SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ish who wrote (92194)12/30/2004 11:47:55 PM
From: Grainne  Respond to of 108807
 
Aside from the GMO question, only a Randian would think that it was wonderful news that corn is much less expensive than it was a couple of decades ago. The loss of family farms as a viable enterprise in America has been a disaster for farmers and consumers.

But back to GMO products. It is true that from the beginning of farming, farmers have been trying to develop better seeds. They weren't trying to splice fish genes into tomatoes as we do now, but of course they were trying to make crops that were less resistant to disease and produced more edible bits that tasted very good.

I found an article on GMO foods that I will post in a minute, but first I would like to talk about bananas. Is anyone at all aware that edible bananas as we know them will soon be extinct? And why, you might ask? Because of the kind of natural genetic engineering that farmers have been doing since the beginning of agriculture:

In an ominous foreshadowing of the potential dangers of genetically modified foods, scientists say they can't stop a devastating plant fungus that is wiping out banana trees because all of the trees are genetically the same.
According to a July 19 article in the Globe and Mail by Robert Alison, a former senior biologist for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the banana is about to disappear from store shelves around the globe. Experts say the world's favourite fruit will pass into oblivion within a decade. No more fresh bananas. No more banana bread. No more banana muffins or banana cream pie.

Why? Because the banana is the victim of centuries of genetic tampering and as a result, scientists say they will be unable to prevent the extirpation of the banana as an edible commercial crop. And its demise may be one more powerful argument in the hands of those who are concerned about genetic modification of foods.

The banana's main problem is that it has become sterile and seedless as a result of 10,000 years of selective breeding. It has, over time, become a plant with unvarying genetic sameness. The genetic diversity needed to cope with environmental stresses, such as diseases and crop pests, has long ago been bred out of the banana. Consequently, the banana plantations of the world are completely vulnerable to devastating environmental pressures.

According to Emile Frison, newly appointed director-general of the Rome-based International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, science is helpless to prevent the demise of the banana. Already, he says, as much as 50 per cent of the world's banana harvest is lost to insects and disease.

When humans first encountered bananas thousands of years ago, they probably were not impressed by the almost inedible giant wild bananas. But historic mutations, rare and accidental, produced seedless bananas through chromosome triplication, and ancient humans focused on these seedless, pollen-less mutants to generate progressively more edible crops. Eventually, edible banana flesh retained only a few vague traces of the viable seeds once carried in the ancestral wild stock.

Ancient plant breeders grew edible bananas by grafting sterile mutants onto wild stems. This process was repeated for thousands of years to produce the emasculated, sterile - and defenceless - plantation banana that currently feeds millions of people globally.

But the stage was set for the final act in the story of this beloved yellow fruit in the 1950s. By then, generations of selective breeding had long since inhibited natural banana reproduction, and genetic tinkering had all but obliterated most commercial varieties. Eventually, one morph remained, the Gros Michel variety. All domestic stock was its clone, an exact genetic copy of that one variety. Every tree was equally vulnerable to plant disease, crop pests and climate variables.

Then Panama disease, a soil fungus, attacked banana plantations and the genetically enfeebled Gros Michel banana was virtually wiped out. By 1960, the Gros Michel was no longer a viable crop. Tireless agricultural research eventually produced a successor, the Cavendish. For the past 40 years or so, the Cavendish has been virtually the only commercially grown stock available on store shelves in developed nations.

In the tropics, you can still find other, less desirable banana varieties, mainly grown as a starchy food staple rather than a sweet treat. But these tropical bananas aren't much like their commercial cousins in North American supermarkets. They taste bland. Their texture is often fibrous and mealy. North American consumers would probably find them quite unpalatable compared to the Cavendish, which is sweeter and smoother-textured.

But like its genetic predecessor, the Cavendish is also sterile, equally unprotected from diseases and crop pests. And now a powerful plant pathogen, the Black Sigatoka fungus, has appeared on the scene, attacking the Cavendish stock around the world. Banana yields have already dropped by 50-70 per cent, and banana-tree life spans have been reduced from about 30 years to just about two years. The genetic uniformity among Cavendish bananas has made them helpless to fight Black Sigatoka.

