New Zealand sticks out like sore thumb in Brazil
The meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol on biological diversity is underway in Brazil this week, and there are still serious concerns from other member governments and environmental groups at the positions New Zealand is taking.
As well as standing out on the issue of Terminator technology, which Nandor traversed in the House two weeks ago, New Zealand has also taken a concerning approach to the international labelling of goods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and is now the only country standing in the way of an international agreement on labelling of GE organisms traded across borders.
For New Zealand to be the only country standing out on this issue raises serious questions about why our officials are taking this stance. Speaking on behalf of Winston Peters when questioned on this issue in the House, Michael Cullen said:
Because that would mean that all normal or conventional agricultural shipments, even of organics, would have to be labelled “may contain living, modified organisms” because of the remote possibility they might have come into contact with living, modified organisms. That clearly would also be a potential non-tariff barrier for food-importing countries to use.
Environment Minister David Benson Pope made similar arguments on National Radio’s Morning Report this morning.
But if it really is as bad as that, why aren’t other countries concerned? Surely everyone would be in the same position, and find such a proposition equally troubling?
Is it not possible, and more likely, that New Zealand is in fact acting as a proxy for the United States, which is not a party to the convention, on this issue, helping them to push their agenda in the hope of strengthening our relationship? Perhaps it is not a co-incidence that today has seen renewed calls for a Free Trade Deal between New Zealand and the United States, backed by two US Senators.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Greenpeace are asking everyone to email Helen and Benson-Pope in the hope that they will change their mind … they have a easy email tool on their website
http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/campaigns/ge/biosafety-action-02.asp
March 16th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
This is potentially a huge issue for our exporters. Right now, I can tell you, British consumers are falling over themselves to get pay a premium for organic produce. This is exactly the sort of high quality niche that NZ claims to be targetting. When Tesco’s run it as a mainstream brand you know it is an important trend. Now, if NZ wants to cut itself out of that market fine, but let’s not make that decision “by mistake” so to speak.
March 16th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
all unpackaged fruit, vegetables and meat in australia, as well as allpackaged food must now be labeled with country of origin. but not in nz. it appears this govt is truly one of the great suppressers of information when it comes to defending “free trade” and elimminating “non-tariff barriers”. consumers must NEVER be allowed to decide for themselves where they want their food to come from. why? because silly consumers might let irrational and emotional issues distract them from their mission to ensure capital, goods and services run free across the globe (but not labour). keep them in the dark! let them eat cake! you get the idea…
March 16th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Tangential to this, but major news with respect to GM in general, is the drug-trial disaster in the UK :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1731920,00.html
The “drug” in question, which has left 6 volunteers in intensive care, is actually “not a chemical but a biological product, a genetically engineered “humanised” protein. Unlike the old chemical entities, these monoclonal antibodies are designed to be accepted by the human body, which experts say makes it difficult to work out by animal testing what dose would be toxic to humans.”
… this result underlines the primitive state of understanding about genetically-modified organisms in general, and the inadequacy of the testing protocols, even in an area so sensitive and well-controlled as drug testing. The results of animal tests were OK, therefore, according to the habitual protocols, it was OK for human tests…
This is a huge setback for medical GM research : who is going to volunteer for tests now? and may cause a bit of soul-searching about releasing GMOs into the environment. Unintended consequences…
March 17th, 2006 at 1:05 am
The various TV and radio news items I heard during today said nothing about the GE factor.
Why was that I wonder? (Hopefully innocent ignorance … but it does change
the whole picture.)
March 17th, 2006 at 7:25 am
alistair:
I’m afraid that you’re off on a bit of a tangent - the comparison you make is a bit like saying Hitler was a vegetarian, thus all vegetarians are evil. The creation of drugs via bacterial cultures that have been modified for the purpose is well removed from the engineering of organisms to improve their pesticide resistance, as is the manner in which they are used. The consumption of genetically modified foodstuffs is a completely different kettle of fish to the direct injection, into the bloodstream, of an antibody. Literally thousands of drugs are developed and tested using the standard set of clinical trials that have been developed for the purpose - these things can and do go wrong, regardless of how the drug is produced. You are conflating two completely separate instances of the same basic technology, and thus trying to implicate one application based on what happened in another case. It doesn’t hold up to close inspection.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:11 am
From my experience with the food and drug industry, free trade agreements and US Republicans suggests that you can’t be cynical enough. Where there’s muck there’s brass, and there is a lot of mucking about that can be done with food, unfortunately.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:21 am
If the government is indeed “acting as a proxy for the United States” on the issue then, given their recent gutless refusal to support Keiths motion on Guantanamo, this could indicate a worrying trend. Just how many principles is Labour prepared to undermine to pursue the hallowed free trade agreement?
