MONSANTO
- Thread starter peapod
- Start date
Twila check out this, its put out by greenpeace. You don't have to order it, most of it is online, you will find it really useful :wink:
http://www.greenpeace.ca/shoppersguide/
http://www.greenpeace.ca/shoppersguide/
Twila check out this, its put out by greenpeace. You don't have to order it, most of it is online, you will find it really useful :wink:
http://www.greenpeace.ca/shoppersguide/
http://www.greenpeace.ca/shoppersguide/
Twila check out this, its put out by greenpeace. You don't have to order it, most of it is online, you will find it really useful :wink:
http://www.greenpeace.ca/shoppersguide/
http://www.greenpeace.ca/shoppersguide/
That's not quite how it works... I know you're partly joking but it's a common belief that eating GM foods could somehow result in "GM genes" entering the eater's body. If this were in fact the case, we would all be now expressing countless genes from every food organism we've ever eaten.
I'm a molecular biologist and am greatly distressed by a lot of the misinformation going around about GMOs and GM foods. I know a lot of these can be ascribed to poor communication of what are in fact quite complicated ideas, but many others are, I think, the result of some sort of misguided "vitalism" or belief that creating something artifically makes it inherently suspect.
That said, my major concern with how genetic modification has affected the food supply is economic - it results in a small group of patent-holders having incredible control over the growth of basic foodstuffs. Farmers need to make a living, and so if they choose Roundup Ready canola, it's likely because it makes them money in the long run. The downside of this (aside from increased RoundUp use) is that Monsanto now has IP rights over much of the crop, and can dictate the terms under which it is grown, and indirectly, the price. As we've seen, Monsanto and other large corporations can't be trusted to exercise their current IP rights responsibly - the Schmieisser case being a good example. And of course they're constantly lobbying government to extend IP holders' rights beyond what is reasonable to insure that innovation is profitable. Having that kind of ruthless monopolism impact the food supply is not desirable - and will certainly not lead to the feed-the-world bounty that the corporate GM proponents still tout.
That's not quite how it works... I know you're partly joking but it's a common belief that eating GM foods could somehow result in "GM genes" entering the eater's body. If this were in fact the case, we would all be now expressing countless genes from every food organism we've ever eaten.
I'm a molecular biologist and am greatly distressed by a lot of the misinformation going around about GMOs and GM foods. I know a lot of these can be ascribed to poor communication of what are in fact quite complicated ideas, but many others are, I think, the result of some sort of misguided "vitalism" or belief that creating something artifically makes it inherently suspect.
That said, my major concern with how genetic modification has affected the food supply is economic - it results in a small group of patent-holders having incredible control over the growth of basic foodstuffs. Farmers need to make a living, and so if they choose Roundup Ready canola, it's likely because it makes them money in the long run. The downside of this (aside from increased RoundUp use) is that Monsanto now has IP rights over much of the crop, and can dictate the terms under which it is grown, and indirectly, the price. As we've seen, Monsanto and other large corporations can't be trusted to exercise their current IP rights responsibly - the Schmieisser case being a good example. And of course they're constantly lobbying government to extend IP holders' rights beyond what is reasonable to insure that innovation is profitable. Having that kind of ruthless monopolism impact the food supply is not desirable - and will certainly not lead to the feed-the-world bounty that the corporate GM proponents still tout.
That's not quite how it works... I know you're partly joking but it's a common belief that eating GM foods could somehow result in "GM genes" entering the eater's body. If this were in fact the case, we would all be now expressing countless genes from every food organism we've ever eaten.
I'm a molecular biologist and am greatly distressed by a lot of the misinformation going around about GMOs and GM foods. I know a lot of these can be ascribed to poor communication of what are in fact quite complicated ideas, but many others are, I think, the result of some sort of misguided "vitalism" or belief that creating something artifically makes it inherently suspect.
