What about food?

[Sylver]

Most of us have 2-3 meals a day, plus snacks. And food is one of life's pleasure.

But would you really want to know how the industry works, behind the scene, and what gets in your plate?

Have you ever wondered about Genetically Engineered food (what's the big deal?)

There is a new movie on Google Video and it really opened my eyes on the subject.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1005653980897954362&q=The+Future+of+Food

Before this video, I thought about genetically engineered food as a relatively bad idea.

Now, I don't think it would be a strech to call it a biochemical weapon of mass destruction. I am not kidding.

You think I am exagerating? Watch the movie and let me know what you think.

[khun_lung]

It might surprise you to know that I spent a significant amount of my career in the agricultiral seed business. And which, through aquisitions, is now part of Monsanto (but not when I was there).

I watched the first 30 minutes of the video, which is obviously highly biased. Seed companies are HIGHLY aware of what of what dangers they face in introducing genetically modified products. So don't think it's profits first, regrets later. There IS a safety factor. Seed companies are well aware of the "frankenstein factor"! That's why varieties go through YEARS of testing before being released.

Without getting into plant genetics, when farmers buy a hybrid variety of any plant and then try to reproduce it themselves, they are breaking patent laws, besides making problems for themselves genitally. And seed companies have the right to bring a suit to accuse them of breaking patent laws. If farmers plant a non-hybrid open-pollinated variety, there is no basis for a lawsuit.

[Sylver]

It might surprise you to know that I spent a significant amount of my career in the agricultiral seed business. And which, through aquisitions, is now part of Monsanto (but not when I was there).

I watched the first 30 minutes of the video, which is obviously highly biased. Seed companies are HIGHLY aware of what of what dangers they face in introducing genetically modified products. So don't think it's profits first, regrets later. There IS a safety factor. Seed companies are well aware of the "frankenstein factor"! That's why varieties go through YEARS of testing before being released.

I think you should see the rest of it, because there are quite a few points taken up and I would be very interested to hear your insider viewpoint on it.

The film obviously take a strong position, but rather than calling it "biaised" (what viewpoint isn't?), let's take up the arguments themselves.

Without getting into plant genetics, when farmers buy a hybrid variety of any plant and then try to reproduce it themselves, they are breaking patent laws, besides making problems for themselves genitally. And seed companies have the right to bring a suit to accuse them of breaking patent laws. If farmers plant a non-hybrid open-pollinated variety, there is no basis for a lawsuit.

Plants are a lifeform. They reproduce on their own, and spread on their own. That's what they do in nature, don't they?

So as a farmer, if you find your field full of a "patented" breed, it does not mean that you actually attempted to take advantage of a patented seed. On the contrary, it might very well be that your fields have been contaminated.

Not only your field got contaminated by a plant you did not want in the first place, but you are now also facing a lawsuit for patent infringement!

There is a significant difference between lifeforms (which evolve and expand on their own) and inert contraptions.

Take 2 PC computerss, one with a CPU type A and one with a CPU type B. Put them side by side. You can wait a thousand years. You will never have a CPU type B grow inside computer type A.

With seeds, the problem is quite different, isn't it?

Next, how come patents are granted for seeds which are not even genetically modified? How can a company show up at the patent office with nature's product and get a "patent" on that?

Next: With regular seeds, the farmer has every right to grow the plants and then do whatever he wants with his crop. He collect the seeds and reuse them. Right? It has worked that way for has long as agriculture as existed.

After all, growing the plants is what you bought the seeds for in the first place. Why on God's green earth should the seller of the seeds have the right to decide what you do with your crops, and the right to sue you for patent infringement?

Why is it that we, as customers, can't have a label to tell us whether the food we buy is genetically engineered? Don't we have the right to know what we are buying?

Next: One of the main reasons behind genetically engineered plants is that they will be able to resist to extremely powerful herbicides and pesticides, (which are essentially poisons).

Ok. So, now that we have these resistant GE plants, what happens? Well, they get sprayed with huge amounts of herbicides and pesticides don't they? So by the time it gets to your plate, they are soaked into the stuff. Is that healthy? Somehow, I doubt it.

How many people are coming down with allergies and other reactions caused by these poisons?

Next: Loss of plant variety. According to the video, 97% of the varieties which used to be grown at the begining of the century are no longer grown in any significant quantity, with now only 4 varieties of potatoes widely grown.

Parallel to that, food conglomerate have extended to the point that there are now only a handful of big players in the seed business, whereas before seeds used to be a matter of local sale, working it out with other local farmers, seeds are now bulk purchased from a few companies only.

Next is the issue of using viruses and bacteria genetic code as a penetrating agent to perform genetic modifications of the seeds, breaking their resistance to mutation. What are the effect on the human body, at the end of the food chain? GE food is not even labelled as such, making it impossible to trace back the consequences of these modifications.

Next, why is it that just about every key decision maker in the US governement (related to agriculture and environment); just happen to have extremely strong ties with Monsanto and similar companies? (Ex vice president, ex board members, ex...) And how comes these same individuals end up doing exactly what Monsanto-like corpo want. It that a coincidence?

I am not going to go over every point discussed in the video (quite a few more points), but I think they deserve to be addressed a little better than "Seed companies know what they are doing" and "they have the right to protect their patents".

What's really the future of food? Honestly it doesn't look too good.

