The EU have refused to lift their restrictions on GM foods and that has prompted Heir bush to accuse them of being "Anti-Bio Technology" and "Anti-3rd World"


BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission on Tuesday hit back at an accusation by President Bush that its stance on genetically modified food was hurting poor African countries.
"It is false that we are anti-biotechnology or anti-developing countries, " Commission spokesman Gerassimos Thomas told a daily news briefing, adding that the EU handed out seven times more development aid than the United States.

Bush told a biotechnology conference Monday the EU should lift its restrictions on GM foods "for the sake of a continent threatened by famine."


Now we still don't know what effect GM foods will have on us or our environment.
And this isn't something you can "experiment with then go back if it doesn't work out".
Once you start planting mass crops of GM wheat or GM whatever they will pollonate and that pollen will travel with the winds and probably soon enough the orignal plant will be destroyed unless we keep mass stocks of the original seeds etc.
The plants don't care about if they pollonate another in a country where it is restricted.
They will move and either replace the original plant or cross-breed and create mutants etc regardless of whatever "Controls" you try to put in place.

Once this genie's out the bottle he wont be going back in.
IMO this is another irrisponsable and stupid attempt by bush and his kind to push through a measure that will profit them and allow them to tear down restrictions on GM products allowing massive abuse and profit by big business in the name of "Helping the 3rd world" regardless of the consequences to us and our planet.

Bear in mind most of these GM plants are designed to repel insects etc without the need for lots of pesticide etc and far more effectivly.
Massive use of that reduces the insect population.
That reduces bird population etc etc etc etc.
Then your looking at the effect on the human body, we start messing with the genes of the food we eat will we get all the goodness we need and will we be sure this will not effect us? we are after all what we eat.

Bear in mind most of these GM plants are designed to repel insects etc without the need for lots of pesticide etc and far more effectivly.
The same argument was used regarding their resistance to weeds which was supposed to reduce the amount of herbicide needed for commercial cultivation, which would be both economically and environmentally and medically good.
In fact, the emergence of herbicide-resistent weeds in GM fields has meant that larger quantities of herbicide is needed, not less, which is economically, environmentally and medically bad.

This was totally unpredicted despite the people involved considering the idea of inter-species cross-pollenation. Which leads me to wonder, what else do we not know yet. And since we're talking here about our food source, I'd rather see more long-term trials rather than go down the thalidomide route. Recall, the problem with thalidomide was not thalidomide itself, which worked as advertised and predicted - but the mirror image organic molecule to thalidomide, it's "optical isomer", which caused birth defects. The very existance of the optical isomer was unpredicted - even though we knew about optical isomers long beforehand.

So instead of pushing GM foods, we ought to be pushing caution. Which leads me to wonder exactly what Bush's motives are - and who he's got advising him.

quote: "Which leads me to wonder exactlyn what Bushes motives are-and who he's got advising him."
_______________________________________________

As far as Bush advisors on this issue, I would put "Monsanto" at the top of the list. Below is a link to a list of Genetically altered food products and their manufacturers.

http://www.icta.org/legal/biolist.htm

The list also contains the organisms from which genetic material was taken. It is scary as hell that we are the participants in the largest experiment ever conducted on mankind.

E.U. counters Bush biotech comments (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/bush.biotech.eu.reut/)
EU Says Bush Accusations on Its GMO Policy Untrue (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2977980)

Africa doesn't even want GMF acording to this link.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0620-07.htm

And that article doesn't even mention that the GM foodstuffs come with a tag that says that you may not keep seed from the crop to plant for next year, but must instead buy all new seed. Which is a serious drawback for most african farmers - hell, for most farmers, full stop!

(It's like microsoft, but with food)

Yet again another "Catch" that always seems to follow whenver Dubbya and his ilk suddenly have a philanphraoponic "turn".
With the farmers then relying on these seeds suddenly having to sell their crops at dirt cheap prices or less whatever the buyers want or else not being able to afford to re-stock their seed stock for next year on threat of fines and imprisonment if they keep seeds from the crops that they grow yet again they are shafted and no better off and now slave labour for the western worlds gm food supply in the name of "Helping the developing world" and making a great turn around for the generous western companies that are "helping" them grow their own GM crops.

The biggest potential problem with GM IMHO is not so much about safety but more about who gets to own the food chain.