March 17th, 2006 at 11:46 am
“Just how many principles is Labour prepared to undermine to pursue the hallowed free trade agreement?”
Probably ALL of them except Nuclear-free!
March 17th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
You would think we would be arguing for clarity. This is not confusion under a misleading label.
But as accurate a portrayal of the status as is possible.
This is known to contain GE. This is known to have been in contact with GE. This may have been in contact with GE.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
About as helpful as this has been produced in a factory processing peanuts to an allergy sufferer.
Looks like you could drive the “GM” truck through a door this wide.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Trev,
I acknowledged it as a tangent, but the underlying point is that genetic engineering remains a crude science, the effects of which are ill-studied and perhaps fundamentally unknowable. Traditional ways of thinking about what is safe (whether drugs or foods) are inadequate, but the economic interests involved are powerful, and caution is thrown to the winds.
* I have no idea how many genetically-engineered drugs proceed to clinical testing : have you? I would contend that, given the nature of genetic engineering, an accident like this one has been waiting to happen.
* The traditional testing protocols clearly didn’t cut it, in this instance : animal testing is irrelevant since the protein was created specifically to interact with human biochemistry; therefore, the (paid) volunteers were being used literally as lab mice. There is an analogy here with the rushed and inadequate testing on GM foodstuffs.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Well said Alistair !
March 18th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Alistair:
You’re missing the point of my argument, which is that you are just tarring everything with the same brush. The fundamental point that I want to make is that you can’t take what has happened in one application of a technology (ie drug production) and use that incident to tar all other applications of it.
GE, as applied to foodstuffs, has, without a doubt, many issues associated with it: monocultures, superweeds, use of “terminator” genes to produce infertile offspring, intellecutual property rights etc. However, these are all issues relating to the application of the technology, not the technology itself. And I fully agree with you when you say that when large economic interests become involved, the application of this technology is often not in a manner that promotes what most people on this forum would agree is a “better” world. Another application of genetic engineering technology is the production of pharmaceuticals. Many of the most common and important pharmaceuticals (e.g. insulin, penicillin) today are produced in this manner. Again there are issues, particularly with respect to intellectual property rights vs curing ailing people. But in both these cases, the issue is not the technology - it is how it is applied.
In this trial, something has clearly gone wrong: it may be with the company, maybe the subjects involved in this trial, it may be a simple oversight, possibly neligence, on the part of the people adminstering the drug. It may also be that its just something that that is specific to our species that would never ever show up in animal testing anyway - that is, after all, why we carry out human tests before releasing a drug.
To cite GE as a cause, and its supposed interaction with unknowable “human biochemistry” is misguided - can you provide a mechanism by which this could have happened? How, or why, has the specific use of GE, as opposed to producing it, say, chemically, led to the subject’s sickness? To simply point the finger at the unseen hand of GE is not enough to win the argument - you need a rational and reasonable explanation why the use of GE led to this problem. In the meantime, here’s an a reasonable explanation - the procedures prior to human trials (eg animal tests, simple deductive reasoning) that should have been carried out failed to predict the extreme immune reaction that this antibody appears to have induced in humans. I’m open to alternative suggestions. There was a good article in New Scientist today that tends to support this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8863&feedId=online-news_rs s20
Problems arising from drugs that have been supposedly tested fully and declared safe for public use predate the biotech age: Thalidomide, Methaqualone (an anti-malarial), and Diethylstilbestrol (an early synthetic estrogen), all “chemically” produced drugs, are good examples. In the case of Thalidomide, the animal tests did not take into account pregnant individuals, leading to the resulting birth of around 12,000 children with serious birth defects around the world. As above, the fault lies not with the technology employed to produce the drug, but with the testing and regulatory mechanisms (and the possible corruption thereof) that failed to adequately recognise these potential problems.
So, to sum that all up, I’m saying that the link to GE is circumstantial and not valid. You are trying to conflate two unrelated arguments. On one hand, an error due to either negligence or ignorance has probably been made somewhere in testing procedure. However, there is no strong link back to the technology used to produce the drug in the first place, and no reason to suspect that this might be the case. Alternative, reasonable, explanations abound. Similarly, the results of this trial do not have any bearing upon the use to GE in foodstuffs. The distinctions are subtle, but important - please be sure to make them correctly.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
trevva:
“The message we receive depends upon the way in which it is delivered.”
