GE Free becoming part of national identity
Saw the new Steinlager ad the other night with Harvey Keitel. Thought it was interesting that one of the things he listed off as liking about NZ was us saying no to GMOs, as well as nukes, preservatives in beer, and women not having the vote (yep double negative but they were trying to keep with the theme of people are defined as much by what they reject as what they accept).
Now Keitel is not the one who defines who we are but presumably before Steinlager decided to go down the path of putting the anti-GE stance in their ad they had some idea of what people think. Which is cool. Clean, green, nuke free, and GE free.
Bookmark to:
June 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Why are people so spooked by GE? Seems rather luddite to me.
Won’t crops that grow in harsher conditions feed more people?
June 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
PEL is correct, GE crops which have been enhanced for higher productivity pose no danger to humans or other animals, they create more food and save lives, what was done in africa by protesting against GE was effectivly the killing of tens of thousands of people.
the harm from GE comes from when people try to mix genes so that crops have resistance to things they could not naturaly resist, for example plants pumping out anti-biotics, which also has great potential if it is limite to the lab and the production of medicine as opposed to a farmer just wanting to not have to care about weevils in his crops.
the green revolution was effectivly the same as the first type that i highlighted, the green revolution saved tens of thousands of lives, particuly in india.
We need less people, but short of that; we need more food.
Sapient
June 29th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
PEL - The problem with GE is that there’s no damned control of it and it isn’t all tested, proven, benign or in the long run any sort of a free lunch. We can be sure that Dow and Monsanto are not trustworthy in their briefs about the risks and benefits.
The other problem is that it is, if introduced here in NZ, the end of any competition to GE as the most of the rest of the planet’s cropland is already planted with it. This nation can (and IMHO should) maintain its GE-free status and branding. There’s a lot of unreasoned fear out there and taking advantage of it to get a higher price isn’t to be tossed away lightly. We have a defensible perimeter and we haven’t turned it loose here as it has been released into other environments. Once we do, we cannot “unrelease” it… the potential advantage is gone for good.
This nation should be the very last to plant GE crops of any description, and I might be moved to argue that it should never plant them at all. Someplace on the planet should continue to keep its natural “immune system” intact. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but a choice to be made it can be made by my Grandchildren, not by me.
BJ
June 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
That just sounds like a risk management issue to me.
Everything involves risk - eating natural produce involves risk - but so long as that risk is negligible vs the reward, it’s no big deal, IMHO.
We eat broccoli. Isn’t that GE’d?
>>There’s a lot of unreasoned fear out there and taking advantage of it to get a higher price isn’t to be tossed away lightly
You mean shipping food to Europe et al? I thought the Greens were against that….
June 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
No PEL, it isn’t just “risk management”. It is a step that can’t be retraced. We cannot unrelease GE corn or whatever. That’s not about “risk”. That’s a possible advantage that we simply hand over to Monsanto, and that is IMHO, as stupid a business decision as can be made.
Broccoli? I am unaware of any release of GE broccoli here. I know ERMA is being challenged on their efforts to make field trials. I think the effort is, as I pointed out above, as stupid as anything any New Zealander has ever tried, anywhere.
As far as shipping food is concerned. We have a well developed ability to use the wind… but I am afraid shipping is going to be moving back in that direction over the next century and the result won’t be all THAT nice. Fresh California Strawberries will be no more. OTOH, we’ll probably be able to have cranberry bogs and grow Strawberries year round in the North.
Greens don’t mind shipping food. We mind burning oil.
BJ
June 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Those who say GM technology can feed the world are answering the wrong question. Of course GM technology can feed the world. Existing technology can feed the world. Organic agriculture can feed the world and there is no shortage of scientific literature demonstrating a higher yield per hectare than conventional agriculture.
The real question, given the way GM technology is controlled by a corporate elite that are more concerned with profits than nutrition, is WILL it feed the world?
June 29th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
“As far as shipping food is concerned. We have a well developed ability to use the wind… but I am afraid shipping is going to be moving back in that direction over the next century and the result won’t be all THAT nice. ”
I disagree BJ - peak oil will mean that we’ll be shifting back to coal. AGW is going to accelerate, there’s no stopping it.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Sorry, I meant brocciflower.
>>It is a step that can’t be retraced. We cannot unrelease GE corn or whatever
But you’re assuming that because Mansanto does it, it therefore must be bad.
It might be good. Beneficial, even.
>>Of course GM technology can feed the world
If it does, and can be done so more efficiently than otherwise, and there is shown to be no risk, then that’s a good thing, no? Lower pesticide usage, higher yields, less chance of crop failure etc.
I sense the entire debate is paranoid. Proced with caution, certainly, but saying no to GE, outright, seems like a luddite reaction, to me.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
PeterExitsLeft
My main concern about GE IS, because it is controlled by corproate interests like Monsanto who have very questionable records as the cases below attest. GE crops actually allow farmers to use MORE pesticides at least in the case of Monsantos Round Up Ready seed and GE seeds have also been demonstrated to be more capital and water intensive than “traditional” farming and thus more inefficient particularly in India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#MON863_Liver_and_Kidney_Toxicity
Since the mid-1990s, it has sued some 150 US farmers for patent infringement in connection with its GE seed. The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season’s crop to plant the next. One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence, in addition to having to pay damages, when a Monsanto case turned into a criminal prosecution. Monsanto reports that it pursues approximately 500 cases of suspected infringement annually.
A high profile case in Canada, Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, went to the Supreme Court level, Monsanto sued an independent farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for patent infringement for growing genetically modified Roundup resistant canola.
In 1997, Fox News reportedly bowed to pressure from Monsanto to suppress an investigative report on the health risks associated with Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone product, Posilac.