Dee Cee

You bunch of pansies make me sick. What's the big deal with GM food? You can grow more of it quicker, and that's something I say, in a world where people are going hungry GM food is better than none at all.

Who care about who makes money off of what? Making money isn't immoral, and neither is feeding the third world.

Who care about who makes money off of what? Making money isn't immoral, and neither is feeding the third world.
Trouble is the third world don't need it or even want it but the US is twisting their arm till it pops. What happened to the free market? Just let the consumer decide. Thats the American way isn't it?

Dee Cee

I am not necessarily against GM food, as a matter a fact it poses oppertunities to solve large food problems (like the protein rich potatoe made in india)

However Bush sounds like he is trying to be more holy than the pope when he accuses Europe from "starving the people of Africa" if we don't buy their (read: made with usa GM technology) crops.

My question: If so many people are dying in Africa from lack of food, How the hell can the africans export food in the first place???

Shouldn't all this exported food not belong in the mouths of hungry african people instead of getting converted to hard cash for a few tribal leaders buying american made weapons with it or german made cars ???

Clearly Bush is moving a lot of hot air, not for the benefit of the ordinary african people but for Monsanto et al.

Let me reverse the noble Bush argument for a good laugh. Europe would be "supporting all those tribal wars in Africa, not to mention terorism" if they keep buying African food, It has got to stop !!! For the sake of humanity :p

Basically Bush is giving Europe the finger for the wrong reasons, so we kindly suggest he sticks his finger in his own ...

You bunch of pansies make me sick. What's the big deal with GM food? You can grow more of it quicker, and that's something I say, in a world where people are going hungry GM food is better than none at all.

The point, had you bothered to read it, was that it costs more to grow GM crops because you need to use more herbicide to control the herbicide-resistant weeds that are cropping up ('scuse the pun) in GM fields.
Hence, you cannot grow more of it. And it never grew faster than unmodified crops, so you can't grow more of it quicker (sic).

There is in my mind, always a doubt when it comes to the safety of products being pushed by mega corporations. Hells bells for 50 years we thought it was safe to put lead in gasoline!

The tests Monsanto performed on humans to win approval for their new phosate (weed killer) resistant soy beans, was flawed.

It was flawed because the test they ran were only done on animals that had eated the new genetically altered soy beans, NOT on those which had eaten altered soy beans that had also been sprayed with roundup during the growing season!!

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/weiz-cn.htm

Since the crop being grown can now withstand being directly sprayed with weed killer, and the herbicide will be absorbed into the plant, we will be eating the residue of that weed killer in our breakfast cereal!!

Safety aside and on the line of thought that El_sparks was expressing, there are currently 146 different variety of weeds that are already herbicide resistant.

And in a few years when a disease comes along that kills the new GM crops, we are back to square one.

Originally posted by DeeCee
Trouble is the third world don't need it or even want it but the US is twisting their arm till it pops.

Oh really? Head over to ethiopia and ask any starving child if he'd rather have food or no food, and then try to guess his answer before he gives it to you. News flash: Starving pepole very much enjoy food!

Originally posted by DeeCee
What happened to the free market? Just let the consumer decide. Thats the American way isn't it?


Of course it is, and that's what it's all about. Why do you want to deny them the option of taking GM foods?

Mystech,
Oh really? Head over to ethiopia and ask any starving child if he'd rather have food or no food, and then try to guess his answer before he gives it to you. News flash: Starving pepole very much enjoy food!
Since the EU gives more aid to the ethopians than the US, it's a bit rich to make that comparison.
Secondly, it's the idea that "they're starving, they'll take anything" that led Nestle to their less-than-humane record with baby milk in Africa.
Thirdly, the GM route would feed the ethopians for one year before they'd have to come up with more money for the next year's seed.
Fourth, Bush isn't talking about giving them anything - he's talking about selling them seed, which they then have to cultivate.

To a starving ethopian child, a packet of carrot seeds isn't going to do a lot of good...

Of course it is, and that's what it's all about. Why do you want to deny them the option of taking GM foods?
Well, let's see now.
1) We're not denying them the option.
2) They have publically and offically stated that they wish NOT to use GM foods.
3) Bush does not want them to take GM food, he want's them to buy GM seed.

Clear enough for ya?

PS.
For those wondering why people are concerned over having a monospecies food crop, please look up Irish history, subject "Potato Famine". One crop species, one single crop disease, and the population went from 8 million people to around 1.5 million in a matter of two or three years, divided between starvation and forced emigration. Quite a lot of them went stateside... so it's a bit ironic that the US is now promoting a single-species foodcrop policy...