Having read your post carefully, I suspect that without the somewhat “arrogant” tone and some inappropriate absolutes, your arguments (assertions) would be more likely to be taken on board … if, in fact, that was your intention.
“Never underestimate the effect that the manner of delivery can have on on the receiver (in this case reader) at an emotional level.”
( I hope this is not intended as the beginnings of a male “pissing contest”, which, fortunately, are rare on frogblog.)
eredwen
March 19th, 2006 at 4:01 am
Sorry, I didn’t mean it to sound like a pissing contest - writing is not something that I do at all well. Please accept my apologies.
March 19th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
trevva
Apology warmly accepted!
March 19th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
What thalidomde and the latest disaster show is not the dangers of GM, but the dangers of assuming that animal experiments are valid for humans. Animals and humans react differently at the sub-cellular and biochemical level. So testing drugs on animals is not only bad ethics but bad science.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:46 am
Bacteria? They took mouse protein and “humanized” it - so they thought. They did the best job of disguising that protein as human that they could. This isn’t about bacteria. This is about hubris. - Even in my busy state I was able to pick up this much.
respectfully
BJ
March 20th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Good discussion everyone.
The issue here isn’t that it’s a genetically modified protein, it’s an issue of testing new drugs on humans- and to me there is no issue there as long as the human subjects are fully informed of all known risks and consent without coercion.
What’s the difference between a random, new protein synthesised in a bacteria through genetic engineering, and a random, new protein synthesised by chemical means? The methods are different, but the proteins are both as foreign to human body as each other. What difference is there between these and a new protein synthesised in a human due to a random mutation that was not previously present in humans? Nothing.
Genetic engineering in animals can be taken as a logical extension. There is no difference between putting a new gene in an animal, and the new gene coming about by random mutation. Random mutation creates new proteins in animals all the time, that’s why we look different, and that’s why evolution occurs.
As long as we ensure that no one’s rights are affected in producing genetically modified organisms (i.e. no one else’s crops are affected, no one’s health is affected etc.) there is no problem.
March 21st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Is84 asserts:
“As long as we ensure that no one’s rights are affected in producing genetically modified organisms (i.e. no one else’s crops are affected, no one’s health is affected etc.) there is no problem.”
How do we “ensure” this (very Human centred) proviso?
To me it seems simplistic and totally inadequate, as it assumes that in genetic manipulation we actually know what we are doing.
Our knowledge of genetics is still at a comparatively early stage.
Humans are one of many species on the planet, and a temporary one at that.
The current thinking that research should be financed by business / must have a financial goal, is most probably a factor in this inappropriate trial and its results.
March 21st, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Hi, thanks for your comment.
Surely if you treat us a temporary species, what responsibility do we have for after our species is gone? We don’t exist then, nothing matters to us. Surely as humans we have to act in our own rational self interest as a species. Anyway, this is a side issue.
Do you think a random genetic mutation knows what it’s doing? Do you think famers artificially selecting crops know what they’re doing in the long run? There have been massive changes- take wheat for example. How do we know launching a space craft in to space isn’t going to do weird things to people? How do we know using cellphones isn’t going to give us all brain tumours 50 years later? If you have that attitude no progress is made.
However, I accept that we have to tread very carefully with GE. No one has the right to introduce GE into the environment and destroy all the organic crops. The organic owners could sue, but that’s not going to bring back their crops. It’s the same as bombing a city. What’s done is done. However what would happen as organic owners would realise that the GE dudes had shaky containment of their crops, so would sue before there is a problem. As a result, GE owners would become very, very careful. An ultimately, organic growers will see the benefits of growing GE and will convert. If people want to eat GE food, we have no right to stop them; the same way they have no right to force us to eat GE.
The trial is not inappropriate just because it has bad results. If you think that, then no trials can ever take place, and we’d all be stuck dying 20-30 years earlier. No grandparents. The subjects knew what risks they were taking, they wanted money, and they may have wanted to further the well-being of humans. I’d much rather they found a treatment for cancer or any disease than not.
Research can’t be done without money, and if we have private individuals/businesses funding it, we get more results.
March 21st, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Is84:
We seem to be looking at things from very different perspectives!
As a member of Homo (self called) “sapiens” I (and mine) feel a great responsibility to the other species on this planet. A concept obviously not shared by all! I personally feel a responsibility to leave things better than I found them for future generations (and to me the fact that I won’t be here is irrelevant).