Since 1998 Monsanto has been attempting to merge or purchase Delta & Pine Land Company. D&PL has been involved with a seed technology nicknamed “Terminator”, which produces plants that produce sterile seed. In recent years, widespread opposition from environmental organisations and farmer associations has grown, mainly out of the concerns that these seeds increase farmers’ dependency on seed suppliers (having to buy these each year for seeding new crops).
The transition to using the latest pest-resistant seeds and the necessary herbicides has been difficult. Farmers have been lured to genetically modified seeds promoted by Cargill and Monsanto by the promise of greater yields, research however has shown that these seeds require more water and pesticide treatment (sometimes by design). For some farmers, these hidden factors have cost entire harvests due to water shortages and exorbitant pesticide cost.
Monsanto dumped toxic waste including Agent Orange derivatives, dioxins and PCBs in British landfill sites. According to the Environment Agency it could cost up to £100m to clean up a site in south Wales. Several sites have come to light recently due to leakages and land being bought for housing developments namely at Groesfaen near Pontyclun and Glenfields in Caerffili.[15]
June 29th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
If I was a farmer, and the GE seeds came loaded with hidden costs that made my yield less profitable, why would I buy them again? I’d switch.
However, if I had plenty of water, and the pesticides weren’t an issue, and the yield was better, then fine.
Perhaps Monsanto are a bad actor. But does that mean all GE technology is bad and should be banned?
It’s all a bit Mary Shelly.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
The technology itself may not always be bad, but the distributor generally is. GE technology and distribution is primarily if not all controlled by chemical companies to work alongside their own chemicals. http://weblog.greenpeace.org/ge/archives/001183.html
They’ve made sure that they’re is no REAL choice.
The pesticides may not be a problem to you as a hypothetical farmer, but perhaps it would be to the guy who wants to swim in, drink from, and fish out of the river that those pesticides would flow into. Good ole’ “externalities” eh?
Where in New Zealand is there plenty of water in an area that has arable land pray tell? Cantebury? Malborough? Hawkes Bay? We don’t need it. Pure and simple.
This “development” is pushed by corporate interests who are interested in nothing more than greater degrees of profit and control. Nothing else.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
i would not argue that GE should be introduced into New Zealand, there is a market in being non-GE.
there is more than enough food at present to feed the world, that food however does not get distributed to where it is needed and alot of it rots or is scraped off plates into the trash bin (or compost), i dont think the corporate world would put out the money to ship grain to places where they cant make much profit from it.
at current, the third world could easily provide its own food, the thing is that instead of subsitance crops what they grow is generaly cash crops for which they get payed measly amounts. higher productivity food would allow them to both grow some cash crops and to grow food crops, without having to rely on the first world to ship food to them that those in the first world would rather let go to waste.
just because the distributer and the product they make is nasty it does not mean that the field as a whole does not have its benifits, crops that have been enhanced only in their output pose no danger.
give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a life time. teach a man to fish and give him a good net, feed him and many others for generations.
Sapient
June 30th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I like the possibilities of (eg) growing carrots that act as birth control to opposums. Also adding omega3 genes to plants as fish becomes scarcer.
jh
June 30th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Teach a man to fish, then make him pay for access to fish. Then limit his catch. Then add charges for the right to fish, the cost of monitoring his fishing. Then tell him where he can fish and where he cannot. Then tell him which equipment is banned for the purposes of fishing. Then allow foreign competitors to over-fish the areas he has avoided and sh*t all over the conservation efforts. But other than that, good idea.
Although the point I think you are all missing is that all of the “noble” “ethical” triumphs of NZ political history have been reduced to selling beer.
Teach a man to drink beer, and it’s over when the bottle is empty. But give him a noble reason to drink beer, and it makes sense to keep the fridge well stocked. It becomes a patriotic duty to stock the fridge, for without beer, it has all been for nothing.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Broccoflower is a natural hybrid cross made by touching two flowers together. No laboratory or toad genes involved at all. Some natural hybrids (like the mule) are naturally sterile… which lead my council to believe that they had the terminator gene. I think ignorance/believing the spin is behind the idea that GE is already for sale in the local garden centre, and the idea that it can benefit anyone other than monsanto.
PEL, the problem with your plan to switch is that the pollen will have escaped and created GE contaminated weeds around your farm, which will then cross back to your new ‘clean’ crops, and Monsanto will come and sue you for growing their genes without paying them. Once you release GE into your farm you will almost certainly never get it out again. Switching back is not an option.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
jh,
It would be a truly magic carrot if it has the same effect on the species that introduced the opposum. Then the world would have the tool to solve all it’s environmental problems.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I love how this poem to an ad agency has turned into another setpiece debate amongst the opinionated….
As Zentigger has said, this is about selling *beer*, not any kind of rational polling of the nationl political psyche.
My guess is they thought about which demographic they wanted to attract, then went looking for evidence of social issues which appeal to that demographic.
Hey Russ, that makes you dead-centre of a “yoof” demographic trend!
Nice to feel wanted, now? & the “yoof” bit must feel nice, too
g’arn guys, pull the top off another cold one, & get back to watching “our boys” sail under the brand name and win “us” a cup - whichever sport it is that Steinlager are sponsering this week. None of this has any real relevance to research about GE, or anything els e ofr that matter.
http://www.erma.govt.nz
go hunt down some real facts on our GE research, as approved so far, if you can stand the heat.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
ZenTiger.
“Teach a man to fish, then make him pay for access to fish. Then limit his catch. Then add charges for the right to fish, the cost of monitoring his fishing. Then tell him where he can fish and where he cannot. Then tell him which equipment is banned for the purposes of fishing. Then allow foreign competitors to over-fish the areas he has avoided and sh*t all over the conservation efforts. But other than that, good idea.”
