So on 24 November the FDA issued draft guidance for the food industry regarding "...recommendations to developers of new plant varieties, in particular bioengineered plants..." While not really being what U.S. PIRG's Kerry-Ann Powell submits (that the FDA "...has acknowledged that contamination of the food supply by genetically engineered crops is inevitable..."), the FDA does say this: '...Rapid developments in genomics are resulting in dramatic changes in the way new plant varieties are developed and commercialized. Scientific advances are expected to accelerate over the next decade, leading to the development and commercialization of a greater number and diversity of bioengineered crops. As the number and diversity of field tests for bioengineered plants increase, the likelihood that cross-pollination due to pollen drift from field tests to commercial fields and commingling of seeds produced during field tests with commercial seeds or grain may also increase. This could result in the inadvertent, intermittent, low-level presence in the food supply of proteins that have not been evaluated through FDA's voluntary consultation procedures for foods derived from new plant varieties (referred to as ``biotechnology consultation'' in the case of bioengineered plants)...' The question to me goes beyond whether, as the FDA does warn, "proteins that have not been evaluated" enter into the food supply, although that is a concern. The larger concern, the larger question, is this: If, in fact, cross-pollination due to pollen drift IS inevitable, or relatively unpreventable, or for some reason preventable but not BEING prevented, what does that mean for the right to freely grow food? Can each person who owns a garden expect a knock on the door or a letter in the mail at some point in the future saying that, through no fault of their own (i.e. due to "pollen drift"), ADM or Monsanto or whatever is sorry to inform you that your garden now produces crops licensed to a company, and that if you wnat ot keep growing your own foodyou will have to pay a license fee? Isn't the most powerful intended or unintended consequence of genetically engineered food the consolidation of the planetary control of food, and the aggressive truncation of any alternatives (i.e. organic, non-engineered, non-licensed food) for the sole benefit of global food concerns that are as far removed from my wife's garden as the shareholders of those concerns often are from the earth and soil that ultimately sustains them? And what happens when, Sweet and Low-style, we "discover" 20 years from now that the cow's liver gene or whatever that they've spliced into corn and wheat causes cancer or some such? Why would freedom-loving humans ever concede to something like this, where the freedom to grow one's own food seems to me overwhelmingly threatened? What happens when our spillover pollenation spills over into a nation we don't like, or a competitor with whom we're jostling for world market share? What happens when, for example, Chinese variants out-pollinate our variants, and the Great Plains are now licensed, oh just by accident, to Beijing, and the WTO upholds the right of China to levy a fee everytime we harvest the result of any seed? Astonishing. Is it just me, or are the possibilities here, just from a legal standpoint, tsunami-like in ramifications?
You have more in common with a hysterical fundamentalist than you know. This is just (one of) your Apocalypse scenarios. But wait, aren't you the anti-fundamentalist guy who hates fundamentalists because they absurdly believe in an Apocalypse? And might, gasp, have influence amongst the GOP? If you're going to get hysterical about seeds, start with the terminator seed, which however remotely, may have some validity. Ironically, one of the benefits of the terminator seed sovles the x-pollinization problem of the hysterical article snippets you posted.
Dude, I'm just asking questions; I have an anti-administration bent ot my tone, no doubt, but to charge that posting links to the entirety of the FDA draft guidance, and an activist group's critique of that guidance, and to additionally submit that the activists claim something that I cannot find in the actual guidance (i.e., to be critical of my own source), but to then go on through the guidance and ask some questions that I think are very important is far from hysterical. Your quick truncation and marginalisation of the discussion and the issue smacks of knee-jerkedness, and doesn't help explore the issue one way or the other. Educate me; will cross-pollenization result in aggressive engineered strains of food supplanting, or otherwise changing the makeup of, unlicensed crops? The FDA seems to think that this does in fact happen. If this does happen, and the engineered crops are licensed for use, are the scenarios I've outlined possible? Probable? Improbable? What are the countermeasures available outside this process to ensure that one is not affected by it if one is an independent grower and producer of food? In addition, isn't the terminator seed one that has to be bought, for a fee, each time a farmer wants to plant a crop for a season? Who benefits by this type of arrangement? Who does not?
I think the legal issue would be cut and dry. Monsanto or whatever corp genetically engineers mega vegetable. Because of pollen drift, or whatever, this crop ends up in farmer bob's farm next door. Seems to me that unless the company can prove that farmer bob took the genetically engineered crop or the seed to it, they would lose any lawsuit seeking monetary retribution from farmer bob now having the mega vegetable in his farm. If a company has a trade secret and/or a patent and/or whatever, they are under an obligation to maintain said trade secret as a secret. Obviously it is a little trickier with patent law. The fact that they let the seed and/or the pollen of the mega vegetable spread outside of their own control seems to be a clear indication that they are to blame for the loss of the mega vegetable and not farmer bob. Fairly certain courts will see it this way. Oh yeah, and farmer bob would more than likely have a nuisance lawsuit against the company.
