Irish call for moratorium on GM crops

by Art Thu May 12, 2011 11:43

GM is a major issue coming down the track that needs a lot of informed independent debate. There has been some calls for this in NI but unfortunately business interests have used the media to avoid meaningfull opposition to the vested interests that want to bring this technology into our environment. Anyone who is clued up on GM will know that there is no free lunch out there, or that equating GM processes in say Cheese making, Beer, or GM as to new medicines, is not he same as releasing GMO's into the wider environment where they can never be recalled.
I would like to ask a simple question regarding this technology,as we know from computer technology that when a program contains a virus or something that corrupts the program from running correctly it is virtually usless but can be recovered using suitable plug in software etc.
My question therefore is "How in the event of GMO's corrupting the environment can the environment be restored to natures evolutionary settings?
Our Country may be in economic difficulties, but most people will try to hold onto the land if they can, and there is a saying "What you inherit is not yours to sell" this also means the environment that goes with it.

by Botanist Thu May 12, 2011 16:56

Hey, just to answer your question Art, as far I can (from my degree in Botany and postgrad studies).

GM crops are basically normal crops with genes spliced in like a virus. A good analogy is with humans and other viruses. Our DNA is filled with "junk" DNA, DNA that does nothing from so many years of evolving and mistakes etc. But also, a surprisingly large part of our DNA isnt human, or even from the animal kingdom. Its viruses. Viruses that over the millenia infected our ancestors and inserted themselves into our genomes. So why aren't we dead? Well, just as you described, nature's "evolutionary settings" just negate it by years of natural selection and innate cellular mechanisms to counteract counterproductive DNA. This process is somewhat enhanced in plants because they can have more complex genetic rarrangements, with triple copies of DNA per plant and thus triple "mixing" on fertilisation etc.

Something like 0.05% of people, especially in western Europe are immune to HIV, just by the benefit of the mix. If there was a super epidemic of AIDS, humans would survive. The same principal applies for plants, except their life cycle is quicker and capacity to replicate is much higher, so any catastrophic ecological event can be quickly remedied, washing the "bad" DNA out of the mix. But basically, much like the problems with monoculture and wheat rust destroying large swathes of crops, GM monoculture is exactly the same, there is a possibility for short term catastrophic crop failure and mass starvation. But, and I emphasise this, this is just as likely with current non-GM cultivation practices as with GM crops. GM doesnt, at the moment make some kind of super crop that will take over everything else (doubly due to the whole Monsanto sterile crop evilness), as Genes inserted are for increased crop yield and disease resistance for the most part, and not for growth on wide varieties of media ie GM corn only growing on fields that can grow normal corn.

However, this does not necessitate GM crops nor is it an argument for them. There still needs to be long term studies and checks on any company that is considering producing a GM crop.

But, sadly, I feel that any arguments against GM crops or failsafe against proper GM "husbandry" will be quickly swept aside in the future, not out of corporate interest or greed, but rather from the fact that too many people exist on this world and are having too many children to be sustainable WITHOUT GM crops. Mathematically, unless someone starts a nuclear war or massive biological war or there is some kind of massive reduction in numbers of people, I just dont see how we could cope. We see oil wars now just so people can drive cars and run business cheaply, but how violent and bloody will land battles be, with people fighting to put food on their families tables. Best idea and most foresight ever shown by a government was the common agricultural policy.

Sorry, got a bit off topic there. To sum up answer for your question: Plants/ecology will be fine, mother nature adapts fast.

by Damien Thu May 12, 2011 17:19

And what of the thousands of peasant farmers in India who have committed suicide as a result of Monsanto's 'terminator seeds'? They are forced into ever spiralling debt as a result of being locked into trade agreements with Monsanto, who increase the price of such seeds annually (amongst doing other things).

by Damien M Thu May 12, 2011 17:51

There is a difference between combining two strains to produce a hardier crop etc (which is what humans and nature have done for millennia), this is distinctively different than injecting genes from fish, rats etc into crops. Ditto for 'terminator' and 'herbicide resistor' genes. So your history is slightly wrong.

by Biologist. Thu May 12, 2011 22:28

"There is a difference between combining two strains to produce a hardier crop etc"

No difference.

You are doing genetic modification.Called GM.