Can’t argue with your statement sadly, ZenTiger. Hopefully with “our” new Navy ships “we’ll” better be able to police “our” EEZ.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
those beer barron dudes sure cooking with them spliced up hops and crops
[ unmarked ] fwwog,
June 30th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
– Steinlager really cares about keeping NZ GE-free!
– Yeah right…
June 30th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Yep, SleepyTreehugger, I’m very pleased to see that we may be able to police our EEC. I think it very important. Long overdue, but heartening to see.
June 30th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Kazel,
>>and Monsanto will come and sue you for growing their genes without paying them. Switching back is not an option.
That’s more a problem with patent law than GE.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:41 am
PEL.
So you can afford to contest patent law in court against Monsanto? I don’t think so. It would be easier to win a court case against Monsanto than it would be to convince the Americans to change their patent law.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:57 am
That’s for the Americians to decide. We have our own laws.
Problems get solved. The fact that there are isolated problems doesn’t negate GE technology to the extent of making a blanket statement “GE Free”. Perhaps we shouldn’t have had IV? Anti-biotics? Transplants? Blood transfusions? Any messing with the natural way?
Luddite.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:59 am
PS: Wasn’t referring to anyone in particular when I say luddite, more the stance sounds luddite to me.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am
PeterExitsLeft
I don’t know to what extent American patent law applies to us. Perhaps it something worth looking into.
No I don’t think it is luddite to oppose the introduction of a technology with an uncertain risks and questionable benefits, especially when it people are no longer able to have an option of not eating GE foods. If people want to eat GE food, import it from the US, or if growers want reap the supposed benefits of the technology establish a farm in the US and use the technology there. Those technologies you cite give people the oppurtunity of choose whether to make use of them or not. GE doesn’t.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
That’s for the Americians to decide. We have our own laws.
Not if we have a free trade agreement with them. Unless they are so stupid as to not make harmonising our IP laws with theirs as a pre-condition for a FTA.
BTW I am not a luddite. I have 2 science degrees, and know a lot about science. I say follow the money. The people who are loudest about the safety of GE are those in the biotechnology business, (scientists, shareholders and executives) who stand to make loads and loads of money.
It is peasant farmers who will feed the world. It always has been, and always will. Especially in poor countries that do not have the money to make it worth marketing industrial food to.
W
July 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Actually “Luddite” exactly describes the suspicion over GM crops and I don’t mean this in a disparaging way. The mythical Ned Ludd and his followers were not anti technology as is popularly believed, they had genuine concerns over the way that the contol of technology by the rich and powerful would threaten the livelihood of the workers.
This is exactly the same concern many of us have over GM. The technology itself is neutral and can be used for good or bad purposes - no disagreement with Peter there, but the control of the technology by powerful multinational is not. There is plenty of evidence that multinationals will lie, falsify data and intimidate regulators in order to safeguard their own products, and Monstanto’s environmental and social justice record has not been exemplary in this regard.
Those who believe that roundup ready crops will reduce herbicide use may like to look at the extensive UK trials, which concluded exactly the opposite. The only case in which the round up ready crop was more environmentally friendly than the alternative was when it was used to replace Atrazine, a particularly toxic herbicide. However Atrazine is being phased out, so any such advantage would be negated.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
>>Those who believe that roundup ready crops will reduce herbicide use may like to look at the extensive UK trials, which concluded exactly the opposite.
That’s fine - a company that produces a better product will win, and Monsanto will lose.
We seem to be getting into another argument here: the power of big business. This needs to be decoupled from the GE debate. It is, after all, quite possible for non-profits and charity organisations to develop and use GE technology.
While there will always be questions of unfair influence, I don’t buy the luddite line that technology only empowers the powerful. The computer revolution has shown us the exact opposite, as has medical technology.
Proceed, with caution, but proceed.
July 1st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
It is, after all, quite possible for non-profits and charity organisations to develop and use GE technology.
You must be kidding! The $billons might be an impediment!
a company that produces a better product will win,
There is not much evidence for this notion. It is marketing and market power that really counts. Quality does matter, but not for much compared with market power.
It was the extremely inferior personal computer manufactured by IBM that became standard.
Beta vs. VHS.
Hmmm…..
Worik
July 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
>>You must be kidding! The $billons might be an impediment!
Gates foundation.
>>There is not much evidence for this notion.
I run my own business. I assess suppliers on their relative merits. I imagine farmers do the same.
>>It was the extremely inferior personal computer manufactured by IBM that became standard.
No, MS got it right. They realised hardware meant little. The money was in software. Likewise with VHS. They had the titles.
I agree that the best product doesn’t necessarily win. But again, we’re talkign about the business end of GE, rather than the technology itself. Those aspects need to be separated, because the technology of GE is exciting, relevant, and has much potential.
Leave Karl Rove-style scare mongering to the far right.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 am
PeterExitsLeft.
What aspects of the technology interest you specifically? I’m pretty cynically about the claims made by its proponents after their marketing ploy regarding beta carotene rice. A study in India found that in order to reap the benefits of meeting the recommended dietary requirements each individual would have to consume more than the per capita of the food produced in the country. That wouldn’t be a problem, but it was marketed as the magic cure to many eye related illnesses that afflict many people in India. Thats the problem. Many people have only the marketing departments of the multinational corporations to inform them as to the risks/benefits of these crops.
Gates foundation.