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Fourth, Bush isn't talking about giving them anything - he's talking about selling them seed, which they then have to cultivate.


I'm sorry but I really don't see how this is immoral.

The act of selling a farmer seed isn't immoral - and no-one is saying that it is.
But the act of defaming the EU because we don't want to buy GM food and doing so by saying that it prevents the US giving food to starving ethopian children, when in fact it does not prevent that, and that's not what the US is trying to do in the first place, is immoral - in fact it's illegal if you do it to a person, it's called libel or slander. Perhaps that's why the US doesn't want an international court?

I read many of your post and will not reply to you here, if you lack a understanding of GM foods please ask about it on the biology sub-forum.
for example here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24471

Go Sparks!
You gotta have broadband I still pay by the minute:(

Good luck helping the blind to see.
Dee Cee

BTW
Of course it is, and that's what it's all about. Why do you want to deny them the option of taking GM foods?
They have the option they still don't want it. Neither does Europe.
The world don't need GM. War and chaos are the main reasons for famine not genetics.

Wise up Misty
Dee Cee

A broken clock is right twice a day and in this case Bush is on the correct side of the issue. There has been NO peer reviewed scientific studies showing that GM food is harmful. The European governments are just being held hostage by the luddite, anti-globalization left.

A broken clock is right twice a day and in this case Bush is on the correct side of the issue. There has been NO peer reviewed scientific studies showing that GM food is harmful. The European governments are just being held hostage by the luddite, anti-globalization left.
There's so much wrong with that assertion, from basic grammar right up through the facts of the situation to the overriding philosophy that I don't even know where to begin, except to tell you to go and do some actual reading on the topic.

Dream on Dreamer
I'm a European consumer drone and I won't buy it 'cos I don't need it. My local hypermarket has everything I want, at a price I can afford. What advantage doe's GM hold for me?
Even if the EU give the green light, survey after survey shows the people of Europe just couldn't care less. In fact european consumers seem to want to spend more and more on 'organic' touchy feely hippy food than ever before. We're not hungry we're not poor and we're just not interested. GM is a technology with no application on this side of the pond. The EU just reflects the opinion of it's population (with the usual political spin of course.).

Sorry to burst your bubble.
Dee Cee

Its as good as anything "natural". FYI: Unripe mulberries produce a mild hallucinagen but they arent banned from human consumption. Whatever we produce in a lab nature could concievably produce in the wild.

Its as good as anything "natural".
Not quite accurate - "natural" crops have far more genetic variability, which means that the species has greater disease resistance overall. Given that the survival of our species is pretty dependant on the survival of the species we use for food, I'd say that the introduction of GM foods is an act that requires care and deliberation, and a sincerely long-term view. Long-term, in this case being on the order of a century or more, as opposed to the length of time to the next quarterly earnings report...

If a GM crop type becomes overly subject to disease the next crop season we will spit out a variety that is immune. It would take many years for a disease to be able to find its way around the immunity. Rinse. Repeat.

Please remember that we allready have an ever shallower genepool for non-GM crops and livestock.

If a GM crop type becomes overly subject to disease the next crop season we will spit out a variety that is immune. It would take many years for a disease to be able to find its way around the immunity. Rinse. Repeat.
Now there's a star trek science solution if I ever heard one. We've just finished the mapping of the human genome (as well as that of a few "lower life forms" like worms), but still don't know how the damn thing works. We've no idea as to how to cure a disease by genetic manipulation, and we don't even have a handle on the ethics of doing so. And that's not my opinion - it's held by most medical associations. And yet, you're now happy to dump a cross-pollenating GM crop onto the human race?

It's that same lack of caution that led to the thalidomide disaster, along with a thousand other examples where the bottom line for the quarter was put ahead of warranted caution, in areas from aerospace (Challanger and Colombia to name the two most famous examples) right through to farming (DDT ring any bells?).

"Rince repeat."
____________________________________________

LOL that is so preposterous. It still take years to develop anything new, that is why we must maintain a supply of biodiversified seed varieties. Have you ever even been on a farm???

If your so worried about cross polination change the shape of the pollen grains and the female receptors. That would make cross-species polination impossible.