I hope it does indeed break down that way. But if the engineered seed ends up being the only seed that will subsequently grow there, will bob have to pay for the future use of that seed after the initial litigation is cleared up?
Would this also have an affect on the status of the intellectual property (iow, the genome)? If they're handing it out like candy (wittingly or unwittingly), wouldn't that make their patent somewhat meaningless? If so, that would put a significant kink in the economic viability of genetically-engineered plantlife. I can't imagine that the marketable:reasearched ratio is anywhere near pharmaceuticals, but if Monsanto et al need gov't approval for their carp-enhanced Roma tomatoes, there have to be some R&D pipeline losses that need to be recouped. (EDIT: Sorry. I see the question has been answered affirmatively for trade secrets. How much of this holds true for patents?) IP law isn't my thing. But I know enough about feasibility to know that without a strong IP position, R&D efforts are wastes of perfectly good capital. Maybe the cross-pollenation effect we've all feared (ok, 'cept you big, tough Right Wingers who prefer your veggies with the insecticide built right in) is exactly what's going to make this problem go away.
You need to learn to read carefully. The FDA notice said As the number and diversity of field tests for bioengineered plants increase, the likelihood that cross-pollination due to pollen drift from field tests to commercial fields and commingling of seeds produced during field tests with commercial seeds or grain may also increase. This could result in the inadvertent, intermittent, low-level presence in the food supply of proteins that have not been evaluated through FDA's voluntary consultation procedures for foods derived from new plant varieties (referred to as ``biotechnology consultation'' in the case of bioengineered plants)...' (emphasis mine) In other words, it's the testing portion that poses the risks currently, not the full blown commercialization. By the way, folks are hard at work on this problem. See: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=pnas Like so many things in life, this is a risk managment exercise. The benefits of genetically engineered crops far outweigh the risks. If we want to end starvation on this planet, then we need crops that are disease and pest resistant (inherently, not via externally applied chemicals), and can thrive in harsh conditions (without the use of fertilizers). In other words, you can make the argument that NOT allowing genetically engineered food will kill more people than any putative "danger" (none of which have yet to arise) of cross-crop contamination.
There is a huge market for GE free food and one of the issues facing growers is that they may be planting GE free crops and while a neighbouring farmer plants GE crops cross contamination occurs. The farmer planting certified GE free crops has now lost his certification in that area. The issue here is that once you have GE contamination of certified GE free crops the farmer can no longer, through no fault of his/her own making, sell the crops as GE free. Now I am not a "tree hugging hippie" but if a farmer wants to grow GE free crops for the GE free market then that is his/her right and if farmers growing GE crops cannot contain the GE material then you have a serious issue.
I think that there are two separate things to think about when we're talking about this. The first thing is what sort of dangers to the food supply in general do GE foods pose in and of themselves. The second thing is what sort of dangers to the food supply do GE foods pose when owned by one or two evil corporations who will, and have, gone after farmers who haven't done anything wrong except have a field close to a field of Monsanto GE corn. I'm not really worried about the first thing so much but I am very much worried about the second thing. I think that if we can engineer crops to produce more food, that is undeniably a good thing. The more people we can feed the better. The bad thing is the patents - the consolidation of the power in the hands of "evil corporations." What is the solution? Hell if I know.
Competition. If there is REALLY a market, someone will start a company, advertise GE product, figure out how to prevent GE from contamination. The onus of keeping your plants pure, genetically, is with the grower of your particular crop. Back when I was working for a Dutch marijuana factory, we couldn't blame the air or pollen molocules if our Northern Lights got pollinated by a White Rhino plant. But I venture to say that if you ask any biologist, or chemist, they could ease your fears of GE food. Afterall, GE mods are basically just increasing in number the glucose or whatever that food item contains. Its not like they are splicing cancer cells into a GE corn. The fear of GE is very similar to the Evolution debate, in that in this case, the left is ignoring the science.
Yes. Terminator seeds prevent cross-pollinization. The problem: the left has to decide what their platform is when talking about food supply issues. On the one hand, cross-polly is evil. Monsanto company invents seed (within 6 months of this argument the left) that prevents cross-polly. However, left thinks this too is evil, because farmers have to buy seeds every year (they did buy seeds every year anyway, you don't want to be selling f2 (maryjane growers know why an f2 is less desirable) product.
Yes and no. Genetic engineering can potentially help solve the starvation problem on this planet. Unfortunately, not all genetic engineering of crops is done with this goal. For example, certain crops may be engineered to become resistant to a particular pesticide/herbicide so that the manufacturer of such a pesticide/herbicide can sell more such pesticide/herbicide since it can be more easily (and many would say indiscriminately) applied in the field. In other cases, crops may be engineered to have better look or shelf life.
