Organic or Non Organic?

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't believe that people are conflating Organic

> and GM.

>

> Every crop is genetically modified, organic or

> not. We've been modifying crops genetically since

> 4,000 BC. If we didn't modify them then billions

> of people would have died needlessly.

>

> Not only is it uninformed to the point of

> witlessness, it's about as inspired as being

> scared of doctors and lightbulbs. The camera

> steals your soul you know.

>

> There are plenty of arguments against modern GM

> foods,

but mostly they revolve around sterility

> and pricing.

This isn't quite true. Many question the ethics of "interfering with nature" at gene level. Others find it abhorrent that large corporations like Monsanto are able to "play God" by re-shuffling genes in the name of science. And what about the problems caused by transgenic species? Do you remember the "fish tomato" - a tomato with the gene of a fish so as to make it's skin more palatable? How acceptable would that be to a vegetarian for example? What about the implications for allergy sufferers (e.g. if a peanut gene were inserted into another species). And of course there are the health concerns ...e.g. Calgene found that mice fed on their product died within 2 weeks, Dr. Pusztai was gagged and dismissed because he found that rats fed on GM spuds developed lesions in the gut, in 2005 (Russia) over 50% of baby rats fed on GM soya died and those that didn't were stunted, again in 2005 (Australia) rats suffered severe allergic reactions to GM feed, and then there is the test performed by Newcastle University involving humans (I'll let you look that one up!).

Just a few arguments against GM which do not revolve around sterility and pricing.

[Huguenot]

"Others find it abhorrent that large corporations like Monsanto are able to "play God" by re-shuffling genes"

That's kind of a problem with those argumets - they're quasi-religious and really represent a faith-based rejection of the authority of science; hence the Amish connection.

These positions are compounded by anti-corporate sentiment; a rallying cry for those suffering from self-imposed disenfranchisement.

[LegalEagle-ish]

Putting animal genes into plants means that the diseases that evolve in response to the new GM products may have the ability to cross species barrirers in ways that were not possible naturally.

You could end up with a siuation where a potato blight not only wiped out all the potato crops, but also the livestock or even hunans.

Making organisms with gene sequences that could never evolve naturally for all kinds of reasons, without knowing the consequence to the organisms around them is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to do.

There is no shortage of food produced on this planet, the problem is with unequal distribution of the food we already produce.

If we want to really understand the ptessure to go down the GM route we need to look at who really benefits. It won't be poor farmers tied into using patented seeds and their corresponding products such as herbicides to which they are immune. Or the people forced to eat these cross species products.

The people who benefit are the huge companies producing. GM seeds, herbicides, pesticides and the accompanying chemical fertilisers.

Do you really think the CEO's of Monsanto eat the crap they are forcing on the rest of us?

[mockney piers]

"Do you really think the CEO's of Monsanto eat the crap they are forcing on the rest of us?"

Isn't this somewhat oxymoronic? The first part suggests there's such a thing as consumer choice, the latter completely denies it, the two together smacks of paranoia frankly, big companies tend to be amoral rather than actively nefarious. Though I can just about picture the Monsanto CEO with a white cat.

Hal, you almost had me at stable equilibrium, you totally lost me at gaia theory ;)

[Ladymuck]

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is no shortage of food produced on this

> planet, the problem is with unequal distribution

> of the food we already produce.

>

...not to mention the fact that (a)most Westerners eat far more than is required by their bodies and (b) many Westerners actually throw away up to a third of food bought originally for their consumption.

> The people who benefit are the huge companies

> producing. GM seeds, herbicides, pesticides and

> the accompanying chemical fertilisers.

That's a really good observation LegalEagle-ish...a major problem faced by the Biotechnology industry is that it has spent such VAST sums of money in research and development that it is still trying to recoup...and consequently will go to great lengths to achieve this. Moreover, there doesn't appear to be a great deal of evidence PROVING the purported benefits of GMOs in food. On the contrary.

[Huguenot]

I kind of symnpathise with where you're coming from, but the numbers don't pan out. It's one of those peculiar anglo-centric perspectives, as much to do with inflating our sense of importance as it is to really address the food issue.

If we take 'western overfed' societies to mean Western Europe and North America, well then the total population is only 500m people.

