Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto

[WiseOne]

The only correction I'd make to the above:  The modern Civic equivalent only goes 180,000 miles.  Life expectancy in the U.S. is dropping.

From what I see, life expectancy in the United States is clearly and consistently rising:

This is the chart that I was looking at.

Sort of.  The curve is flattening:

2012 Denney, Justin T., Robert McNown, Richard G. Rogers, and Steven Doubilet. “Stagnating Life Expectancies and Future Prospects in an Age of Uncertainty.”? Social Science Quarterly forthcoming.
commentary:  http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/06/ ... 340430591/

Also, life expectancies are projected to decline in the next century, because of the obesity epidemic.  I'd read this from several sources, here's one:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr043743

Most of the advances in life expectancy came from public sanitation, vaccination programs, and antibiotics.  We're now somewhere between nibbling at the edges and trying to bail out a sinking ship due to the ever increasing nutritional and exercise deficiencies.

[Gumby]

Anyone is free to sell stuff labeled as "non-GMO" if that is what it is. In the absence of any reason to believe that GMO origin has a nutritional relevance it seems to me that that is the way around it should be.

Would you believe that Monsanto has sued companies that advertised that their products did not contain any genetically-engineered growth hormone?

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/monsanto-v-oakhurst-dairy/


And as far as helping third world countries, I'd say that argument is pretty shoddy. Are you aware that thousands and thousands of farmers in India are committing suicide due to spiraling debts caused by GMOs?

Shankara, respected farmer, loving husband and father, had taken his own life. Less than 24 hours earlier, facing the loss of his land due to debt, he drank a cupful of chemical insecticide.

Unable to pay back the equivalent of two years' earnings, he was in despair. He could see no way out.

[...]

Shankara's crop had failed - twice. Of course, famine and pestilence are part of India's ancient story.

But the death of this respected farmer has been blamed on something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops.

Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.

So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.

[...]

For official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed confirm that in a huge humanitarian crisis, more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves here each month.

Simple, rural people, they are dying slow, agonising deaths. Most swallow insecticide - a pricey substance they were promised they would not need when they were coerced into growing expensive GM crops.

It seems that many are massively in debt to local money-lenders, having over-borrowed to purchase GM seed.

[...]

Latta Ramesh, 38, drank insecticide after her crops failed - two years after her husband disappeared when the GM debts became too much.

She left her ten-year-old son, Rashan, in the care of relatives. 'He cries when he thinks of his mother,' said the dead woman's aunt, sitting listlessly in shade near the fields.

Village after village, families told how they had fallen into debt after being persuaded to buy GM seeds instead of traditional cotton seeds.

The price difference is staggering: £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, compared with less than £10 for 1,000 times more traditional seeds.

But GM salesmen and government officials had promised farmers that these were 'magic seeds' - with better crops that would be free from parasites and insects.

[...]

Far from being 'magic seeds', GM pest-proof 'breeds' of cotton have been devastated by bollworms, a voracious parasite.

Nor were the farmers told that these seeds require double the amount of water. This has proved a matter of life and death.

With rains failing for the past two years, many GM crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.

Having taken loans from traditional money lenders at extortionate rates, hundreds of thousands of small farmers have faced losing their land as the expensive seeds fail, while those who could struggle on faced a fresh crisis.

When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.

But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.

As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death.

[...]

But the debt does not die with her husband: unless she can find a way of paying it off, she will not be able to afford the children's schooling. They will lose their land, joining the hordes seen begging in their thousands by the roadside throughout this vast, chaotic country.

Cruelly, it's the young who are suffering most from the 'GM Genocide'  -  the very generation supposed to be lifted out of a life of hardship and misery by these 'magic seeds'.

Here in the suicide belt of India, the cost of the genetically modified future is murderously high.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... crops.html

Gotta say, Stone... This does not look good. I'm now left wondering if there is anything good about GMOs. What exactly are you defending here?

[smurff]

Would you believe that Monsanto has sued companies that advertised that their products did not contain any genetically-engineered growth hormone?

Monsanto has also sued innocent farmers who did NOT plant GMO corn on their land, but wound up with it anyway because pollen from GMO plants at nearby farms linked up with their plants and contaminated the clean corn.  Monsanto insisted that because the contaminated corn (determined from genetic tests) contained the Monsanto GMO, the innocent farmers should have to pay royalties to them.