Will any of this threaten the corn that Jim Beam buys? If not, I can't say I'm too worried. I would think, though, that the cross pollination issue is akin to the old story about the neighbors apple tree next to my fence. If any apples fall off the tree into my yard, they're mine, but I can't pick them off of the tree. In other words, if their seed pollinates my fields, they are SOL.
If Africa could get it's ******** together, it would OWN the world. Since it can't seam to so that.........WTF is wrong with planting some seeds that are gonna grow?? If the people of that continent don't want to grow a guranteed seed..............I say Fvck em......Die, and do it quickly. Clear the way for progress!!!! By the way, did I say I hope Death on the Unbeleivers??? Just checking.
I think you've wandered out and lost your way. The home for sentiments like this, the place and space where they rest, all safe and snug, is here.
Rocket Fuel Chemical Found in Organic Milk WASHINGTON (AP)-- The government has found traces of a rocket fuel chemical in organic milk in Maryland, green leaf lettuce grown in Arizona and bottled spring water from Texas and California. What's not clear is the significance of the data, collected by the Food and Drug Administration through Aug. 19. Sufficient amounts of perchlorate can affect the thyroid, potentially causing delayed development and other problems. But Environmental Protection Agency official Kevin Mayer called for calm, saying in an interview Tuesday: "Alarm is not warranted. That is clear." "I think that it is important that EPA and FDA and other agencies come to some resolution about the toxicity of this chemical," Mayer said. "That has been, frankly, a struggle for the last few years." The FDA found that of the various food items it tested, iceberg lettuce grown in Belle Glade, Fla., had the highest concentrations of perchlorate. The greens had 71.6 parts per billion of the compound, the primary ingredient in solid rocket propellent. Red leaf lettuce grown in El Centro, Calif., had 52 ppb of perchlorate. Most of the purified, distilled and spring bottled water tested around the nation tested had no detectable amount of perchlorate. Whole organic milk in Maryland, however, had 11.3 ppb of perchlorate. Asked whether that level of chemical in milk was worrisome, Mayer, the EPA's regional perchlorate coordinator for Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada, said, "The answer is, we don't know yet..." ? Then how can you declare that there is no cause for alarm, if you don't know? It's "balance" like this which makes me wonder if the simple constituency of citizens who want to eat natural, healthy food that will never harm them can trust the FDA to tell them the fullest, most complete truths. The FDA seems to balance the interests of folks who don't want to die from their food against the interests...of what, exactly?
Can you talk about the differences? hopefully not in terms just of how the FDA defines it, but more importantly the real differences for those who grow and those to eat the food, namely farmers and us.
GM - achieved by selecting from the multitude of genetic traits that already exist within a species` gene pool. For example, crossing two different rose varieties. GE - involves taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to transfer a desired trait or character. "Within five years and certainly within ten some 90-95 per cent of plant-derived food material in the United States will come from genetically engineered techniques." -Val Giddings, Vice President for Food and Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organisation As a consumer you should be able to determine if the product you are about to purchase contains GE materials. It may not be an issue to you so you don't care but if it is an issue to you you should be able to avoid products containing GE materials. When people began to realise they were eating genetically engineered food without their knowledge or consent, there were calls for mandatory segregation and labelling. In May 1998, however, Codex Alimentarius, the UN body responsible for establishing international rules on food policy, rejected these demands in favour of a much more limited labelling regime. The concept of 'substantial equivalence' was used to argue that genetically engineered food was 'equivalent' to food produced by any other means, and that labelling would therefore be discriminatory and constitute an illegal trade barrier. Biotech companies were afraid that a labelling system would give consumers the ability to boycott GE products, and also concerned that segregation would need to be introduced in order to implement labelling schemes. Now as a farmer there is a large market for certified GE free products even though they cost more in the supermarket. The EU, in particular, has recently shown its dislike of GE foods from the US. The issue for US farmers is that once your farm has been contaminated with GE materials you lose your GE free certification. Contamination can occur if your neighbour plants GE crops or you purchase and sow seed that you believe is GE free but turns out not to be. A recent incident in New Zealand, called "Corn Gate", showed how easily this happens. A shipment of corn seed from the US that had been certified as GE free by a US lab was randomly tested in New Zealand and found to be approximately 1% GE. What crops were left were destroyed (it is illegal in NZ to plant GE crops without a permit that is extremely hard to get) and several corn based products were voluntarily withdrawn from supermarket shelves to avoid a consumer backlash. What it comes down to is that currently there is not enough information on product packaging for a consumer who wants to avoid GE food to make an informed decision on what they purchase.