Nor can chemical spraying save the day. Commercial growers have long attempted to control the fungus using fungicides such as dibromochloropropane (DCP, now banned because it caused sterility and leukemia among banana industry workers). According to Dr. Frison, even powerful fungicides don't work against Black Sigatoka because the fungus is rapidly capable of developing resistance to them. Indeed, banana plantations in Costa Rica and the Amazon have already been largely destroyed.

The selective plant breeding that has brought us to this impasse is comparable to genetic engineering. Both change the genetic makeup of a plant, perhaps irreversibly. So the case of the banana gives ammunition to critics of genetic engineering and to their claim that much can go wrong when we tamper with plant genetics.

Such warnings aren't new. In 1995, biologists warned that changing the genetic makeup of a plant is like playing with fire. Even so, genetic alteration continues. At Oregon State University, scientists are at work on generating sterility in poplar trees; the Canadian Forest Service is looking into breeding insect resistance in white spruces; at the University of California, work is being done on changing root systems in walnut trees. And at the Independent University in Madrid, orange trees are being modified to promote early fruit-bearing and to grow oranges that are easier to peel.

The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute's Dr. Frison says biotechnology could still delay the loss of the banana, by providing the genetic blueprint of inedible wild varieties that can be genetically altered to create a genetically modified product. Does this hold out hope of an 11th-hour reprieve? Will consumers accept a GM substitute for the sweet fruit they enjoy so much?

The disappearance of the banana should be a wakeup call - to what can result from reckless genetic manipulation, complacency and inattention. If this can happen to the world's most popular fruit with all humanity as its witness, imagine what could happen to more obscure, but no less useful plants whose fates are less publicized and open to public scrutiny.

eces.org



To: Ish who wrote (92194)12/31/2004 12:00:17 AM
From: Grainne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
First, Ish, it is a fallacy concocted by Monsanto that we need genetically modified foods to feed the world's hungry. If you read that post about the golden rice, it is not even nutrition that can be assimilated.

But here is some much scarier information about GMO foods. I don't know why anyone who cared about their health or there family would knowingly eat any GMO products. It is just a big science experiment and we are all the guinea pigs, and Monsanto is making a huge profit and potentially endangering out species. That is how serious this issue is:

Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
(Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith.)

The following presents some of the dangers of genetically engineered foods and reasons why avoiding them is an important step to safeguard our health. The footnotes refer to page references in the book Seeds of Deception; there you can find meticulously documented evidence that leaves no doubt that GM food should never have been approved.

The biotech industry claims that the FDA has thoroughly evaluated GM foods and found them safe. This is untrue. Internal FDA documents made public from a lawsuit, reveal that agency scientists warned that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify.131-140 Although they urged their superiors to require long-term tests on each GM variety prior to approval, the political appointees at the agency, including a former attorney for Monsanto, ignored the scientists. Official policy claims that the foods are no different130 and do NOT require safety testing. A manufacturer can introduce a GM food without even informing the government or consumers.146 A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada said it was "scientifically unjustifiable"136 to presume that GM foods are safe. Likewise, a 2002 report by the UK's Royal Society said that genetic modification "could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods," and recommended that potential health effects of GM foods be rigorously researched before being fed to pregnant or breast-feeding women, elderly people, those suffering from chronic disease, and babies.263

How could the government approve dangerous foods? A close examination reveals that industry manipulation and political collusion-not sound science-was the driving force.

Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired.77-83
Scientists were threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted. Some regulators even claimed they were offered bribes to approve a GM product.
There are only ten published animal feeding studies on the health effects of GM foods-only two of these are independent.

