The Case For Banning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

[Emillereid]

June 16, 2003


The Independent Science Panel (ISP) released on June 15 a report critical of genetically modified (GM) food and crops because of potential risks to human health and the environment, while making the case that better ways are readily available to produce food sustainably.



Dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, joined forces to launch themselves as an Independent Science Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) at a public conference, attended by UK environment minister Michael Meacher and 200 other participants, in London, England on May 10, 2003. On June 15, they released probably one of the most comprehensive reports on GMOs and why they should be banned. Based on more than 200 references to primary and secondary sources, the report, “The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World,” is a complete dossier of evidence on the known problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the manifold benefits of sustainable agriculture. This report comes at a time when governments have failed to conduct adequate health and safety tests.



We are providing in this UPDATE the findings, executive summary including comments on sustainable agriculture and a statement of the purpose of the ISP. The 136page report, “The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World,” can be downloaded at http://www.indsp.org/A%20GM-Free%20Sustainable%20World.pdf. http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html>. In addition, we have provided information about an open letter from scientists around the world asking all governments to ban GMOs.



The ISP website is www.indsp.org. The conference was sponsored by The Ecologist, Institute of Science in Society, Scientists for Global Responsibility, The Soil Association, Third World Network and GM Free Cymru.



The Genetic Modification Group of the ISP consists of scientists working in genetics, biosciences, toxicology and medicine, and other representatives of civil society who are concerned about the harmful consequences of genetic modifications of plants and animals and related technologies and their rapid commercialization in agriculture and medicine without due process of proper scientific assessment and of public consultation and consent. Panel members of the ISP who produced this report can be found on the following link: http://www.indsp.org/gmgroup.php.
...more...

http://www.westonaprice.org/federalupdate/actionalert_061603.html

This is an excellent site for all kinds of health and environmental issues.

[Aaron]

1. TY for the link/info :) (n/t)

[CafeToad]

2. Banning genetically modified organisms would have a chilling effect

On biomedical research.

On the level of microbes, basically every single one of the thousands of laboratories performing basic research into the causes of cancer, inflamatory disease, diabetes (etc, - basically, ANY disease) uses genetically modified bacteria, many E. coli. The contribution of genetically-modified E. coli in this regard are too numerous to mentions, but to give an general idea, I just did a search at the National Institute of Health's PUBMED website ( http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed ) and found that there were 197,056 scientific papers that describe research using E. coli (and note that these are 197,056 DIFFERENT, high-quality papers, not the junk you pull off a google search).

On the level of eukaryotic cells, a major effort is underway to understand HOW cells work, such an understanding is absolutely crucial to eventually developing cures for the diseases mentioned above. One aspect of this work is to make genetic variants of yeast (which are much easier to study than human cells for a number of technical reasons, yet hold many metabolic similarities to human cells making their study relevant). So far, each of the 6000 genes in yeast have been systematically deleted one at a time, producing 5000 new "genetically modified organisms." You may have noticed the numerical discrepancy in the previous statement - that's because when 1000 of the genes were deleted, the yeast no longer were viable; this result shed important light on the function of these genes - stated simply, 1000 of the genes are so important, a yeast cannot live without them, whereas the function of the other 5000 must be covered by redundant function with one or more other genes. To test this second hypothesis, yeast with double deletions are being made where all combinations of 2 genes (at a time) are being tested. This work is a big effort, with 25,000,000 different (5000 x 5000) yeast strains being generated and tested. You may thing this work is stupid and say "let's ban it" but there have been many dedicated people who have worked very hard on this project who would disagree.