Percy Schmeiser is the exact circumstance I was talking about, and illuminates at least one very real intent of the argibusiness giants: to control food. Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position is that it doesn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene and that he must pay their Technology Fee... http://www.percyschmeiser.com/gp-percy2.mp3 Monsanto just happens to let their (more aggressive, subsuming) seed "blow" all over the place, then secretly test and then try to charge farmers who never bought it?
We Need GM Food Like a Hole in Our Kidneys When the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) meets this year in Philadelphia, Monsanto and its colleagues will not be gathering to talk about how to save the world. The goal of this industry, like any other, is to make a profit by convincing consumers that we need what they’re selling. Genetically modified (GM) food – plants and animals that have been inserted with genes from other organisms – aren’t meeting any real human needs. Despite claims from the biotech industry, GM foods cannot end world hunger, and new studies add to the evidence that they may pose a serious threat to human health. A recent study conducted by Monsanto itself indicated abnormalities in the kidneys and blood of rats fed MON863, a strain of Bt corn that many Americans eat every day without our knowledge. Monsanto has resisted calls from the European Food Safety Agency to release the full study to the public, leading to a court order to do so from a German judge. Thank goodness for some degree of concern from the Europeans, because watchdogs in the United States are gnawing on the bones of corporate-induced complacency. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves GM foods for public consumption simply by comparing the nutritional content between GM and non-GM foods, and checking a database of known allergens. According to the logic of the FDA, we are the lab rats. What of the famed argument that GM crops are worth it because they will resolve world hunger? GM crops fundamentally cannot end hunger because hunger isn’t caused by a lack of food. The world currently produces enough food for everyone on earth to consume over 2,800 calories a day – that’s enough to make most people a bit pudgy. The problem is that food doesn’t go the hungriest people because they don’t have the resources to buy it or grow it. Pennsylvania is full of productive farms, yet one in ten residents of the City of Brotherly Love know hunger all too well. Hunger is caused by a lack of access to basic human rights, including good education, health care, housing, and living wages – in the Untied States and throughout the world. Hunger is also caused by racism and inequality. These topics aren’t on the agenda of this year’s BIO conference...
This is the part of the current political system that I just don't understand. The Republicans and the religous of our fine nation have determined that messing with research into the human genome is somewhat risky. "Our morality has not caught up with our technology," they cry. "Don't mess with God's creation!" The simple fact is that on many health research issues, there is an outcry to not go to far... with cloning, genetically modified or specified children, etc. However, with food, the left has taken up this cause. The idea that food modified by screwing around with their genetic makeup should be 'mostly harmless' is frightening to me. I think the stuff you eat is just as important as genetically modifying human cells, it just takes longer to realze what is happening. Personally, I feel that if God made everything, then screwing with food is just as blasphemous as screwing with animals or people. If evolution has helped create our marvelous human system, then we were designed for the food found in nature. Either way, the thought of some scientist tweaking the genetic code of an apple to make it 'more red' scares me. Why can't we just leave well enough alone? Tweaking genes for longevity and health seems a bit more noble than tweaking genes to sell more corn tortillas than the local farmer.
I think you have answered your own question here Mel. When I first read your thread, I went to post, then thought better of it and read the entire thread, knowing that this case might have been mentioned already. The truth is that this will happen... though the case in Canada has received some media attention, there has notbeen bear enough to stem future incidents like this from happening. I would suggest also that there the greater risk in terms of American food production is that more and more of your crop lands are already owned corporately - therefore less chance that they will have to go after the farmers and as a result - the press. In the end, they don't really want the nominal fees that would be awarded to them - they want the land. Canada works with it's farmers in a different way than the US does. Subsidies, the Wheat Board... these are all programs that are in effect to try and leave the land with the farmers, though I see this eroding year after year, and not without reason from a fiscal point of view. Tax payers are loathe to constantly "save" an industry when others have no recourse if their business fails. I can totally understand that thinking, especially in a country that is likely overtaxed, with an oversized government that has been revelaed recently to have wasted millions and millions in the sponsorship scandal. Modern society is all about short-term thinking... and that bodes well for corporations like Monsanto. I worked before for an agricultural publication company... those magazine were the sole source of "independant" and "objective" coverage of issues that pertain to GM, and GE crops (among other topics of course) and we were paid, essentially, to write cozy op-eds about these very corporations. Trust building, I think, is how it was referred to. So yes, absolutely, this is going to change the way food is grown. Whether there are medical consequences is almost irrelevant to me at this point. Fundamentally, we have a few interests controlling what we eat from the ground up - and they have not been upfront about it at all. That alone is more than enough to make me nervous as hell. A good issue, one that most are bored by easily, but it absolutely needs more attention. Oh, another reason why I think America is moving at a more rapid rate towards this is because due to the current climate of the voters... they essentially know exactly how many ag involved voters are red or blue, and this gives them some confidence in how much they can do, and when.