Monsato - Anyone Protest Yesterday?

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

I did some work in the 80s with a company who's parent company was Monsanto and at the time Monsanto had the global rights to 'Aspartame' which for the unitiated is a saccharine substitute sweetener. Throughout the company's factory they had numerous drinks machines (fizzy can types) and also an evening bar. None of which sold diet drinks in any form. Monsanto knew at the time of the carcinogenic qualities of aspartame and wouldn't let their own employees be exposed to it for fear of future litigation.
Never had a diet drink since, now a mere 28 stone in weight but feeling good for it!

TNBA

TTF

 

[GreersElbow]

Anti gmo protestors are funny.

Fricking hate GMs and also fricking hate poverty. Just can't win with certain people. I completely agree with GM, so long as there is labelling. I expect that with all types of produce and meat.

 

[BadFish]

The post I was talking about was #12 which actually contained some science.

I'd like to hear about what types of GM you are unconvinced or uncertain about but you don't provide any examples at any point.

Instead, I'll show you why I think it is a much better solution than what is currently done. Many plants released onto the market today were produced using Accelerated Seed Mutagenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding) where plants are bombarded with chemicals or radiation, in order to cause mutations. These mutations will occur very rapidly, completely at random and are impossible to trace. All the seeds from these plants are planted and grown and then the ones which may have gained some beneficial traits are selected. Despite using toxic chemicals and high levels of radiation in abundance, there is almost no control over this industry and I can guarantee that a large amount of the products we buy from the supermarket will have some ingredients that were produced by this source.

So again, there is no or limited genetic profiling of what gene changes have occurred in these plants to lead to the new traits we observe, there is almost no regulation of the industry or labelling of products and yet there's zero public outcry.

Compare this with GM, where known genes, with a known sequence and function are added into a specific and well-defined region of a another's chromosome. There's a lot of regulation and plants may be grown for multiple generations and observed before they stand a chance of being released onto the market. Again if you could give some specific examples of your concerns it'd be easier to address.

So like the concerns about Monsatos business practices were okay beacuse other do it too you are now telling me not to worry about GMOs because there is something worse out there? Sorry i just don't follow this logic.

As for my main concerns well if I need to spell them out then here you are.

1. Monsato's business practices (the fact that other companies also behave appallingly means nothing to me and does not excuse their behaviour)
2. Monsato are spending millions lobbying against the labeling of GM products
3. IMHO there has not been enough scientific testing of GMO's to prove that there are no long term effects on us or the environment
4. Why have 8 EU countries and other around the world taken the step of banning Monsato products

The rest are I suppose less specific but littered throughout the links I have posted on this thread.

What I would really like to know though is what makes you so convinced that GMO's are safe and pose not threat to us or the environment?

 

[BadFish]

Anti gmo protestors are funny.

Fricking hate GMs and also fricking hate poverty. Just can't win with certain people. I completely agree with GM, so long as there is labelling. I expect that with all types of produce and meat.

Are GMO's reducing poverty?

 

[beorhthelm]

3. IMHO there has not been enough scientific testing of GMO's to prove that there are no long term effects on us or the environment

and why is that? because the anti-GMO protesters prevent any field trails, either objecting to the planting or ripping up the fields. there's an awful lot of scientific testing, to find the right genes to use for a desired effect and to prove that the effect will be transfered as expected. its just the anti-GMO lobby ignore that research. they dont want the GMO on principle, but dont define why or what is wrong. why does a genetically modified crop pose a threat to us or the environment, bearing in mind that most crops are domesticated and not going to cross polinate with anything wild anyway?

 

[BadFish]

and why is that? because the anti-GMO protesters prevent any field trails, either objecting to the planting or ripping up the fields. there's an awful lot of scientific testing, to find the right genes to use for a desired effect and to prove that the effect will be transfered as expected. its just the anti-GMO lobby ignore that research. they dont want the GMO on principle, but dont define why or what is wrong. why does a genetically modified crop pose a threat to us or the environment, bearing in mind that most crops are domesticated and not going to cross polinate with anything wild anyway?

Yet none is getting posted on this thread no matter how many times I ask.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yet none is getting posted on this thread no matter how many times I ask.

this isnt appliedbiologychat, its out there to find. as a discussion between laymen on the matter, i'd rather hear good reason why the GMOs are a threat.

 

[BadFish]

this isnt appliedbiologychat, its out there to find. as a discussion between laymen on the matter, i'd rather hear good reason why the GMOs are a threat.

Then read the many links I have posted up or respond to points iI posted when asked my concerns.