You dont need to know the entire genome, just a few key points. If we can make mice and fish glow in the dark and become monogamous I think we can make a plant disease resistant and sexually picky. FYI: We are working on numerous genome mapping projects over assorted life forms.

Its not like we are doing this stuff from scratch. Its cut and paste. However we alter one creature the blueprint was allready there, either in that creature or another one.

And if the individual european dosnt want to eat it they dont have to. After all many places legislate that foods shall be marked if they are GM. If you want we can genetically add the brand logo to the produce.

Clockwood,
I feel a Red Dwarf quote is oddly appropriate here:

"Raise the shields!"
"An excellent suggestion sir, with only two drawbacks. One, we don't have any shields, and two, we don't have any shields. I know that technically they're the same problem, but it was so significant, I thought I'd mention it twice."

In other words Clockwood, you have lovely suggestions, which we don't know how to implement yet. The "mice with ears" and other such experiments are precisely that - experiments. You're assuming that we can cut and paste at will as though we knew what we were doing. We can't. We can't even get cloning right, let alone invent a new species, and you're proposing that we not only invent a new species, but do so regularly, and you want us to eat the results with no idea of the long-term health effects. No thanks. To give an engineering maxim that has stood for longer than your country has been extant,

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Nobody knows what 40 years of viagra use will do to you but that dosn't stop anybody. Ill eat GM crops, has to be safer than driving.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
_____________________________________________

Thats for sure. Somehow reading all of these posts has reminded me of the annual "Big Pumpkin" contest.
I read that most of the growers use good old fashioned steer manure for fertilizer.:)

No, but full clinical trials were carried out for viagra (3700 people aged 19-87 worldwide) and full medical ethical procedures were followed for those trials. Long-term studies are still ongoing.
None of this is being done for GM foods in any independent fashion.

Actually a man would have to start on viagra at a pretty young age to use it for 40 years. Although if it turns out to be safe I would imagine that Monsanto will find a way to put it in our veggies.;)

A male's lifespan is over seventy years. Some people have problems with that area from teenage years.

Clockwood,
The point is that it's hard to produce results of a 40-year clinical trial for a drug that's not been around for a decade - but the difference between viagra and GM food is that that data is being collected for viagra by independent researchers and it is not being collected for GM foods.

Then why dont you go collect it? If the EU is so concerned they would fund you.

Then why dont you go collect it?
Gee, I dunno - maybe because I'm not a geneticist, I'm an engineer?
If the EU is so concerned they would fund you.
Actually the EU has funded a number of studies into the problem, but there are several other studies into the problem that have turned up results of note. Try reading these references this time:


THE INTRODUCTION of genetically modified crops in North America has been an
"economic disaster", the Soil Association claimed yesterday.
(http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/in180902.txt)


Organic farmers have renewed calls for a moratorium on the
commercial release of genetically modified canola as new
Australian research shows its pollen could contaminate non-GM
crops up to three kilometres away. (http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/sm290602.txt)


Scientists were yesterday embroiled in an international row over
genetically modified cotton after a study in China suggested for
the first time that the crop was permanently damaging the
environment and that insects were building up resistance to it. (http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gu080602.txt)

Farmers would face higher, and in
some cases unsustainable, production costs if genetically engineered crops
were commercially grown on a large scale basis in Europe, according to a
secret European Union study leaked to Greenpeace. (http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/en210502.txt)

EU Study Finds GE & Non-GE Crops Can't Co-Exist (http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gp160502.txt)

Worldwide hunger more a political problem, study finds
COLUMBUS, Ohio - The key to helping developing countries with hungry
populations is not just providing more food - it is eliminating war
and providing stable, democratic governments. (http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/os300102.txt)

"If a GM crop type becomes overly subject to disease the next crop season we will spit out a variety that is immune. It would take many years for a disease to be able to find its way around the immunity. Rinse. Repeat.

Please remember that we allready have an ever shallower genepool for non-GM crops and livestock."

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA. The success rate for the manipulaitons that produce GM crops is in the order of less than 1 percent, i think, ie htey produce a few thousand seeds, then plant them and trial them, and a few years later have 1, yes, one, variety that does the job. How the hell does that compare to spitting them out? Methinks you have mistaken a production line for cutting edge biotech.

Secondly, rinse and repeat is the upwards spiral that has led us to the overuse of fertiliser and pesticides and antiobotics anyhow. repeating indefinitely is not guaranteed.

