Greenpeace activists, wearing mock hazard suits, scaled the fences of the experimental farm last Thursday and destroyed a crop of genetically modified wheat with brush cutters. The wheat has been altered to lower its glycemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose levels and lowering cholesterol.
Greenpeace says it took the drastic action because of concerns over health, cross-contamination and the secrecy surrounding experiments at the farm, which were to include the first human trials of the crop.
aroc91 said:I really don't understand the criticisms of GM food. Do people think it'll somehow magically give them cancer or something like that?
I like Serena said:I don't quite get what they are protesting against.
What health risks exactly?
What kind of cross-contamination?
What is the secrecy about?
I kind of assume the Greenpeace activists are not crackpots, especially not since apparently Greenpeace as an organization supports the actions.
It seems to me there is more to it than is apparent from the article.
This article really provides too little information!
Can we get some more?
lisab said:Re the bolded text: wow, my face-to-face experiences with activists from Greenpeace (and similar groups) are exactly opposite! I have found them to be closed-minded conformists, unwilling to see any other point of view other than theirs. They can regurgitate their script but aren't independent thinkers - in my opinion.
It's no wonder that he's now so unpopular with people who believe in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy" as ardently as an fundamentalist.In 2006, Moore addressed a Biotechnology Industry Organization conference in Waikiki saying, "There's no getting away from the fact that over 6 billion people wake up each day on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials", and need genetically engineered crops to this end. He also told the gathering that global warming and the melting of glaciers is not necessarily a negative event because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees.
lisab said:Re the bolded text: wow, my face-to-face experiences with activists from Greenpeace (and similar groups) are exactly opposite! I have found them to be closed-minded conformists, unwilling to see any other point of view other than theirs. They can regurgitate their script but aren't independent thinkers - in my opinion.
ryan_m_b said:It's for reasons like this that one of the early and most prominent members of Greenpeace Patrick Moore now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)#Views". On the subject of genetically modified crops
It's no wonder that he's now so unpopular with people who believe in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy" as ardently as an fundamentalist.
I don't believe that their personal profits are a good reason to ban GM seed. As was mentioned previoulsy, we have been modifying plants and animals since the beginning of time. Those so called "heirloom" plants are actually extremely modified from the original plants.turbo-1 said:There are many people here in Maine that would like to curb the use of GM seed. Many of them are organic farmers that work hard to preserve genetic diversity of seed-crops, and sell their seeds to Johnny's Selected Seeds, FedCo's seed cooperative, and other outlets.
Those businesses sell far and wide, and their viability is based on their ability to supply seeds that you can't get in the local hardware store. The local farmers are concerned primarily about cross-contamination, which could dilute the strains that they are preserving and promoting.
The tomato is native to South America. Genetic evidence shows the progenitors of tomatoes were herbaceous green plants with small green fruit and a center of diversity in the highlands of Peru.[2][3] One species, Solanum lycopersicum, was transported to Mexico, where it was grown and consumed by Mesoamerican civilizations. The exact date of domestication is not known. The first domesticated tomato may have been a little yellow fruit, similar in size to a cherry tomato, grown by the Aztecs of Central Mexico.[4][unreliable source?] The word "tomato" comes from the Nahuatl word tomatl, literally "the swelling fruit".[5]
Spanish explorer Cortés may have been the first to transfer the small yellow tomato to Europe after he captured the Aztec city of Tenochtítlan, now Mexico City, in 1521, although Christopher Columbus, a Genoese working for the Spanish monarchy, may have taken them back as early as 1493. The earliest discussion of the tomato in European literature appeared in an herbal written in 1544 by Pietro Andrea Mattioli, an Italian physician and botanist, who named it pomo d’oro, or "golden apple".[3]:13
It's not just a matter of personal profits, IMO. The Norweeds have been actively stockpiling seeds from far and wide, and I applaud the effort, because if GM varieties eventually prove to be not viable in the long term, we might have a bank to draw upon to re-establish healthy strains. Some of the vegetables that I grow are very old strains, and many of the apple trees on this property can't be found in any local orchard.Evo said:I don't believe that their personal profits are a good reason to ban GM seed. As was mentioned previoulsy, we have been modifying plants and animals since the beginning of time. Those so called "heirloom" plants are actually extremely modified from the original plants.
But isn't this more a problem with what some of the big companies are doing in order to protect their patented seed as opposed to just modifying the seed to produce better traits? Like the rice that has added beta-carotene that is so needed in under developed countries.turbo-1 said:I'm not saying that genetic modification is bad, in and of itself, but we need to be cognizant of the impact of cross-pollination, and insect-adaptation WRT to GM crops. These are not insignificant problems, especially when addressing starvation in 3rd world countries in which reduced viability of seed from each crop means that the citizens have to keep buying new seed every year, instead of planting from reserves from last year's crop. That's a big deal, IMO. We can't properly address hunger and poverty by supplying seed that won't propagate reliably.
turbo-1 said:The Norweeds have been actively stockpiling seeds from far and wide, and I applaud the effort, because if GM varieties eventually prove to be not viable in the long term, we might have a bank to draw upon to re-establish healthy strains. Some of the vegetables that I grow are very old strains, and many of the apple trees on this property can't be found in any local orchard.
Why does one necessarily follow from the other?I like Serena said:I kind of assume the Greenpeace activists are not crackpots, especially not since apparently Greenpeace as an organization supports the actions.