[zeusbheld]

haven't seen the video yet as i'm not on a fast connection at the moment but...

do you eat wheat? rice? beef?

if so, you are already eating genetically engineered foods.

pets, too, are genetically engineered.

artificial selection IS genetic engineering, and has been with us for millennia.

[khun_lung]

<<So as a farmer, if you find your field full of a "patented" breed, it does not mean that you actually attempted to take advantage of a patented seed. On the contrary, it might very well be that your fields have been contaminated.>>

As a background point, I left the industry at a time when genetically modified seeds were in their infancy. Nonetheless I can say that plant breeders were/are very aware of the "frankenfood" issue and take a very cautious approach. Fields where GM varieties are planted for research and observation are located well away from commercial crops so that bees or the wind will not accidentally cross-pollinate other crops.

<<Next, how come patents are granted for seeds which are not even genetically modified? How can a company show up at the patent office with nature's product and get a "patent" on that?>>

Patents are granted based on what's called PVP or the Plant Variety Protection Act. Most countries have such laws, including Thailand.

Seed companies invest considerable amounts into research. And the seed business is highly competitive. Plant hybrids are intend to provide different kinds of benefits to growers. Usually it is in yield per hectare, but it can also include disease resistance, pest resistance, or resistance to herbicides or pesticides. If the farmer doesn't get significant benefit from planting a hybrid variety, he won't plant it. But when a farmer sees results that improve his yields and in turn his profits then it's a win-win combination where both the seed companies and the growers benefit.

Is it illegal to plant the seeds from a hybrid seed? No! This is a myth! And many farmers have tried it and when they see the results they won't try it again!

F1 Hybrids are made by crossing two varieties which may have similar or dissimilar characteristics. When the F2 generation is grown, the plants revert (theoretically) into 25% Parent A, 25% Parent B, and 50% hybrid. Thus half the crop may result in unmarketable produce and becomes a disaster. That's why it's seldom tried and farmers will get fresh F1 seeds for each crop generation to ensure that their crops are uniform and marketable. Hybrids aren't forced on anyone, and in fact in developing countries even today most varieties are open-pollinated and often propogated by the farmers themselves. In Thailand, for example, there are more than 100 varieties of hot peppers planted which vary from area to area, and these are all from locally propogated seed. And hybrids also occur in nature from inadvertent cross-pollination. So there is nothing unnatural about hybrids.

When is a lawsuit likely to be filed? Seed companies often contract production of hybrid seed, particularly for crops that require hand-pollination because it is very labor-intensive. Many contract growers are located in Taiwan, China, India and Thailand among others. Because the contract growers have access to the parents of a hybrid, and if it is a successful variety, there may be a temptation to attempt to sell the parents to a shady seed producer for a windfall profit. If this happens, and is discovered, a lawsuit will follow under the PVP act. A seed company has made a significant investment to produce a successful hybrid, and when someone tries to steal it, that's when the "patent" law is violated.

For your information, on average time from the first time a cross is made until the time that it is introduced as a new product is ten years!

<<Next: With regular seeds, the farmer has every right to grow the plants and then do whatever he wants with his crop. He collect the seeds and reuse them. Right? It has worked that way for has long as agriculture as existed.>>

Yes, no problem!

<<Why is it that we, as customers, can't have a label to tell us whether the food we buy is genetically engineered? Don't we have the right to know what we are buying?>>

I agree with you on this point. There's no reason that GM foods should not be

labeled for consumers to decide. But GM foods are already in many products from canola or soybean oil to the cornflakes you and I eat.

<<Next: One of the main reasons behind genetically engineered plants is that they will be able to resist to extremely powerful herbicides and pesticides, (which are essentially poisons).>>

Not entirely right. Seed companies are also attempting to produce GM varieties that are resistant to certain diseases or pests in order to reduce or eliminate the need for chemical use!

<<Next: Loss of plant variety. According to the video, 97% of the varieties which used to be grown at the begining of the century are no longer grown in any significant quantity, with now only 4 varieties of potatoes widely grown.>>

Most seed companies maintain "seed banks", in which seeds of every known variety are stored and then reproduced every five years to maintain the stocks. Seed banks are needed to produce hybrids and GM crops as well. If, for example, suppose that in Thailand that aphids and tobacco mosaic virus when combined does major damage to yields of pepper plants. The seed companies can and do go to work to produce a variety that has resistance to both, and without an extensive seed bank, this would not be possible.

It's not that the world's heritage seeds have disappeared entirely. Indeed they have not. But economics is what drives growers and they are most interested in profits which accounts for the dwindling number of varieties that are planted. Some growers actually pride themselves on crops grown from heritage seeds and some consumers are willing to pay more to get "natural" produce. So yes, there is a niche market for that.

One thing I learned early on: Farmers may be uneducated, but they're not stupid!

<<Parallel to that, food conglomerate have extended to the point that there are now only a handful of big players in the seed business, whereas before seeds used to be a matter of local sale, working it out with other local farmers, seeds are now bulk purchased from a few companies only.>>

Can you name any industry in which acquisitions and mergers are not commonplace? What drives the market is competition and those companies who introduce superior products reap the benefits. Farmers are a skeptical bunch and won't change what they've been planting in the past until the benefit of changing to a new variety is clearly demonstrated.

For example, when I first began coming to Thailand, there was basically just one variety of watermelon planted which was an open-pollinated variety called Sugar Baby. Over the span of a decade, hybrid varieties, mostly coming from Taiwanese and Japanese seed companies, took over. The farmers were producing so much more fruit per hectare that they couldn't resist changing to the hybrid varieties.