And the reason for the ever shallowing genepool for stock and crops?? Commercial pressure, thats what!! from the same companies that are consolidating the food chain.

Ahh, thalidomide- whenever an "expert" says "its chemically identical, so its ok" ask them what happened in the case of thalidomide. that shoudl stump them. Oops, i see EI sparks has already covered that one. good job there.

Finally of ocurse, GM crops are totally unnecessary. Go on, someone prove they are needed.

Dam, I set up a separate thread for those that fear Gm foods in general but they don’t post. So I will say this quickly, Almost all the fears of GM foods have happened with selectively breed and hybridize corps, so those that think GM foods is some kind of new threat are dead wrong!

Really? you think so?

Besides, the other conern about GM is the lack of choice, such as what the USA is pushing. (the consumer is king, except where he wants to make a choice about what he eats.) and the consolidaiotn of ownership of the foodchain. Look at Canada just now, theres plenty of examples of all that happening, in fact the biotech companies are re-writing the gvt rules in their favour.

The problem is that some GM products are not a good idea at all, but this does not mean that GM is bad in general! Some GM products are great ideas. GM in is self is just a new way making designer crops as compare to the classical ones. This is why I do not support labeling of Gm product, it only bring unwarranted fear on to a very wide range of topics… just like “nuclear” and any thing with that word attached!

Ahh, on the contrary i htink we need it all labelled so that we have some choice about it all, like with organic, (which Gm woudl take away form us).

Whilst you are logically correct about some Gm not being good and thats no reason to condemn it all, at least admit we need a debate about the whole subject, not jsut force the introduction of Gm crops. Besides you still havnt addressed the other issues raised.

Hang on, so do you prefer NMR or MRI?

I agree with you Feutus that GM is not to be feared or hated as a batch but the thing i was more worried about is the way Dubbya is trying to push this method of we sell you our GM Seeds and you have to grow them and sell them back to us to be able to afford next years seeds and anyone that doesn't agree is evil and trying to starve these poor people routine.

Also the fact that whilst GM may be a great idea there are unfortunatly as with all great ideas many corps out there who will take a great idea and in the name of a quick buck and monopoly mess it up for everyone and make it harder for the genuine good cases to make it in.
Thats what scares me.
Just the same way i'm all for Genetic modification and mapping the Genome but the idea of a Company patenting my genes scares the bejezus out of me.
Sorry you can't cure that life threatening cancer we've patented that faulty gene its ours and you can't touch it 0_o........

i remember the patenting genes descusions(sp) but never got then end, was companys/people allowed to pathent them or not?

To go off topic slightly

http://www.unesco.org/bpi/eng/unescopress/2001/01-97e.shtml

THE HUMAN GENOME AND THE PATENT BOOM CHALLENGE

Paris, September 11 (No. 2001-97) - The current explosion in the number and variety of applications for patents on the human genome is giving rise to increasingly strident controversy. Will the rapid growth of intellectual property protection impede research holding the promise of dramatic breakthroughs in the fight against HIV/AIDS, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and diabetes, among other diseases and health conditions?

I think its more a case of treatments and modifications based on the discovery of genes or even use of the discovered genes for various purposes was being patented so if they discover a gene that can stop cancer but only certain ppl have it, they patent it and if you want it you have to pay huge costs for it.
Or if they find a treatment to fix a faulty gene they again patent that and charge huge fees for anyone to carry out the procedure etc.
I thought when this project first started that it would be a huge mission with reward for mankind into understanding the makeup of life and ourselves in a step towards curing all sorts of disorders and diseases and this would be available to all.

I forgot the nature of our society and didn't think that coprorations would jump on this as soon as it started churning out potential benifits and patenting and coverting the discoveries for profit o ignorant me.

The worst thing though imho is the fact not just the patenting and fee's but the fact that all this means the Group effort to study and experiment with the genome is trashed because this is no longer an open project as such as companies patent genes or procedures or cures you can't just study or experiement anymore as things will be kept secret or put under "non disclosure" or patented etc hampering if not crippling they best goals of the science.

Imo.

Psycho-Cannon look at my "Post subject" OT means off topic

but anyway thanks for the read

heh yeah sorry i meant i was continuing to take the thread OT and was just warning ppl ^_^.

guthrie,

I talking about NMRI which is call “MRI” specifically so people aren’t scare of it. NMR is not image generating it just to see what kind of energies specific atoms in a molecule have so that you can infer structure.

