off!

Genetically modifying foods is a stunt. If you believe that there is any kind of humanitarian motive behind it you probably believe in fairies.

GuinnessMeister spouted:
What we have here is a classic knee-jerk reaction to something new.

When trains were first invented, people said ridiculous things such as travelling at such speeds would cause the air to be pulled from passengers' lungs, and their eardrums to implode. We now know that these claims are ridiculous



There's a slight problem here. If travelling at high speed had actually lead to suffocation, then high speed travel would have been abandoned a bit sharpish with maybe a few deaths: it didn't and it wasn't. So far so good.

If GM proves to have serious consequences we won't be able to say to ourselves 'That was a shit idea, let's try something else'. Once GM gets out and about in the environment, there is no going back.

CT

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/geff4.html
This is an interesting website. Though I am not an expert, it seems that this kind of food would be missing 100% of the natural nutrients needed to keep one's self in good health as well as boosting the immune system to guard against everyday bacterias. Another issue is the use of growth hormones which cause humans to eat more due to the fact that they're not receiving the necessary amount of nutrients that their body demands.

ChocolateTeapot spouted:

If GM proves to have serious consequences we won't be able to say to ourselves 'That was a shit idea, let's try something else'. Once GM gets out and about in the environment, there is no going back.

Fair enough, but:

Scientists have found no evidence that GM food affects human health. But waves of negative publicity about the technology have reinforced the perception that GM foods could be harmful.

Many scientists in Africa regard GM crops as the only way to avoid mass starvation on the continent. Kenyan researchers recently created a GM sweet potato that they predict could increase yields by up to 80 percent.

Meanwhile, South African scientists have used genetic modification to insert the vaccine for the disease cholera into bananas. Cholera is a particularly serious problem in South Africa. But there are still several barriers that stop developing countries from growing GM crops on a large scale.

A nice overview on the GM argument - pro and con, on the BBC website here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/gm_genie/risks_and_benefits/index.shtml)

In 1999, front-page headline stories in the British press revealed Rowett Institute scientist Dr. Arpad Pusztai's explosive research findings that GE potatoes, spliced with DNA from the snowdrop plant and a commonly used viral promoter, the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMv), are poisonous to mammals. GE-snowdrop potatoes, found to be significantly different in chemical composition from regular potatoes, damaged the vital organs and immune systems of lab rats fed the GE potatoes. Most alarming of all, damage to the rats' stomach linings --apparently a severe viral infection -- most likely was caused by the CaMv viral promoter, a promoter spliced into nearly all GE foods and crops.

Dr. Pusztai's pathbreaking research work unfortunately remains incomplete (government funding was cut off and he was fired after he spoke to the media). But more and more scientists around the world are warning that genetic manipulation can increase the levels of natural plant toxins in foods (or create entirely new toxins) in unexpected ways by switching on genes that produce poisons. And since regulatory agencies do not currently require the kind of thorough chemical and feeding tests that Dr. Pusztai was conducting, consumers have now become involuntary guinea pigs in a vast genetic experiment. As Dr. Pusztai warns, "Think of William Tell shooting an arrow at a target. Now put a blindfold on the man doing the shooting and that's the reality of the genetic engineer doing a gene insertion."

As a counter balance to this argument it's also true that if creatures are not exposed to toxins then the evolved processes in the body which fight them are no longer used and as such fail to develop. In a field if you cut back a plant, the branches either grow back stronger or the whole plant dies but in the longer term it's advantagous to have plants which have the genetic ability to tollerate being cut back and growing back stronger.

If a GM crop is to become too successful then there is I guess an issue of diversity becoming affected. The same is true of animals, humans are a very successful species in comparison to a lot of creatures which have lived in the rainforest and have become victims of our own actions. So given this perspective on it, that we effect the environment in both positive and negative ways and in turn the environment effects us in poth positive and negative ways (think a moment of what happened to the dinosaurs, is nature really kind ? Is a black hole in space kind ?) It becomes much more a question of looking at things in a much more involved way than just asking if GM is in general, good, or if it is in general, bad.

We are genetically not very unsimilar to chimps, I think it's somewhere between 1 and 5%. And we have the same amount of DNA as a fruit fly, and again the DNA isn't that much different. As misschicago says Dr. Pusztai is absolutley right, if you pull a chip out of a computer you might see the LED's on the front of the computer change colour, but that is NOT what the computer chip is for or what it is doing.

Guinessmeister:

On the point about mass starvation in Africa and worldwide, I go back to my original point. Most people are not starving because there isn't enough food. They are starving because they cannot afford to buy the food, because of war or because of drought. GM introduction will not solve these problems.