Oh you mean this project? http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2561 Oh who was running the show? Who else, but Monsanto? Yes and the Gates Foundation does have billions to boot.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 am
In the field of medical technology, we’ve had Thalidomide, TGN1412 etc, but few would argue that medical science should be stopped.
>>What aspects of the technology interest you specifically
The world is warming up. Water will be short supply in some areas. We realise food must be grown locally, so what’s wrong with trying to make that happen? If natural plants work best, then use those. If GE plants work best, use those.
If natural plants fail in one area, and GE plants work in that area, would you leave a villages in Africa to starve because that doesn’t fit with your GE- free ideology?
(By “work” I mean high yield, with no higher risk)
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
PEL.
If natural plants fail in one area, and GE plants work in that area, would you leave a villages in Africa to starve because that doesn’t fit with your GE- free ideology?
In that case I wouldn’t if the claims relating to the technology were proven true rather than more marketing B.S. by Monsanto et el.
Thats what a moratorium is for. We shouldn’t introduce them into the country until it becomes necessary, which it certainly isn’t yet and I doubt it will ever will be. I’d rather farmers invested in current proven technology like drip irrigation technology that would prevent the profligate waste of water that farmers, particularly in Canterbury are responsible for.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
PEL
>>>>and Monsanto will come and sue you for growing their genes without paying them. Switching back is not an option.
>>That’s more a problem with patent law than GE.
Actually, the point is more that they will want to sue you for having their genes in your crop, even ten years after you have decided you don’t want their genes in your crop any more.
Whether they can actually sue you in NZ or not has never been tested. They are trying to sue Mexican farmers whose genetically diverse crops have been contaminated.
You said you would switch back… but people who have not even intended to grow GE crops end up doing it inadvertantly. Tell me, how will you stop the wind?
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
The science is new, so the waters are being tested. I’d imagine Monsanto would get significant push-back if they kept over stepping the mark, as any supplier would.
Again, that isn’t a good reason to dump GE science. That is a business/legal issue that some farmers may have with one biotech company. With competition, comes choice.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:57 pm
It is an excellent reason not to introduce GE science while they are still ‘testing the waters’ with it. An irreversible environmental disaster is not justified by allowing competition. Denying organic GE free farmers from choice is the result of other farmers exercising their choice to grow GE. Only one farmer can win.
You have a lot of unjustified faith in monsanto, or the power of the farmer to force them to stop ‘overstepping the mark’.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
>>An irreversible environmental disaster
Now you’re just being silly. Sounds a lot like the far-rights bunk terrorist argument.
>>You have a lot of unjustified faith in monsanto
I couldn’t care less about Monsanto, any more than I care about the Anatasoff Berry Computer.
I so have enormous faith in the resourcefulness of man.
I sense your stance is religious. GE=bad. I find that irrational. Biotech is a very young science. It may be 20 years before we have useful outputs.
Like many things “Green”, I find the risk is often overstated, and the benefits not entertained. If GE can provide benefit, and be shown to be of low risk, then GE is a good.
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I so have enormous faith in the resourcefulness of man.
So do I, but I don’t have much faith in his honesty, particularly when he’s involved in a company like Monsanto who is generally the one who has sufficient capital to invest in and market this technology. Did you read this?http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2561
Embarrassingly, in Uganda conventional breeding has produced a high-yielding variety more quickly and more cheaply. Hence why invest in biotech when we can do it the conventional way?
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
We’re at the dawn of this technology.
I imagine there will be countless wrong turns, such as those in Uganda. Such is the nature of invention. IVF took 100 attempts and years of research before it produced a miracle.
I find the objections to GE, at this very early stage, to be similar to those of Christians when first faced with fledgling medical science. “One should not play God!”.
I’m not discounting the risks of playing God. But I’m not going to write off potential benefits, at this very early stage, just because there are some risks in doing so. If the human race never took the risk of venturing beyond the cave, it’s highly likely none of us would be here.
GE may help us to survive as yet unimagined future catastrophes. Climate change, for one.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
True. Neither am I, but as you say we have to be careful. Nobody says to stop others from studying it. We just want a say in whether we have to eat it or not.
I know where you’re coming from PEL, but you have more faith in people than I do. Would be nice to grow a crop that doesn’t require so much energy to grow and harvest, particularly with Peak Oil coming up in the next 20 years at most.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
The argument that this is a new technology and hasn’t had a chance to prove itself seems like a good reason not to let it be used widely. According to the New Scientist, GE soy has been a disaster for farmers - wrecking soil profiles, requiring more fertilisers and pesticides and resulting in lower yeilds.
Problem is it looks great for the first couple of seasons and, funnily enough, no salesperson told the farmers “this isn’t going to last, oh and by the way, if you throw Round Up at weeds, you’ll kill off the soil micro-organisms and won’t be able to farm here.”
Perhaps GE seeds should come with a clear consumer warning: “This is a new technology. Unlike traditional crops which have had thousands of years of field tests, this product hasn’t been properly tested. There may be long-term environmental effects. Yields are likely to reduce with time. Health impacts are uncertain. Consumers may not want to eat this, so prices may be lower than non-GE seeds.” We’ll see how many farmers want to take that up.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:52 am
Sam Buchanan said: According to the New Scientist, GE soy has been a disaster for farmers - wrecking soil profiles, requiring more fertilisers and pesticides and resulting in lower yeilds.
Of course, the biotech / pesticide / fertiliser corporates want this to happen, becasue then they can develop and sell the “solutions” to the problems they have created.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
If Monsanto didn’t deliver enough benefit to farmers, Monsanto won’t have a company left.
I’m not hearing many rational arguments, only isolated examples of poor results.