I remain skeptical about GMOs but am in no way certain or convinced of their evil. I have asked someone who is seemingly convinced of their position that there is no danger in GMOs to provide me with the information that makes him so certain.

I would like to hear why GMOs are not a threat because I firmly believe that the burden of proof should be on the companies that have introduced them to us and our ecosystem. So far I cannot find this evidence. You cannot provide it? that is fine, i will keep looking.

 

[dougdeep]

It's one of the few good things about getting old. I'll probably die before all this stuff has any effect on me anyway.

 

[beorhthelm]

Then read the many links I have posted up or respond to points iI posted when asked my concerns.

as far as i can see the links were about the protest itself, the business practice of Monsanto and the effects of a herbicide. not about GMOs, though tbf we've moved their from the original point. i dont recall people protesting against Microsoft, who have similar business practices stiffleing competitors. i dont see protest against the other producers of herbicides, pesticides, or even GMO's for that matter. bit odd when you step back from it.

 

[Husty]

So like the concerns about Monsatos business practices were okay beacuse other do it too you are now telling me not to worry about GMOs because there is something worse out there? Sorry i just don't follow this logic.

As for my main concerns well if I need to spell them out then here you are.

3. IMHO there has not been enough scientific testing of GMO's to prove that there are no long term effects on us or the environment
4. Why have 8 EU countries and other around the world taken the step of banning Monsato products

The rest are I suppose less specific but littered throughout the links I have posted on this thread.

What I would really like to know though is what makes you so convinced that GMO's are safe and pose not threat to us or the environment?

Stop putting words into my mouth, the 'shady business practices' you specifically quoted I was able to explain, and the example I gave you was the status quo, so I told you what the status quo is and then explained how GM is a better alternative to what we currently do.

You need to spell out specific concerns because all you're doing is saying 'I'm not sure about GM' which is fair enough, but without offering any specific concerns, i.e. gene flow into agricultural pests, reduced biodiversity or the potential to rapidly create large quantities of toxic substances in bacteria. If you offered some specific concerns I'd happily talk about them but the fact you don't makes me think your actual understanding of the process of GM is somewhat lacking and that therefore your fear is of an unknown rather than anything else, which I really cannot do much to help you with. Organisations like Greenpeace mainly object to GMO today because it's 'unnatural' to which I have to respond, 'what is natural today?' everything we eat today has been modified greatly by us, we modify the world around us in all sorts of catastrophic ways so the idea of using GM suddenly being a step too far has never made much sense to me.

Re. your question about Poverty, GM organisms have a great scope to assist in this area, I'm sure you've heard of Golden Rice (http://www.goldenrice.org/), a charity project which could cheaply alleviate several serious health conditions in sub-saharan africa and elsewhere by adding Vitamin A, which is naturally deficient in their diets to rice. Unfortunately, despite being concieved in the late nineties. Work began on it in 1992 and after 8 years of research a paper was published in 2000. 13 years on the product is still not available in any market, and hundreds of thousands of deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency continue each year.

13 years of testing, and the product still isn't available.

You seem to want me to link some magic single piece of breakthrough research that will prove that GM is safe. Science doesn't work like that and no single piece of evidence will ever prove one way or the other, instead we conduct lots of targeted research at specific areas, and then must bring all this research together to conclude whether or not we think it is safe. Having seen a lot of evidence my conclusion is that it is safe, and if you want to learn more about GM my advice would be to go and read the research as well, because there is far too much of it to quickly and easily summarise in a single piece.

I've not read it in full, but here's a link to a review article on the subject of bringing GM maize products to market which you might find interesting (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23668783)

 

[BadFish]

Stop putting words into my mouth, the 'shady business practices' you specifically quoted I was able to explain, and the example I gave you was the status quo, so I told you what the status quo is and then explained how GM is a better alternative to what we currently do.

You need to spell out specific concerns because all you're doing is saying 'I'm not sure about GM' which is fair enough, but without offering any specific concerns, i.e. gene flow into agricultural pests, reduced biodiversity or the potential to rapidly create large quantities of toxic substances in bacteria. If you offered some specific concerns I'd happily talk about them but the fact you don't makes me think your actual understanding of the process of GM is somewhat lacking and that therefore your fear is of an unknown rather than anything else, which I really cannot do much to help you with. Organisations like Greenpeace mainly object to GMO today because it's 'unnatural' to which I have to respond, 'what is natural today?' everything we eat today has been modified greatly by us, we modify the world around us in all sorts of catastrophic ways so the idea of using GM suddenly being a step too far has never made much sense to me.