The UK crop trials (which were in my opinion incredibly short, given how long any potential adverse consequences may take to show up) actually showed that 2 of the 3 crops DID have adverse environmental impacts. I find it difficult to believe that you could say 'there you go, this stuff is obviously quite safe'.

The point about inserting human resistance to cholera into bananas I find quite frightening. That is going even one step further than genetically engineering pest resistance. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to have received my innoculations through the food I eat. What if something did go wrong with this approach (it may not, granted, but it is not sure). What if the cholera insertion had the eventual effect of human sterility and began to cross to other foodstuffs? Not so fanciful an idea.

I am most certainly not an anti-science luddite (I'm a scientist myself) but I proceed on the precautionary principle, not the attitude of 'we haven't noticed anything bad so far, it must be OK'.

Science has vastly improved the lives of many through vaccines and medicines, yes, but it has also given us a few disasters. What if someone said 'To combat morning sickness in preganacy, lets engineer corn to express thialidomide'. An extreme example may be, but you see my point. Once you start pissing around with this and it's out in the wild, there is no going back

CT

ChocolateTeapot spouted:
On the point about mass starvation in Africa and worldwide, I go back to my original point. Most people are not starving because there isn't enough food. They are starving because they cannot afford to buy the food, because of war or because of drought. GM introduction will not solve these problems.

War and drought are not solvable by GM food. True. Not being able to afford food... well... I think that in a lot of situations where there is a risk of starvation, the victims are heavily reliant on subsistance farming - ie: they grow their own food. Bigger yields mean more food. Obviously this doesn't cover all the causes of starvation, but it's a valid point.

ChocolateTeapot spouted:
The UK crop trials (which were in my opinion incredibly short, given how long any potential adverse consequences may take to show up) actually showed that 2 of the 3 crops DID have adverse environmental impacts. I find it difficult to believe that you could say 'there you go, this stuff is obviously quite safe'.

I haven't seen these figures - could you give the source of your information please?

ChocolateTeapot spouted:
The point about inserting human resistance to cholera into bananas I find quite frightening. That is going even one step further than genetically engineering pest resistance. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to have received my innoculations through the food I eat. What if something did go wrong with this approach (it may not, granted, but it is not sure). What if the cholera insertion had the eventual effect of human sterility and began to cross to other foodstuffs? Not so fanciful an idea.

Personally I'd rather get innoculated by eating a banana than by being stabbed with a needle. There are a lot of 'What ifs' in your statement above. Whilst I agree that it is correct to be cautious in things like this, I am sure that if it weren't safe it would not be allowed to be given to people.

You have good points here - don't get me wrong - but I'm happy that the people who do these experiments know what they are doing. You say that 2 of the 3 UK trials were found to have a harmful effect on the environment - this is why they do trials. To establish if it's safe or not. Let's look at the other side of the coin - one of the experiments was successful. This could mean the difference between someone living and someone dying. It shows that it CAN be done safely.

The summary DEFRA ACRE report (if you think my post has a lot of 'what ifs' see this for caveats and bet hedging). I give you the following examples (my emphasis added)

"growing such crops COULD have implications for wider farmland diversity"

"OTHER ISSUES will affect the medium and long term impacts"

"HARD FOR RESEARCHERS TO PREDICT THE MEDIUM AND LARGE SCALE EFFECTS OF GM"

"However REEARCHERS CAN'T BE CERTAIN YET..."

Note this only refers to the effect that the crops and attendant herbicide use has on wildlife, in relation to the government's stated aim of enhancing biodiversity.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/results/fse-summary.pdf

Note also pg 7 where the summary pretty much rubbishes the entire premise for the experiment, stating the following:

"The researchers BELIEVE the differences in results between the GM and conventional crops are due solely to the different ways farmers managed the conventional and GM crops"

Now that is the governemt side. A greenpeace response is also included.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2284.

Doesn't sound very convincing to me.

CT

CT

Upon reading the government report that you quoted, I can conclude that we are arguing over two different aspects of GM crops.

This report deals SOLELY with the effect of GM crops on weeds, and thus on the animals and insects that eat the weeds. NOWHERE is it mentioned in the report that these crops maybe harmful for human consumption. Also, the report says that GM Maize actually encourages the growth of weeds, and suggests that with careful planning this could balance out the loss of the weeds in other crops.

Since I was talking about the potential effects of GM produce on humans, I don't see the relevence of this report. As for the Greenpeace report - the opening line was enough for me.

[EDIT]

Just noticed this:

"The researchers BELIEVE the differences in results between the GM and conventional crops are due solely to the different ways farmers managed the conventional and GM crops"

How do you manage to construe from this that the entire experiment has been rubbished???

This means: If the farmers had all managed the crops in the same way, there would have been no difference in environmental impact between the GM crops and the conventional crops.