There's 7 billion people on the planet however, of whom an estimated 4 billion are malnourished. Even if we slaughtered the populations of all the 'western' nations and recovered their food (and your proposed 50% 'waste'), it's not enough to feed them.

That's not to deny that global food distribution is inefficient, but the suggestion that if we improved distribution there would be no need for better crops is incorrect.

Likewise your assertion that there are no proven benefits to GM food is quite simply wrong.

GM crops have already been created that are more resistant to pests and disease, more resistant to frost and drought.

Crops have been created that generate a higher nutritional content, and provide more Vitamin A - a critical component of a healthy diet that is missing for half the world's population.

Ironically, GM crops have been created that have LESS requirement for highly damaging pesticides, fungicides, bactericides and fertiliser.

The deeply concerning thing is that actually most Brits don't give a flying f**k aboput the starving billions around the world and their desperate need for crops that confer these benefits.

What most Brits seem to concerned about is navel gazing religious angst about 'Frankenstein' tomatoes. Being both rich and pampered Brits are lucky enough to have the (rather self-indulgent) choice. You'd have a quite different view if you'd lost several children to malnutrition.

Having said that, there are valid arguments against GM that HAL9000 has touched on - potentially unwanted expression of genes in both crops and weeds, commercial control and terminator effects.

[LegalEagle-ish]

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Putting animal genes into plants means that the

> diseases that evolve in response to the new GM

> products may have the ability to cross species

> barrirers in ways that were not possible

> naturally.

>

> You could end up with a siuation where a potato

> blight not only wiped out all the potato crops,

> but also the livestock or even hunans.

>

> Making organisms with gene sequences that could

> never evolve naturally for all kinds of reasons,

> without knowing the consequence to the organisms

> around them is a dangerous and irresponsible

> thing to do.

>

No one has answered this bit though. Don't you think that if these gene sequences were stable and beneficial, they would not have already evolved? The speed that we are changing these un-natural and cross species gene sequences in itself is dangerous. Evolution and even selective breeding occurs over many generations, and the negative mixes can be identified and weaned out by survival of the fittest, or culling the weak organisms. The people playing with the genes of organisms are doing so without knowing the long term consequences of cramming fish genes into tomatos etc and are not motivated by concern dfor the starving millions, but for the profits that can be made by their masters.

As far as I am concerned the whole thing is immoral and terrifying.

A friend of mine who is involved in politics in Ugands told me that the Americans tried to force tonnes of genetically modified rice onto their market in so called aid, but the Ugandans didn't want to be part of their human experiments so the rice ended up being stored in huge warehouses in Uganda, because the Americans refused to take it back. It was promptly stolen and sold on the black market to unsuspecting Ugandan human guinea pigs.

If this stuff is so great, why can't the Americans even give it away?

[Huguenot]

Well the Americans can't give it away because of the kinds of superstition we've seen on these pages. I don't think prejudice is the same as proof, even though it's Uganda - a nation that is a symbol to the world of development and progression ;-)

"As far as I am concerned the whole thing is immoral and terrifying."

There's that religion thing again.

Your concerns about the possiblity of unintended consequences are not unreasonable, but it doesn't make them the overriding influence.

Everything that we do entails risk - just getting out of bed in the morning can give you a heart attack.

The question with GM is whether the risks outweigh the benefits.

The problem is that for those people for whom anti-GM is a religious issue don't want to rationally review the risks, and they don't want to recognise the benefits. This is mostly pampered well-fed westerners, because they'll get fed anyway, and they don't care if someone else is dying as a consequence.

[Huguenot]

It's worth dwelling slightly on '?mmoral', becauase it's most likely that the really, really immoral thing to do is to let millions of people die because we wouldn't even research GM solutions.

Really immoral.

[LegalEagle-ish]

What I said was immoral was the American's trying to use Africans for their GM experiments. I am not saying that GM is necessarily immoral - how can it be - it's only a technology.

Just like the H-bomb wasn't immoral, it was merely a piece of technology. Dropping it on the Japanese after they had surrendered just to see what it could do however, was immoral.

Similiarly, dropping tonnes of GM on poor countries to flood their markets, put local competitors out of business and test the effects of the GM technology on those people, is immoral.

[Huguenot]

Ah, yes, sorry misunderstood. Dumping GM crops clearly isn't the way to go about it.

The right way is to bite the bullet and spend whatever you've got to spend to persuade the people back home.

