Article

2004-01-14 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut bskolaut@hotmail.com 2004-01-14 1:41:38 PM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Let's just hope this biotech stuff doesn't bite us in the ass later on. To be completely honest, I have zero confidence in the food-growing/producing industry. More crap being produced at a faster pace isn't necessarily a good thing. The last thing we need now is Mad Maize Disease. We already get healthy doses of hormones, anti-biotics and other wonderful stuff in our meat, vegetables, and farmed fish.

Posted by Rafael 2004-1-14 2:16:35 PM|| 2004-1-14 2:16:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 The only safe things are to grow your own using distilled water, not (acid)rain water, or to import your food from France where they still grow their food using time honored 12th century techniques.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-1-14 2:37:08 PM|| 2004-1-14 2:37:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'll take 12th cent. over modern, thank you very much. Go to eastern Europe to see how food should really taste (but do it quick before they get spoiled by the EU).

Posted by Rafael 2004-1-14 2:41:50 PM|| 2004-1-14 2:41:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I think I'm firmly with Rafael. Actually I'm not so much worried about possible health hazards the consumption of biotech food may pose, but I want a clear choice. I don't want it forced down my throat because of unclear labeling (or in the case of processed food lack of labeling). I don't want the farmer, who sticks to his traditional growing methods, to have his fields "contaminated" by flying seeds from biotech fields and then - yes it has happened already - to be sued for "growing biotech food without a (paying) license.

And that thing about Europe obstructing Africa's need to feed it's people is a red herring, sorry. The African farmers will have to BUY their seeds every year, they are not even allowed to use the seeds from their harvest due to licensing contracts.

12th century? I tell you something. Say about France what you like but go to a farmer's market there and taste the products. Yes they actually TASTE of something. I had delicious biologically grown Sicilian tomatos today and they really tasted like wonderful tomatos. The Belgian/Dutch greenhouse crap you get in the supermarkets looks good but just tastes of water. And I don't see it as a progress if new biotech tomatos will look good for 2 months while vitamins and taste are zero.

Too much big business for Monsanto and others, litle value for me. Unfortunately, once again, we won't have much choice in the future.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-1-14 3:28:51 PM|| 2004-1-14 3:28:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Regarding #4 I understand and agree with your opinion on tasteless food. But what does that have to do with whether the food is GM? I'm sure that the "Belgian/Dutch greenhouse crap" is not GM. Most people I know who buy "organic" do so fo rthe better taste. Since one of the real benefits of GM foods is a reduction in the fertilizers and pesticides, I actually think that there could be a net improvement in taste.

Posted by Simon 2004-1-14 3:35:46 PM|| 2004-1-14 3:35:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Oh my god, Martha! It's FRANKENCOTTON!!

Posted by mojo 2004-1-14 3:52:18 PM|| 2004-1-14 3:52:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Simon, the Belgian/Dutch food is not GM yet, but it's already bad enough. GM food will not make it better. When you buy a GM tomato you won't know whether it was harvested 2 days or 2 months ago.

Canadian studies have showed "that yields were found to be lower because contamination was wider than predicted, herbicide use was not reduced, and often had to be increased, and volunteers were much more difficult to deal with than expected. There were no gains to consumers that might have balanced the losses to the farming producers. And the environmental impacts, assumed to be benign on the specious principle that GM crops were "substantially equivalent'' to non-GM varieties, turned out to be seriously adverse. There was damage to wildlife, new superweeds were generated and ecosystems that support insects and birds were destroyed." (MIchael Meacher, former UK minister for the Environment).

The thing is, once GM food is out, there is no way to put it back into Pandora's box if things mess up. And what's the benefit for consumers? Cheaper food? No, just non GM and biofood will be more expensive because it will be expensive to protect it from GM seeds.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-1-14 3:54:17 PM|| 2004-1-14 3:54:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 When you buy a GM tomato you won't know whether it was harvested 2 days or 2 months ago.

Well, that's true if you're a moron.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-14 4:04:05 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-1-14 4:04:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 No, because it will look the same.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-1-14 4:13:32 PM|| 2004-1-14 4:13:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 TGA, no tomato will last two months without a lot of expensive storage (like a 97%N2/3%O2 atmosphere at 55F -- which only gets you to six weeks, not eight). The GM extended-shelf-life varieties are being developed so the tomatoes can be picked ripe (instead of green) and still make it to market.

The reason so many commercial tomatoes taste bland is that they're picked while they're still green and allowed to redden in-transit. If you had a tomato that lasted longer once it was ripe, the flavor would be improved immensely.

I really don't get the European religious aversion to GM foods. You guys are seriously whacked out on that. I especially love Europe being so against GM foods they're willing to see Africans starve to make the point -- such dedication!

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-14 4:40:36 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-1-14 4:40:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 TGA, I understand you to have two problems with the Genetically Modified (GM) foods: the quality of the food must suffer as a result of the modifications being made, and an aversion to introducing new strains of a food into the food supply. On the first, one of the benefits of GM foods versus breeding programs is that greater control can be exerted over the desirable traits, and undesirable traits can be excluded. If customers want longer shelf life at the expense of taste, that can be done. But there is no reason that the desirable traits of taste have to be lost in order to gain other desirable traits. As to the second, well, I understand your apprehension. More reading of exactly what is involved in the creation and testing of these crops may allay your concerns. My point is that this type of development actually gives more control over the end-product than other forms of food modification. Please don't reject the entire process over fear of what may theoretically happen. It is better to embrace and regulate this technology, in my opinion.