From AgBioWorld: “More than 3400 scientists support the use of biotechnology to improve agriculture in the developing world, including 25 Nobel prize winners”
So if we’re to listen to the views of scientists on global warming, why are you not prepared to listen to 3400 scientists on GE?
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“If Monsanto didn’t deliver enough benefit to farmers, Monsanto won’t have a company left.”
That may happen when they run out of markets where people are ignorant of the effects of their products. Problem is, it may take a while and the damage in the meantime could be considerable. Cigarette companies are the obvious parallel and they haven’t gone out of business yet.
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
winter corn for tea again, good,, big fleshy cobs, improved, yum, don’t feel sick at all, pq
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
PEL.
Hmm I wounder if they’re in the Biotech BUSINESS? A bit of a conflict of interest I’d say.
The Nobel Prize doesn’t impress me. They gave Henry Kissinger a Noble Peace Prize didn’t they? Hilarious that.
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
So if we’re to listen to the views of scientists on global warming, why are you not prepared to listen to 3400 scientists on GE?
Good question, I can think of a few reasons. Firstly the scientific consensus is not as great over GM as it is over global warming. Contrary to what you may hear in the media or what ignorant non-scientists like Marian Hobbs might say, those opposing GM are not scientific illiterates but include some of the top scientists in the world.
Secondly, the issue with global warming (is it happening, are we causing it) is just about science. But the GM debate is far more complex and includes issues of control of technology, patent law and strategic policy. Scientists are no more qualified to make judgements on these complex matters than any other sector of the population.
Lastly, it depends on how the question is worded. As a scientist I have no problem with supporting the use of biotechnology to improve agriculture in the world. Biotechnology is a term that includes conventional breeding, wine making, yoghurt making and use of organic techniques as well as GM. There is nothing wrong with using all the technological tools in our box to improve agriculture. But I am cynical about the ability of GM to feed the world, given its control by a powerful elite that have an abysmal record in human, animal and environmental rights.
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
>>I wounder if they’re in the Biotech BUSINESS?
No, I’m not in the biotech business. Nice ad Hominem…
>>That may happen
It doesn’t appear to be backed up by the facts. According to my research, most farmers appear more than happy with GE, and are reordering, and replanting.
>>the issue with global warming (is it happening, are we causing it) is just about science.
I don’t think so.
The Green movement hardly waited for scientific consensus (there still isn’t one) before jumping aborad the AGW bandwagon. AGW suited their purposes against big business, big oil, globalisation and capitalism.
>>it depends on how the question is worded
Right.
So it’s premature, luddite and politically-charged to say “GE Free”.
Business can and does provide good. GE is not bad because of a few bad actors and the fact big business is involved at some level. See medicine. See engineering. See computing. See government.
If GE, which is in its infancy, can do good for people, and minimal harm, then it is morally right we should proceed. We should not indulge in scaremongering, or we are no better than Rove.
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
PEL.
I wasn’t attacking you. I was talking about those scientists.
Of course it does. Theres no denying that. Pharmaceutical and computer companies are often as bad if not worse than agricultural supply companies unfortunately. CEOs from big business must be from a different species than the rest of us. Unlike blue collar crims those guys have absolutely no excuse.
I pride myself on having an open mind so I’d appreciate any info that you could provide as to enlighten me regarding the other side of the debate.
July 4th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I don’t think the biotech companies are any more paragons of evil than other businesses, I’m just more worried about the consequences. A chunk of my job involves IT, and from the frequent problems caused by the way Microsoft products are designed to not work, I’d say that company, like Monsanto, is committed to slow-motion suicide.
It’s just that the potential damage of bad decisions and short-term profit seeking in the biotech industry are much greater than that of the software industry - at least from where I’m sitting.
If computer networks go down, I’ll just laugh and go back to my veggie garden (tip of the week: we had great falafels made from last years crop of broad beans the other night. Dry the beans in the sun/oven and soak and peel them when you need them).
If a GE plant becomes a hugely problematic invasive weed (which may be unlikely, but not beyond possibility), I’m in real trouble.
July 4th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Something else that has not been mentioned and should be, is the economics. If we can trade on our clean green image (however tarnished) to get better prices for our products because they are not GM, then regardless of whether the products are actually harmful, we should do so.
In 2003 the Ministry for the Environment and BERL put out a report on the economic effects of importing GM crops. Their conclusions were equivocal, as you’d expect when there are so many variables, but they did say as far as they can tell, the GDP would go down if GM crops were grown here.
I was a policy adviser at MfE at the time, and I was amazed when I read a press release by the government stating exactly the opposite conclusion, that GM crops would increase our GDP. I thought there must have been a mistake, but I found out that the Treasury had “re-analysed” some of the assumptions from the model used by BERL, and come to their own conclusion.
The issue is not that Treasury had their own take (they are entitled to it), but that they dishonestly attributed their own analysis to the BERL report, and stated that the BERL conclusions were that GM crops would improve the economy.
It is this dishonesty by the government, the intense lobbying by the biotech industry, and the witholding of advice to the minister that may contradict the official industry line, that I observed as a policy adviser, that has made me deeply suspicous of the motives of industry and convinced me more than any scientific argument that we should remain GM free.
July 4th, 2007 at 11:46 am
>>If a GE plant becomes a hugely problematic invasive weed (which may be unlikely, but not beyond possibility), I’m in real trouble.
I think society is far more dependent on computers than most people realise. If the computers stop, they’ll be no food on the shelves.
But that’s worst case scenario. And highly unlikely. Not even worth entertaining. I feel the same way about GE. It simply won’t bring the food supply down.
So what are people so scared of? We’ve cross-bred and tinkered with plants for centuries to make them better, and none of that was subject to the scrutiny of scientific standards, as the biotech industry is now.