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Thu May 12, 2011 22:49

There is a difference, one is entirely natural, a process man has done since he got fed up hunting and gathering and settled down to take up farming, and one which involves transplanting foreign genes into crops, which in turn damages the surrounding area creating a monocrop culture devoid of any insect or plant life. So while both may be genetic engineering and or modifying, playing cupid with two strains of rice or a fish and a tomato-both are as far removed in terms of consequences.

by V for vendetta Thu May 12, 2011 22:59

"But, sadly, I feel that any arguments against GM crops or failsafe against proper GM "husbandry" will be quickly swept aside in the future, not out of corporate interest or greed, but rather from the fact that too many people exist on this world and are having too many children to be sustainable WITHOUT GM crops. Mathematically, unless someone starts a nuclear war or massive biological war or there is some kind of massive reduction in numbers of people, I just dont see how we could cope."

This paragraph assumes unquestioningly that yields from GM crops have lived up to expectations. This is not so, except maybe in the brochures of monsanto. The indian experience has shown otherwise. Yields are not any better and sometimes worse in real world scenarios. Plus you end up with superweeds and you end up having to use large amounts of glyphosphate and other weedkillers which contaminate the soil.

Your unquestioning faith in monsanto's false assertions without examining the real world data leads me to believe you are not a very competent and objective scientist. In fact IMHO You sound more like a marketting student working in monsanto's PR department than a real scientist! ;-)

I think you've missed the whole point of GM foods. It is not Monsanto's goal to feed the world. They don't give a shit about that. In fact scarcity helps their scaremongering. No. Their goal is to control the food chain for as much of humanity as possible through lucrative patents and buying up seed banks so their special varieties of seeds are the only game in town. If they succeed then it's only a matter of time before we have a food disaster because of the whole monoculture scenario. Monsanto don't care if their actions result in death. As long as it's profitable. This corporation is dangerous and out of control and far too big and powerful. Remember, they made their name producing products for warfare. These are the guys who brought you agent orange, DDT and the dayton project. They don't exactly have a good record for caring about the effects their products have on humans.

if you want an understanding of corporate activities in india, read the articles of vandana shiva
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-killing-fields-of-mu...shiva

Here is one of her lectures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYwOTLopWIw

A good documentary about how monsanto goes about it's business is " the future of food"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsFVAAzyWiY

by Botanist Fri May 13, 2011 08:29

Yeah V, I know Monsanto are evil douchebags, thats why I said it in my text. Sheesh.

And no, I dont get my information from press releases etc., nor do I get my information from youtube. Thankfully there are lots of massive databases with research that are accessible for anyone, especially if you use a college internet connection.

I have no doubt that GM crops have decreased yield in some places. As I pointed out in my text, GM crops arent some kind of super crop that can grow anywhere. At the moment, when grown in the proper terrain, yes they do have higher yields. But if grown in terrain that the parent strains wern't designed for, then no, they wont and the local varietal that has genetically modified itself to survive in that area will fare better.

"You sound more like a marketting student working in monsanto's PR department"
Um, sorry to break this to you, but even if I was working for the Monsanto biological antichrist, the Irish branch of Indymedia is not where I would be focusing lol. Plus you seem to be confusing Monsanto's evilness with the whole concept of GM. Its like saying Israel is bad therefore Jews are bad.

by art Fri May 13, 2011 11:25

Hi Botanist and All.
Thanks for the inputs and I hope that Ireland North and South will seriously consider the consequences of growing GM crops or embracing this technology. Transgenic animals could alredy be in the pipeline, with no debate, or attempt to inform the public. This is simply unacceptable and politicans have a duty of care as well as the GOD Squads to state and explain their positions on this technology, as it enroaches on human existence as we know it.
Regard to all

by V for vendetta Fri May 13, 2011 19:59

"But, sadly, I feel that any arguments against GM crops or failsafe against proper GM "husbandry" will be quickly swept aside in the future, not out of corporate interest or greed, but rather from the fact that too many people exist on this world and are having too many children to be sustainable WITHOUT GM crops."

You did state this no? This is straight out of monsanto's PR sheet. "its for the good of humanity not huge profits that we are doing this". Bah!
The facts on the ground in India contradict. And India has some VERY GOOD growing conditions, with up to 4 yields in a single year in places!!

As for the snobbishness indicated in " I don't get my information from youtube, I get it from college databases"

Well
(1) Vandana Shiva is actually a respected scientist. its actually DR. Vandana Shiva PhD. Is she good enough for your educated ears to deign to listen to now? She could probably have been one of your college lecturers if she chose to be!!