No GM food in general should NOT be label, specific products should be label only for there properties for example, “herbicide resistant” or “Warning Allergic reaction possible : Contains Tuna protein” it should not say “GM” on it!, because that makes make all of GL look evil when it is not

of course GM-food needs a label !
i don´t want to buy this crap ,and without label ,i can´t choose proper what i buy and what not !!!
hell ,who needs GM-food anyway ?
one can only laugh about the reason "africa" ........
it is enough food on this planet ,and it always was (and it it will always be if you don´t mess with the nature ,dear GM-food-fans ) :cool:
bush wants the eu to open the markets for GM-food ? he should go to hell ,that´s all ;)

WCF,
Firstly, this is not scare-mongering about GM foodstuffs. I happen to agree with Watson on this one, and I've defended his stance on the letters page of our national newspaper. But there's a difference between what he's advocating and what Bush is advocating - and Bush is wrong and reckless in this case.

And just for the record, there is no outright ban on GM foods in the EU - we allready import GM soybeans, as was pointed out in the speech covered by the reports that were my first references on this thread.
See here. (http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1433_A_901143_1_A,00.html)

WasiGermany,

DID YOU NOT READ A WORD I SAID??? Your fear of Gm foods in general is unwarranted, nationalist and just plain wrong! Why don’t we start labeling products that have been selectively breed or hybridized, these products have already cause ecological disasters and human health problems come on let us label the threat of classical genetic engineering!

Fetus
Be carefull now lest you begin to sound like a zelot. Wasi's reasoning is unimportant, the fact is he has freedom of choice. He don't even have to tell you his reasons.
This takes us back to the point of the thread. How can you justify trying to change our buying habits? The EU is just reflecting the will of it's citizens. So what if GM turns out to be the Betamax of the biotech industry? Thats capitalism and we all love a free market don't we?

GM is a consumer product not a crusade.
Dee Cee

Where are the peer-reviewed studies on GM being harmful to humans? The claims by the nutty European left about GM are no different than the nutty American right’s claims on stem cell research. Both groups are trying to impose their morality on others by using silly science to make their cases.

There is nothing to stop anyone from eating organic food if they want to. Every supermarket in my part of the world has organic food clearly marked.

As to the starving Africans, if they would rather starve to death than eat American GM food then there is no hope for that continent. They slaughter each other by the millions every year. Now they refuse to accept GM food that could save millions more from starvation.

Science, not religion, is the answer.

wcf wrote:
DID YOU NOT READ A WORD I SAID???

well ,at least i read this one ;)

No GM food in general should NOT be label.....


wcf, you can´t tell me my opinion is "unwarranted" ;we are talking about a subject that NOBODY can explain for sure......hell ,even the best scientists discuss about this and now you want to tell me YOU have the correct answers ???

this is no fear ,this is repugnance against needless changes in a very vulnerable system ,the nature !


ps: what the heck do you mean with "nationalistic" ?
are you sure you haven´t eat to much of this GM-food ;)

Lucid,
Studies? Did you read the reports of the studies that I posted earlier?

As to GM food in the EU, read the earlier posts in this thread.

As to "starving africans", read the earlier posts in this thread.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer
As to the starving Africans, if they would rather starve to death than eat American GM food then there is no hope for that continent. They slaughter each other by the millions every year. Now they refuse to accept GM food that could save millions more from starvation.


wake up ,THIS IS ABOUT MONEY ,not about humanitarian aid !
give the africans money for their own agriculture ,that should be enough !!!
or give your "normal" food away ,and eat your GM-food alone ;)

WasiGermany,

Well then you obviously did not understand a word I said! I going to repeat my self one more time: Labeling GM foods is wrong because it is such a wide variety of different things from rice with life saving Vitamin B production ability to soybean that you can spray a loads of Round Up on that won’t die, by labeling it all GM you unfairly label it all evil, without taking into account the specific nature of each individual product!

EI,

Those links you posted did not deal with human health concerns. There was also no indication if those studies were peer reviewed.

As for the Africans, the EU is pressuring them to reject American GM food while not providing an equivalent amount of non-GM food. This is unconscionable.

http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gmwrong.html

As for the Africans, the EU is pressuring them to reject American GM food while not providing an equivalent amount of non-GM food. This is unconscionable.
Excuse me? Prove it! Last I checked, the african's were saying they didn't want GM food themselves.

