Every day, 24,000 people die from malnutrition. The major cause of these deaths is poverty. In a cruel paradox, the undefinable fears of western pressure groups are being used to justify regulations that perpetuate death and suffering by denying genetically-modified crops to poor people.

Rich people can afford to ban GM foods — as Switzerland has just done — and their opposition gives credibility to people in both poor and wealthy countries who intend to prevent this technology from being used at all. Nowhere has this been more evident than the Golden Rice saga, a sad story of ideological opposition to new technology by activists. Golden Rice was developed to address Vitamin A deficiency, which kills at least 6,000 children every day and leads to irreversible blindness in 500,000 children each year. Traditional ideas, such as the distribution of vitamin A capsules by the WHO, are helpful but have not substantially reduced these figures.

In a 15-year project, two teams of European scientists successfully modified in 1999 the starchy tissue of rice (the part consumed by humans) to produce pro-Vitamin A (the chemical that is converted into Vitamin A in the body). This rice was dubbed "Golden Rice" because of its colour. The World Bank has recently calculated that the economic benefit to Asia from Golden Rice, through increased agricultural productivity of healthier populations, would amount to US $15 billion annually.

Activists, always willing to reject the good in favour of the perfect, objected that a poor person would not obtain the necessary levels of dietary Vitamin A simply by eating normal quantities of the fortified rice. However, a new strain of the rice has been developed that would provide 23 times more pro-Vitamin A compared to Golden Rice 1, effectively solving this problem.

Since 1999, the inventors have been seeking to transfer the benefits from this technology to the poor in developing countries. Governments and charities — including the Rockefeller Foundation — were able to finance the whole of the initial project research but not the subsequent essential development and regulatory stages. The remaining problem which has thwarted attempts to take Golden Rice to its next phase, with field trials and tests for nutritional compatibility, is an overly precautionary approach by regulators, fuelled by the sentiments and actions of activists.

Since 1999, environmental activists have argued that this humanitarian effort is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing — no more than a profiteering plot by the biotech industry. Since the seeds will be licensed for free to smallholder farmers and can be grown and saved in the same manner as traditional rice, this could hardly be further from the truth.

While regulators may not share the ideological beliefs of activists, and they probably understand the substantial benefits that Golden Rice and future products of bio-fortification may bring, regulatory systems tend to favour the status quo rather than technological change. This explains why agencies such as the FAO and the WHO have been slow to embrace the project. Likewise, regulatory authorities in developing countries are less experienced, more insecure and, therefore, more stringent than their colleagues in developed countries — although India and the Philippines will see field trials of Golden Rice 2 later this year.

The field trials have been delayed because opponents of Golden Rice insist thatthe plants must pose no risk to the environment. For humanitarian projects, such barriers create unnecessary expense and delay. This is not to say that Golden Rice should be exempted from normal regulatory procedures. In general, regulators have only considered the imaginary risks rather than reasonably assessing the actual risks alongside the real benefit: the potential to immediately reduce Vitamin A deficiency and thereby save lives. As a result, researchers will be less inclined to use bio-fortification to solve other micronutrient problems — such as iron and protein deficiency.

Early next year, the WTO will rule on a complaint by the US, Canada and Argentina against the EU's restrictions on GM imports. The outcome of this dispute may affect the poor for decades to come. Those who need these technologies most — poor people in less-developed countries — have no voice in this debate.

Golden Rice offers an opportunity that must not be passed up. Better food means better lives and better productivity, a chance to break the cycle of poverty that traps traditional farmers all over the world: blanket opposition to all GM foods is a luxury that only pampered westerners can afford.

Yes we should really believe the promotions the GM industry gives us. And after the food chain has been thoroughly contaminated they can say, opps we're wrong. Sorry about that.
DDT was supposed to be great also and save the world from hunger as was high intensive chemical farming.
No case studies and no containment.
This is like the panacea of nuclear energy which turned into a Pandora's box from hell.

I'm not sure I'd call the lives of thousands of children who are/could-be saved by something as simple as cross-breeding rice w/ violets "garbage"...especially in light of the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Golden Rice is bad for the environment (including people).

I had a chance to interview Dr. Patrick Moore, who I met by chance while counterprotesting with Bureaucrash in San Francisco a couple years back. He had come out to chastise the protesters who were being downright rude to all the people going into the biotech conference -- saying that these were people who are working to save lives, and complaining that we should all be down protesting a munitions plant or something.