Monsanto is now suing USA farmers who manage to save GMO seed corn from one growing season to another, like farmers have done since the dawn of civilization.  It seems the farmers bought the seeds one year, grew and harvested the GMO corn, then saved some of the harvested corn as seeds for the next growing season.  Monsanto claims the farmers were licensed for only one growing season and have to cough up payment for the saved seeds.  (BTW, this is an example of a problem with patents on genes and other parts of living things, another topic in the "Other" section.)  It's a similar problem to the one in India which has led to a quarter million suicide among farmers.

Here's another problem with GMOs we haven't discussed yet.

Years ago (late 90s/early 00s) Monsanto included "terminator" technology in the genetic profiles of certain GMOs, to prevent farmers from saving crops from one season to another. (I don't remember whether it was with corn or soy.) It was implanted genetically into the cells, so it was a different sort of sterility from that seen in certain non-GMO hybrids; scientists were alarmed.  There was a big outcry, even among those scientists who generally approved of GMOs.  The concern was that with terminator genes, a couple of years of drought, floods or other plant-killing events could force a major portion of the food supply not simply into shortages, but into extinction.  The "terminator" genes could even unintentionally transfer to non GMO crops, terminating them as well.  Monsanto halted the program for food crops.  (I don't know whether they brought it back for non-food crops like cotton.)  Such technology has not been outlawed in the USA, and Monsanto can sneak it back at any time.

[stone]

Usery is bad and I've argued that on here. Usery has been around since before GMOs.

I'm skeptical about patent protection for seeds just as I am about patent protection for medicines. Just as for medicines, I wonder whether prizes rather than patents might be a better way to pay for development costs.

Gumby

Classic hybrid manipulation is obviously acceptable — since it is much more limiting — but its dangers underscore the risks with unnatural and poorly studied GMO manipulation.

To me that is just hand waving. What makes you say that transgene integration is particularly "unnatural"? Your own link was to a paper showing that fragments of DNA from a plant integrated into the genome of a gut microbe. That's an example of the same process occuring naturally isn't it? Also why is it relevant whether it is natural. We don't scrutinize other non-biological technologies on the basis of how "natural" they are perceived to be. We scutinize them on a risk versus benefits basis.
When you say transgenesis is "poorly studied" I'm also left groping for what your underlying objection is. To my mind introgression of a trait by classic hybridization with a wild plant (as in the cyanide grass example) is a lot more of a murky delve into the unknown. The trait from the wild plant is often entirely uncharacterized. The plant breeder may simply know that he is breeding in a section of genome that "causes" a certain trait with no idea how or what else is in there. By contrast the transgene will be a totally known quantity. The crop plant acting as a host for the transgene will also be fairly well characterized so the plant breeder will know where the transgene has gone in. It seems to me safer but we are talking about safer than something that  already has a great safety record.

[Gumby]

Stone, you are arguing some pretty outlandish positions. The worst thing that happens with hybridization is that you get a bad trait that already occurs naturally. But when you take a gene gun and force genes from one species that can't normally mate with another species, you get traits that would never occur (i.e. a plant that produces spider venom). That's not natural.

The hybridization of one's stomach bacteria is natural, but not when GMOs are introduced into the equation. Normally we don't eat spider venom, but now we have the option of turning our stomach bacteria into venom.

Stone, again, what exactly are you defending with GMOs? Has anything good come from them? I'm struggling to find something redeeming about them. Please answer.

[stone]

Gumby, my "outlandish position" is simply agreeing with the people who actually know about plants and agriculture. This report makes the case for using GMOs:
http://royalsociety.org/policy/publicat ... -benefits/

Food security is one of this century's key global challenges. Producing enough food for the increasing global population must be done in the face of changing consumption patterns, the impacts of climate change and the growing scarcity of water and land. Crop production methods must also sustain the environment, preserve natural resources and support livelihoods of farmers and rural populations around the world. This report discusses the need for a sustainable intensification' of global agriculture in which yields are increased without adverse environmental impact and without the cultivation of more land.

The report begins by setting out the challenges to food crop production. It then goes on to examine in detail the various technologies that might be used to enhance production, with the conclusion that a diversity of approaches are needed. Due to the scale of the challenge, no technology should be ruled out, and different strategies may need to be employed in different regions and circumstances.

[Gumby]

Once again, Stone, you're just regurgitating industry-sponsored science. Prof Sir David Baulcombe FRS, who chaired that controversial Royal Society Working Group, has close ties to a handful of major biotech corporations and his institutions receive massive donations and funding from such companies.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/David_Baulcombe

All these "people who actually know about plants and agriculture" that you agree with are apparently receiving money from the GM industry.