<<Next is the issue of using viruses and bacteria genetic code as a penetrating agent to perform genetic modifications of the seeds, breaking their resistance to mutation. What are the effect on the human body, at the end of the food chain? GE food is not even labelled as such, making it impossible to trace back the consequences of these modifications.>>

Viruses or bacteria which affect plants are basically harmless to humans. As I said at the beginning, plant breeders are very aware of the frankenfruit issue and to attempt to ensure that GM crops are safe to humans and animals alike.

<<What's really the future of food? Honestly it doesn't look too good.>>

I don't think it's quite as bad as you or the clip portray it to be. Don't forget that the world population is still exploding while the number of hectares of farms worldwide is declining. We have the challenge, indeed the responsibility, to feed the world's bulging population and the seed companies are among the key players to recognize this and attempt to produce higher yielding plants to keep up with the challenge.

It's not all doom and gloom. But yes, I am a former insider, and not ashamed of it.

[Sylver]

haven't seen the video yet as i'm not on a fast connection at the moment but...

do you eat wheat? rice? beef? if so, you are already eating genetically engineered foods.

pets, too, are genetically engineered.

artificial selection IS genetic engineering, and has been with us for millennia.

In this specific case, it would have been better if you had not posted at all.

I understand you are not on a fast connection, but still, if you are going to post and voice an opinion, it would help if you knew what the subject of the thread is.

Please see the video when you can and *then* post. I doubt you will be able to add any value to the debate otherwise.

[Sylver]

So that mean in your opinion only people who have seen this video are capable of having views on this subject, guess that is quite narrow minded.

To make contribution to the forums I guess it's valuable that people bring different perspective.

Let me rephrase this:

To comment a video, one must first see it.

In my opinion, only people who have seen the video are capable of having an opinion about the data contained in the video.

I welcome other's opinions on the subject of GE foods, but on a different thread. This thread is based on the content of the video and there is no point discussing it with someone who hasn't seen it.

[Sylver]

<<So as a farmer, if you find your field full of a "patented" breed, it does not mean that you actually attempted to take advantage of a patented seed. On the contrary, it might very well be that your fields have been contaminated.>>

As a background point, I left the industry at a time when genetically modified seeds were in their infancy. Nonetheless I can say that plant breeders were/are very aware of the "frankenfood" issue and take a very cautious approach. Fields where GM varieties are planted for research and observation are located well away from commercial crops so that bees or the wind will not accidentally cross-pollinate other crops.

The case presented at the begining of the video is as follows:

A canadian farmer's field was accidentally contaminated by Monsanto GE canola seeds. This happened most likely because a truck transporting seeds had an accident on the road bordering the farm.

The said farmer was sued for patent infringement and in court it was decided that, although the seeds where spread by accident, the mere fact that the field contained the seed constitued a patent infringement.

Seeds grow, they spread and they evolve. They are a lifeform. In a laboratory, yes, they could be contained, but for already commercial crops like canola, how do you prevent a spread? Really? You don't. Not when wind could cary the seeds for miles.

Give it a few generations and you end up with what apparently is the situation in Canada where most crops are GE or contain GE.

...

And hybrids also occur in nature from inadvertent cross-pollination. So there is nothing unnatural about hybrids.

There is a fair bit of difference between an hybrid, result of a crossing of two species that will/may naturally occur in nature, and GE manipulation:

When you take a flounder gene (a fish, fer Christ's sake), and combine it with a virus to allow its penetration within a corn seed, and corrupt the corn seed with a bacteria responsible for corn disease to combine the flounder gene and the corn gene, and then irradiate the cells...

I think you are fairly far from the natural hybrids. There is nothing natural about that process.

I have no problems with hybrids. I however see plenty of issues with GE.

|quote]

When is a lawsuit likely to be filed? Seed companies often contract production of hybrid seed, particularly for crops that require hand-pollination because it is very labor-intensive. Many contract growers are located in Taiwan, China, India and Thailand among others. Because the contract growers have access to the parents of a hybrid, and if it is a successful variety, there may be a temptation to attempt to sell the parents to a shady seed producer for a windfall profit. If this happens, and is discovered, a lawsuit will follow under the PVP act. A seed company has made a significant investment to produce a successful hybrid, and when someone tries to steal it, that's when the "patent" law is violated.

I understand what you are saying, but this is not what we are talking about here.

How can Monsanto visit a farm, take samples of crops and send a "pay up" letter threatening the farmer with a law suit?

Monsanto sent 9000 such letters to farmers.

Besides, the problems of abuses by *contractors* can easily be settled by clauses within the contract, so there is no need for a patent issue there.

Life should never be patentable. Yet it is. Right now, you have patents for plant genes and patents for animal genes. With the upcoming genetic research on human...

<<Why is it that we, as customers, can't have a label to tell us whether the food we buy is genetically engineered? Don't we have the right to know what we are buying?>>

I agree with you on this point. There's no reason that GM foods should not be

labeled for consumers to decide. But GM foods are already in many products from canola or soybean oil to the cornflakes you and I eat.

I am well aware of that. However, given a choice, I would choose non GE food. Problem is that it isn't marked, so finding non GE food...

<<Next: One of the main reasons behind genetically engineered plants is that they will be able to resist to extremely powerful herbicides and pesticides, (which are essentially poisons).>>

Not entirely right. Seed companies are also attempting to produce GM varieties that are resistant to certain diseases or pests in order to reduce or eliminate the need for chemical use!