In Moore's words, "More than 6 million GM meals have been served to date, and we haven't even heard anyone complain about so much as a stomach ache." I've posted an article about him below:

I'm all for labeling, and allowing consumers to make educated choices. And I'm very aware of the importance of biodiversity. (I'm always baffled by the fact that so many biodiversity supporters also support the idea of "democracy", when it destroys ideological diversity, which is at least as important.) However, I just can't help but think how reactionary & unfounded the whole anti-GM movement is, without the existence of a shread of evidence that GMOs hurt people, especially in light of the very real and very present need for & benefits of these products.

sh(A)ne

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Patrick Moore, ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace, stated today that "the campaign of fear now being waged against genetic modification is based largely on fantasy and a complete lack of respect for science and logic." Moore joined over 3,000 scientists from around the world in signing a Declaration in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology, saying that, "In the balance it is clear that the real benefits of genetic modification far outweigh the hypothetical and sometimes contrived risks claimed by its detractors."

Moore, who is now an environmental consultant, was a founding member of Greenpeace. He served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. Recently, however, he broke with Greenpeace, accusing it of abandoning science and following agendas that have little to do with saving the Earth.

Reiterating comments he made to the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, Moore said, "Genetic modification can reduce the chemical load in the environment, reduce the impact on non-target species, and reduce the amount of land required for food crops." He added, "There are so many real benefits from genetic modification compared to the largely hypothetical and contrived risks that it would be foolish to ban genetic modification."

Moore also criticized his former Greenpeace colleagues for claiming that there was "zero benefit" even from such modified plants as Golden Rice, a variety with added pro-vitamin A. Golden Rice was developed by Swiss scientist Ingo Potrykus to help address the severe problem of micronutrient deficiencies in developing country diets-a problem that results in half a million cases of childhood blindness and millions of deaths each year. "Let someone come forward and state that the possibility of saving 500,000 children from blindness is a zero benefit," Moore said.

Moore was joined by Potrykus and Tuskegee University biologist C.S. Prakash in rebuking claims that Golden Rice does not include enough pro-vitamin A to be beneficial. According to Potrykus, "the amounts required for preventing severe symptoms of vitamin A deficiency are significantly lower than given by RDA-values," and he noted that Golden Rice's vitamin A equivalence is "already in the 20-40 percent range of the daily allowance." Dr. Prakash added, "We also know that the vitamin A dosage in Golden Rice can be increased over time. So, we have good, scientific reasons to be hopeful."

Other signers of the Declaration of Scientists in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology (www.AgBioWorld.org) include Nobel Prize winners Norman Borlaug, James Watson, Paul Berg, Peter Doherty, and Paul Boyer.

Type in >GM +allergies< into your favorite search engine.
And the GM genetic particulars are proprietary; you don't know what's in them.
" Violets with rice"
Right.

Kiwis are banannas cross-bred with strawberries. Would you call that a GMO? Would you eat it?

Just curious how far your fear of "unnatural" intervention goes. Help me understand.

sh(A)ne

>Kiwis are banannas cross-bred with strawberries<
That's called a hybrid.
You're talking about DNA insertion.
And you should be worried if you were wise.

Type in >GM +allergies< into your favorite search engine.

Okay, that would be Google. Here's what I found:
"Despite concerns from some critics of genetically modified crops that the foods may raise consumers' risk of allergic reactions, a new study finds no evidence that this is the case."

GM crops could bring allergy relief in the future...Contrary to popular beliefs about foods being chock-full of additives and artificial flavourings, it is natural foods which trigger the majority of food allergies.

Oh, and here's a fun one: "My grandson and I are anaphylactically allergic to all GM FrankenFoods. The itching and neurotoxicity of these patented consumables by the Monsters of Monsanto should be forced on to all of the creators and their families." BTW, a search for "food allergies" turns up a much bigger list of hits. >>And the GM genetic particulars are proprietary; you don't know what's in them. << I don't know what's in the hummus at at Halla's either, but I eat it. I know that they aren't looking to get sued for hurting anyone with the stuff they put in their food, so I don't really feel the need to ask. If people were getting sick or dropping dead after eating this stuff, that would be one thing; but the fact is, GM foods have been on the market since the '90's, and so far everybody's still okay. What gives? How long do the poor & malnourished need to to wait before your fear of the unknown (or, more likely, your hatred of anything related to capitalism) stops preventing them from finding relief? sh(A)ne

>>That's called a hybrid. You're talking about DNA insertion.<<

And what exactly do you think's happening when we hybridize things? (Hint: We're mixing their DNA)

>>And you should be worried if you were wise.<<

If there were a reason to be, I would be. So far, nobody's shown me one. It's all just fear of the unknown, and hatred of anything related to capitalism. That's it. There's no substance to any of it (as the titles of all of your comments emphasize).

sh(A)ne

Don't try to BS me.
A hybrid is simple mendelian cross pollination.
You know about DNA insertion huh?
Tell me about how the 'violets and rice' were 'cross pollinated'.
This will be good.