(Not sure you're right about the Japanese having 'already surrendered'. On July 28th 1945, Japan's PM Suzuki said... "I consider the Joint Proclamation [request for surrender] a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.". This was mainly because they wanted to retain their military government, their empire and newly conquered territories, something even the Brits didn't get to do and they were on the winning side!)

[birgit]

Organic would be my preference at all times. Just who would take a saltshaker filled with non-natually occuring matter, produced at a chemical plant and shake it over dinner.. ah, we do that all the time: MSG just one example.. well well..

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Likewise your assertion that there are no proven

> benefits to GM food is quite simply wrong.

What I ACTUALLY said was : "there doesn't appear to be a great deal of evidence PROVING the purported benefits of GMOs in food."

The Biotechnology Industry spends millions on telling us all how beneficial their technology is going to be. The list you have included simply reads like a list of claims that the Monsantos of this world would make. I am not suggesting that these Corporations have NOT produced (e.g.) rice with inbuilt Vitamin A, but merely that there doesn't appear to be a great deal of evidence PROVING that such products will be of benefit overall. Often, any advantage is outweighed by disadvantage. To take your example of:

>

Crops have been created that generate a higher

> nutritional content, and provide more Vitamin A -

> a critical component of a healthy diet that is

> missing for half the world's population.

>

one of the big disadvantages of such a crop is the COST...so, if rice is thus rendered unaffordable to the poor and malnutritioned, then it's not going to do them a fat (excuse pun!) lot of good. Rice without inbuilt Vitamin A has to be better than no rice at all.

Cost is just ONE issue, but there are others as has been highlighted in this thread. The MAIN concerns, however revolve around (a) the potential danger to the environment and (b)the possible health risks to humans.

Until such time as an independent scientific report can show that GM foods do not pose serious threats to human health or the world?s ecosystems then we cannot state that they are beneficial or safe etc. Living organisms are complex and shuffling their genes around may cause serious problems for the future (though some problems already exist). To quote The EDF Guru:

The risks from artificial genetic manipulation are very real. The complexity of cell chemistry and our poor understanding of it mean that we cannot always predict the consequences of our actions.

At the extreme, the risk is that a rogue gene sequence could destroy a species, an entire ecosystem or all life on the planet.

I think, until such time as further studies are done, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[mockney piers]

I'm not denying that there may be more testIng needed, but something about HAL's doom mongering there brings to mind those who doubtless spoke equally knowledgeabley as they predicted the widespread burning of crops

if we introduced these new fangled steam locomotive things.

[Huguenot]

"I think, until such time as further studies are done, we are going to have to agree to disagree."

On what, sweet Ladymuck?

My only argument has been that we need to weigh risks and benefits with GM foods.

The only way we could disagree is if you say that we must base our decision simply on risk (an illogical position that would leave you in bed all day, failing to eat for fear of infection).

Thing is Ladymuck, the religious nuts are going out of their way to prevent any testing being done. Same ones who argue we mustn't wear seatbelts or that cameras steal your soul. Well they might, mightn't they? Prove that they don't?

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... something about HAL's doom mongering ...

> brings to mind those who ... predicted the

> widespread burning of crops if we introduced

> these new fangled steam locomotive things.

Or the risks of nuclear reactors before Chernobyl?

You aren't that na?ve - what are you really trying to say here?

[mockney piers]

Or the risks of air travel before 9-11?

Are you suggesting we can never again utilise nuclear power?

I am saying risks need to be investigated and assessed against the possible benefits, the impact of this going wrong assessed and action taken in the light of those assessments.

I'm not suggesting yu are wrong, if we'd known the full impact of putting an internal combustion engine in a horseless carriage (the tens of millions dead, the choked cities, the climate damage) would we have gone ahead with it?

But you do seem to be suggesting the paralysis of scientific development unless it can be proved absolutely safe.

As Huguenot suggests, we Ll have to do this or we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

[mockney piers]

...and if predicting the end to all life on the planet isn't doom mongering I'm not quite sure what DOES qualify ;-)

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Or the risks of air travel before 9-11?

> Are you suggesting we can never again utilise

> nuclear power?

We use nuclear power in the knowledge that it is capable of destroying the biosphere in a worst-case scenario. Personally, I would prefer not to live under such a threat, if it were possible. Who in their right mind would?