On the level of animals, 'knock-out' mice have become an indispensible tool of the biomedical research. I think it's fair to say the the quest for cures for most disease would be set back by 20 to 30 years if the use of knock out mice were banned. For more information on knockout mice, please consult:

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/technologies/hg17b005.html


Ten or fifteen years ago, bioremediation was a promising application for genetically modified organism, but political considerations and public hysteria has prevented much progress in this area. So superfund sites remain uncleaned-up and present a REAL hazard to human health, while a fairly economical alternative goes under-utilized - this issue is discussed fairly dispassionately in this article:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nbt/journal/v19/n12/full/nbt1201-1111.html

Finally, efforts are underway to create bananas (for example) that are genetically modified to contain oral vaccines against diarrhea and cholera (for example). Imagine that such a banana tree grew in a third world village and the children could eat on occasion as needed. Such trees could have saved 500,000 lives in Iraq during the Bush I-imposed and Clinton-enforced economic sanctions. I fully expect that people will slam this technology - I've previously posted this information on a different 'progressive' site and was met with ridicule - oh well.

http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/CALS_News/v3i3/bti.html (a link on the banana vaccines).

[cprise]

4. Yes we have bananas

"Finally, efforts are underway to create bananas (for example) that are genetically modified to contain oral vaccines against diarrhea and cholera (for example). Imagine that such a banana tree grew in a third world village and the children could eat on occasion as needed."

Desperate and hungry people will be more concerned about their immediate hunger than judiciously watering and rationing some expensive banana plant when a drought hits.

Imagine if these third world countries would put politicians in office audacious enough to tax and regulate the multinationals that benefit from their desperation; enough to fix the roads, install proper plumbing and sewage, and build hospitals and the schools and unions necessary to staff them and to advance their quality of life. Imagine having enough local backbone to plan and protect major industrial projects to eventually win a share of international trade with their own companies (the way the Asian Tigers did). When the multinationals see this kind of "socialist" insurgency on their offshore plantationland (esp. in the west), they send in military or CIA goons to topple the government. I am supposed to believe they are better off wallowing in filth and eating science experiments that foreign coporations own the rights to. The only ones that are breaking the cycle of disease and poverty are third-world countries too large for us to "politically engineer" or to bully: India, China, Brazil.

What you propose is another creative variation on slumlord-ism.

And I'm sorry, but vaccines ought to be dispensed by healthcare professionals and no one else (something the third world could use more of without being accused of running a major bio-weapons program).

[CafeToad]

5. Huh???

Who said the vaccine-containing bananas wouldn’t be administered by a health professional (or somebody equally qualified to judge when they’re needed)? Where did you come up with that?

Also, why do you assume that it would be expensive – the point is that it would be readily available and INEXPENSIVE! The example I referenced was being developed at Cornell University under funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. I believe that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding similar research. Yes, I know Bill Gates is evil and all that, but I believe that these foundations are set up with legal constraints so that when the provide funding to develop low cost medicines for third world countries, Mr. Gates can’t instantly turn around and say, “aha, a cure for AIDS for sub-Saharan Africa – I change my mind, it will no longer be provided at cost, instead I’m going to mark it up 27,000% like everything else I sell.”

There will soon be transgenic bacteria that can produce taxol – a promising treatment for breast cancer that has never gained widespread use because the original source of taxol was the relatively-rare yew tree which could only provide enough drug for a few clinical trials. Taxol is a rather complex molecule, see

http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/MOTM/taxol/taxol.htm

Consequently, chemical synthesis has not been an efficient method to obtain it in sufficient quantities for widespread clinical use, either. Now that the transgenic bacteria are coming on-line, it could become a viable treatment option BUT I suspect that persons with your viewpoint will say, wait a minute (or a lifetime in case of the people who desperately need treatment), this here taxol was made by some monkey-scientists who don’t have a clue what they’re doing, it can’t possibly be safe, let’s go get us some leaches and use them to suck the poisons out of the patient’s blood stream.

There are also transgenic goats that produce pharmaceuticals in their milk. Not only is this method cheaper than the more traditional chemical synthetic routes usually used, it is much more environmentally friendly considering that the pharmaceutical industry produces huge amounts of toxic wastes (such as organic solvents used in chemical synthesis). Politically speaking, the production of pharmaceuticals by genetically modified organisms would seem to be a win-win proposition – less expensive (appeals to the seniors who have been itching to get those cheap drugs from Canada) and less polluting (appeals to environmentalists). Unfortunately a complete lack of any understanding of biology leads to mass hysteria about anything remotely linked to ‘genetic’ manipulation.