...by making them produce the toxin instead.

In my humble opinion, whether you engineer a plant to produce a toxing or spray the plant with the toxin, the bottom line is the same. Your plant contain toxins that shouldn't be there in the first place.

<<Next: Loss of plant variety. According to the video, 97% of the varieties which used to be grown at the begining of the century are no longer grown in any significant quantity, with now only 4 varieties of potatoes widely grown.>>

Most seed companies maintain "seed banks", in which seeds of every known variety are stored and then reproduced every five years to maintain the stocks. Seed banks are needed to produce hybrids and GM crops as well. If, for example, suppose that in Thailand that aphids and tobacco mosaic virus when combined does major damage to yields of pepper plants. The seed companies can and do go to work to produce a variety that has resistance to both, and without an extensive seed bank, this would not be possible.

I am talking about the variety actually produced. Not the variety preserved in a lab.

If you have a crop made of 1 variety only, and it gets diseased, you loose the crop, don't you. What does it mean? It could mean a major shortage of that crop, until the next crop is done.

It's like betting on a single company on the stock market. Stock crashes, your savings are wiped out. The company recovers 2 years later, but that's too late for many.

From thousand of varieties of potatoes produced, down to just 4. We are betting on only 4.

What is the impact on:

- Our diet. We used to eat different varieties. Now, we eat only one.

- Natural cross breading. With only 4 varieties actually cultivated, what happens to natural cross breeding?

- Market control. 4 variaties, all patented.

- ... (things I didn't think about yet)

<<Next is the issue of using viruses and bacteria genetic code as a penetrating agent to perform genetic modifications of the seeds, breaking their resistance to mutation. What are the effect on the human body, at the end of the food chain? GE food is not even labelled as such, making it impossible to trace back the consequences of these modifications.>>

Viruses or bacteria which affect plants are basically harmless to humans. As I said at the beginning, plant breeders are very aware of the frankenfruit issue and to attempt to ensure that GM crops are safe to humans and animals alike.

There have been no human experiments, as they are illegal.

Experiments by FDA scientists with rats and other mamals have shown higher incidence of brain diseases and a number of alarming results, and as a consequence, the FDA's own experts have made recommendations against it.

However top honchos previously on board at Mosanto have decided that GE was not to be regulated and bypassed the system, so that while the FDA experts conclusion was negative, the said GE products nevertheless went on the market, and they still are.

Due to the complete absence of tracability (no labels, for one) it is impossible to determine the actual consequences of GE food in human.

As far as rats are concerned however, we already know it is *not* safe.

The data regarding this are in the video, as well as the name of the people who lobbied the FDA and their connection with Monsanto.

<<What's really the future of food? Honestly it doesn't look too good.>>

I don't think it's quite as bad as you or the clip portray it to be. Don't forget that the world population is still exploding while the number of hectares of farms worldwide is declining. We have the challenge, indeed the responsibility, to feed the world's bulging population and the seed companies are among the key players to recognize this and attempt to produce higher yielding plants to keep up with the challenge.

This is quite clearly covered by the video as well, albeit toward the end.

The problem with the exploding world population is not production. We are already OVER producing. Problem is more along the lines of distribution and economics. In France and many other countries, extra food is destroyed to prevent crashing the market prices.

So we can safely assume that producing more will not address the problem of increasing population.

Second, it appears that many GE crops are in fact underperforming, having a low resistance to natural factors. You will find some specifics at the end of the video.

Next is that fact that many farmers heavily depend on governement subsidies. This means producing food is no longer a viable activity on its own.

Could that be related to the increasing cost of patented seeds, the fact that these patented seeds can not be reused (whether because of the patent or because of the genetic engineering breaking down) and the huge amount of chemicals and fertilizers which must now be employed to grow plants.

We are talking of a market with 4 or 5 major players who control both end of the deal, with the farmers in the middle.

Because we need food, we subsidize farmers with our taxes. Where does that money go?

It's not all doom and gloom. But yes, I am a former insider, and not ashamed of it.

How long have you been out of the business?

Cross-breeding and hydrid making are thousands of years old.

Messing around with genes and using paid politicians to sell food found dangerous by FDA experts is a bit of a different issue!

[khun_lung]

I watched the rest of the video tonight. As a result, I would not change a single word in my reply.

We can debate this subject ad infinitum. You have your opinion, I have mine. It's not a dire as you would like to have us think (and the video too).

I do agree with you that GM varieties need to be carefully watched for any irregularities, including the consequences of cross-pollenation. Perhaps your perception is that GM varieties are introduced to line the pockets of companies like Monsanto. But having come from the inside, I can tell you that the motives are to introduce a superior product. If Monsanto, and others, fail to to do their homework on inconsequential effects, then yes, they are guilty of inadequate research and testing.

Peace.

[zeusbheld]

haven't seen the video yet as i'm not on a fast connection at the moment but...

do you eat wheat? rice? beef? if so, you are already eating genetically engineered foods.

pets, too, are genetically engineered.

artificial selection IS genetic engineering, and has been with us for millennia.

In this specific case, it would have been better if you had not posted at all.

I understand you are not on a fast connection, but still, if you are going to post and voice an opinion, it would help if you knew what the subject of the thread is.