>>Tell me about how the 'violets and rice' were 'cross pollinated'. This will be good. <<

You see, when a violet loves a rice very very much...

C'mon! I didn't say they were created through cross-polination. They were created through genetic engineering -- by mixing their genes.

What I said was that "mixing genes" is exactly the same thing that happens when you cross-polinate things. Why does it matter whether this was done by the wind through cross-polination in a field, or by a genetic engineer in a lab? Show me how this "artificial" (and more exact) mixing-of-genes makes the whole process harmful. You can't, because it doesn't!

Sure, it results in a profit for someone. Yeah, it's spooky science that we don't all understand. But these aren't good enough reasons for me to "be afraid" of GMOs.

Were you in my video? You sound like one of them. Uninformed.

sh(A)ne

Cross pollination isn't the same as inserting a gene into another organism. Anyone should be able to understand that.

Most mutations in nature fail. Genetic engineering increases the number of new organisms that are likely to survive and thrive. These new organisms are likely to cross-pollinate with existing organisms, and thus, the modifications are likely to spread.

This isn't necessarily "bad", but, it's likely to create a lot of changes, very quickly. Our experience with ecosystems and introducing new life forms into them teach us that, sometimes, a new organism can enter an ecosystem that's developed equilibrium over a long time, completely disrupt the ecosystem, and make species extinct.

We're part of the ecosystem.

Sometimes, I do wonder if the corn I ate was a GMO, and, if it's releasing weird chemicals into me as it rots in my intestines.

>>Cross pollination isn't the same as inserting a gene into another organism. Anyone should be able to understand that. <<

I don't. Explain it to me.

What makes "gene insertion" different in any relevant way?

If the problem is that there's a new gene in the plant (for instance), and the change that gene produces can be spread by cross-polination (as you've pointed out), then why does it matter whether the gene was "inserted" into the plant, or spread to the plant by cross-polination? Gb is saying that "hybrids" created through cross-polination are safer than G.M.O.s created through gene insertion. I'm saying the result is a deviation from the status quo either way -- that one doesn't necessarily result in something safe, while the other necessarily results in something harmful.

If that's the case, then who cares whether the violet cross-polinated with the rice somehow, or whether the specific pro-vitamin-A producing violet gene was inserted into the rice? The safety of the rice isn't a function of the method by which it mutated. It could be safe either way, or dangerous either way. Gb wants to make us believe that only the natural mutation is safe; and that the man-made mutation will always be harmful...and that's not true. We have to look at the end result.

The past 20 years of GM food consumption have given us not even a hint that "frankenfood" is harmful to our health. It's true that there is a chance for screwing up the environment, and I realize that -- but it's not any bigger a chance than we take by sticking to cross-polination, contrary to what Gb suggests.

As an aside: The fact that companies like Monsanto are actually succeeding in suing farmers when their GM plants pollenate other plants is shameful. The farmers ought to be suing Monsanto for polluting their land & messing up their crops, if you ask me.

sh(A)ne

Hybrids are not viable. They can't continue to impact the environment.
They don't contaminate other crops.

Also, before we had genetic engineering, genes were modified by irradiating seeds. We've already experienced a lot of modified organisms, with good and bad effects.

I think one bad effect has been a reduction in plant diversity. The food is relatively homogenous, and requires lots of fertilizers and pesticides.

One good side effect was cheaper food because the innovations tend to make it easier to profit from food.

Very excellent audio from Guns & Butter on genetic modifications inside our common food chain.
For some reason, the front end of the program, the intro from Bonnie Faulkner is in the mud,has a powerful message.
Jeffery Smith in his lecture on the book, Seeds of Deception.
It relates to the crimes of MONSANTO and the reckless disregard to general health in the unregulated push for profit.
Troubling information. A must listen if you are eating from the super market.

Use this page to link to stream of this audio.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=12632&page=1&type=

Gun & Butter Archives page with links to all other pages.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?show=13
Radio Pacifica
KPFA
Wed. 1:00 pm

Okay guys, I know it's confusing -- it goes way against everything you thought you knew about capitalists...but **I don't like corporations either**

Corporation = product of a _Merchantilist_ economy, not a free-market capitalist economy. What we have here in the US is a _Merchantilist_ economy, not a free-market capitalist economy. You've all been fooled by Republican rhetoric. It's not your fault; they've done a good job of convincing people that "government intervention in the economy IS free market". It doesn't even make any sense, but then doublespeak never does.