Re. your question about Poverty, GM organisms have a great scope to assist in this area, I'm sure you've heard of Golden Rice (http://www.goldenrice.org/), a charity project which could cheaply alleviate several serious health conditions in sub-saharan africa and elsewhere by adding Vitamin A, which is naturally deficient in their diets to rice. Unfortunately, despite being concieved in the late nineties. Work began on it in 1992 and after 8 years of research a paper was published in 2000. 13 years on the product is still not available in any market, and hundreds of thousands of deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency continue each year.

13 years of testing, and the product still isn't available.

You seem to want me to link some magic single piece of breakthrough research that will prove that GM is safe. Science doesn't work like that and no single piece of evidence will ever prove one way or the other, instead we conduct lots of targeted research at specific areas, and then must bring all this research together to conclude whether or not we think it is safe. Having seen a lot of evidence my conclusion is that it is safe, and if you want to learn more about GM my advice would be to go and read the research as well, because there is far too much of it to quickly and easily summarise in a single piece.

I've not read it in full, but here's a link to a review article on the subject of bringing GM maize products to market which you might find interesting (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23668783)

What you call putting words into your mouth I call paraphrasing, I just expressed my understanding of your explanation and that I disagree with your logic.

This suggests that GMOs will not reduce poverty because they are more about profit rather than need. Perhaps the company developing the product has not found a way to make suitable profit from it and that is why it is not available.

http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n34/v2n34a03-altieri.htm

For what it is worth you are correct about my understanding of the GM process it is limited. Which is why I am interested in finding out more, I had hoped you may be able to help me with this but all you seem to be doing is trying to bully me into making specific claims about GMOs which presumably you will tell me are wrong. You asked me for my specific concerns, which I gave you, and you largely ignored. You suggest that you dealt with the issue of business practices but I disagree with your logic. You continue to talk about the abundant evidence to the safety of GMOs yet post no links to said evidence.

May i ask where you found out that Greenpeace object to GMOs because they are 'unnatural'? Looking at their website they seem to have more specific concerns than this. Are you putting words in their mouth?

Although While I was there I found a(nother) specific concern for you to address/ignore.

Witness accounts from Argentina and USA and Dr. Benbrook's forecast report present a grim view of a future Europe: the over-reliance on herbicide-tolerant crops in the U.S. has triggered the emergence and rapid spread of nearly two dozen glyphosate-resistant weeds, driving up farm production costs, as well as the volume and toxicity of herbicides needed to prevent major yield loss. Europe will face a similar reality by 2025, should herbicide tolerant genetically engineered crops be authorised for cultivation.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/growing-doubt/

 

[BadFish]

as far as i can see the links were about the protest itself, the business practice of Monsanto and the effects of a herbicide. not about GMOs, though tbf we've moved their from the original point. i dont recall people protesting against Microsoft, who have similar business practices stiffleing competitors. i dont see protest against the other producers of herbicides, pesticides, or even GMO's for that matter. bit odd when you step back from it.

I think perhaps our food is more important to people than our computers and that what the GMO producers are doing is irreversible.

It is odd why the protests are about Monsanto specifically, makes me wonder why?

 

[Husty]

This suggests that GMOs will not reduce poverty because they are more about profit rather than need. Perhaps the company developing the product has not found a way to make suitable profit from it and that is why it is not available.

It is a charity project, did you even visit the link I provided?

http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n34/v2n34a03-altieri.htm

Nothing particularly wrong with the article, but I do not agree with the view that because it wont save the planet on it's own that it should not be pursued. Also it's from 1999, which really is a very long time ago.

For what it is worth you are correct about my understanding of the GM process it is limited. Which is why I am interested in finding out more, I had hoped you may be able to help me with this but all you seem to be doing is trying to bully me into making specific claims about GMOs which presumably you will tell me are wrong. You asked me for my specific concerns, which I gave you, and you largely ignored. You suggest that you dealt with the issue of business practices but I disagree with your logic. You continue to talk about the abundant evidence to the safety of GMOs yet post no links to said evidence.

If you really want to get to the bottom of it I'd suggest a degree, if you had a couple of questions I'd be happy to answer them. I don't think I've dealt with the issues, I won't argue that Monsanto isn't a nasty company, because it is. I just don't believe they are any worse than any of the other corporate monsters out there. i.e. Nike, Coca Cola e.t.c.

May i ask where you found out that Greenpeace object to GMOs because they are 'unnatural'? Looking at their website they seem to have more specific concerns than this. Are you putting words in their mouth?