>>our clean green image
A fair point, but that presents us with a significant opportunity cost in terms of developing and exporting biotech. That IP may eventually be worth a lot more than raw produce exports.
July 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Convential breeding uses genetic elements that are already in the plant. It shuffles them around a bit but there is basically no new material in the plant that was not there before.
GM takes a gene that has not been in the plant and introduces it into a foreign genome. Genes interact with each other, and the result can be totally new proteins that have not been seen before. The tryptophan debacle is a case in point. Scientists inserting genes use “jumping gens”, which are chosen because they are unstable and can therefore enter the new plant. However, they can jump out as easily as they can jump in, and there is evidence that they can insert themselves into human gut bacteria.
GM food is similar to pharmaceuticals in that it is producing new products with unknown effects. We do not ban pharmaceuticals, but they are subject to a far more rigorous testing regime than GM foods.
July 4th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
It all depends on the risk level. If the risk is marginal, then the process is irrelevant.
More benefits….
“Insect attacks on cotton in India are far more damaging than in the U.S., often destroying more than half the crop each year. Where cotton engineered to resist these pests helps U.S. farmers somewhat, the benefit of that technology in India is so great that in recent tests in increased cotton production by as much as 87 percent. No American farmer has ever seen benefits as great as that. The technology has proven so successful that Indian farmers are defying their government and breeding their own versions of engineered cotton. Many Chinese, Mexican and South African farmers have also enthusiastically embraced the insect-resistant cotton.
July 4th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
You are right it depends on the risk level, but it also depends on the benefits. If the risk is small but the benefits are nil, then it makes sense not to allow it in.
We also have to consider opportunity costs. If all the funds currently going towards GM research in New Zealand instead was spent on organics, or even more sustainable conventional agriculture, we would be able to increase profits with less environmental damage. As a case in point, Crop and Food spend millions in testing glyphosate resistant onions on the off chance they may work in the future, but I am struggling to get a few thousand in funding to test an organic herbicide for onions that will help organic and conventional growers.
July 4th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
PEL
The Genie doesn’t willingly go back in the bottle. Since all of the rest of the habitable world and parts of New Jersey are all using GE, and we aren’t it is a differentiator of some value to us.
When that difference ceases to add value to our farm output and we need something to help us grow mold resistant wheat or some such, those seeds will still be on sale and there will be decades more experience with them. The downsides will be even better known. There is NO hurry, no rush and no need to open that bottle today. If it is good wine it improves with age. WE don’t have to do it. Everyone else is doing it.
respectfully
BJ
July 4th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Interesting that a lot of new technology is framed as a “genie” who “doesn’t like going back into bottles”
Perhaps the Genie is better off being released - perhaps she can do a lot of good outside.
I agree that New Zealand should look after New Zealand.
How curious that same line doesn’t wash when it comes to AGW, eh
July 4th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
PEL
I was playing on the GE in Genie… but my argument stands.
Leave the damned GE stuff to the rest of the world to do. We can always bring it in if we want it. Like suicide or birth, it is something you can do only once.
As for AGW our duty to do our share is not diminished by our small percentage of the population and industrial output. The two situations are not even congruent. Furthermore it is an advantage to us to wean ourselves from the fossil fuels insofar as possible. The supplies are finite, the demand is infinite.
BJ
July 4th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
>>Leave the damned GE stuff to the rest of the world to do
We should develop our IP industry. That will pay for a lot of heart, breast and prostate operations.
Again, I can’t help but feel this debate is driven by irrational fear rather than proven risks.
July 4th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I agree, but we don’t need to invest in GE to do that.
I’d say investing in technologies that would save money/resources would be more beneficial in the long term than trying to go head-to-head with companies like Monsanto in order to reap short term profits.
July 4th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
“Again, I can’t help but feel this debate is driven by irrational fear rather than proven risks.”
I agree there are a lot of people with an irrational fear of new technology, just as there are a lot of people with an irrational faith in it. This does not alter the fact however that there are sound scientific, economic and political reasons for a moratorium.
July 4th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
PEL
What IP industry? Out of context this does not mean anything to me. IP is intellectual property afaik. Not an industry really, so I am a bit at a loss.
….
Have I ever indicated that I am “afraid” of anything here? You are trying VERY hard to put people in your particularly restrictive preconceived box. Greens are not ignorant luddites for the most part and most of us have already answered you… but you persist in this assertion.
For the most part we’ve indicated a suspicion that Monsanto (and the rest of the industry) doesn’t have our best interests at heart.. which is pretty near an absolute lock given their behaviour over the past 2 decades and the fact that they are corporations and their SOLE duty is to make money for their shareholders.
We’ve also indicated the “one-way” aspect of the decision. It is a FINAL decision because no matter what you wish, once released there is no way to go backwards.
…and we’ve pointed out that irrational or not, there is a current marketing advantage for GE-Free “Clean Green NZ” foodstuffs in the rest of the world.
Moreover I pointed out that once that advantage ceased to exist we could change our minds… then… and we’d have less likelihood of unintended and unexpected results which is going to be true of any late adoption of any tech.
I haven’t seen “irrational fears” as a big feature in OUR arguments. Others may have them…
BJ
July 4th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
BJ i agree with your stance, but i also agree with PEL. the thing is, and you only have to read the first three posts to see this, the things being argued are different, PEL argues that GE can have merit and can acheive some good in the world, particuly for those with insufficent food because of being forced away from substanance crops in favour of money crops by the first world. the first world produces enough food to supply the third world but it is not likley they will decide to give up some of their luxuries to feed the starving.