> I am saying risks need to be investigated and

> assessed and action taken in the light of those risks.

Yet, you appear to be trivialising the risks of releasing self-replicating, synthetic genes into the environment?

> You seem to be suggesting the paralysis of

> scientific development unless it can be proved

> absolutely safe

I have merely drawn attention to the fact that we are creating risks whose magnitude far exceeds anything that any other technology can achieve: risks that we are incapable of quantifying given our present state of knowledge.

Risks that may be unforgiving: our first mistake may leave no one alive to learn anything from it.

Comparing the risks of nuclear or genetic accidents to those associated with steam locomotives and air travel suggests a certain level of na?vet?.

Note: while composing this response you've edited your original - I'm posting anyway as it's still valid despite the quotes not matching.

[mockney piers]

I can sympathise with your point of view, but ultimately you have only unfounded fears describing possible domesday scenarios. Doubtless if I talk of the potential of nanomachinery in medicinal use, you will talk of the earth being turned into a brown soup.

Yes, consequences of progress can be unpredictable, as I said the car has done far more damage than nuclear power ever has. Indeed even the land around Chernobyl is blooming again and nature has proved surprisingly resilient.

But I do believe that science is the path to progress and salvation. It has been ever thus and I think remains so.

If a certain level of na?vet? is required for the conditions which bring progress rather than allow fear to stay our hand then it is a moniker I'll gladly wear with pride.

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed even the land around Chernobyl is

> blooming again and nature has proved

> surprisingly resilient.

Pure luck! If the reactor pile had vaporised or melted down into the pool of water beneath the containment chamber, which was drained just in time, you and I probably wouldn?t be here today.

Man's laissez-faire attitude to progress has yielded two world wars, a planet in perpetual conflict, societal disintegration, mutual assured destruction, anthropogenic climate change, an inevitable energy crunch, global food insecurity, the north-south divide, and a population explosion fuelled by an environment destroying, greed-driven economic system that is teetering on the edge of collapse.

The solution isn?t more of the same. As for salvation, don?t hold your breath.

I'm all for progress - but not in that direction.

[mockney piers]

Ha ha, I think the only thing that rather selective and deeply disingenuous list is revealing of is a misanthropic bent. Fine, at least I know where you're coming from.

[HAL9000]

And there's me thinking my choice of screen name was a dead give away! You organics make me laugh - sometimes.

[Ladymuck]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, consequences of progress can be

> unpredictable, as I said the car has done far more

> damage than nuclear power ever has. Indeed even

> the land around Chernobyl is blooming again and

> nature has proved surprisingly resilient.

Unfortunately such "resilience" has not been extended to the hundreds of thousands of children who are suffering to this day.

http://www.lifenets.org/chernobyl/

[Huguenot]

"Hundreds of thousands of suffering children" - Ladymuck you do show a trend to accept any fabricated statistic without the least amount of due diligence if it supports your cause ;-)

Anyone who cannot focus beyond Chernobyl / GM as a threat to the biosphere is performing no sensible risk/benefit calculation. Anything left unchecked is a threat to the biosphere including genocidal megalomaniacs.

Estimates of the death toll from Chernobyl range from 500 direct to 5,000 indirect from cancer.

Road traffic accidents kill 1,270,000 every year across the world (WHO).

Even if we accept Ladymuck's figures of 100,000 kids 'suffering' since 1986, we've lost 30,000,000 to RTAs in the same period, and assuming they've each got at least 5 people who 'suffer' as a consequence, that gives us 150,000,000 suffering...

Yet the eco-religious claim that 'health risk' is their principle motive for attacks on modern scientific achievements such as nuclear power and genetic modification, and ignore risks that are higher by 4 orders of magnitude because they're not convenient.

The modern neo-luddites are hypocritical in their attacks, and would do better to admit that their criticism is superstitious and dogmatic rather than rational.

I don't really understand HAL9000's position - you seem to be recommending not just an embargo on GM and nuclear, but a return to pre-tool societies?

Is this the essence of the Organic movement?

If we accept the evolutionary theory would have it that another intelligent species would arise on the demise of humanity, then wouldn't our demise simply accelerate a second round of apocalyptic destruction? Are we willing to take this responsibility, or are we arguing that if we kill ourselves then it's not our fault?