The last time I looked at something coming out of Greenpeace it contained about as much actual science as my left nipple, but I do not personally feel that link changes anything, there's plenty of emotive language and some anecdotal evidence but they don't seem keen to link to any scientific studies. Re. their point on Herbicide use increasing on GE crops, here's a study which suggests otherwise http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/agbio2010/Other Readings/Kleter Pestidice Use GM Crop Rev 2007.pdf, there is evidence both ways but this isn't suggested by Greenpeace, who present it as a fact.

Regarding Gene Flow or Genetic Pollution, it is a well observable phenomenon which has created some problems. However there are ways to manage and prevent it. It's also worth understanding that most GM traits do not confer any kind of selectional advantage onto a wild plant, things like an increased fruit size or more conventional growth height will only hinder the plants ability to succeed in the wild and therefore the trait wont spread through the population. Also, gene flow is only a high risk in certain plants with known agricultural weeds where gene transfer regularly takes place. Something like a Banana plant isn't going to cause genetic pollution because there are no similar plants that grow with it to which the genes could spread.

Both of these are good reasons for research and caution, and I would always advise research and caution but I don't believe these or any issues with GM should lead to the outright banning of GM products as organisations like Greenpeace are keen to bring about.



Witness accounts from Argentina and USA and Dr. Benbrook's forecast report present a grim view of a future Europe: the over-reliance on herbicide-tolerant crops in the U.S. has triggered the emergence and rapid spread of nearly two dozen glyphosate-resistant weeds, driving up farm production costs, as well as the volume and toxicity of herbicides needed to prevent major yield loss. Europe will face a similar reality by 2025, should herbicide tolerant genetically engineered crops be authorised for cultivation.

 

[BadFish]

It is a charity project, did you even visit the link I provided?



Nothing particularly wrong with the article, but I do not agree with the view that because it wont save the planet on it's own that it should not be pursued. Also it's from 1999, which really is a very long time ago.



If you really want to get to the bottom of it I'd suggest a degree, if you had a couple of questions I'd be happy to answer them. I don't think I've dealt with the issues, I won't argue that Monsanto isn't a nasty company, because it is. I just don't believe they are any worse than any of the other corporate monsters out there. i.e. Nike, Coca Cola e.t.c.



The last time I looked at something coming out of Greenpeace it contained about as much actual science as my left nipple, but I do not personally feel that link changes anything, there's plenty of emotive language and some anecdotal evidence but they don't seem keen to link to any scientific studies. Re. their point on Herbicide use increasing on GE crops, here's a study which suggests otherwise http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/agbio2010/Other Readings/Kleter Pestidice Use GM Crop Rev 2007.pdf, there is evidence both ways but this isn't suggested by Greenpeace, who present it as a fact.

Regarding Gene Flow or Genetic Pollution, it is a well observable phenomenon which has created some problems. However there are ways to manage and prevent it. It's also worth understanding that most GM traits do not confer any kind of selectional advantage onto a wild plant, things like an increased fruit size or more conventional growth height will only hinder the plants ability to succeed in the wild and therefore the trait wont spread through the population. Also, gene flow is only a high risk in certain plants with known agricultural weeds where gene transfer regularly takes place. Something like a Banana plant isn't going to cause genetic pollution because there are no similar plants that grow with it to which the genes could spread.

Both of these are good reasons for research and caution, and I would always advise research and caution but I don't believe these or any issues with GM should lead to the outright banning of GM products as organisations like Greenpeace are keen to bring about.



Witness accounts from Argentina and USA and Dr. Benbrook's forecast report present a grim view of a future Europe: the over-reliance on herbicide-tolerant crops in the U.S. has triggered the emergence and rapid spread of nearly two dozen glyphosate-resistant weeds, driving up farm production costs, as well as the volume and toxicity of herbicides needed to prevent major yield loss. Europe will face a similar reality by 2025, should herbicide tolerant genetically engineered crops be authorised for cultivation.

Thanks for the link I will read it when I get a moment.

The part in bold brings me back to my original concern: Is this research being done and is/has caution been used?

Just out of interest what are your qualifications in this area?

 

[looney]

GM crops have been around for donkeys years. Nobody has died from eating GM food, No frankenstien hybrid has wiped out another species or caused an environmental catastophy.

Its all luddite scaremongering.

 

[Husty]

Just out of interest what are your qualifications in this area?

I don't have any.