[cprise]

7. The cause of 3rd world moratlity is economics

(Hee hee- That subject should say "mortality" :) )

And you didn't read the articles I posted or you wouldn't be flinging high and mighty "leeches" analogies around.

Please explain why GM rice for Africa has become such a hot political issue for the US. Is this about helping them get better food, or "opening markets" for a GM gimmick to increase starving Africans' intake of vitamin-A which their bodies cannot use on a rice-only diet (GM rice or not). We're talking about bombing out of existence whatever locally-controlled rice farming exists on the entire continent. Some of these countries are net food EXPORTERS to the west! Hello???

Food is more important than medicines. There isn't any banana tree in a village of starving people that is going to be politely harvested only when a vaccine is needed. Try planting some of these in Florida first and see what kind of interesting headlines appear as a result.

[NickB79]

15. Not every area is populated with starving people

There are many areas on the planet where the food supply, if not at US standards, is still more than adequate and the primary cause of death in the area is disease, not starvation. These areas would benefit greatly from vaccine-containing foods. The whole premise isn't just about having fields of vaccine-containing foods for every village: its about producing a vaccine more cheaply. Imagine how much cheaper is it to grow a vaccine in a field rather than to produce it in a lab.

[NickB79]

16. I saw no reference to Golden Rice in his statements

Where did this come from? You totally ignored the many valid points he made and basically answered a question with a question.

[cprise]

22. OK

His points: GM does some good things (bad things ignored; self-regulaed nature of industry ignored).

My points: Technology so far has been (on the whole) misapplied and on the whole is killing off the environment. We still have life, productivity and genetic diversity today without GM, and over the long haul GM is too risky. We cannot yet manage to tame the socio-economic pathos that turn a surplus of agricultural production into starvation; genetic manipulation of (or careless GM dumping into) the environment should be out of the question.

There must be time to get after the corporate juggernaut and promote the spread of ethics before we go down that road. If our culture does not catch up with our technology then we are doomed.

The golden rice was a reference to the GM product Bush used to accuse Europe of starving Africa. In actuality, it is a failure and a major political push for an agricultural effort based on GM golden rice probably would have been a disaster.

[DemBones DemBones]

11. My degrees are in biology and I am opposed to GM food because

it has not been properly studied. GM foods were introduced into the American market, and thus into the American diet, without the people's consent or knowledge. The producers of GM foods refuse to label these foods and give consumers the choice to eat them or avoid them.

There is a long, sad history of corporations lying to the public and of the R & D scientists being clueless about long-term effects of their products. Think of DDT, PCBs, dioxin, et al. I do not believe that the people involved in producing GMOs are smarter, less subject to making mistakes, or more honest than the people involved in producing the afore-mentioned chemicals. I have worked in the chemical industry so I know about the weakness of some EPA standards and the tendency of corporations to cover up mistakes.

[cprise]

12. "The producers of GM foods refuse to label these foods"

THAT is an understatement.

There are plenty of non-GM producers who would love to mark their food products as such. But it is ILLEGAL!

You must resort to a full-blown organic product for any assurance of "GM-free".

[cprise]

3. GM technologists do not know what they're doing

Today's genetecists are like monkeys banging on a computer keyboard until something seemingly desirable happens. This hasn't been "science" for decades now; it is a gold rush by corporations to strip mine nature's inner workings.

The movement is guided by dogma which states that only an organism's DNA matters (hence GM engineers are following a predictable process). The increasing political imperative for adherence to the dogma is beginning to look like a right-wing version of Soviet Lysenko-ism.