One study showed evidence of damage to the immune system and vital organs, and a potentially pre-cancerous condition.12-13 When the scientist tried to alert the public about these alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit.18-20
Two other studies also showed evidence of a potentially pre-cancerous condition. The other seven studies, which were superficial in their design, were not designed to identify these details.37
In an unpublished study, laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the forty died within two weeks. The crop was approved without further tests.37, 137-140
Many industry studies appear to be rigged to find no problems. In the case of a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH), for example, researchers injected cows with only one forty-seventh the normal dosage before reporting hormone residues in milk.91-92 They heated the milk 120 times longer than standard, to report that pasteurization destroys the hormone.93-94 They added cows to their study that were pregnant before treatment, to claim that rbGH didn't impede fertility.89 Cows that fell sick were dropped from studies altogether.80-81

With soybeans, serious nutritional differences between GM and natural soy were omitted from a published paper.35-36 Feeding studies masked any problems by using mature animals instead of developing ones and by diluting their GM soy 10 to 1 with non-GM protein.34

There are no adequate tests to verify that GM food will not create dangerous allergic reactions. While an international organization developed testing standards to minimize the possibility of allowing allergenic GM varieties on the market, GM corn currently sold in the U.S. has not been subjected to those tests and would most certainly fail them. One of these tests, for example, uses a test tube simulation to evaluate how long a potential GM allergen can last inside the digestive system before being broken down. Compared to the recommended international standards, however, one biotech company used a far stronger acid concentration and more than 1,250 times the recommended amount of a digestive enzyme to make the claim that their protein degrades too quickly to cause a reaction.179

The only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that genetically engineered genes from soy transferred to the bacteria inside the digestive tract. (The biotech industry had previously said that such a transfer was impossible.) The World Health Organization, the British and American Medical Associations, and several other groups have expressed concern that if the "antibiotic resistant marker genes" used in GM foods got transferred to bacteria, it could create super-diseases that are immune to antibiotics.59-60 More worrisome is that the "promoter" used inside GM foods could get transferred to bacteria or internal organs. Promoters act like a light switches, permanently turning on genes that might otherwise be switched off. Scientists believe that this might create unpredictable health effects, including the potentially pre-cancerous cell growth found in the animal feeding studies mentioned above.37

The biotech industry says that millions have been eating GM foods without ill effect. This is misleading.

About 100 people died and 5-10,000 to fell seriously ill when they consumed the food supplement L-Tryptophan. Only those who consumed the variety that was genetically modified became ill. That brand had minute, but deadly contaminants that would easily pass through current regulations today. If the disease it created had not been rare and acute, with crippling and deadly symptoms, the GM supplement might never have been traced as the cause. Once discovered, however, industry and government covered up facts and diverted the blame. Even the FDA testimony before Congress withheld vital information.107-125
Milk from rbGH-treated cows contains an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast and prostate cancer, among others.94-97
Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, coinciding with the introduction of GM soy imports from the U.S.160-161
According to a March 2001 report, the Center for Disease Control says that food is responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the U.S. compared to estimates just seven years earlier. This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been eating GM food. Could that be contributing to the 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses related to food each year? Might it play in role in our national epidemic of obesity or the rise in diabetes or lymphatic cancers? We have no way of knowing if there is a connection because no one has looked for one.

One of the most dangerous aspects of genetic engineering is the closed thinking and consistent effort to silence those with contrary evidence or concerns. Just before stepping down from office, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman admitted the following:

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked... And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on... You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"152-153

Contrast this with the warning by the editors of Nature Biotechnology: "The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or foolhardy behavior." 137

The biotech industry and the government have been foolhardy indeed. Blinded, perhaps by the baseless myth that GM foods are needed to feed the world,250-251 they gamble with our health and support their safety claims on obsolete or unproven assumptions. Accepting their vacuous assurances by eating these dangerous foods or serving them to your customers may likewise be overly optimistic or foolhardy.

Please read the evidence amassed in the book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith. The meticulously documented facts leave no doubt about a massive injustice. The topic is too important to put this off until tomorrow.

seedsofdeception.com