Random genetic mutation either increases the success of an (individual) organism or it doesn’t. The selective breeding of crops is not in the same category as GE. Nor are the other “arguments” you use.
The assumption that applying the “precautionary principle” to the application of GE “technology” (given our very incomplete knowledge of genetics) does not make me (or many very well informed and principled Greens) Luddites!
As far as getting money for research is concerned, I’m not sure of your point when you say “if we have private individuals/business funding … we get more results.”
It is in the public interest (the planet’s interest) to ensure that the research undertaken, how it is done and how the results are used is well controlled.
You probably know the Ancient Greek story about Pandora’s Box …
eredwen
March 21st, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Don’t get divisive on this please. I’m not on the ‘other side’ to you, I’m just trying to pursue rational discussion.
Sorry, but you misunderstood me. I didn’t say that we have no interest in preserving the planet for future generations. I said we have no interest in preserving the planet for after our species is gone, i.e. there are no descendants of those living today present on earth or anywhere else. I’m not anti keeping the environment good, but you shouldn’t enforce the idea of preserving the environment on other people. That’s why we need absolute property rights.
Selective breeding changes the genetic makeup of a species over a long time, perhaps making new species over a long time. Genetic engineering does exactly the same, but relatively instantaneously. The fact the artificial selection changes things over a longer time doesn’t not make it ‘better’ than GE, it just means we have to be much more careful about what GE’s impacts are on whatever the modified organisms are being used for.
‘In the public interest’- don’t generalise for other people. Saying things are in the public’s interest doesn’t mean everyone wants it, so we shouldn’t force money off people to pay for things they don’t want to pay for.
Lastly, let me leave you with this question. Why is it in our interest to preserve other species?
This is great discussion, keep it up.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Those who oppose genetic engineering have opposed scientific development from the beginning of mankind on the basis that we do not know enough to do things. These people seem impervious to the fact that it is only through experimenting that we learn, and only through experimenting that we advance.
In the 1600s when tomatoes were brought from South America to Europe, many feared that they were poisonous, on the basis that they were foreign and unknown. Some people ate them, and found them to be a delicious fruit. And so it began. The environmental movement is awash in the mysticism that invokes fear at every opportunity of new technology, and new products.
Does this mean that we proceed without caution? No. Economically it does not make sense to do this. Should we have launched shuttles to space time and again, underprepared, in the hope that they’d work? No. Caution is implicit in any selfishly made economic decision. Someone using gentic engineering to produce a potato resistant to frosts wants to succeed - and succeed on the first time, pass the tests with flying colours, then grow and market it. And the most economic way to do this is via caution - to research, study, test, test again, and then sell.
“Random genetic mutation either increases the success of an (individual) organism or it doesn’t. The selective breeding of crops is not in the same category as GE. Nor are the other “argumentsâ€? you use.” Genetic engineering, mutations, and selective breeding all alter genetic makeup over time.
If you want to talk about risks, selective breeding also comes with risks. Over time it is conceivable that we whittle down the number of variations, and then a new disease wipe out absolutely one crop. The net benefits are such that we selectively breed (and individual preference means this is unlikely occur in the first place).
You also challenge the truth that individuals should fund science, not governments. It is “in the public interest” you cry. By the public interest you mean that you know better than individuals how to spend their money. Don’t mince your words. You believe your view of the world is so superior that you should compel others to pay your higher taxes to fund what you believe to benefit society (and typically, yourself). You have no moral right to steal from people what is rightfully theirs. You also have no right to impede the progress of individuals on their own land.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:00 pm
IS84
The problem with, more business looking for profits and simply allowing individualised and localised consent to trials ethos, is that there is a risk management factor for the wider population and the total environment.
It’s not just good outcomes/progress from a more open process of investigative research.
Those profiting from their investment/research/choice to take a place in trials place risks and costs on others. The 6 people affected have received round the clock medical care and international specialist assistance. If everyone charged for their time … . And this was just a case of consequence for those involved.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
The false premise of your argument there is that you presume the government should be paying for the healthcare of individuals. They shouldn’t. In fact, the fact that they do means that trial companies take more risks - since they know they won’t be footing the bill. It is the state apparatus that provides the perverse incentives to take risks with human life.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Depending on the agreement between the researchers and the patients, either the researchers or the patients should foot the bill. It’s only because this occurred in a country with state run healthcare that things seem unfair. If there was private healthcare only, no cost is placed on anyone else. This is not a problem of business funding research, it’s a problem of state run healthcare.