Articles follow:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm
Our leading scientists and scientific entrepreneurs (two labels that are increasingly interchangeable) assure us that these feats of technological prowess, though marvelous and complex, are nonetheless safe and reliable. We are told that everything is under control. Conveniently ignored, forgotten, or in some instances simply suppressed are the caveats, the fine print, the flaws and spontaneous abortions. Most clones exhibit developmental failure before or soon after birth, and even apparently normal clones often suffer from kidney or brain malformations. AND, perversely, has failed to glow like a jellyfish. Genetically modified pigs have a high incidence of gastric ulcers, arthritis, cardiomegaly (enlarged heart), dermatitis, and renal disease. Despite the biotechnology industry's assurances that genetically engineered soybeans have been altered only by the presence of the alien gene, as a matter of fact the plant's own genetic system has been unwittingly altered as well, with potentially dangerous consequences. The list of malfunctions gets little notice; biotechnology companies are not in the habit of publicizing studies that question the efficacy of their miraculous products or suggest the presence of a serpent in the biotech garden.

The mistakes might be dismissed as the necessary errors that characterize scientific progress. But behind them lurks a more profound failure. The wonders of genetic science are all founded on the discovery of the DNA double helix - by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953 - and they proceed from the premise that this molecular structure is the exclusive agent of inheritance in all living things: in the kingdom of molecular genetics, the DNA gene is absolute monarch. Known to molecular biologists as the "central dogma" the premise assumes that an organism's genome - its total complement of DNA genes - should fully account for its characteristic assemblage of inherited traits. The premise, unhappily, is false. Tested between 1990 and 2001 in one of the largest and most highly publicized scientific undertakings of our time, the Human Genome Project, the theory collapsed under the weight of fact. There are far too few human genes to account for the complexity of our inherited traits or for the vast inherited differences between plants, say, and people. By any reasonable measure, the finding (published last February) signaled the downfall of the central dogma; it also destroyed the scientific foundation of genetic engineering, and the validity of the biotechnology industry's widely advertised claim that its methods of genetically modifying food crops are "specific, precise, and predictable" and therefore safe. In short, the most dramatic achievement to date of the $3 billion Human Genome Project is the refutation of its own scientific rationale.

-snip-
The major result was "unexpected." Instead of the 100,000 or more genes predicted by the estimated number of human proteins, the gene count was only about 30,000. By this measure, people are only about as gene-rich as a mustardlike weed (which has 26,000 genes) and about twice as genetically endowed as a fruit fly or a primitive worm - hardly an adequate basis for distinguishing among "life as a fly, a carrot, or a man." In fact, an inattentive reader of genomic CDs might easily mistake Walter Gilbert for a mouse, 99 percent of whose genes have human counterparts.

-snip-
One way that such mystery DNA might arise is suggested by a recent study showing that in some plants carrying a bacterial gene, the plant 's enzymes that correct DNA replication errors rearrange the alien gene's nucleotide sequence. The consequences of such changes cannot be foreseen. The likelihood in genetically engineered crops of even exceedingly rare, disruptive effects of gene transfer is greatly amplified by the billions of individual transgenic plants already being grown annually in the United States.

The degree to which such disruptions do occur in genetically modified crops is not known at present, because the biotechnology industry is not required to provide even the most basic information about the actual composition of the transgenic plants to the regulatory agencies. No tests, for example, are required to show that the plant actually produces a protein with the same amino acid sequence as the original bacterial protein. Yet, this information is the only way to confirm that the transferred gene does in fact yield the theory-predicted product. Moreover, there are no required studies based on detailed analysis of the molecular structure and biochemical activity of the alien gene and its protein product in the transgenic commercial crop. Given that some unexpected effects may develop very slowly, crop plants should be monitored in successive generations as well. None of these essential tests are being performed, and billions of transgenic plants are now being grown with only the most rudimentary knowledge about the resulting changes in their composition. Without detailed, ongoing analyses of the transgenic crops, there is no way of knowing if hazardous consequences might arise. Given the failure of the central dogma, there is no assurance that they will not. The genetically engineered crops now being grown represent a massive uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000586CF-8FF2-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7
Biological cells are not genetic reductionists. The readouts from a gene-sequencing machine do not tell you much about the ultimate structure and function of the cellular proteins made by the genes. After a protein comes off the gene-to-amino-acid assembly line, it is altered as it assumes its place as a cog in the cellular machinery. Carbohydrates, phosphates, sulfates and other residues are pasted onto it. Enzymes may chop the amino acid chain into smaller pieces. A single gene may thus code for several different proteins.