Re. research, I'll come back again to my point on Golden Rice. It's taken 13 years to get to market (and still isn't there) because of the rigorous testing demanded by governments. Here's a page form the website I linked earlier which shows what it takes to get a food onto the market. (http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how3_biosafety.php). Here's another article. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20650337) and finally. (but be aware that it's written by a Monsanto employee http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18296343)

 

[BadFish]

Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France has been a victim of attacks for revealing that Monsanto products lead to health problems. In 2011, he won a libel case against the French Association for Plant Biotechnology and its president, Marc Fellous. Then, in September of 2012, Séralini demonstrated in a two-year study of rats fed with NK603 maize, that either with or without the use of the herbicide Roundup, a higher frequency of tumors, kidney and liver pathologies were detected. EFSA gave a green light to this maize based on studies over a 90-day period. Monsanto has since waged a heavy PR campaign in an effort to discredit Séralini's findings, although the French Minister of Agriculture, Stéphane Le Foll, has stressed that long term studies on GMOs are necessary and that evaluation and control at the European level should be improved.

There seems to be study after study out there that brings into question the heath properties of GMOs. I just don't get how you can be so sure that they are all safe.,

 

[BadFish]

I don't have any.

Re. research, I'll come back again to my point on Golden Rice. It's taken 13 years to get to market (and still isn't there) because of the rigorous testing demanded by governments. Here's a page form the website I linked earlier which shows what it takes to get a food onto the market. (http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how3_biosafety.php). Here's another article. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20650337) and finally. (but be aware that it's written by a Monsanto employee http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18296343)

I wonder if GoldenRice would have more luck if they installed ex employees in the regulatory agencies and paid a few billion a year to lobby governments to their way of thinking.

With so many tests for GMOs it seems very odd that opponents still feel that they are not adequately tested.

 

[Husty]

Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France has been a victim of attacks for revealing that Monsanto products lead to health problems. In 2011, he won a libel case against the French Association for Plant Biotechnology and its president, Marc Fellous. Then, in September of 2012, Séralini demonstrated in a two-year study of rats fed with NK603 maize, that either with or without the use of the herbicide Roundup, a higher frequency of tumors, kidney and liver pathologies were detected. EFSA gave a green light to this maize based on studies over a 90-day period. Monsanto has since waged a heavy PR campaign in an effort to discredit Séralini's findings, although the French Minister of Agriculture, Stéphane Le Foll, has stressed that long term studies on GMOs are necessary and that evaluation and control at the European level should be improved.

There seems to be study after study out there that brings into question the heath properties of GMOs. I just don't get how you can be so sure that they are all safe.,

It's a shame that the basic concept of how science works is so poorly understood by society as a whole.

It's simply impossible to conduct one single piece of research on the entirety of GM. Instead the scientific community as a whole will perform many different tests looking at different things, and they will all get different results for all different reasons; random chance, bias, errors in the experiment e.t.c. (So often research is repeated to check that a result can be reproduced.) It's then the job of governments to look at all of this different data from many different studies, bring it all together and use it all to make a decision on whether or not they think it is safe and worthwhile licensing it in that country. If after all that they decide it isn't safe then fine, but I rarely see this kind of process taking place when these decisions are made, more often the decisions are made for political reasons, because banning GM products will gain them votes from certain people but is unlikely to lose them many. And Greenpeace itself (just like Monsanto) has significant lobbying powers.

One single study shouldn't ever be used as a reason not to do something, just as it shouldn't be used as a reason to do something.

What I do take an issue with is people burning fields and ripping up crops before tests and studies can even be conducted because apparently they know best.

Re. your point on opponents not being convinced... it's my opinion (brought up earlier) that the core of the anti GMO campaign is people/corporations with a vested interest in seeing GM fail, companies involved in the organic food business which could stand to lose out if GMOs reached a mass market. Just like Monsanto lobbies governments in ways it wants, so other companies do the same. The rest are made up of highly radicalised environmentalists who oppose GM on principle rather than because they have specific security concerns.

Environmentalists today talk about GM with the same kind of emotion and sensationalism as they did Nuclear Power 20 years ago, today views on Nuclear are much softer as most have realised that it is not the evil they thought it was, and it is my opinion that in time GM will also become accepted, it's just a shame we have to put up with so much scaremongering nonsense in the meantime.

One other issue is that Science as a whole isn't very good at dealing with the media and PR, something environmentalists are generally much better at. Science generally struggles to put across to the public an idea of how it operates, and the genuine benefits GM can provide in some circumstances as well as the fact that it aims to be innovative and is very responsive to genuine concerns about safety.