Risks? If people consent to trialling a durg, and have been fully informed of all known risks and been told that there could be other unknown risks, there is no problem.
Like Stephen Whiitington said, anything that has a bad effect on the environment will not be economically favourable, so won’t occur. A biotech. company knows they will be in big big financial trouble if they release unsafe things that affect others rights. It’s only because we currently live in a world were property rights are so murky that there is any confusion over this.
And don’t phrase it as negatively as just ‘looking for profits’. To quote Stephen, ‘the desire for money is a desire for the means by which men exchange value voluntary. Money is, if anything, one of the most beautiful symbols in the world - a symbol of mutual consent, as opposed to a symbol of the robber baron capitalist.’
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:46 pm
ls84:
“anything that has a bad effect on the environment will not be economically favourable, so won’t occur”
[speechless]
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:55 pm
IS84
I reitterate “we look at things from very different perspectives.”
You write:
“Selective breeding changes the genetic makeup of a species over a long time, perhaps making new species over a long time. Genetic engineering DOES EXACTLY THE SAME, but relatively instantaneously.”
NO! Some serious reading on the topic of genetics and GE, to understand the REAL concerns, would be essential before any “debate” on the topic could be meaningful.
I did understand your assumption that humans would be disinterested in what might happen to the planet and its lifeforms after Homo sapiens is gone … It fits well with your espoused philosophy of “self interest”, “individulal responsiblility”, “we shouldn’t force money off people to pay for things they don’t want to pay for” “and “need for absolute property rights”.
I agree with none of these things (”individual responsibility”, yes, but not in your context). They may work in theoretical terms but not in the reality of human societies.
Human evolved into cooperative “hunter gatherer” groups (who could be beligerent towards rival groups). We carry this legacy in our brains and in our emotions/behaviour. We need to acknowledge and understand this legacy so that we can use the positive aspects (cooperation etc) and control the negative aspects for life on this heavily overpopulated planet.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Wow!
A voiciferous little group seem to have flown in on their right wings …
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
trevva’s comment on ls84’s post. Clearly this is an example of one of those annoying typo’s that gets reported here occassionally that the OP is unable to correct since there is no edit your own post facility. Clearly ls84 meant to say “anything that has a good effect on the environment will not be economically favourable, so won’t occurâ€?
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:13 pm
stuey:
Brilliant response …
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Once again, no need to get personal. All I’m trying to pursue is discussion on this, and if people act stubborn and defensive we achieve nothing. Why don’t you guys back up your arguments with some rational thought rather than making what you think are jokes.
So eredwen, do you think we should be able to take money off people by force? Please explain this.
Why do you not think property rights are good for the environment? Please explain this.
Why do we need to care about the planet after our species is totally gone with no descendants? Please explain this.
What do you think are the ‘real concerns’ with GE? Please explain this.
It would be good if you didn’t simply refute my arguments without any logical backing. Saying you disagree without a reason achieves nothing.
Lastly, it’s widely regarded that most social behaviour of humans is not genetic, but due to the passing down of it from parents to children. Also, humans are smart enough to work out the benefits of it.
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:31 pm
And trevva, I did not make the comment you claim I did on my site, that was another contributor. Please be careful when making such accusations.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Stephen, ls84 - May I refer you to the debacle’s in the past few years with drugs released by the FDA, which you must be aware, doesn’t actually test anything anymore, as it TRUSTS THE F’ING CORPORATIONS TO PROVIDE THE DATA.
Just how many people died as a result of those falsely optimistic reports? Would you say that death is a bad effect from taking a medicine?
Since the environmental bad effects may only be seen 30 years after the next profit report, do you think MAYBE there might be a disconnect between the economic consequences and the depressingly familiar economic rape of the environment by the corporation involved.
The problem with your ideology is that you seem to think a disorganized mob of individuals will be better at solving the “tragedy of the commons” than a government. How? You seem to think that even without feedback about the costs of abusing the environment, the economic system will provide the most efficient use of resources and will protect that environment in some mysterious magical way.
The “Invisible Hand” also kills. Your mysterious magical methods do not exist and no government constituted along the lines you espouse has ever EVER survived long enough to be recorded in history.
Naaahhh… you won’t listen, you don’t want to hear it. You just want to wave that flag with the dollar signs on it and complain about big government forcing people and corporations to behave themselves with SOME care for the future.
Just because the true costs are deferred, doesn’t mean they aren’t going to hurt. They just won’t hurt YOU. Your children’s children may curse your name, but YOU will be just fine, won’t you.