I'm not defending (or, for that matter, promoting) Monsanto (or ADM, or Cargill, or anybody else). I think Monsanto sucks. I'd be perfectly happy if they got sued out of existence, given some of the stories I've heard: As I already said, I think it's absurd that they're _winning_ IP law suits when their GM crops pollenate a non-owner's field. It's bullshit -- the all-natural kind! I haven't read the cases, so I don't know exactly what the story is, but the outcome is nonsense. I can't believe that a decent attorney for the defense couldn't have proven that.

...but Monsanto isn't "GM food". It's one company -- and it's a big one...but it isn't GM food any more than Harley is "motorcycles". If Harley decides to lock all their employees in their Milwaukee plant, and force them into slave labor...yeah, that's evil, but it doesn't reflect poorly on the Honda in my garage!

Monsanto sucks, but that doesn't mean GM foods suck. Let's quit avoiding the issue, and somebody explain to me why gene-splicing is a bad thing -- and how it's any worse than cross-breeding the o'l fashioned way.

sh(A)ne

You can't separate GM from the Monsantos, any more than you can separate automobile pollution from the big automakers. The corporations created the technology.

Likewise, there have been industrialized corporations for a hundred fifty years of capitalism. You can't disconnect the two, any more than you can disconnect GM foods from the corporations that pioneered the technology.

The Monsantos of the world spend a lot of money propagandizing their technology, saying it's the same as farmers developing hybrids, but that is, at best, only very slightly true. It's mostly a lie designed to make people feel good about the technology.

What's sad is that someone like shane believes the lie. Almost nobody, not even people who tend to go along with the system, believes the story. Most people are cautious.

Didn't listen to the audio did you?
Therefore you have only weak comparisons that have nothing to do with anything.
And you're STILL trying to equate gene splicing with hybrid cross pollination.
And they are simply not equal.
If you don't know what the differences are, stop.

Also, where is the article saying the kiwi is a hybrid? I had to read up on that, and Wikipedia says it's a fruit from China.

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

I suspect that the only thing you get when you combine strawberries and bananas is a fruit smoothie.

>>Also, where is the article saying the kiwi is a hybrid? I had to read up on that, and Wikipedia says it's a fruit from China....I suspect that the only thing you get when you combine strawberries and bananas is a fruit smoothie.<<

;)

I'm not sure where the heck I picked up that (previously useless) piece of trivia. So far, all Google is giving me is...a lot of smoothie references, actually...and one site that described the flavor as a mix of strawberry, banana, & pineapple -- hardly the basis for a reliable taxonomy though. I'll look into it.

sh(A)ne

Very excellent audio from Guns & Butter on genetic modifications inside our common food chain.
For some reason, the front end of the program, the intro from Bonnie Faulkner is in the mud, but the speaker has a powerful message.
Jeffery Smith in his lecture on the book, Seeds of Deception.
It relates to the crimes of MONSANTO and the reckless disregard to general health in the unregulated push for profit.
Troubling information. A must listen if you are eating from the super market.

Use this page to link to stream of this audio.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=12632&page=1&type=

Gun & Butter Archives page with links to all other pages.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?show=13
Radio Pacifica
KPFA
Wed. 1:00 pm

> "mixing genes" is exactly the same thing that happens when you cross-polinate things

nature sets limits on how different those genes can be - man does not, we end up making frankenfoods that cause problems like......

Damaging effects to bees from GMO's

Millions of bees dead

Biggest Study of GMO Finds Impact on Birds, Bees. Planet Ark, 22 March 2005. The world's biggest study to date on the impact of genetically modified (GMO) ...
www.pub.ac.za/news/bioinnews/2005_mar.html

patents, lawsuits, restrictions on seed farmers didn't have before.......

They brought a patent infringement lawsuit against us because we were 'growing GMO

It may be difficult to prevent trace levels of the GMO crop from entering the system

Monsanto Seeks Alfalfa Patent.

Canola Case Tests GMO Patent


and allergic

say someone is deathly allergic to peanuts. A GMO may have a gene from a peanut in them. The allergic person could get a reaction from eating a GMO with a peanut

people allergic to peanuts might suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves allergic to a GMO tomato that contains a peanut gene

GMO°s and Food Allergens. Robert K. Bush Professor of Medicine University of Wisconsin-Madison Chief of Allergy William S. Middleton Veterans Administration ...
www.biotech.wisc.edu/seebiotech/ lcoconf/bushsummary.html

PBS - harvest of fear: should we grow gm crops?:
The GMO containing foods, etc. triggered multiple allergies. I am allergic (true allergies, not simply food intolerances) to soy, wheat, MSG, many foods, ...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/responses_042601.html


GMO's are *banned* throughout Europe and many other countries in the world


I air the guns & butter show sometimes sheepdog