(And the proteins vary between organisms!)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cprise]

8. Superilatives aside

The article describes quite clearly the dumbfoundedness of the Human Genome Project; the central dogma thrives and no more so than in corporate America. In any case, I'm not talking about the "scientific community", just genetic engineers (who apparently are not as interested as they used to be in asking the hard questions).

"Currently, “physiomics” is a hot field that seeks to understand how all the different types of proteins work together to bring a cell to life."

Oh good, it's "hot". It appears they have a lot of work to do, so those genetic engineers have more than a clue to go on.

You want us all to perk-up and admire GM like is was the new silicon revolution. It is not. It's successes are extremely limited and haphazard, and dangerous. These are not machines they're wrenching around with.

A precautionary principle may seem like desperation to you; but to knock it down with "allegations and innuendos" is also slander and quite irresponsible. GM must put its money where its mounth is and allow the FDA and USDA to require proof of a new product's safety AND allow consumers to choose between products that are accurately-labeled.

It is currently ILLEGAL to specifically mark a product "GM free"; Lysenko meets Wall Street's darling, Monsanto.

[CafeToad]

9. I see that I am not welcome to express my views

on the content of the wonderfully insightful and enlightening material that you post, so I wish you luck in battling the formidable forces of scientific evil this planet is rife with,

bye :hi:

[Sufi Marmot]

19. Biologists have long appreciated exceptions to the central dogma

Epigenetic inheritance, for instance...
Link 2

Regarding the lower than expected number of genes in the human genome:

1) all eukaryotic cells have certain commonalities and express similar proteins to perform functions that all cells require - in any eukaryotic organism, a siginificant portion of the genome/proteome is taken up by genes/proteins whose function is present in all eukaryotic cells: general metabolism, DNA synthesis, protein synthesis, cell division, etc..

2) Biologists have come to understand that the number of genes/proteins in a genome/proteome is less important than how proteins are combined together - regulatory complexity is created by different combinations of a smaller number of genes. For instance, three different transcription factors can combine in multiple distinct protein complexes, each complex exhibiting specificity for the transcription of a seperate set of genes.

The Common Dreams article isn't telling biologists anything they don't already know - it's a bit overwrought, in my opinion...

None of this negates caveats about GM-organisms, however...

-SM

[LWolf]

10. The case is strong, and it has Monsanto

on the run and the White House ready to do battle:

Biotech Bullying: Bound to Backfire

Unable to protect itself from the mounting bee swarm of its critics or bring new patented crops to market in the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world, Monsanto and the biotech industry have turned to the White House, the courts, the police, and the WTO in desperation. Among the most recent desperate tactics of the industry-all of which are likely to backfire-are the following:

Bush's WTO Challenge. After years of threats, the Bush administration filed a formal complaint May 13 with the World Trade Organization to force the European Union, under the threat of a billion dollars in fines, to accept GE crops and imports. Unfortunately for Bush and
the Gene Giants, this move has done nothing but create more anger in the EU, with supermarkets, food manufacturers, farmers, and consumer groups vowing that they will never accept Frankenfoods, no matter what the WTO says. Responding to the Bush move, the European Union passed in July new strict labeling and traceability requirements for GE food, cooking oil, and animal feed. This will result in a major decrease in GMO animal feed exports from North America to the EU.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/eu_frankencrops_canada.cfm

As Jeremy Rifkin put it, "US strong-arming cannot make Europeans
eat genetically modified food. A European GM food boycott will only expose the underlying weakness of globalization and the existing trade protocols that accompany it. In the unfolding struggle between global commercial power and local cultural resistance, the GM food fight might turn out to be the test case that forces us to rethink the very basis of the globalization process."
(The Guardian U.K. June 2, 2003)

[treepig]

13. possibly the AARSE is of interest to readers of this thread?