Posted by Simon 2004-1-14 4:53:58 PM|| 2004-1-14 4:53:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Robert, the "EU starving Africa" argument is loathsome (It is one I really hold against president Bush).

The reasons why Africa is starving (apart from droughts and pour soil) are US and EU subsidies for their own farmers (in that sense we ARE guilty), African farmer's lack of access to basic infrastructure such as irrigation and transport, as well as cheap credit with which to buy seeds etc. PLUS the ruining of once healthy agriculture by communist dictators (Zimbabwe was Africa's bread basket without GM).

GM seeds must be bought each season or royalties paid if they are kept from one harvest to the next. This then gives the corporations the ability to control seed markets. For example, 91 percent of GM seeds grown in 2001 came from Monsanto. Global agricultural production is in this way being increasingly dominated by a few major corporations. GM crops have been developed for large-scale commercial systems of production that are rare in Africa where small farmers still predominate, who cannot afford the fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides or irrigation that these crops need.

And Europe simply doesn't need GM. We have way too much food already. What we need is better , healthier quality. GM is not going to give us that. What it will give us over the next decades is "patented food", royalties to pay for it whether we wanted to use it or not in the first place.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-1-14 5:09:53 PM|| 2004-1-14 5:09:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Robert, the "EU starving Africa" argument is loathsome (It is one I really hold against president Bush).

It is, however, accurate. African nations refused shipments of US grain because, had they accepted it, Europe would have stopped buying anything from those African nations for fear of getting American cooties.

GM seeds must be bought each season or royalties paid if they are kept from one harvest to the next.

This is false. You're applying policies used with GM seeds developed for First-World markets and assuming they're used for all markets. For example, Monsanto (or MONSATAN?) has agreed to license their patents that are involved in producing golden rice for free.

And for that matter, there's nothing about GM that makes it unique in licensing; hybrids can be subject to the same patenting and licensing. Do you have the same issue with hybrids?

What we need is better , healthier quality. GM is not going to give us that.

Well, not if you blindly refuse to consider them.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-14 6:07:39 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-1-14 6:07:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The EU has made it very clear that this would NOT happen. It was just a (Zambian) fear because Europeans don't like GM food. The Daily Telegraph reported that there was a deep suspicion of America's apparent altruism in dispatching free maize to Africa. GM maize is thought to be fed mainly to animals in America, and some believe that the next stage in the experiment is to feed it to Africans.
Now I won't get into details but what tells you that Monsanto's Third World Policy won't change AFTER GM food is grown evderywhere. People fear that they are accepting a Trojan Horse. But I would agree that the matter is more complicated, yet the argument that Europe "starving" Africa is preposterous and hypocritical. Check out the aid the EU countries give to Africa and compare it with U.S. aid.

Btw, I don't "blindly refuse" GM. What I want is clear labeling, protection of those farmers who don't want it, my liberty to chose. I know very well that GM will make its way into Europe very soon, but I want to have a say on the conditions it does so.

And no, I don't want my grand children to pay royalties to a couple of large companies, if they want to plant tomatos or potatos and GM food has extinguished (or at least) contaminated the non GM varieties beyond recognition. At least in Europe it will be impossible to keep GM fields apart from non GM fields.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-1-14 6:43:18 PM|| 2004-1-14 6:43:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 TGA, growing up in the San Joaquin Valley (probably one of the lushest and most bountiful agri areas in the world) I can tell you that GM foods are the only way to meet world population demands. Tomatos, potatoes and various plants have been genetically modified for centuries just take a look at the sweet potato and the yam's history. Is quality control constantly needed though? Yep and you can be damn sure that even now the FDA does take extreme measures to watch it. There was an incident early last year I remember reading about, apparently some GM feed corn for pigs was found mixed with the leftovers of harvesting of a GM corn harvest meant for humans (the difference between the two corn types was a vaccine type meant for pigs to reduce their chance of certain infections). Although the feed corn was deemed harmless by researchers roughly 200 tons of corn from that harvest and a few others were confiscated and destroyed just because no one wanted to take a chance.

As far as licensing concerns go, thats a legitmate concern, IF you were doing agribusiness. Think about it a second will ya? What if you found a couple of strains of rice (such as the one recently developed by Carnegie Mellon) to grow without water for several months in regions like Afghanistan or even Iraq and can produce yields of 3-4 tons per acre? Assuming that same rice yields a mill rate of 50% at least of head rice thats extremely competitive with agribusinesses then, combine that with low labor costs in some third world countries and govt subsidies (or worse enforced labor for agriculture) and what do ya get? Competition you cant fight. The best way to look at is like what China is experiencing right now with digital media piracy. How the heck do you manage to enforce certain patents and licenses when its so widespread? Mind you the rice isn't the best example, but it is still a legit concern, the only way you get around is for the businesses themselves to officially waive licenses for certain countries for a period of time (they after all dont want it to come back and bite them in their asses).

Posted by Val 2004-1-14 8:55:56 PM|| 2004-1-14 8:55:56 PM|| Front Page Top

23:57 ed
00:28 Lucky
23:33 .com
23:25 Tibor
22:35 Lu Baihu
22:18 Super Hose
22:13 Super Hose
21:51 Anonymous2U
21:46 Anonymous2U
21:42 Super Hose
21:35 Frank G
21:32 tu3031
21:28 Bomb-a-rama
21:27 Frank G
21:27 Anonymous2U
21:10 IceCold
21:10 tu3031
21:03 tu3031
21:02 Ralph
20:57 tu3031
20:55 Val
20:51 tu3031
20:43 tu3031
20:41 CrazyFool