(2) Biotech departments in universities are often part funded by large GM companies and accordingly great indirect pressure is brought to bear on researchers to take the right line in their research and often only certain "favoured" lines of research are pursued. This is part of the insidious corporate takeover of our universities for use as cheap research facilities funded largely by public purse. Externalities if you like. This can lead to distortions and omissions amongst other things, on the topic of GM. So those research papers are not quite as squeaky clean and perfect as you think. If your research grant depends on shutting up and choosing one favoured research topic over another "frowned upon" one then thats what you will do. If you know the corporation renewing your grant won't like your science then you (or your department) may "choose" to omit or neglect certain aspects of the research topic

I also studied science in a university which received corporate funding for certain research. They liked their graduates with no context to put their studies in and there was absolutely no sign of an "ethics of science" course. When I noted this and suggested that the very people who were in a position to balance corporate influence with understanding of the science were not given any proper context in which to put this knowledge in, and suggested they include such modules, they looked very uncomfortable. It was as if I had broken a huge unspoken taboo.

Notably the underlying attitudes you absorbed from between the lines in the official textbooks were that Nuclear power was good / safe. GM was a good thing that would feed the world. etc etc. Nanotechnology was wonderful. Human space travel was justified while people starved on a polluted earth. Plastics were great etc. No great corporate greedy fuckups and misuse of the science and tech were highlighted. No field trips to chernobyl, hiroshima, Iraq or the pacific gyre. Not even a mention of such things. Most graduates I spoke to were largely ignorant of widespread rampant corporate misuse of science and technology and yet they could quote complex mathematical formulae or use highly advanced lab equipment. Essentially a new batch of brainwashed cheerleaders for corporate science, highly skilled but with no context. Very worrying for the future of humanity.

I know you turn your nose up at youtube but knowledge comes from many sources. Not just university halls and journals. as they would have you believe. in fact that knowledge can lock the weak minded into biased and closed minded thinking patterns. matt damons character in "good will hunting" had a point. A library ticket in the right hands is probably every bit as good. Better in that you don't get inoculated with toxic university pro corporate culture.

anyway, my point is even a college educated fellow like yourself could benefit from listening to somebody like DR Vandana Shiva speak or from watchng a reasonably well researched documentary like "the corporation"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxAJ4g84xzE

And college educated people like yourself should not be so arrogant about their "education". Knowledge is not wisdom.

For the record, I am not against nuclear research or genetic research or indeed the search for scientific knowledge in general. I love science and technology and I did after all voluntarily choose to study science. I am however totally against Corporate for profit science. I Just believe corporate control of these sciences under the model of laissez faire capitalism is a recipe for disaster
I would much prefer an open source model designed to share important knowledge patent free for the common good of humankind. Until such enlightened thinking takes a firmer grip on the consciousness of our society, science is just a potent weapon that will be used against us not for us.

Certain technologies are much too unforgiving in an environment where human beings and personal gain are involved (neo liberal capitalistic). The temptation to cut corners to increase short term profits or to release technology without thorough research and long term thinking and context is too great for big business to be trusted in the current race to the bottom environment we live in. Mans ethical growth, sense of community and personal responsibility and awareness of the big picture must develop in equal measure along with his increasing technical knowledge or it will be misused and the laws of nature are very unforgiving as you know.

History shows that In our greed oriented society as it is currently structured, we cannot trust humans to be the guardians of the environment without corruption and exploitation taking root. In such an "everyone for himself" culture, how can such weak willed creatures be trusted to be the shepherds of nuclear waste which lasts for thousands of years through chaotic political and economic turmoil? In such a culture, how can such weak willed creatures be allowed to instigate complex percolations of short term sudden genetic changes throughout our ecosystem when personal short term gain is at stake? Without changing the whole way we look at things, making the jump from thinking in terms of short term gain and corporate profit to thinking in terms of long term sustainability and benefit of all species on the planet, and making deep changes to the fundamental structures of our society, science is like a loaded weapon in the hands of a selfish psychopathic child

In fact many such psychopathic children. Each with an insatiable appetite and no conscience. One of whom is "Monsanto".

by Botanist Sat May 14, 2011 01:39

"You did state this no? This is straight out of monsanto's PR sheet. "its for the good of humanity not huge profits that we are doing this". Bah! "

Sigh. You are missing my point. I dont care what Monsanto said, and yes they are evil. We are on the same page here. My point was that any right minded and calm appraisal and control of GM crops would be knee-jerkedly brushed aside in the furture for the chance of ANY increase in yield.