I put foward the point, in the form of a loose and slightly modified quote that most would reconise as coming from somewhere in the bible (probaly the most religious thing ive ever said
), that through providing the third world countries with crops with enhanced yeild they would be able to sustain themselves aswel as still grow some cash crops. Zentiger posted a responce to this relating to charges, etc probaly making a referance to Monsanto and the like. this is almost entirly irrelivant to the arguement put foward as Monsanto is one example of a entity that sells the GE for maximum profit, a corporation, as BJ says, with the sole duty of delivering money to their shareholders. what Monsanto sells is dangerous GE, this being that it is modified not for only higher productivity (which would be safe) but also spliced with other things so that it grows resistant to pests and produces its own poisons (or pesticides), Monsanto also has started to impliment a terminator gene which prevents furter germination of the grain, etc. Monsanto is undoubtily more interested in its own profit than the good of the world (opportunity for arguement agains capitalism?) but shoudl not be used to argue ad hominem against GE as a whole which may offer great benifits.
I agree that NZ should be kept GE free, there is a market in GE free and chances are that it is going to grow as rapidly as the organic demand has in europe
“This does not alter the fact however that there are sound scientific, economic and political reasons for a moratorium.”
well the economic reasons are because the first world wants to keep its very large profits, the political reasons are the same. what are the scientific reasons? ive seen pleanty against crops which are modified for resistance and production of pesticides, etc but ive never seen any against crops which have been altered for only the reason of higher productivity (those with potential to be of benifit to humanity), if you could dirrect me to a reputable report on it then i will be happy to read it thorughly.
In short NZ has no need of GE but unless the character of the population of earth changes very strongly (as in almost reverses) then GE is needed for the third world countries and their people to have decent standards of living.
Sapient
July 4th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Sapient.
I agree with most of your post save that the case is that the crops have very rarely lived up to their promises. I’d very much like to see some evidence to the contrary, but I haven’t seen any as yet.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
STH, hard to find arnt they? i seem to remmeber something called golden rice that was mentioned in Time magazine about 2000, increased levelsa of vitamins or something, not the yeild that i was talking about but still significantly helping humanity (or atleast it would if greenpeace would let up).
Sapient
July 4th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
bjchip - biotech agriculture. IP development. Exporting knowledge.
Sapient - right.
People are using selective arguments and examples, such as Monsanto, to damn all GE. That’s like saying all computing should stop because of Microsoft.
SleepyTreehugger - there are many examples. I’ve given just one above.
“Insect attacks on cotton in India are far more damaging than in the U.S., often destroying more than half the crop each year. Where cotton engineered to resist these pests helps U.S. farmers somewhat, the benefit of that technology in India is so great that in recent tests in increased cotton production by as much as 87 percent. No American farmer has ever seen benefits as great as that. The technology has proven so successful that Indian farmers are defying their government and breeding their own versions of engineered cotton. Many Chinese, Mexican and South African farmers have also enthusiastically embraced the insect-resistant cotton”
If GE science can provide a benefit, with low or no risk, then GE is a good.
It it is immoral, imho, not to pursue a good, especially when that involves feeding people who would otherwise go hungry, just because some people appear to have a religious objection to the thought of biotechnology.
Isn’t that what this is really all about?
Here is some reading and success stories. Feel free to dismiss as partisan
agbioworld.org/
July 4th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
>>STH, hard to find arnt they?
That’s because “GE” is mostly used as a pejorative term. Try searching on “Agricultural Biotechnology” instead.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:25 am
It is debatable that growing GE crops - even if it increases productivity - will mean more hungry people are fed. Quite simply, there is enough food in the world, people go hungry because they can’t afford it. Did the Aussie wheat crop disaster last year, or the North Atlantic cod collapse in the early nineties mean lots of Australians and North Americans went hungry?
The example cited above about cotton means nothing. Big increases during tests do not equate to big increases when something enters widespread and long term production - .e. when insects evolve to deal with pesticides, soil is depleted by increased production or new threats specific to a particular type of plant arise.
Quite simply, you can’t get something for nothing, as some people like to think. Things don’t appear by magic - grow more food per hectare and you take more out of the soil which needs to be replaced.
Dwarf varieties were great for increasing production during the ‘green revolution’ as more growth went in to parts of plants humans valued, rather than stalk. Of course, that means less material that can be recycled into the soil as compost or via animal manures, so more fertiliser (AKA more money, energy, labour and resources being put into agtriculture) was required.
I don’t need GE to increase production in my garden - more time spent composting, collecting seaweed, weeding or cutting the grass to keep snails away does the job just fine.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
sam, as i said earlyer, there is enough food but it does not get dispersed, your right that it goes where the money is, the point that im arguing is that by supplying GE foods we can allow them more acess to cheaper food aswel as the cash crops, so splice wheat with clover, get the nodles which house nitrifying bacteria, that will do better than any fertiliser.
Sapient
July 5th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
PeterExitsLeft.
Thats great that GE have helped farmers in the Third World, but you can’t look at this in isolation. What happens when yields increase and people realise that farming those crops can be lucrative. More and more people decide to farm those crops with the benefits of the increased yield thanks to GE. Soon supply outstrips demand. What happens? Prices drop and drap and continue to drop. What happens then? The farmers become indebted in order buy the latest and greatest technology so that he can further increase productivity per acre. What happens when the farmer loses the battle to keep revenue ahead of escalating costs and interest payments? The money lender calls in the loan, kicks the poor guy out on his ass and takes his land or sells it to a big transnational agribusiness firm. Its a vicious cycle with more losers than winners.
People in the Third World need to be offered choices other than supplying cheap commodities to the “Developed Nations.” Did you know that most of the countries that suffered famines in African were net food exporters?
Sapient.