Please see the video when you can and *then* post. I doubt you will be able to add any value to the debate otherwise.

oh bullshit.

in general, if all you can offer is a link to some sweaty-palmed sensationalist conspiracy 'documentary' then no, i don't owe it to you to either keep my mouth shut or see the video, even if by some weird coincidence there actually is a conspiracy. then no, i don't owe you the courtesy of watching that crap.

*your* video might be different. OF COURSE IT IS! but your m/o with this post is exactly the same as the "loose change" folks, and we all know that the world trade center in new york was not an al qaeda gig but in fact the victim of genetic engineering. *yawnnn.* wake me up when you have something to post, as in CREDIBLE SOURCES, besides YOUR OWN vehement assertions (respectable, but not interesting to me) and some rabidly opportunistic sensationalist video (as a genre, neither respectable nor interesting, nor likely to have even the faintest relationship to facts).

and yeah i know what goes into those "factual" cockumentaries, and no, i don't need to waste my time actually watching them, i've turned down the chance to work on a few, and met many of the dickheads who scheme to make a living from their conspiracy video/website.

well, toodles, i'm off to make a video 'proving' there are no sex tourists in thailand.

[Sylver]

Please see the video when you can and *then* post. I doubt you will be able to add any value to the debate otherwise.

oh bullshit.

in general, if all you can offer is a link to some sweaty-palmed sensationalist conspiracy 'documentary' then no, i don't owe it to you to either keep my mouth shut or see the video, even if by some weird coincidence there actually is a conspiracy. then no, i don't owe you the courtesy of watching that crap.

...

It's not a matter of courtesy. It's just a matter of logic. How do you know the video is sweaty palmed sensationalism"?

You are offering a judgement on a video and you haven't even seen it. It's like writing a review for a book you haven't read - yeah I know, most critics do it that way.

Cut the crap. The main reason you seem to be posting on the forum is to offend people.

You love to squash other people's ideas and convictions under the weight of your sarcasm and cynism, don't you? Show people how wrong they are on any given subject... even if you don't even know what the subject is.

If we keep on this subject long enough, you will come up with a line like:

"I have seen the video and it's exactly what I thought bla bla bla", or some pseudo-clever variant.

I have a few more words for you, but few of them would be polite, so I decided not too post them. Still, I am fairly confident you can guess quite acurately what they are.

[zeusbheld]

Please see the video when you can and *then* post. I doubt you will be able to add any value to the debate otherwise.

oh bullshit.

in general, if all you can offer is a link to some sweaty-palmed sensationalist conspiracy 'documentary' then no, i don't owe it to you to either keep my mouth shut or see the video, even if by some weird coincidence there actually is a conspiracy. then no, i don't owe you the courtesy of watching that crap.

...

It's not a matter of courtesy. It's just a matter of logic. How do you know the video is sweaty palmed sensationalism"?

You are offering a judgement on a video and you haven't even seen it. It's like writing a review for a book you haven't read - yeah I know, most critics do it that way

you missed the point. point was, if you wish me as a reader to seriously consider the point you're trying to make, post links to articles, at least some of which should be from credible publications. if you don't wish me, as a reader, to seriously consider the point your'e trying to make, then feel free to ignore my posts.

supporting broad, rather dramatic allegations with a video that's supposed to rock the viewer's world with "shocking truths" is the territory of cranks and conspiracy theorists. is that you, or do you have anything more substantial to offer?

Cut the crap. The main reason you seem to be posting on the forum is to offend people.

besides being whiny, that's a pretty speculative thing to say, don't you think?

You love to squash other people's ideas and convictions under the weight of your sarcasm and cynism, don't you?

i would not describe myself as cynical, except in regard to white men visiting thailand as tourist, moving here for the temples/food/congeniality, etc.

as far as people's convictions go, when they're so deeply entrenched that they can't make a lucid argument for them, or support them with relevant facts, then yes, i love squashing them. but even more, i love it when they make a lucid argument supported by facts and i learn something, even if it isn't what the poster intended me to learn.

but hey, carry on, dr. freud, you've obviously got me all figured out.

Show people how wrong they are on any given subject...

hardly "any given subject." not very many subjects actually, but most of the science subjects and a few of the politics subjects.

and if happens that they aren't wrong on a given subject, they should be able to come up with some interesting stuff in support of their assertions, don't you think?

even if you don't even know what the subject is.

if i "don't know what the subject is" then maybe you need to articulate it more clearly than:

"Have you ever wondered about Genetically Engineered food (what's the big deal?)

seems to invite general comments on genetically engineered food doesn't it? and wheat is a genetically engineered food isn't it?

again, the point was:

videos, categorically, are not sources i'm willing to consider. for example i've done quite a bit of research on global warming; i haven't seen the al gore film yet and probably won't. nonfiction video is more often than not, a propaganda medium.

If we keep on this subject long enough, you will come up with a line like:

"I have seen the video and it's exactly what I thought bla bla bla", or some pseudo-clever variant.

and you will continue to piss and moan like a jilted schoolgirl. *yawn.*

I have a few more words for you, but few of them would be polite, so I decided not too post them. Still, I am fairly confident you can guess quite acurately what they are.

i'm fairly confident i don't *care* what they are. it's a public forum, i'm not breaking any rules at the moment. if you feel i am, feel free to report me to any moderator or the site administrator, that's what the 'report abuse' button is there for. if you don't like what i post, feel free to ignore it, or respond with more sulky pop psychology.

meanwhile, have some cheese from genetically-engineered cows with that whine.