"The facts on the ground in India contradict. And India has some VERY GOOD growing conditions, with up to 4 yields in a single year in places!!"

Double sigh. Yet again you missed my point. Yes they have good growing conditions but no matter how good growing conditions are, you cant just throw down seeds from America and expect hem to grow the same. There is a multitude of factors at play, which is why I said the local varietals that have genetically modified themselves can outperform. And you say 'facts on the ground' but I dont know what this means, I did a quick search of Pubmed and boom, straight away I saw a few trials indicating increased yields from Gm crops in India and china. There too would be 'facts on the ground' if im understanding your definition correctly.

"Vandana Shiva is actually a respected scientist. its actually DR. Vandana Shiva PhD."

I'm sure she is. (I also have a PhD although, admittedly not within the field of crop science but that is all beside the point). But there are also many many other PhDs and professors who are MORE qualified who argue in favour of GM, simply cherry picking one person who supports your ideals. What makes their opinions more valid then hers? Well not much. If there were substantially more professors arguing for or against GM does that make them automatically right? Of course not. So how do you make an informed unbiased decsion? Best case scenario there is a meta-analysis like a Cochrane review, next best are systematic reviews, which are both inherantly lacking of bias. Failing this, you could just look up all the research yourself, any reputable publication is required to state sources of funding for you to make up your own decision.

"Biotech departments in universities are often part funded by large GM companies"
"so those research papers are not quite as squeaky clean and perfect as you think."

First off, I wouldnt have expected biotech departments to be conducting agricultual surveys, it really isnt the sort of work biotech departments do. Maybe in partnership with another Dept, like Ag science or environental science. In any case, in my own personal experience, I think you would find the majority of academic institutions and academics in Europe to be quite ecologically and ethically astute in the plant science area anyhow. I mean these are people who have devoted their lives to learning about plant life and how it works in our world. Most of whiom I met within Botany were staunchly within the 'hippy scientist' remit. And yes, some data might be tampered with, but I would think that academic papers are still the most unbiased source of information that is available, certainly better than the hearsay of people who are idealogically opposed, such as yourself. Oh and nice move there, totally not contrived at all, instantly dismissing any evidence against your claim as being flawed.

""ethics of science" course. When I noted this and suggested that the very people who were in a position to balance corporate influence with understanding of the science were not given any proper context in which to put this knowledge in, and suggested they include such modules, they looked very uncomfortable. "

I find this hard to believe. If true, yes I agree, dispicable. Sounds like a welcome addition to any course. But I do find it at odds with my experience in the few Universities I have been with, who would welcome with joyous arms a student who actually took an interest as opposed to the many uninterested students that pass through every year. I mean this in the most sincere way as possible and dont mean to offend but I'm sure I will, but if what you are saying is true, I would more belive from your conduct thusfar that you made them uneasy due to your abrasive nature and paranoia raher than unease at being exposed for untoward practices. Again, sorry for any offense there, just my own personal appraisal.

"Nuclear power was good / safe"
Being pedantic here, but technically, with the exception of solar/wind/wave power, nuclear power is much better and safer (going by pure cold DALYs and attibutable deaths) even counting Japan Chernoble etc

"I know you turn your nose up at youtube but knowledge comes from many sources. Not just university halls and journals. as they would have you believe. in fact that knowledge can lock the weak minded into biased and closed minded thinking patterns. matt damons character in "good will hunting" had a point. A library ticket in the right hands is probably every bit as good."

That made me laugh. Not the part about the library ticket, thats a good point, just as I alluded to earlier with metioning how one can access vast databases of information from your own home. And yes, you can learn a lot from other souces, just as we all have during our lives, but you are arguing about yields and research and data and I just dont see how listening to someone with an agenda on youtube is superior to getting to the nitty griity here, especially if your arguing over things like crop yields and effect on biodiversity. And as for biased and closed mindedness, well I dont see how reading a book by someone you already agree with or watching a youtube video of someone you agree with doesnt introduce confirmation bias. If you really were a good student you would realise that a large part of science is trying to reduce as much as possible the possibility of bias or type1/type2/type 3 errors.

"I would much prefer an open source model designed to share important knowledge patent free for the common good of humankind."
Well, thankfully for the most part information is freely dispersed. As for patents, I would have to disagree. We would all like cheap drugs for everone, but how many new drugs would be made if there was no potential to recoup the massive bill it takes to develop them? Very few.