Here is a better analogy of what I have been trying to say:

Some Germens went around killing people in some kind of eugenic frenzy, there for we should call all germens "nazi", and label them as evil. This is a critical reasoning fallacy yet it is the exact same fallacy I see when people speak of GM foods: some GM foods have legitimate health or environmental concerns, so all GM food are not good and should be label as evil. People with the “All Natural” fallacy make sick! Natural stuff is not guaranteed to be good in fact 99.9% of what we eat is not natural! Selective breeding and hybridization have cause repeated environmental and health problems, but its has the world “natural” (erroneously) attached there for making it safe and good for you! :mad:

Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html)

An oldie but a goodie, Sparks.

:m: Peace.

And turning out to be as accurate as "moore's law", alas.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
WasiGermany,

Well then you obviously did not understand a word I said! I going to repeat my self one more time: Labeling GM foods is wrong because it is such a wide variety of different things from rice with life saving Vitamin B production ability to soybean that you can spray a loads of Round Up on that won’t die, by labeling it all GM you unfairly label it all evil, without taking into account the specific nature of each individual product!


well ,i understood every word you said ,but you are wrong ,that is what i wanted to say ;)
perhaps YOU should try to understand MY opinion !!!
don´t you see that you are dead wrong ?
i don´t care what you say about pro-GM ,i don´t want it and i think this is my god-given right to choose ;)
hey man ,i want a BIG "GM" on every contaminated food ,ON EVERY !

I think that there is a great potential for GM foods to do great good. BUT not when the whole process is market driven. Market driven situations give us things like the Ford Pinto. ( for those of you who are old enough to remember.) Plus the leaders of our mega corporations have not exactly set a shining example of morals and high standards in recent years.

WasiGermany,

You mind explaining you opinion like I have (repetitively) because at present you spout nothing but a fallacy. :D

The link below contains an enourmous amout of info on GM food crops.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/bio_3.htm

The next one comes from the one above and I found it quite interesting. It seems that the GM crops are not completely stable over time. Which of course would mean a whole new product marketing scheme every few years.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/maewan4.htm

WCF,
It seems obvious that Wasi's problem is that he dislikes the idea of GWB ignoring the idea of EU soverignty. It's one thing to engage in free trade - but another to accuse your intended trade partners of inhuman acts because they say they don't want to buy all of what you're selling...
I know that it particularly annoys me!

When I google terms like: suicide seeds, terminator technology, and exorcist plants, I can see why the EU wants no part of Americas chaotic corporate agriculture.

http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=389

We Americans are stuck with it.:(

Godwin's Law, ha what a buntch of Ad hominum and spoling the well fallacy crap.

As for what Bush said I to agree its load of crap and its just what his funders what him to say. I though also believe that the EU is ignorantly wrong in its fear and labeling GM foods as evil.

Terminator technology and lethal embryonic operons are a great idea in solving some of the environmental concerns such as GM plant breed and living in the wild, this is great since classical agriculture never had such an option and many environmental disasters have happened from selectively breed and hybridized crops and animals running amuck. But with this wonderful advantage comes the purest of evil, now that the plant can’t reproduce on it own or even under farmer control, the companies can force you to buy their seeds every year, effectively buy the farmers soul… except this also makes classical modified crops competitive, since you can buy them once and grow the seed your self.

WCF,
Your analogy was inaccurate, facetious and inconsistent - did you expect it to be uncritically received?

Also, the EU does not label GM food as evil. GM foods are sold in the EU - GM corn and GM soybeans to be specific. The fact that other GM foods are not yet cleared for sale is not some villagers-with-torches-and-pitchforks luddite phobia, it's reasonable and rational caution brought on by past experience.

For an example, consider the termination gene proposed for use in GM crops - we've already seen cross-pollenation between GM species and non-GM species at ranges of up to 3 km - what if the termination gene, or a scrambled version thereof, should be transferred? At best you'd have eliminated a farmer's seed source for the next year - at worst, you have a nasty new disease that threatens our food supply. Now I can understand how americans have difficulties in accepting that this is something you don't want to have happen, it's never happened in the US. It has happened here. That tends to breed caution. IF GM food is perfectly safe, we'll get the benefits of it after the studies. Normal crops can supply our needs quite merrily at present. And if GM foods have problems we haven't identified yet, we won't have risked our food source.