IE: The GM crops did as much/little environmental damage as the ordinary ones!

My view is simple: Do we need to GM food?

No.

GuinnessMeister spouted:
Upon reading the government report that you quoted, I can conclude that we are arguing over two different aspects of GM crops.

This report deals SOLELY with the effect of GM crops on weeds, and thus on the animals and insects that eat the weeds. NOWHERE is it mentioned in the report that these crops maybe harmful for human consumption. Also, the report says that GM Maize actually encourages the growth of weeds, and suggests that with careful planning this could balance out the loss of the weeds in other crops.

Since I was talking about the potential effects of GM produce on humans, I don't see the relevence of this report. As for the Greenpeace report - the opening line was enough for me.

Firstly, I am not asserting that these crops are harmful directly to human health, although I have yet to see conclusive evidence that they ARE NOT. I asserted that they showed evidence of environmental impact. Note also that the report concedes that the entire study may be flawed, yet even after saying that, the government is quite happy to go ahead and licence commerical scale planting

I hope you aren't suggesting that if, as this report certainly suggests, GM can be hazardous to the enviornment then that somehow doesn't matter? All things in nature have their place. Fewer insects = less pollination, means less birds, could potentially end up with certain organisms running riot if predators are wiped out. The point remains that this was a Government study that is riddled with caveats and get out clauses. If I am expected to say to myself 'Well, it appears that the government study is inconclusive at best, but I'm sure they know what they are doing' That won't wash.

I take your point about the Greenpeace article, but bear in mind when you have two sharply divergent views like this, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. In this case that truth would be between 'we aren't sure' and 'they are a disaster'

I usually ask myself in a situation like this 'who gains?'. That usually answers the question.

As to your point about innoculations via food. Ask yourself if, given the current concern about MMR, you think it would be a good idea to engineer this into, say wheat.

You see, we seem to be taking the approach that we can go into the DNA of plant species, tinker around, albeit for good reasons and, given the potential consequences, be absolutely sure that only our desired outcome will occur. Well remember that we once thought that feeding cows on ground spinal column and brain was a good idea: and that actually COULD be reversed when the results manifested themselves.

CT

If crops are off colour, we could spray them with edible paint. What's wrong with that?

GuinnessMeister spouted:
.

[EDIT]

Just noticed this:



How do you manage to construe from this that the entire experiment has been rubbished???

This means: If the farmers had all managed the crops in the same way, there would have been no difference in environmental impact between the GM crops and the conventional crops.

IE: The GM crops did as much/little environmental damage as the ordinary ones!


That's not what it says at all.
The purpose of the investigation was to determine the difference in environmental impact of GMHT and conventional crops. In order to conduct such and experiment the two crops have to be subjected to the same conditions. If you change the experimental conditions then you cannot be sure what the results you observe are telling you.

You might as well say we tested the odour of liquid A at room temperature and liquid B at 100 deg C. We concluded that liquid B smells more.

CT

I'm not implying that harming the environment is OK - I'm implying that the report doesn't give a definitive response on whether or not the GM crop DID damage the environment.

ChocolateTeapot spouted:

As to your point about innoculations via food. Ask yourself if, given the current concern about MMR, you think it would be a good idea to engineer this into, say wheat.

No, this would be a stupid idea. Given that there is debate about the MMR vaccination in it's current form, I hardly think that the debate will go away if it were administered in another form. If, however, the MMR vaccine had been proven to work wonderfully well and everyone was happy about it, then personally I wouldn't see any problem in taking it via some foodstuff. Of course - there is the point that you only need to take this vaccine once, and so engineering it into wheat would mean that potentially you would be taking it every time you had a slice of bread...

The purpose of the investigation was to determine the difference in environmental impact of GMHT and conventional crops. In order to conduct such and experiment the two crops have to be subjected to the same conditions. If you change the experimental conditions then you cannot be sure what the results you observe are telling you.

I read it differently - I read it to mean that the different farmers had different methods of dealing with their crops, not that they had one method for the ordinary crops, and a different one for the GM crop. ie: each farmer dealt with both the GM and ordinary crop in the same manner, but this manner may have differed between farmers. If this was the case, then the test is fair.

GuinnessMeister spouted:
I'm not implying that harming the environment is OK - I'm implying that the report doesn't give a definitive response on whether or not the GM crop DID damage the environment.



In that case, we are actually agreeing. What I see happening is an investigation being conducted that has yielded inconclusive, possibly even invalid results for what could be a potentially very serious move, yet on the back of those inconclusive results, the government has given the go-ahead for commercial planting.

Imagine that during clinical drug trials, investigation into a new drug was shown to yield inconclusive results: either much more work would be ordered, or the drug would be scrapped: and this is for something that we could withdraw from the market if it later became apparent we were wrong about its safety.