[farang_subson]

A video with a different point of view: http://media.putfile.com/Penn--Teller-on-Genetically-Modified-Food-GMO

As a former biochemist, I can say this obsession with "frankenfoods" is indeed 99.99999999% BS. Some folks should shut up long enough to understand the science, and consider the possibility that their good intentions might backfire.

[zeusbheld]

i tend to agree with penn and teller fairly often but they're also propaganda. but at least they''re funny and entertaining so i'll probably watch that one.

although for actually understanding the science and ethics involved, i'd rather read science and ethics than watch tv...

[farang_subson]

Sure, Penn is focused on entertainment. Refreshing stuff though...he'll take on the libs and cons, supernaturalists and UFO buffs, and any religion you can name. And he even admits being wrong on occasion.

As for the other video, I got turned off about 2 minutes in..."normally, RoundUp kills anything green". Nonsense...it kills stuff because it inhibits an enzyme that is specific to a certain class of plants. You could poor the whole bottle on many different kinds of green plants and it probably wouldn't make the slightest difference.

[Sylver]

A video with a different point of view: http://media.putfile.com/Penn--Teller-on-Genetically-Modified-Food-GMO

As a former biochemist, I can say this obsession with "frankenfoods" is indeed 99.99999999% BS. Some folks should shut up long enough to understand the science, and consider the possibility that their good intentions might backfire.

I have just seen the video. It presents those who have issues with GE food as a complete lunatic hippies who have no understanding of the starvation problems, and assures us that GE food is the only way to solve the world's hunger. If that's your point, this should make an interesting read: http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/myths.htm

The higher yields attained by the green revolution were attained by regular cross breeding and other factors too. Mechanization, to name just one other factor, obviously accounts for much of the productivity increase - productivity is much higher when using machines than to work by hand.

In your video, it looks like meeting the demand of the world's hunger was "courtesy of GE research". It wasn't. Cellular level manipulation using viruses and bacteria came later.

The debate about GE is not a debate between uneducated heartless poor sods with full bellies living in beach houses and enlightened scientists (with full bellies too) saving the world. Regular hybrids, selecting the highest performing crops and so on coupled with technological improvements in the mecanical side of things have resulted in the increase of yield. Not GE.

"Feed the world" is a marketing tool by companies who have a completely different agenda.

And if you don't believe that, would you please explain the importance of the terminator gene, patent #5,723,765, when it comes to feeding the world.

The terminator gene forces the plant to produce a toxin that kills its own seed, making it unable to reproduce itself. As a consequence, farmers can no longer reuse their seeds (as they have done for centuries) and have to purchase new seeds from the seed suppliers.

I am very sure this discovery is of course in the best interest of feeding the world, which is why Monsanto is paying $1.9 billion + for it.

What is hapenning is that we are handing over a total monopoly on our food supply to a handful of big corporations. That's what's hapening. And the said big companies have key polititians and decision makers on the payroll (coincidence?)

Actual safety of these food on humans can not be traced. We don't even have labels to know who is eating what and there are no human experimentation, except on the supermarket shelves. Because of the lack of traceability, one can only guess what the actual consequences are, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Here is a fact to ponder: A couple generations ago we used to go through puberty around 14-15 years of age. Now, quite a few American kids start going through puberty as early as 7-8 years old. This change is unaccounted for. Could it have something to do with our food?

[farang_subson]

Hi Sylver...

I sure as hell don't view that video as a scientific document. I tossed it out for fun and as a "counterpunch". I KNOW my link is biased...how about you and your link? I've already cited a fairly egregious error in the opening minutes of your video.

Which Monsanto product is causing early puberty? You're probably talking about dosing livestock (not plants) with growth hormones, which has been going on a long time...well before recombinant DNA started catching on.

Do you have any idea what a piddling amount of DNA is being added to the plants in question? A plant might have 20,000 different genes, and you're adding one, maybe two new genes. Do you know what the genes code for? Here's a hint: it's something that usually gets chopped up in your stomach pretty quickly. You're simply not going to grow horns, or pass those horns onto your children, if you eat a genetically modified tomato.

It seems like your complaints are two-pronged: Monsanto AND ge are evil. I won't claim to know Monsanto's "real" motives, though I doubt it's as insidious as you think. They try to make money by providing a product that those stupid farmers seem to appreciate. Hell, if they DIDN'T stick a "terminator" :evil: gene in their seeds, you can bet that some environmentalists would be all over them (because that would allow those evil genes to get passed on to successive generations).

I'd better stop. Bottom line for me...if you believe that GE can't contribute to feeding the world and improving our lives, you're purely dogmatic, and you should examine your motives.

(P.S. You might be surprised...I'll argue pretty fervently that anthropogenic global warming is a real problem. Go for the truth, not a political identity).

[Sylver]

...

Which Monsanto product is causing early puberty? You're probably talking about dosing livestock (not plants) with growth hormones, which has been going on a long time...well before recombinant DNA started catching on.

If you read again, you will note I have not said that Monsanto products are causing early puberty. I did mention "food" as a *likely* reason.

The reason I am bringing this up is to show an example of a major and recent change in our physical condition which is most likely a consequence of foods supposedly safe.

We have been using growth hormones for a while. It has been deemed safe and an improvement, but only now are we starting to measure the actual consequences of this type of tampering.

What are the actual consequences of GE food for the human body, long term? What are the consequences of the ever increasing amounts of herbicides used in our food?