It was not meant to be accurate it was meant to point out a “Composite fallacy”: here the general analogy:

1. a individual of group A has characteristics X,Y and Z
2. Therefore all of group A has those characteristics

Or as I said it for example:

1. some German were nazis and evil
2. Therefore all germens are nazis and evil

Or as WasiGermany believes:

1. Some GM foods have potential environmental and health problems and/or are made by money grabbing American corporations
2. Therefore all GM foods have the above properties

By comiting this fallacy unrational hate and fear can be brought upon something that don’t deserve it. By labaling all GM foods as such people will not eat or use it only because it a GM food.

WCF,
What you're assuming in calling that a fallacy is that the vast majority of GM foods are perfectly safe. Which noone has, or can have proof of. To use a more accurate analogy:
Where there's smoke, there isn't necessarily fire: but it's generally worth taking a good hard look...

EI_Sparks,

And what you’re assuming is that alternatives to GM foods are also totally safe, when in fact many of them have already proven them self’s not to be.

It totally worth a look, it just not worth labeling unless you are willing to label all food for the pesticides that were spray on it or the allergens in contains or describe the damage it has done to the environment.

What else makes the GM debate so interesting, is the way it points up our unease about teh advances of technology and the changes they bring to our lives. All too often technology gets introduced and things get changed, but without firstly consulting anyone, and secondly wihtout any actual benefit accruing to the general public. Food is also a good area for this, because of the massive profit making on top of the poor price paid to the actual producers. So in the Gm debate, we have people joining in partly because they feel nobody is asking them about it, its just one omore change foisted upon them, whether they want it or not.

The problem is that if we have already had any disatsers fomr slectively hyridised crops and animals running wild (not that ive heard of any, can someone please enlighten me, go on, tell me what others arent safe) why do we want to run the risk again? And if hte way of not running the risk again is more corporate control over seeds, then forget it, the two possiblities rule out GM crops to my mind.

AS well as their unnecessesity.

It might be an idea to label all food for environmental damage and pesticides. enable more consumer choice, eh?

Perhaps we should take the ethopian people's views on the subject (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3016390.stm) into consideration...

Asking again: how can a country with a chronic food shortage EXPORT food in the first place?????

Same way Ireland did during the potato famine.

Blasted Luddites.

Reckless arrogant gobshites.

Development is Being Destroyed By Subsidies, Mali President Tells Congressional Committee (allAfrica) (http://allafrica.com/stories/200306260004.html) U.S. and European subsidies and tariffs "support injustice," Mali President Amadou Toumani Toure told the House International Relations Subcommitteee on Africa, Tuesday, summarizing written testimony that he presented for the record.

Toure said he was representing all African nations and the devastating effect of subsidies on Malian cotton illustrates the harm that agriculural subsidies - now totaling more that US$300bn in the United States and Europe - are causing to agriculture across the continent. "We have decided to pull the alarm bell."

. . . . "Mali lost 1.7 percent of her GDP and 8 percent of her export receipts; Burkina Faso lost 1 percent of her GDP and 12 percent of her export receipts; Benin lost 1.4 percent of her GDP and 9 percent of her export receipts.

And low prices for agricultural products lead to rural depopulation which, in turn, leads to urban unrest and "breeding grounds for terrorism."

African cotton producers have a competitive advantage but "international trade rules, as defined by the World Trade Organization, are biased" by the substantial subsidies granted to European, American and Chinese cotton producers. - in 2001 estimated to be, US$700m for Europe, US$2.3bn for the USA and US$1.2bn for China . . . . A very interesting situation seems to be developing. I'm currently reading through a PDF called Voices From the South: The Third World Debunks Corporate Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops (http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/ge/sactoministerial/voices.php), which seems a timely note; the link shouldn't start the PDF download, but go to a page where you can pick parts of the report.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

So, why do we need GM crops?
Or rather, why do we have to deploy every technology we invent?

You know, the funny thing about clockwood is that he should have been born 250 years ago, when the privileges of aristocracy were better entrenched. But thena ctually admitting that would make him un-american.

How many of you know that Monsanto also holds the patent on Agent Orange (where do you think Round Up comes frome?), Aspartame - NutraSweet, the newer and even deadlier Asusculfame K (I know I spelled that wrong), were the first to begin producing P.C.B's and Dioxins on a large scale and have been poluting this planet since the 1930"s?

Control of the food chain is only a part of what these guys are after. Sickness has been turned into an industry designed to keep as many of us as possible from living till we collect a pension.