CT

We're agreeing that the report is vague, so why you chose to quote from it as evidence against GM crops is beyond me. I'd have quoted from the Greenpeace one.

Besides which, I was arguing more on the human side. Are GM crops dangerous to humans directly? Answer - it would appear not. The only cause for concern is that they may damage the environment in an unknown way.

Given that these GM crops are NOT harmful to humans, why should we not continue to explore other possibilities offered by genetic modification?

COuld I offer a summary:

In science, when a question is asked (always, 'is my assumption correct?') and an answer sought by experiementation and study, there are three possible answers: "Yes", "No" and "Re-ask the question".

It would appear that the GM crop trial experiment has elicited the third response. The government are pushing it as proof that GM is ok. That they are doing this at all is reason enough to suspect that their motives are not entirely in tune with the interests of the majority of their voters.

Besides which, I was arguing more on the human side. Are GM crops dangerous to humans directly? Answer - it would appear not. The only cause for concern is that they may damage the environment in an unknown way.


Meister, if that were the only cause for concern, it would be suffifcent to say 'no', but you haven't addressed the issue of corporate monopoly on the food chain and its disastrous consequences. You are not alone in this. All of the most abject apologists for GM have ignored this issue in exactly the same way.

You compare this new technology to train travel. Ok, I'll compare it to atomic power. The atomic scientists went to such extremes to prove that radioactive material was safe that they even publicly ate samples of uranium and strontium. Did that mean it was safe? Why is GM like rail travel and not like nuclear power?

GuinnessMeister spouted:
We're agreeing that the report is vague, so why you chose to quote from it as evidence against GM crops is beyond me. I'd have quoted from the Greenpeace one.

Besides which, I was arguing more on the human side. Are GM crops dangerous to humans directly? Answer - it would appear not. The only cause for concern is that they may damage the environment in an unknown way.

Given that these GM crops are NOT harmful to humans, why should we not continue to explore other possibilities offered by genetic modification?

I quote from it to highlight it's vague nature. Yes, it would be easy enough to quote from the Greenpeace one, but the fact that the govenrment's OWN report is vague given the potential consequences is my very point. I know a quote from a Greenpeace article is more than likely to elicit the response 'Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?'

If GM crops affect the environment then this WILL effect human beings: that is also my point and that is why the study was carried out. We don't just attempt to protect the environment in an abstract way because it looks nice: we do it because we depend on it.

And I'm all for the exploration of the possibilities genetic modification may have to offer us: just not the release into the general environment of things we so obviously do not fully understand.

CT

Dazzla spouted:
You compare this new technology to train travel. Ok, I'll compare it to atomic power. The atomic scientists went to such extremes to prove that radioactive material was safe that they even publicly ate samples of uranium and strontium. Did that mean it was safe? Why is GM like rail travel and not like nuclear power?

Let's not start misconstruing or misquoting. ;)

I compared people's reactions to this new technology to those of people to a technology which is now considered safe. (As is nuclear power, with proper controls.)

True, I haven't considered the business aspect, or the impact of a corporate monopoly on the environment, because I'm arguing - as I've tried to point out from the start - for the SCIENCE of the matter.

My question was - Why shouldn't we continue to explore other possibilities offered to us by GM? (And I am of course refering to experiments under scientific conditions)

Gentreau spouted:
there are more people on the planet than it can comfortably cope with

This is actually a fallacy, War on Want proved a few years back that there is enough food produced on this planet yearly to ensure that every living person could have a well balanced diet, it just isn't distributed equally. Famine exists on this planet for purely economic reasons.


Gentreau spouted:The companies behind these crops may spout altruistic reasons "for the good of all", but the reality is that they simply want to arrive at a situation where everything we eat and drink is a patented product and makes them money.

..and that kiddies is the bottom line when it comes to GM.

My problem with it, is the entire Patenting issue. How the hell can these companies patent a gene that existed for millions of years before they decided to come along and splice it to some other DNA strand?.

How can you apply a patent to Hybridization?, that occurs naturally in nature all the time. True, they are now crossing genes in ways that would never occur naturally, but the process existed before they started doing it themselves. Thats 'prior art'. Where you have prior art there can (legaly) be no patent.

Part of what you say there says it all...
Digital Dogcow
they are now crossing genes in ways that would never occur naturally
Image what that does to the rest of the world. Just look what CFC's did in aerosoles... we thought they were pretty harmless.

See 'Night of the Lepus' then start worrying lol

The fact is, we already produce far more food than we need (~60% of Americans are obese for chrissakes).

The problem is one of distribution, not production.

that 60%, is that by waist size or head count ?