That said, my major concern with how genetic modification has affected the food supply is economic - it results in a small group of patent-holders having incredible control over the growth of basic foodstuffs. Farmers need to make a living, and so if they choose Roundup Ready canola, it's likely because it makes them money in the long run. The downside of this (aside from increased RoundUp use) is that Monsanto now has IP rights over much of the crop, and can dictate the terms under which it is grown, and indirectly, the price. As we've seen, Monsanto and other large corporations can't be trusted to exercise their current IP rights responsibly - the Schmieisser case being a good example. And of course they're constantly lobbying government to extend IP holders' rights beyond what is reasonable to insure that innovation is profitable. Having that kind of ruthless monopolism impact the food supply is not desirable - and will certainly not lead to the feed-the-world bounty that the corporate GM proponents still tout.
NSA, what makes you sure that gm products can't/won't hurt people in the long run? My concern with regards to gm products is the effects these products will have regular products. IE gm salmon escapees destroying habitat that was not designed for them and doing irrepairable damage to regular fish stocks. I was under the impression that long term affects of gm products haven't been studied, because of the relative newness of it.
There are many products that are approved by the FDA and by the CFIA that we later learn has side-effects not even guessed at.
There are many products that are approved by the FDA and by the CFIA that we later learn has side-effects not even guessed at.
NSA, what makes you sure that gm products can't/won't hurt people in the long run? My concern with regards to gm products is the effects these products will have regular products. IE gm salmon escapees destroying habitat that was not designed for them and doing irrepairable damage to regular fish stocks. I was under the impression that long term affects of gm products haven't been studied, because of the relative newness of it.
There are many products that are approved by the FDA and by the CFIA that we later learn has side-effects not even guessed at.
There are many products that are approved by the FDA and by the CFIA that we later learn has side-effects not even guessed at.
NSA, what makes you sure that gm products can't/won't hurt people in the long run? My concern with regards to gm products is the effects these products will have regular products. IE gm salmon escapees destroying habitat that was not designed for them and doing irrepairable damage to regular fish stocks. I was under the impression that long term affects of gm products haven't been studied, because of the relative newness of it.
There are many products that are approved by the FDA and by the CFIA that we later learn has side-effects not even guessed at.
There are many products that are approved by the FDA and by the CFIA that we later learn has side-effects not even guessed at.
GM products won't cause us, by eating them, to suffer genetic mutations. That is not to say that their long-term effects are known. There could be cumalative toxicity or something else that we won't notice for decades.
The really big danger is environmental though. I've had GM canola destroy a good portion of my garden. I know farmers who are using tank mixes to control weeds because so many have become resistant to Round-Up. The GM salmon farms are a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering the precarious nature of natural salmon stock.
We could suffer serious food shortages if gm crops and a lack of genetic diversity leads to crop failures.
The really big danger is environmental though. I've had GM canola destroy a good portion of my garden. I know farmers who are using tank mixes to control weeds because so many have become resistant to Round-Up. The GM salmon farms are a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering the precarious nature of natural salmon stock.
We could suffer serious food shortages if gm crops and a lack of genetic diversity leads to crop failures.
GM products won't cause us, by eating them, to suffer genetic mutations. That is not to say that their long-term effects are known. There could be cumalative toxicity or something else that we won't notice for decades.
The really big danger is environmental though. I've had GM canola destroy a good portion of my garden. I know farmers who are using tank mixes to control weeds because so many have become resistant to Round-Up. The GM salmon farms are a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering the precarious nature of natural salmon stock.
We could suffer serious food shortages if gm crops and a lack of genetic diversity leads to crop failures.
The really big danger is environmental though. I've had GM canola destroy a good portion of my garden. I know farmers who are using tank mixes to control weeds because so many have become resistant to Round-Up. The GM salmon farms are a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering the precarious nature of natural salmon stock.
We could suffer serious food shortages if gm crops and a lack of genetic diversity leads to crop failures.
GM products won't cause us, by eating them, to suffer genetic mutations. That is not to say that their long-term effects are known. There could be cumalative toxicity or something else that we won't notice for decades.