I don't see how one follows from the other here either...I would still like to believe there are people within Greenpeace that care about people, animals, the fate of the world in general, and who do not behave like fundamentalist nut cases.
russ_watters said:While criminal sabotage just leaves people shaking their heads, the most damaging thing that such groups are doing is not even criminal:
While they're afraid that GM food might be harmful, in an indirect but still very real way, "natural" food causes people to die in some cases, when chosen over GM food. It causes people to die because crop yields are substantially lower with "natural" crops than with GM crops, so when countries refuse agricultural aid in the form of GM seeds, or more directly, refuse actual crops, they cause the deaths of their own people.
Though I doubt the normal definitions are sufficient to deal with it, this feels like murder to me.
ryan_m_b said:Same here, golden rice is a key example. People who object to notions on vague ideological underpinnings such as "it's not natural" and "corporations just want money" smack me as childish aristocrats patronisingly making decisions for the poor of this world for their own good.
thorium1010 said:I don't know much about GM foods , i would like to make a point here, corporations are here to make a profit ( i am not against making a profit). when you look at larger interest of people, we still have to depend on these corporations (in the case of GM seeds) who effectively control the pricing of food grains. In some countries the seeds are supplied by the government at a subsidized rate. Food price inflation is already an issue in some countries . But i do not see GM seeds solving the issue of price inflation, because they are effectively controlled by corporations
Certainly, GM food can't solve the issue of inflation - nor should it be expected/requried to - as it's an inherrent feature of the global economic system. But it will necessarily always be better than "natural" crops on that issue: if it didn't allow farmers to grow more crops for less money/land, farmers wouldn't use it. Increasing supply helps keep prices down...thorium1010 said:Food price inflation is already an issue in some countries . But i do not see GM seeds solving the issue of price inflation, because they are effectively controlled by corporations
russ_watters said:Certainly, GM food can't solve the issue of inflation - nor should it be expected/requried to - as it's an inherrent feature of the global economic system. But it will necessarily always be better than "natural" crops on that issue: if it didn't allow farmers to grow more crops for less money/land, farmers wouldn't use it. Increasing supply helps keep prices down...
thorium1010 said:If GM food cannot control inflation, what advantage it would have over regular crops. Also i am still not convinced that all GM crops are better than regular crops . Certainly a few of them have definite advantages.
If GM food is marketed as having these advantages (disease resistant, more produce ) but yet cannot reduce food prices it would not make a difference in many countries.
ryan_m_b said:Nobody said that all GM crops are appropriate or better. I don't see why you are conflating inflation with reduction in prices? The biggest advantage in GM crops is to supply nutrition that is unavailable elsewhere e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice" . Remember it isn't just about increasing yield but providing crops to areas where no crops grow.
thorium1010 said:Yes, nutrition can be argued as an advantage. But GM foods may not be cheap which means it is still not accessible to the poor ( which negates its advantage ). Maybe it can be grown in places where not much water is available, but it also comes down to affordability of these seeds (which is patented not free) especially in poor countries .
Actualy the golden rice project wants to offer the rice for free.ryan_m_b said:But I would put it to you that you are only assuming that the cost would be high. Part of the http://www.goldenrice.org/" is to provide these nutritional GM crops at an affordable price. Whilst some companies may employ unethical business practices not all of them would, in addition companies that design GM products specifically for the third world are not going to set them at unaffordable prices.
But the countries it's been donated to are refusing it due to scare tactics by anti-GM groups.Golden Rice will reach those who need it at no additional cost
Those who need the product of this new technology most are those who can least afford buying a mixed diet, rich in essential nutrients. This has been taken into consideration by the creators of Golden Rice technology, Professors Peter Beyer and Ingo Portrykus, and the crop protection company Syngenta, who have donated it for humanitarian use in developing countries, free of charge.
An excellent example Ygggdrasil.Ygggdrasil said:Ironically, some of the greatest advantages of using GM crops are environmental.
It can't control inflation, but it is still better at mitigating price inflation than non-GM crops. As I said, ultimately, the primary benefit is that GM crops are cheaper for the farmer and the consumer.thorium1010 said:If GM food cannot control inflation, what advantage it would have over regular crops.
I've never once seen GM food marketed, much less marketed as having a certain physical advantage. Again, ultimately to the consumer, the primary advantage is the price is lower. If the price wasn't lower, there'd be no reason for farmers or consumers to buy them.Also i am still not convinced that all GM crops are better than regular crops . Certainly a few of them have definite advantages.
If GM food is marketed as having these advantages (disease resistant, more produce ) but yet cannot reduce food prices it would not make a difference in many countries.
[separate post]But GM foods may not be cheap which means it is still not accessible to the poor ( which negates its advantage ). Maybe it can be grown in places where not much water is available, but it also comes down to affordability of these seeds (which is patented not free) especially in poor countries .
Whether true or not, that's still an issue of cost. If it were cheaper to import crops than grow them, people would import them.ryan_m_b said:Remember it isn't just about increasing yield but providing crops to areas where no crops grow.
I'd like to see citation of that. It wouldn't make any sense for a farmer to buy a GM seed if he could make a better profit from a non-GM seed.~jet said:One problem with GM is less the genetics and more those who are disseminating said genetics; to wit, Monsanto who has arranged for local legislations in India and Iraq to make it illegal to save seeds. In tandem with this and their genetically modified strains which they sell for much larger sums, the native farmers have to have a perfect season just to make due, and suicide rates have sextupled.
russ_watters said:I've never once seen GM food marketed, much less marketed as having a certain physical advantage.