I haven’t got any sympathy for you, never will. You’ve bought the propaganda package of the corporatists so you think they’re going to let you swill at the same trough?
(Where’s that deed to the bridge? Looks like I can sell it again)
BJ
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:08 am
‘Since the environmental bad effects may only be seen 30 years after the next profit report, do you think MAYBE there might be a disconnect between the economic consequences and the depressingly familiar economic rape of the environment by the corporation involved.’
This can be said for anything regardless of the political system in place. Are you proposing we don’t take on anything new for fear of what could happen down the track? Surely all we can do is minimise the risks to the enviroment- in other words, would you rather a new drug that wiped out cancer was released, or we spend 20 years of clinical and environment trials seeing its effect?
What don’t you understand about property rights? At the moment, a corporation can ‘rape’ the environment, but if that environemt were owned by individuals they wouldn’t let this happen, as having land that is made not in good condition reflects badly on yourself/your business. Can you explain why you don’t see this happening? I know corporations do bad things now, but we’re talking about potential systems for the future.
‘Naaahhh… you won’t listen, you don’t want to hear it…haven’t got any sympathy for you, never will…YOU will be just fine, won’t you.’ Once again, why the personal attacks? Surely you can’t think that any of us have thought things through to the point where we know exactly the best political system, nor do I claim to. I’m trying to work it all out for myself, so you shouldn’t just get angry at these types of suggestions (that I presume you find highly conflicting with your own), but use clear reasoning to show why I”m wrong. All you’ve done is attack my points, not explained why an alternative is better.
Also, I agree having a government-run pharmaceutical regulatory body like the FDA or Pharmac is not good, as they have a monopoly over drug regulation leading to corruption like you rightly said. In a privatised world, there would be several competiting regulatory bodies. Those that had an honest record, seen from performance, will be more popular with pharmacies, and in turn those pharmacies that have their medications endorsed by well-reputed regulators will get more customers. Hence it will be in the regulator’s interest to be honest and ensure good performance.
Because there is only the FDA in the USA at the moment, this leads to all sorts of dodgy deals as they are strongly influenced by corporations. Pharmacies and drug retailers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Their customers get pissed off/die because of dodgy drugs, and they can’t do anything about because the FDA said the drugs were okay.
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:32 am
Clevor Trevva:
In this trial, something has clearly gone wrong
- gee, you think so?
… It may also be that its just something that that is specific to our species that would never ever show up in animal testing anyway
my point entirely. It’s precisely because of the GM aspect that this is so.
that is, after all, why we carry out human tests before releasing a drug.
The more I think about it, the more I’m opposed to the principle of paying people to be lab rats. It’s not different in nature to paying people for blood, or even to selling the organs of executed prisoners, as they do in China. Market forces. Not a good look when it comes to health.
To quote from the New Scientist article you linked (which does absolutely nothing to counter anything I said, by the way),
An immunologist contacted by New Scientist, but who asked not to be named, says: “You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out what will happen if you non-specifically activate every T cell in the body.�
And the rocket scientist says: They took mouse protein and “humanized� it - so they thought. They did the best job of disguising that protein as human that they could. This isn’t about bacteria. This is about hubris.
… back to my original point. Thank you BJ.
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:33 am
… but yes Trev, the link to GM foodstuffs is indeed tenuous. I brought it up because I found it very, very interesting indeed that the news media did not understand, or chose not to highlight, the GM aspects of the clinical trial disaster.
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Eredwen, don’t feed the trolls
- SW soulmate of Duncan Bain
- LS84 fellow blogger with SW at teenagepundit
They post here pretending to be polite and then slag us off over at their site
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
You misunderstand the position I hold as supporting crony-capitalism - with government regulatory bodies who say what’s ok and what’s not in Healthcare. As you rightly pointed out, this results in corporations not testing adequately, and they know that at the end of the day they won’t be held responsible - the regulatory body will. Get rid of that and they will - and there’s your economic incentive to test.
Your issue over land and the environment is easy to clear up. THe problem at the moment is that private companies are able to pollute publicly owned lands - rivers, seas, etc., because no one takes responsibility for it. In this respect I like the environmental movement because in a way they uphold property rights - just collectively owned property. But the problem is they will never do it as successfully as individuals who own the land. If someone dumps rubbish on my land I find out who it is and complain to authorities. If someone dumps garbage in a park, most, myself included, don’t do anything.
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
What don’t you understand about property rights? At the moment, a corporation can ‘rape’ the environment, but if that environemt were owned by individuals they wouldn’t let this happen, as having land that is made not in good condition reflects badly on yourself/your business.