Do you have any idea what a piddling amount of DNA is being added to the plants in question? A plant might have 20,000 different genes, and you're adding one, maybe two new genes. Do you know what the genes code for? Here's a hint: it's something that usually gets chopped up in your stomach pretty quickly. You're simply not going to grow horns, or pass those horns onto your children, if you eat a genetically modified tomato.

I see. Basically changing 2-3 genes won't matter much out of 20,000.

Monsanto scientists beg to differ.

The "terminator" genetic modification consists of only 3 additionnal genes...and that's enough to prevent the plant from reproducing itself, which is one of the most vital functions of the plant.

If just 3 genes are enough to completely suppress a plant's reproductive capability, am I silly to consider it might also affect the nutritive qualities of the said plant.

It seems like your complaints are two-pronged: Monsanto AND ge are evil. I won't claim to know Monsanto's "real" motives, though I doubt it's as insidious as you think. They try to make money by providing a product that those stupid farmers seem to appreciate.

Farmers are between a rock and a hard place.

Right now, farmers are producing one of the most valuable products on the planet, and yet they are constantly in deficit and depend on governement subsidies to survive.

Isn't that strange, if you think of it?

Figure this: You have a product everybody wants. That nobody can live without, litterally. One would assume you would making decent money producing and selling it. And yet, it just happens to be the opposite.

On one hand you have mega corpos like Monsanto making a pretty penny, and on the other hand, you have farmers running a deficit and requiring help from the tax-payers.

Question: Where did the money go?

Now the next argument is that farmers "love" GE products that they are willingly buying because they are better. To paraphrase the video, "BULLSHIT"!

They produce what they can sell. Final customers - us - are quite willing and happy to eat good old style food. However farmers do not sell to us. They sell to the distrbution networks, and distribution networks will buy what their parents companies will tell them to buy. And that's the trick. Small farmers can sell their products in the local market.

Not so for the large volume farmers. These guys depend of the distribution networks and they must either produce what the distribution networks want to buy or go bankrupt.

So, don't tell me about the farmers preference for GE. Their preference is for what the distribution networks will buy. Now, imagine for one second that distribution networks had a link of some kind with Monsanto-like companies (like being partly owned subsidiaries, for instance), what would they buy?

If your distribution network tells you he wants exclusively XXX variety, you will buy XXX seeds and produce XXX, or you are gone.

Hell, if they DIDN'T stick a "terminator" :evil: gene in their seeds, you can bet that some environmentalists would be all over them (because that would allow those evil genes to get passed on to successive generations).

I thought the main point of your post was that we should shut the f*ck up and thanks good GE will provide food to the world.

At the very least, that's what their marketing machine says. When you look at something like the terminator gene, well, it's as blatant an evidence that providing food for the world is not what they really have in mind.

A company willing to spend $1.9 billion to prevent their seeds from ever producing a second generation is certainly not trying to solve the problem of world hunger.

I'd better stop. Bottom line for me...if you believe that GE can't contribute to feeding the world and improving our lives, you're purely dogmatic, and you should examine your motives.

Well, what are the benefits of GE crops, aside of giving full ownership over food to major corpos?

GE crops appear to be underperforming (see link previously posted) compared to existing hybrids. Their real long term impact on our metabolism isn't known and is very hard to evaluate, especially considering GE products are not clearly identified as such.

So, what are the real advantages of GE crops? I find it funny how people who claim their undying support to the spirit of open source software willingly embrace proprietary food supply and show contempt for partisans of an "open source" food system .

;-)

[farang_subson]

You don't understand GE.

It's as if you're complaining that your glass of water was heated via microwave, instead of fire, and that microwaves imbue the water with evil.

Do you really believe that there's some cosmic principle that prevents our vastly increased knowledge of biology from improving crop yields and contributing to human well-being?

On this thread, an engineer, a former industry insider, and a biochemist have tried to change your view. You won't concede anything. You're convinced you're the one with the truth. You argue too many different points...they're screwing with our food, Monsanto is evil, GE is absolutely evil (a biochemical WMD, you say) and useless, expecting we/I fit some mold and are gonna fight you on every point. Just a melange of impressions you have about the way the world works. Next we'll probably be debating homeopathic medicine.

[CiaranM]

well said Sylver, let us eat the food like nature intented it

i believe we all stopped doing that a long long time ago !!!

[Sylver]

You don't understand GE.

It's as if you're complaining that your glass of water was heated via microwave, instead of fire, and that microwaves imbue the water with evil.

Do you really believe that there's some cosmic principle that prevents our vastly increased knowledge of biology from improving crop yields and contributing to human well-being?

On this thread, an engineer, a former industry insider, and a biochemist have tried to change your view. You won't concede anything. You're convinced you're the one with the truth. You argue too many different points...they're screwing with our food, Monsanto is evil, GE is absolutely evil (a biochemical WMD, you say) and useless, expecting we/I fit some mold and are gonna fight you on every point. Just a melange of impressions you have about the way the world works. Next we'll probably be debating homeopathic medicine.

I have brought up a number of issues and you failed to answer any. First, you provided a video as a "different viewpoint". When I questionned the validity of its arguments, you backed down saying it's "entertainment" and "very biaised".

Fine. So that was entertainment, and entertainment is fun. Cool. Now, back on topic, are you willing to address seriously any of the issues discussed in this thread? Oh wait, the answer is right here:

...expecting we/I fit some mold and are gonna fight you on every point.Just a melange of impressions you have about the way the world works.