In 1961 the distinguished theoretical physicist Leo Szilard published a work of science fiction, The Voice of the Dolphins. A short story in this book, "The Mark Gable Foundation", described the creation of an endowed non-profit foundation for the specific purpose of slowing the pace of scientific progress. His method of achieving this worthwhile objective was to create for each major field of scientific investigation a panel of distinguished scientists which would meet monthly to award prizes and grants for the best recent scientific work. This technique, it was explained, would keep the best of the older scientists away from their laboratories and busy with unproductive meetings and travel, and would cause the younger scientists in need of funds to go for the "sure thing" which would be certain to lead to publishable results, thereby channeling research in the direction of the safe, the fashionable, and the obvious and away from more risky innovations and seeking for breakthroughs at the frontiers of knowledge.



But despite these efforts by a large number of individuals and organizations it has become increasingly clear that more must be done. The dismaying upward spiral of scientific accomplishments and progress continues at an alarming rate. Scientific progress continues to crop up in unexpected and previously stagnant research areas. And it has become increasingly clear that an international effort is necessary. Other countries misguidedly expend a far larger fraction of their national wealth on science than does the USA. And faster international communication of scientific results means that the older techniques for retarding international scientific progress through secrecy, ignorance, and duplication of effort are no longer working. The time has come for a new initiative. I would like to announce the creation of a new scientific organization, the American Association for the Retardation of Science and Engineering (acronym: AARSE), dedicated to the retardation of scientific progress wherever it may occur, in whatever field, in whatever place. AARSE is created for the specific purpose of encouraging the retardation of scientific progress and of giving appropriate recognition to those who have done the most in the recent times to further this goal.

Membership in AARSE is free and is open to all. AARSE members are self-electing. One has only to make a photocopy of the membership card below and fill in the details to become a card-carrying AARSE member. It is the prerogative of all card-carrying AARSE members to present the Gold-Plated AARSE Certificate of Meritorious Effort to any and all who are worthy of recognition for their work toward the goals of the organization. The Gold-Plated AARSE certificate is printed on the facing page, and may be photocopied and used for appropriate presentation by all card-carrying AARSE members.




from http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw04.html

[NickB79]

14. Banning GMO's would result in the deaths of diabetics!

Virtually all insulin produced today is secreted from E. coli bacteria genetically engineered with a human insulin gene, and grown in huge vats where the secreted insulin is collected. Prior to the creation of this bacteria in the early 80's, the supply of insulin was very limited. Insulin was extracted from dead pigs, cattle, sheep, and human cadavars, but that was inadequate to meet demand. Furthermore, the use of animal insulin often caused adverse reactions when injected in humans.

This is just one example of many of the current uses of GMO's in modern science and medicine. To ban them would be insane!

[treepig]

17. ok, i see you were able to read this thread

and respond more rationally that i did (i.e., with the perhaps ill-considered AARSE posting above).

so far, i've never heard any rational reason to ban GMO's - the reasons given always seem to be so peripheral as to be ludicrous,

for example

- GM food isn't properly labeled, therefore let's ban it (wouldn't getting proper labeling requirements be the reasonable solution here?)

- GM food hasn't been adequately tested, therefore let's ban it (wouldn't doing the necessary testing be the answer here?)

- geneticists who are producing GMO's are incompent, might as well have a bunch of monkeys banging away on typewriters (if so, why has billions of dollars of hard-to-come-by research and development money been directed toward this technology?)

- finally, it's just not natural! now you can't really argue about that, except to point out to purveyors of this argument that bridges (for example) aren't natural either. an exception might be a log that's fallen across the stream, but usually the log is not entirely suitable to drive your car across - therefore you had better get a SUV if you're serious about maintaining your pure, natural lifestyle - that way you can drive right through the stream without benefit of something as un-natural as a bridge.