Anyway, Monsanto isn't using GM technology to make the world a better place. These companies are just using GMOs to make a larger profit. I don't think you can honestly say that the farmers in India who are committing suicide, by drinking insecticide — by the tens of thousands — feel that these companies are following the spirit of the Royal Society.

And there's no evidence that any of the benefits of GMOs are living up to their promise. For instance, in the United States, "super weeds" have sprung up that resist Roundup now. The farmers are now worse off than they were before they started using GM seeds!

NYTimes: Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds

Again, where is the benefit of GMOs in practice?

[stone]

Gumby, thanks to the hysterics about GM, very few GMO crops are currently in use. You claim that the Monsanto varieties are useless but farmers do choose to use them. Why do they do that if they are as rubbish as you make out? If it wasn't for the anti-GMO lobby, a far wider range of GMO crops would be in use and so there would be better examples. Hopefully the Gates Foundation will bring some into use. I've already said that reasonable objections to patent protection should not be conflated with a blanket condemnation of transgenic crops.

I'm not regurgitating anything. I'm just calling baloney on the anti-GMO lobby because I personally see it as baloney. It is ludicrous to say that everyone who supports use of GMO crops is only doing so for financial gain. People who use transgenesis day in day out in the lab quite understandably are perplexed by the limited agricultural application of such a safe, simple and basic technology. 

[stone]

6% of the Gates Foundation funding is for GMO development:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agricult ... ology.aspx

We realize there are concerns about funding research into genetically modified crops, and we understand these concerns. We are resolute in our long-term commitment to working with grantees, governments, and farmers to ensure these new varieties effectively deliver the benefits intended and are safe for farmers, consumers, and the environment. Here are six reasons we fund research in this area.

Transgenic approaches offer promising solutions to farmers facing difficult growing conditions.

Quality seeds are key to a good harvest. Farmers need seeds that grow well in harsh environments, where drought can be common and a variety of diseases and pests plague crops. Many of the staple crops that small farmers in the developing world grow and rely on as their main source of calories offer little nutritional value.

Sometimes genetic modification can address the challenges facing small farmers faster and more efficiently than conventional breeding alone.

One example is disease-resistant cassava. Cassava, the major staple crop for 250 million people in Africa, is being threatened by the rapid spread of Cassava Brown Streak Disease (CBSD). We’re funding the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and others to investigate ways to limit the devastating effect of this disease on farmers and their families. When CBSD hits, farmers can lose their entire crop, leaving their families hungry. While conventional breeding is making some headway, genetic modification can offer additional solutions to combating CBSD, as well as other destructive viruses and pests.

Drought is another complicated and urgent problem. Maize is the most widely grown staple crop in Africa, where more than 300 million people depend on it as their main source of food.

In one of the foundation’s grants, conventional breeding has proven effective in breeding drought-tolerant varieties of maize. We are also funding research to determine if adding genetic modification can bolster that even further.

Through a grant to the Nairobi-based African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), we are funding research to develop additional drought-tolerant maize varieties. This grant is funding work with national research organizations in five African countries and uses conventional breeding, marker-assisted breeding, and genetic modification to develop these new varieties.

The new varieties are being developed to increase yields under moderate drought, compared to varieties available to farmers today. Modest yield gains could mean an additional 2 million tons of maize during drought years, which could feed 14 million to 21 million people.

[MachineGhost]

We realize there are concerns about funding research into genetically modified crops, and we understand these concerns. We are resolute in our long-term commitment to working with grantees, governments, and farmers to ensure these new varieties effectively deliver the benefits intended and are safe for farmers, consumers, and the environment. Here are six reasons we fund research in this area.

GF is a non-profit corporation, so it's certainly got a better attitude than Monsanto has about the situation.  But will this prudence be enough to ensure 100% safety and no unintended consequences to humanity?  Its not as if GE technology is threatening to uproot oligoarcherical interests as all previous technological inventions have done, which makes Monsanto's tyrannical behavior seem all the more bizzarre.

[Pointedstick]

GF is a non-profit corporation, so it's certainly got a better attitude than Monsanto has about the situation.  But will this prudence be enough to ensure 100% safety and no unintended consequences to humanity?

That's a pretty high standard. I'm having a hard time coming up with any invention or social reform that would fit.

[Gumby]

Stone, the quote from the Gates Foundation basically just said, 'GM really looks promising one day, and just look at what we've done with conventional breeding!'

It's almost laughable...

The wonderful story you posted about GMOs, helping farmers battle Cassava, was simply done through "conventional breeding"!!!

The rest of the statement is just a lot of hope for the future of the technology.