Thats if you don’t accept the law of unintended consequences. Its not like theres not enough nitrogen in our watersupplies already and the Third World has little enough potable water as it is.
Pushing GE in the Third World is just a cynical attempt to take advantage of the Third World’s poverty and richness in resources.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2277
Why don’t they just take action to implement their own research?
http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2B.html#II-B-7
July 5th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
>>Soon supply outstrips demand. What happens?
Market forces. Too much supply, not enough demand. Same risk and reward as any other business. Rationalisation will follow.
I’m not saying GE is a holy grail, or should be dismissed. I’m not saying organic farming is the holy grail, nor should be dismissed. I’m saying use the technology if and where it benefits us to do so.
As biotech research ramps up, and technology becomes cheaper, we’ll see different kinds of companies entering this market. Wouldn’t it be good to see non-profits coming up with high-yield crops that grow easily in impoverished areas where those crops failed before?
“Ge Free” part of the national identity?
No.
High time we gave up the quite ridiculous nuclear free as well….
July 5th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
PEL
I am not going to comment on GE as I could not care one way or the other but as a self confessed “foodie” I have to admit that organic food tastes a hell of a lot better than anything else on the market.
Last summer I grew some of my own tomatoes, the taste difference was amazing.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
>>that organic food tastes a hell of a lot better than anything else on the market.
Meh. It depends. I’ve seen a few blind taste tests, by well known organic-promoting chefs in the UK, and they failed to tell the difference.
I think the marketing is seductive. I think that stories can alter perception.
I think it really depends on the type of food, time to market, and impact of handling and travel, as opposed to farming method.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
PeterExitsLeft.
Market forces. Too much supply, not enough demand. Same risk and reward as any other business. Rationalisation will follow.
Typical banal “free market” apologist speak. When rationalisation” happens in the Third World theres no safety net to catch the “unfortunates”. I wonder what would happen if an official in Third World government dared propose to the IMF etc a policy of providing an unemployment benefit in their countries? Typical example of the West’s do as I say not as I do attitude. They provide almost as much if not more “welfare” for their big business as they do for their poor.
“Corporate welfare is a huge drain on the federal treasury. Every year $75 billion of taxpayer money is spent on programs that subsidize businesses. Meanwhile, politicians proclaim that we can’t afford a tax cut.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html
July 5th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
>>Typical banal “free market� apologist speak.
Welfare won’t solve Africa’s problems.
Getting rid of corrupt governments and anti-business practice would go a long way to providing the structural reforms necessary.
>>theres no safety net to catch the “unfortunates�
There’s no safety net now.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
BTW: tinyurl.com/yprns2
Indarestin…..
July 5th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
PeterExitsLeft
“Welfare won’t solve Africa’s problems.”
Of course it won’t. There is no quick fix solution, but throwing billions of dollars of “money” at those corrupt governments and expecting the citizens to pay it back with interest through selling commodities to countries with high tariffs leading to a global commodity glut certainly won’t. At least if they had no other option, but to starve they would be able to buy from local producers rather than having to accept “charity” from Western farmers who are able to provide surplus food as aid that they’re able to grow thanks to the subsidies that their governents provide.
“Getting rid of corrupt governments and anti-business practice would go a long way to providing the structural reforms necessary.”
Theres probably as much chance of that happening in Europe and America as there is in Africa.
“There’s no safety net now.”
I know. There should be. See in my previous post.
“I wonder what would happen if an official from Third World government dared propose to the IMF etc a policy of providing an unemployment benefit in their citizens.”
For us there is and most of our unemployed shouldn’t need it either.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
>>I know. There should be.
Of course there should be, but that question is far greater than GE, which is the topic of this thread. The “What do we do about Africa?” thread would stretch off into infinity.
>>Theres probably as much chance of that happening in Europe and America as there is in Africa.
I think you could do it in pockets.
Entrepreneurial-driven initiatives have made good progress in India. It could start with a restructure of property law - i.e. make it easier to get land title, so you can leverage against that capital for business development. Restructure business procedure - take it out of the hands of corrupt government - so it doesn’t take two years and one hundred forms to start a bakery.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
STH, i agree wityh your responce to my post, what im trying to get at though is that with more output from less input and less use of land it allows for more crops to be grown, as more are grown they become able to feed themselves and nolonger have to purchase it from elsewhere and they can still grow some cash crops, this gives them more net income which can be reinvested by buying things such as fertiliser or machinery that further increase yeild.
welfare wont solve problems but giving them a means to solve their own problems and helping them do so will help, and in the long term the world will benifit.
ill agree with PEL, it may be accheivable if done in pockets, focusing on afew small areas and then working outward.
maybe GE can do something really useful and and design a plant that taps into the african watertable and pumps the water up
, that or we could provide wells and pumps
July 6th, 2007 at 10:38 am
“>>Soon supply outstrips demand. What happens?
“Market forces. Too much supply, not enough demand. Same risk and reward as any other business. Rationalisation will follow.”
Rationalisation, in this context, is a politic way of saying “putting small farmers out of work, creating unemployment, making people dependent on agribusiness for food or starving to death if they can’t find a job”. This is a solution?
The Economist this week has some interesting comments on Mali - pointing to decentralised government, irrigation and roads as the key tools to deal with hunger. GE isn’t even on the radar.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9440765
July 14th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Market forces will solve all of the world’s problems. You just need to get rid of all the hidden subsidies and tarriffs and export incentives in the developed nations. And all of the corruption in the developing world. And a list as long as your other arm of various subtle trade barriers and market distortions. Um, since most of them were put there by governments perhaps we should just get rid of governments and let communities trade directly with each other they way they have done for millenia.