Like I said, you won’t listen and you DON’T have a clue. Who “owns” the atmosphere? Who “owns” the river? Who “owns” the ocean? Who “owns” the planet? You make individual property rights your God and you worship at the altar of unfettered right to do whatever you will with what you own, but you can’t admit the damage that is done by corporate individuals in the name of mammon.
My problem here isn’t that we disagree totally, but that you are missing two very key points. You cannot trust the market or individuals with the responsibility for the commons or with long term responsibility for the welfare of the society. You understand the tragedy of the commons, your answer is that everything should be privately owned. This might work if it were possible, but as I note above, there are several areas where ownership by individuals is simply not a reasonable concept.
You look to private ownership but while understanding that something bad will happen long after I’m gone is motivating for ME, it is not even on the radar for the board of directors of a publicly held corporation who are interested in maximizing their profit report for the next quarter.
You’ll find that I don’t resist change a lot at all. Most greens are quite happy with change. Want to try a new drug for Cancer? OK.. Private property is fine with us… but as a means of dealing with the problems of the next seven generations, it has limits. So does every other system of government. Which is why we have this hybrid of parliamentary democracy and private ownership and social engineering all together.
Some of it works better than other parts. None of it is perfect for everything, and as a Green I have basically decided to vote for and work for my children. That means I put the environment ahead of private property rights. I haven’t said there aren’t any private property rights, just that there are limits to them. As to all things.
BJ
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Fastbike, don’t bunch us into a group.
Like I said earlier (please read the earlier comments), I never slagged you guys off. Others on the blog may have, but don’t accuse me of something I haven’t done. I am not responsible for what other people write.
‘Eredwen, don’t feed the trolls’. How does that help anything? Why not say what YOU think about all these topics, rather than try to shut down discussion.
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
“Like I said, you won’t listen and you DON’T have a clue. Who “ownsâ€? the atmosphere? Who “ownsâ€? the river? Who “ownsâ€? the ocean? Who “ownsâ€? the planet? You make individual property rights your God and you worship at the altar of unfettered right to do whatever you will with what you own, but you can’t admit the damage that is done by corporate individuals in the name of mammon.”
Exactly - you’re starting to get the problem. Rivers, oceans, these things are just said to be owned publicly, all together, so no one protects them. When pollution effects my air I should be able to sue. When someone dumps toxic waste in my river I should be able to sue. But I’m not allowed to own the rivers, or the oceans.
“My problem here isn’t that we disagree totally, but that you are missing two very key points. You cannot trust the market or individuals with the responsibility for the commons or with long term responsibility for the welfare of the society. You understand the tragedy of the commons, your answer is that everything should be privately owned. This might work if it were possible, but as I note above, there are several areas where ownership by individuals is simply not a reasonable concept.”
Exactly, you can’t trust individuals to look after the commons. So don’t make them the commons - make them an individuals own property. The concepts you talked of aboce can of course be privately owned. It was the courts - the judicial branch of government - that upheld the ability of companies to pollute the air as a matter of policy in the public interest. Once again, an example of the government saying they know better and denying our absolute rights to own property.
“You look to private ownership but while understanding that something bad will happen long after I’m gone is motivating for ME, it is not even on the radar for the board of directors of a publicly held corporation who are interested in maximizing their profit report for the next quarter. ”
Firstly I would say that most people are like you. They do care. And the public at large does care - so they wouldn’t want pollution to occur in this case. Even if they did, it would often economically not be the right move to make. THe costs of environmental pollution are huge. You have to be making some huge profits to justify it. And if you are, then fine. It’s their land. What’s the problem?
“That means I put the environment ahead of private property rights. I haven’t said there aren’t any private property rights, just that there are limits to them. As to all things.
You can’t put the environment ahead of property rights without property rights in the first place. With property rights you can do what you want with your own property - and for you that’s caring for it. Great.
Private property rights are absolute. You say there’s a limit to them. There is at the moment - and it’s causing the very problems you cite.
March 23rd, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Is84 and Fastbike):
I was aware immediately of Is84’s :
1. serious “right wing” leanings.
2. desire to tell me what to do (control my behaviour.)
Examples: “Don’t get divisive on this … don’t generalise for other people … don’t phrase it as negatively as just ‘looking for profits’… Once again, no need to get personal”… etc etc
3. touching belief in the virtues of “money” and “private property” …
I quote: “Money is, if anything, one of the most beautiful symbols in the world - a symbol of mutual consent, as opposed to a symbol of the robber baron capitalist.” … and … “you shouldn’t enforce the idea of preserving the environment on other people. That’s why we need absolute property rights.”