I'm still left wondering why GMOs are needed when even the Gates Foundation can't come up with a single example that "conventional breeding" hasn't been able to solve.

I think it's fine to research these crops in a lab funded by the Gates Foundation to solve the world's problems. But, it's quite another thing for a Fortune 500 company to push untested crops into the food supply so quickly that they can barely be deemed safe by third parties. In the US, the crops are only really tested by the companies that make them.

So, understand that GMOs are only about ONE thing right now... M-O-N-E-Y

That's the only reason farmers use GMO crops right now. They aren't doing it to save the world. They aren't doing it to make their food taste better or be more nutritious. They are using GMOs simply because of MONEY.

When your food supply is based on purely capitalistic motives, you don't get a better product. You just get a lot of marketing and packaging to convince people to consume a sub-par product — something you seem to prefer. That's how the world works. So, feel free to buy into the GMO marketing. In the meantime, I'll choose to support farmers who are more interested in producing high quality food with sustainable farming techniques that have a proven safety record of, oh, about 10,000 years.

[Gumby]

Personally I prefer Howard Buffet's (Warren Buffet's son's) approach to solving the world's farming issues. Instead of just mailing untested GMOs and combines to third world countries (he actually used to just send them equipment), he now advocates thoroughly researching all options (including some GMOs) but only doing what's best for each individual culture.

“Stop thinking that what we know how to do is going to work for somebody else,”? Buffett said. “We need to be intelligent enough and humble enough to admit that we don’t know everything and that we certainly don’t know some things in other parts of the world that need to happen.”? — Howard Buffet

Learn more... http://www.thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org

So, I'm willing to admit that there may be some uses for GM crops in the future — in certain situations. But, that day hasn't arrived yet. The long term research still needs to be done. And GMs certainly aren't required in Western nations right now.

[stone]

Gumby lots of things we benefit from are not "required". I'm sure that life was very comfortable for wealthy people in the UK or the USA 100 years ago. Why adopt any of the new technologies from the last 100 years?

[Gumby]

Things just need to be safe. Just saying GMOs are safe doesn't make them safe. I'm sure one day they can be safe, but that day is not here quite yet. There are clearly too many "glitches" right now.

It's like having a "beta" version of food. Not only would it be nice if they actually labeled it a "beta" version of food, but it would be safer if the "beta" version wasn't used so widely. Most people don't want to eat "beta" version food. Most people would prefer the "stable" release if given the choice.

Let the 'developers' and GMO fans (like you, Stone) eat the "beta" version and test it out for the rest of us.

[stone]

Gumby, from what I can see your declaration that GMOs are "unsafe" isn't ever going to be swayed. I'm happy for people to choose to eat non-GMO food just as I'm happy for people to eat Kosher food. What bugs me though is when the anti-GMO lobby is so sanctimonious about their (in my view) baseless anxieties and do everything they can to discredit anyone who finds those anxieties unfathomable.

[Gumby]

But you even admitted that, with any technology, there are "glitches". Why would anyone want glitches in their food?

[Pointedstick]

But you even admitted that, with any technology, there are "glitches". Why would anyone want glitches in their food?

Aren't there already glitches in our food, though? There's HFCS and unfermented soy everywhere, grain-fed cattle and vegetarian chickens, kids drinking soda and eating massive loads of carbs and sugar, and so on and so forth. If we want a healthy food supply, eliminating GM foods is just one tiny step on a long road.

[Gumby]

But you even admitted that, with any technology, there are "glitches". Why would anyone want glitches in their food?

Aren't there already glitches in our food, though? There's HFCS and unfermented soy everywhere, grain-fed cattle and vegetarian chickens, kids drinking soda and eating massive loads of carbs and sugar, and so on and so forth. If we want a healthy food supply, eliminating GM foods is just one tiny step on a long road.

Absolutely. But, I think the problem is that one could easily be tricked into thinking they are eating a natural "stable" ingredient (i.e. corn, squash, cucumbers, etc.) without realizing that it's DNA and digestive behavior is a bit different from what their body was expecting (i.e. a "glitch"). It's a little different when the ingredient label says "High Fructose Corn Syrup" and you know what you're getting and you're fine with that kind of potential "glitch". I mean, that's why we have ingredient labels in the first place.

Just having truthful labels would basically solve the problem I'm talking about. That's what Prop 37 is all about! You'd know which foods were the "beta" versions and might have "glitches". Clearly the food industry doesn't want people to know what they are eating, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting Prop 37 so vigorously.