The really big danger is environmental though. I've had GM canola destroy a good portion of my garden. I know farmers who are using tank mixes to control weeds because so many have become resistant to Round-Up. The GM salmon farms are a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering the precarious nature of natural salmon stock.
We could suffer serious food shortages if gm crops and a lack of genetic diversity leads to crop failures.
The really big danger is environmental though. I've had GM canola destroy a good portion of my garden. I know farmers who are using tank mixes to control weeds because so many have become resistant to Round-Up. The GM salmon farms are a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering the precarious nature of natural salmon stock.
We could suffer serious food shortages if gm crops and a lack of genetic diversity leads to crop failures.
I'm NOT sure. Nobody is. But you have to assess risks, and decide whether you wait for proof of ZERO risk before you allow a new technology (in which case we'd allow very few if any new technologies) or whether you do tests to rule out majority of risks, and weigh the results against the utility of the product.
I guess that's something else I forgot to mention in my previous post. If I genetically modify a new strain of rice that will grow in all those tsunami-salted paddies in Banda Aceh, I believe that has a potential for good which outweighs a small risk that something will be wrong with the strain. If I develop a GM strain which I use as a marketing tool for my stupid but profitable glyphosate herbicide (aka Roundup-Ready technology), the risk/benefit ratio is much different.
As for your salmon example, I agree that releasing GM fish (or whatever) to the wild would be unwise, and that's something you have to consider when deciding to permit GM fish - can aquaculturist compliance with no-dumping regulations be enforced? Is the nature of the transgene such that minor "leaks" will be magnified by breeding with wild fish and positive selection (like if it made the fish shoot laser beams at their predators for example...
) or is it a "neutral" or even disadvantageous gene which is unlikely to proliferate in natural populations from a small initial introduction?I'm NOT sure. Nobody is. But you have to assess risks, and decide whether you wait for proof of ZERO risk before you allow a new technology (in which case we'd allow very few if any new technologies) or whether you do tests to rule out majority of risks, and weigh the results against the utility of the product.
I guess that's something else I forgot to mention in my previous post. If I genetically modify a new strain of rice that will grow in all those tsunami-salted paddies in Banda Aceh, I believe that has a potential for good which outweighs a small risk that something will be wrong with the strain. If I develop a GM strain which I use as a marketing tool for my stupid but profitable glyphosate herbicide (aka Roundup-Ready technology), the risk/benefit ratio is much different.
As for your salmon example, I agree that releasing GM fish (or whatever) to the wild would be unwise, and that's something you have to consider when deciding to permit GM fish - can aquaculturist compliance with no-dumping regulations be enforced? Is the nature of the transgene such that minor "leaks" will be magnified by breeding with wild fish and positive selection (like if it made the fish shoot laser beams at their predators for example...
) or is it a "neutral" or even disadvantageous gene which is unlikely to proliferate in natural populations from a small initial introduction?I'm NOT sure. Nobody is. But you have to assess risks, and decide whether you wait for proof of ZERO risk before you allow a new technology (in which case we'd allow very few if any new technologies) or whether you do tests to rule out majority of risks, and weigh the results against the utility of the product.
I guess that's something else I forgot to mention in my previous post. If I genetically modify a new strain of rice that will grow in all those tsunami-salted paddies in Banda Aceh, I believe that has a potential for good which outweighs a small risk that something will be wrong with the strain. If I develop a GM strain which I use as a marketing tool for my stupid but profitable glyphosate herbicide (aka Roundup-Ready technology), the risk/benefit ratio is much different.
As for your salmon example, I agree that releasing GM fish (or whatever) to the wild would be unwise, and that's something you have to consider when deciding to permit GM fish - can aquaculturist compliance with no-dumping regulations be enforced? Is the nature of the transgene such that minor "leaks" will be magnified by breeding with wild fish and positive selection (like if it made the fish shoot laser beams at their predators for example...
) or is it a "neutral" or even disadvantageous gene which is unlikely to proliferate in natural populations from a small initial introduction?