I have persevered in trying to communicate, (and to look for some common ground, from where we could have an interesting echange of ideas, rather than a point scoring “debate”.) I get the impression that Is84 did not come here for that reason.
I hope you have learnt someting from the exchange Is84.
One thing you possibly will have noticed is that there are intelligent, well educated and informed people on this blog and among the Greens, and they are concerned with some serious challenges for life on this planet (human made and here now or “just around the corner”.)
We are here to echange ideas on these mattters and NOT to play games (”point scoring” and “oneupmanship” for example.)
If you choose to stay, whether or not you get ignored will depend on how you conduct yourself.
eredwen
March 23rd, 2006 at 7:21 pm
I would probably describe libertarianism as neither left nor right - libertarians don’t buy into the traditional statists’ divide, because they’re not traditional statists.
I cannot speak for him but I think LUke’s point was that in the face of linear logic, your replies consisted mainly of ad hominem attacks, as opposed to an explanation of why what you believe was correct and moral. It also included the use of speech marks, as if that negated arguments. As in, SW’s “morality” is that…
Clever.
Your quotation that you attribute to Luke on money was actually me. You act as if quoting is actually a form of proving something is wrong. It’s not. Can you show me why what I say about money is incorrect? And can you also explain what gives you the moral right to force your views on what one can do with one’s own property on others?
I certainly came here to exchange ideas and to show that there was an alternative to the traditional view taken by environmentalists - a policy that would actually improve the environment. Commenting and stating a belief can hardly be ‘point scoring’, it’s just the flow on of truly believing something.
Also, thanks for the tips about personal conduct. But so far no one really seems to be ignoring what I or LS84 says.
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:14 pm
I’m sorry if it comes across that way eredwen. I am here simply to exchange ideas. What am I supposed to be scoring points for? I’m not here to insult you guys, or say you’re wrong. I would suggest, however, that some of you guys have been just as intent on ‘point scoring’ and ‘oneupmanship’ as you claim I have. I have total respect for you guys. I’d rather people be thinking about this stuff than not at all.
Let’s just try have civil discussion from here onwards okay?
Would you be able to answer my earlier questions to you eredwen?
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Stephen
I not only “get” the problem, I’ve understood it in depth for 3 decades. During which time I found that while most PEOPLE are like me, this does not matter when those people are organized into a corporation.
You tell me the courts have limited YOUR right to sue for damages to air, water, environment in general, but do you understand the practical difficulties inherent in collecting the necessary data for a lawsuit? In holding a corporation that is not actually incorporated in YOUR country liable for problems it is creating for you by actions somewhere else? This is not even remotely practical for individuals to address. You want to set Greenpeace vs the Corporations in a court of law? Given the nature of the legal system any case at all will run the better part of a decade.
No, even if I accept that your intentions are good, your solution is not practical in terms of the actual behaviours that some corporations engage in. It is not feasible in terms of the costs to the society and the risks to the future either. If you HAVE corporations you have to HAVE government to control them. If you can hold the individual people in the corporation responsible as opposed to dealing with the fictional entity you’re closer, but the true balance of power so favours the folks who are bent enough to sell their children down the river for a few hundred K extra in the profit report, that it is impossible for individuals to make a great difference in the outcome.
Private property rights are absolute.
In what Universe? It isn’t the case anywhere on this planet. Moreover, it isn’t the case unless there’s a government to protect those rights. You can’t eliminate the use of force by wishing. It’s there. It is part of being human. We are not civilized by nature, we LEARN to be civilized.
This isn’t, on my side, a debate about what an ideal society would look like. It is what we do NOW, with what we have NOW that interests me. People are hard to govern, even when they agree to it as they do here in New Zealand… and ideals, while attractive in the abstract, are usually impossible to actually implement. I didn’t come here to “eco-masturbate” and if you were paying attention you’d have noticed that the Green party is doing a heck of a lot more to deal with the problem of the commons than you are with your ideological prattling about private property being “the answer”.
What is it that YOU are doing to fix the problem? Oh, you’re coming over HERE to tell US that we should reorganize the government and the legal system of the planet so that private ownership of the air, and water and ecosystem will allow private lawsuits to be brought against multinational corporations by individuals and this will stop the abuses… And you call what WE do masturbation? !!
Your reality check just bounced… your account is overdrawn.
BJ