[MachineGhost]

Just having truthful labels would basically solve the problem I'm talking about. That's what Prop 37 is all about! You'd know which foods were the "beta" versions and might have "glitches". Clearly the food industry doesn't want people to know what they are eating, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting Prop 37 so vigorously.

Like, we'll find out how stupid and ignorant the voters are vs unrestricted free political speech that has everyones panties all twisted in a bunch, for sure!

[Pointedstick]

I actually get to vote on prop 37, and I have a some concerns not so much with its intent, but with its implementation. This post gives a good rundown of some of the problematic details:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... ornia.html

[MachineGhost]

i have to vote on this one too, it sure ain't easy being a limited government guy....

i would like to know what food is GMO and what isn't, it seems perfectly reasonable.... then the lawyers get a hold of it and the wording and implementation are not a simple easy to follow cost effective method to achieve a reasonable end, they are loophole filled wedges to get more bureaucracy put on the backs of people that need government off their backs the most, and it probably wont have much of an impact on the big guys who are the most likely to be cramming GMO's into their products....

damned if you do because you create more incompetent regulation damned if you don't because food remains unlabeled

Here's how I rationalize it: Libertarians believe in a limited government, right?  They are not minarchists or anarchists.  So, requiring transparency in labeling in regards to GE food is simply expressing your right to self-defense via the monopoly on initiatory coercion known as politics.  We don't live in a market force utopia; crony capitalists will and do use subterfuge, intimidation and coercion to make a profit off the population.

Sure, the proposition is nowhere perfect in only that unique way that can be corrupted in the USA.  I just hope the unintended consequence is not slapping "May contain GE food." on everything as a cop out.  That would be violating the spirit and intent of the proposition.  But the devil will be in the details of the implementing regulations by the CA bureaucracy.

Sometimes its better to take a risk, because nothing will certainly change otherwise.  There's always another proposition or citizen's initiative that can be undertaken to fix a poor outcome.  CA seems very unique with this kind of "direct democracy".

[smurff]

Craigr and MediumTex have a phrase they use in their new book:  "Don't outsmart yourself."  It's so important they use it several times in the book, particularly in the chapters about the four separate assets and implementation.

In other words, don't overthink something that is important to do, to the point that you do nothing, simply because what's available is not perfection.

If you want to see transparency in GMO labeling and you have an opportunity to vote for some transparency in California, please vote for the prop measure even though it is not perfect. Most Americans cannot vote for or against the measure even though the outcome will affect each of us. No new law is perfect, and in the early stages have some silly provisions that get fixed over time.

It's taken 20 years to get to this point-- we have some chance of having our foods properly labeled.  Not voting for transparency (if transparency is what you want) because of minor shortcomings in the proposition may mean a setback that will ensure the provision you really want will be off the table another 20 years.

at this point i still plan to vote for labeling, and unless there is some incredibly horrible revelation about the law between now and then, i doubt i will change my mind.

given the unknowns about GMO's and the difficulty getting labeling needs met through free market demand, it doesn't seem like a unreasonable use of government, on the other hand i hate (absolutely *Hate*) to see badly written law screwing the little guy, i suspect this law will need an overhaul and fixes from the get go...

[stone]

Something that interest me about the GMO debate is that I've never personaly come across someone who has a working knowledge of how to genetically modify and yet has these fears about GMO stuff. Does that say something about how "expertise" blinds people to real dangers or does it say something about how wider education is lacking or what?

As an example of why the anti-GMO lobby baffles me, consider that 85% of the maize genome consists of transposible elements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposons

A transposable element (TE) is a DNA sequence that can change its relative position (self-transpose) within the genome of a single cell. The mechanism of transposition can be either "copy and paste" or "cut and paste". Transposition can create phenotypically significant mutations and alter the cell's genome size. Barbara McClintock's discovery of these jumping genes early in her career earned her a Nobel prize in 1983.[1]
TEs make up a large fraction of the C-value of eukaryotic cells. They are often considered "junk DNA".

[MachineGhost]

A transposable element (TE) is a DNA sequence that can change its relative position (self-transpose) within the genome of a single cell. The mechanism of transposition can be either "copy and paste" or "cut and paste". Transposition can create phenotypically significant mutations and alter the cell's genome size. Barbara McClintock's discovery of these jumping genes early in her career earned her a Nobel prize in 1983.[1]
TEs make up a large fraction of the C-value of eukaryotic cells. They are often considered "junk DNA".

Nature does not transpose extraspecies or extraterrestrial genes or DNA.  Its as simple as that.  There's built in checks and balances that GE coercively overrides.