[cprise]

21. The epidemic of diabetes

...is one of the current mis-uses of modern technology. It is a part of the corporate/consumer sickness: More is always better, so production of more sugar and more insulin must be good. More control. More power. Let's get in our Genetic SUVs so we can feel like we're in control and blaze trails for a thousand roads through the "wilderness". Never mind the side-effects and unintended consequences that will result in the strip malls and parking-lots: accelerated extinction and further economic subjugation (remember, only first-world countries are allowed to practice GM).

There is no restraint in the worldview that cries out for a market rallies based on this quackery, or in any mindset that insists we throw precautions out the window for the technologies corporations covet most. Myopic thinking along the lines of "A fixes B" and "X maximizes Y" does not work well in economics, and not at all in living systems. The most illiberal thing in the world is to associate precaution with poverty, and to insist that we must experience disasters and then react to them; that unnecessary risks must be taken (esp. if they can be categorized as 'externalities').

Our current world economic situation is insane, and the same thinking that produced WTO and other unchecked, unregulated wonders is also behind the corporate push for GM, "terrorism furtures" markets, and designer nukes are are now making (mini-nukes, nukes w/fries, and "would-you-like-onions-with-that" nukes). If it is not a conspiracy then it is an unexamined impulse (either way there is no excuse).

Getting back to your example: E. coli lives in the gut of every human and its close relatives allow many plants to grow by fixing nitrogen into usable compounds. Do we really want to make this the subject of corporate (or any sort of) innovation???

There will be no cold-war anxiety (as with nuclear weapons) to put a sharp point on the risks of GM; there will only be endless price wars, better-mousetrap wars, infomercial wars, and the little wars against 3rd-world countries after we put their BIG BROWN/YELLOW FACES on television with the caption "BIOTERRORIST?" underneath.

The technological choices made so far have, in aggregate, always cost the environment because restraint has not been a significant factor in how we act. The only way to attain restriant (and sanity) is to keep a GM ban political currency.

[treepig]

23. if you want to invoke bacterial examples to support your

anti-GMO rants, having a grasp of basic facts may add to your credibility . . .

first, a few words about the E. coli you claim to have in your gut, from this site http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12088520&dopt=Abstract we learn:

“The factors controlling the human intestinal flora are largely unknown. In addition, knowledge of the composition of the human gut microbiota is far from complete”

let me interject here that many would read the above sentence and conclude “oh boy are those scientists ever stupid, monkeys banging away on a typewriter are more productive than they are” however, our brave but foolhardy heroes carried on to use Molecular biological methods for studying the gut microbiota: the EU human gut flora project – which is the title of a research paper containing the following information:

“Over 280 clones were generated and characterised by sequence analyses, providing a molecular taxonomic inventory. Phylogenetic analysis showed that the flora of the elderly was even more diversified than that of the adults (Table 1). The proportion of unknown molecular species was very high among the clones derived from the analysis of an elderly person’s faecal sample. Interestingly, 22 % of the elderly person’s microflora was represented by species gathered outside the Bacteroides/Prevotell group, Clostridium coccoides group, and Clostridium leptum subgroup of organisms (Fig. 3). The latter dominated in the flora of the adult investigated. Many of these species corresponded to hitherto unknown lineages within the Clostridium lituseburense subgroup, Clostridium ramosum group, and Prosthecobacter group of organisms.”



note the lack of E. coli – if you do indeed have a lot in your GI tract i suggest you seek medical attention promptly as you’ve most likely had an encounter with contaminated food. if you are a healthy person harboring E. coli i suggest you present yourself to the authors of the above listed paper so that you can add a new dimension to their study.

now a few words about E. coli’s close relatives that fix nitrogen, in reality nitrogen fixing bacteria are far from being close relatives of E. coli.

from an evolutionary phylogeny perspective, many of the nitrogen fixation bacteria are more closely related to us than to E.coli:



some nitrogen fixers are cyanobacteria – not that evolutionarily distant from E. coli, others fit in the Methanococcus genus and are more similar to animals (us) on a molecular level (ribosomal sequences, and that type of thing) than to E. coli.

from a functional perspective, nitrogen fixation bacteria are very different from E. coli in that they are either anaerobic or have developed special relationships with other organisms (such as root nodules on legumous plants) to shield them from oxygen (oxygen poisons the enzyme(s) that do the nitrogen fixation reaction). by constrast E. coli are quite aerobic as anyone who’s tried to grow them in the lab can attest to.