"Without changing the whole way we look at things, making the jump from thinking in terms of short term gain and corporate profit to thinking in terms of long term sustainability and benefit of all species on the planet, and making deep changes to the fundamental structures of our society,"

You monster. you just defended Chinas one child per person policy.

Oh and just so you dont miss the point AGAIN. Yes monsanto BAD, very BAD.

by pat c Mon May 16, 2011 13:28

Heres an example of people fighting back to protect their seeds. Full story at link.

"Those who have money eat well, but the poor will still eat modified," Papadopoulos said. "Through our behaviour, we need to force the state to respect us."

The remote valley of Mesohori in northeastern Greece seems an unusual choice for a stand against genetically modified crop conglomerates who are knocking on Europe's door.

Yet thousands of organic farming advocates seeking to bar so-called "Frankenstein" foods from the continent made the journey here to help raise awareness about dangers to seed diversity.

The event was an annual seed exchange festival organised by the Peliti alternative community, a Mesohori-based non-government organisation working to preserve Greece's vegetal wealth against an encroaching global economy.

"We are doing something important here," beamed Grigoris Papadopoulos, a 60-year-old agronomist whose "green" epiphany came a decade ago after years of selling pesticide to farmers.

"I realised that money is not as important as quality of life, I saw the dirt in farm chemicals," said Papadopoulos, who came to trade his wild peach and apricot seeds.

Started in 1995, Peliti's drive to "to collect, distribute and rescue traditional seed varieties" (www.peliti.gr) has drawn notice among organic farming proponents across Europe.

by T Sun Aug 28, 2011 23:37

The latest Wikileaks cables not suprisenly show the the US govt is little more than a PR firm for multi-national corporations -as far as I recall Mussolni said the correct definition of fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. Anyay the cables show that the US homes in on the country that try to resist and then they get in contact with local high ranking politicans and no doubt issue threats of some kind.

For example the report says:
The cables further confirm previous Truthout reports on the diplomatic pressure the US has put on Spain and France, two countries with powerful anti-GE crop movements, to speed up their biotech approval process and quell anti-GE sentiment within the European Union (EU)...

Further on it says.
Truthout recently reported on front groups supported by the US government, philanthropic foundations and companies like Monsanto that are working to introduce pro-biotechnology policy initiatives and GE crops in developing African countries, and several cables released this week confirm that American diplomats have promoted biotech agriculture to countries like Tunisia, South Africa and Mozambique.

So we see that so called philanthropic organisations which usually distribute the wealth of extremely wealthy people some of whom may be dead -that these are used as another key part of the system to push their agenda on countries all over the world.

On reading the report and many others like it, we can see that it isn't so matter a choice but a relentless pressure and undermining of all democractic wishes and these people don't accept no for an answer.

It should be recalled that this push to use GM crops is ongoing now for at least 20 years, but time to this people is not an issue. A defeat for them is just a temporary set back and doesn't stop them at all.

Full report at link below

by T Wed Feb 12, 2014 22:36

Looks like the US Corporate State can't do enough to help Monsanto as now it is going to allow them to sue farmers who have had their land accidently contaminated by GM seeds through no fault of their own. You couldn't make this stuff up. Irish farmers should take note that these Monsanto thugs will probably be after them too.

On Jan 13 2014 RT.com reports.

The US Supreme Court upheld biotech giant Monsanto’s claims on genetically-engineered seed patents and the company’s ability to sue farmers whose fields are inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto materials.

The high court left intact Monday a federal appeals court decision that threw out a 2011 lawsuit from the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and over 80 other plaintiffs against Monsanto that sought to challenge the agrochemical company’s aggressive claims on patents of genetically-modified seeds. The suit also aimed to curb Monsanto from suing anyone whose field is contaminated by such seeds.

The group of plaintiffs, which included many individual American and Canadian family farmers, independent seed companies and agricultural organizations, were seeking preemptive protections against Monsanto’s patents. The biotech leviathan has filed over 140 lawsuits against farmers for planting the company’s genetically-engineered seeds without permission, while settling around 700 other cases without suing.

None of the plaintiffs are customers of Monsanto and none have licensing agreements with the company. The group argued that they do not want Monsanto’s genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and want legal protection in case of inadvertent contact with the company’s products...........