Condescending and ...convenient. That way you don't have the hassle of answering embarassing "details" as mentionned before.

You use broad terms like "evil" and "impressions". Yet I only spoke of very specific situations. Perhaps I brought up too many issues for your attention span. If so, let's take just one question and see if you are able to provide a reasonable and constructed answer:

How will the "terminator" gene, patent #5,723,765, object of a $1.9 billion dollar purchase by Monsanto, contribute to increase yield and feed the world's population?

Should you find it necessary to refer to the actual patent, you can access it here: Patent #5,723,765

To save you a bit of time, you can look in example 10 and see that the patent claims "...normal growth and development, normal maturity and normal product yield and quality. Non-viability of the seed produced from the plants is also expected...". So no improvement in yield or quality is to be expected. The only "advantage" is the inability to reproduce itself.

[farang_subson]

I really gotta do some real life work, so I?ll commit to making this my last post on this thread.

I watched the whole video. Does Monsanto screw people? I?m sure they d. Can reasonable people argue about patenting genes? Sure. Even if GE is perfectly safe, don?t people have a right to choose anyway? Good question.

You've yet to concede anything, however. You're purely dogmatic. GE is a "biochemical WMD" (I'd say that qualifies for "evil", no?)

I wish that video allowed Monsanto and some other folks to rebut arguments. Oh well?it?s a propaganda video.

I?m not a lawyer, but I have seen cases where a company is almost forced to act like an a-hole by the legal requirement to ?vigorously defend? its patents, or lose them. (In my own town, a harmless little health food restaurant called ?McDharmas? got totally screwed by ?McDonalds?, maybe for this reason).

The video is largely BS regarding actual GE technology, however. Just look at the emotional language??invading the cell??.?smuggling engineered DNA?, etc. The housewife who is sure that GE food caused her allergic reaction. And flat out nonsense?implying that the antibiotic genes in plants have repercussions for the kind of real crisis that?s going on regarding antibiotic resistance in hospitals. Statements like species ?naturally reject foreign DNA??total BS?in fact, the usefulness of that evil DNA gun that you see in the video came as a shock to many scientists, who never imagined that cells would take up ?naked DNA? so readily. Another one: ?the integrity of the species barrier??sorry, as bioscience progresses, a picture is emerging of fairly ubiquitous gene transfer, especially between microorganisms.

Life is short. You can needlessly freak people out by telling them there?s a fish gene in a tomato. You can focus on the MONSTROUS danger of ge-related bioterrorism. You can go into the lab and engineer plants so we?ll be able to distill more ethanol from them, or?????up to you.

P.S. I would think you'd appreciate a terminator gene ...such plants aren't gonna "pollute" the genome, though the process doesn't improve yield in and of itself.

[zeusbheld]

You don't understand GE.

It's as if you're complaining that your glass of water was heated via microwave, instead of fire, and that microwaves imbue the water with evil.

Do you really believe that there's some cosmic principle that prevents our vastly increased knowledge of biology from improving crop yields and contributing to human well-being?

On this thread, an engineer, a former industry insider, and a biochemist have tried to change your view. You won't concede anything. You're convinced you're the one with the truth. You argue too many different points...they're screwing with our food, Monsanto is evil, GE is absolutely evil (a biochemical WMD, you say) and useless, expecting we/I fit some mold and are gonna fight you on every point. Just a melange of impressions you have about the way the world works. Next we'll probably be debating homeopathic medicine.

I have brought up a number of issues and you failed to answer any.

i think it's hilarious that you, of all people, would accuse someone aof failing to answer issues brought up---on the very same thread where that very same someone pointed out where your video got something egregiously wrong in the first two minutes.

got an answer for that? or are you gonna continue to duck while accusing others of doing so?

[zeusbheld]

well said Sylver, let us eat the food like nature intented it

i believe we all stopped doing that a long long time ago !!!

about 10,000 years ago, when we gave up hunting and gathering and took up farming, thereby taking up breeding animals and plants to suit our needs---in other words, 10,000 years ago, when we took up genetic engineering.

[Sylver]

I really gotta do some real life work, so I?ll commit to making this my last post on this thread.

I watched the whole video. Does Monsanto screw people? I?m sure they d. Can reasonable people argue about patenting genes? Sure. Even if GE is perfectly safe, don?t people have a right to choose anyway? Good question.

You've yet to concede anything, however. You're purely dogmatic. GE is a "biochemical WMD" (I'd say that qualifies for "evil", no?)

Concede? I was not aware we were engaged in some kind of bargain, "a this for a that" type of thing.

But anyway, there are things that you may term concessions, though I wouldn't see them that way:

I don't consider the video ("my" video?) to be accurate to the comma, and I am perfectly aware that it is meant for the general public rather than the scientifc community, which should know better anyway.

I am also aware that nothing is ever black and white. There is gray, and light gray and dark gray and every shade in between.

However for practical purposes, it is often necessary to determine in which direction the scale tips. Is it more dark than white?

When I see the video, I see the (imperfect) efforts of people trying to raise awareness about a problem which affects us all.

They may be wrong on some issues but the many valid points they make should not be discarded because of a few inaccuracies here and there and a definite desire to impinge on the viewer.

Considering you are not interested discussing the subject further, I will leave it at that. I don't have much to add to what has been said already anyway.

Other visitors are more than welcome to read the thread and make up their own minds on the subject.