[treepig]

18. something else for the GMO-banning folk

ok, what do we have here?

why, it's a genetically modified featherless chicken - it's faster growing and less subject to heat stress in warm climates.

(from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2000003.stm ).

but isn't an atrocity such as these featherless freaks exactly why GMO's must be banned immediately you say?

perhaps so, but when this guy:



first created these hairless freaks in early genetic engineering experiments (as reported in the Journal of Hieroglyphics) :



all his colleagues wanted to ban his work too, (and probably should have based on what humankind has done to this planet!!)

[cprise]

20. engineering <> evolution

The two are not equal, in fact engineering and technology are the instrument of environmental destruction. Primates didn't create humans; we emerged from them through a process of interacting with our environment-- evolution.

In a world where we over-produce, and have no physical excuse for hunger, we are also left with no excuses for physically altering life itself. Being unable to manage a global economy, we are far less capable of playing God and managing ecosystems.

[treepig]

24. umm, umm, umm . . .

you say “engineering <> evolution - The two are not equal, in fact engineering and technology are the instrument of environmental destruction. Primates didn't create humans; we emerged from them through a process of interacting with our environment-- evolution.”

i thought that the information that i posted (post #18)that you are now referring to was so outrageously ridiculously over-the-top that i would not have to include any smilies or rolling-eye icons to alert readers to that fact. what i was going for was a counterpart to the outrageously over-the-top material you posted up in post #3 of this thread. however i intended for my parody to be humorous, not a vicious, slanderous collections of lies and innuendos such as you posted (btw, i cancelled my subscription to Harper’s when they published the article you pasted above, there’s just no excuse for either blatantly sloppy journalism, or publishing an article by a complete idiot, whatever the case may be).

having said that, it is a frightening thought that anybody who would not instantly recognize both my post (#18) and your post (#3) as bizarre parodies of real life would have any say in determining scientific policy. if such people were being honest, they’d at least admit “gee, we know absolutely nothing about genetics and molecular biology, and we are frightened by things we don’t understand so they should be banned without further ado.” i think that most people in the general population fall into this category and it’s a tragedy. i’m much less inclined to be forgiving of the

“Dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, joined forces to launch themselves as an Independent Science Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)”

mentioned in the original post. i spent some time examining the document they produced

“The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World,” can be downloaded at http://www.indsp.org/A%20GM-Free%20Sustainable%20World.pdf .

and i can only say that these so-called scientists should be ashamed of themselves for promulgating this bullshit.

actually, i can say much more: what they have done is to selectively cull the scientific literature to find problems with genetic engineering technology in much the same way the mr. bush and his minions culled intelligence reports to build a phantom case for a war against iraq. specifically, they list many problems with gm technology, but fail to mention that these problems are based on 20-year old technology and most of them are well on their way to being overcome. in fact, if you do a search of the primary scientific literature, you find about 5% of the papers describing the problems listed whereas about 90% of the papers describe solutions to these problems (it was difficult for me to categorize the remaining papers). unfortunately the ‘scientists’ who wrote the report failed to mention the vast majority of the papers, and focused on the negative.

what was their motivation? well, what i’d have to say is that they’ve now formed a politically advocacy group and they have to hype the alarmist aspects of gmo’s to garner donations to stay in business. you find a lot of this complete junk science on google. by contrast, a reliable place to find scientific information is at the national institutes of health’s PUBMED website: http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed reputable scientists who publish here have exactly the opposite funding pressures as those who promote their work through google. they must ensure that their published papers are completely accurate - sure, subsequent findings may render their results incorrect, but at the time of publication their reports must be spot-on. if not, they will gain a reputation for incompetence at best or dishonesty at worst, and will never be able to obtain funding for their research again from the regular funding agencies.