itstheeconomystupid:
“Companies should not be able to obtain patents on plant strains that have been selectively bred over generations.”

These patents are legal in the USA. Does New Zealand recognise such patents? Do the third world countries recognise these patents? I am not sure myself. If so, this is a serious concern. Alternatively, if others do not recognise the patents it is just a legal issue within the USA.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“For Example?”

Ever heard the term biopiracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopiracy

Check out the latest winners of the Captain Hook Awards for the worst culprits of biopiracyt http://www.captainhookawards.org/

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Biotech food companies are blatantly stealing botanical culture off communities and then selling it back to them.

For Example?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I think the best thing to do is rather than argue in pros and cons of ge by its potential success, let’s take a moment to look at the technology failures it’s already appalling track record on safety.

Some applications of GM technology have lead to sterility and mutations in livestock, massively stunted growth in rats. We are seeing GE crops being approved for the food supply without any independent safety testing. Many regulatory bodies are relying on industry safety testing which doesn’t even include eating trials.

The major issue is not about whether you can grow super crops or not, it’s how you allow the technology to be used in a way that completely shifts the power base and therefore the security of our food supply.

It is imperative for the future security of this planet that citizens contain sovereign control over their own food supply. Companies should not be able to obtain patents on plant strains that have been selectively bred over generations. This has been happening for ages and it is a major cause of rapidly rising food prices. Biotech food companies are blatantly stealing botanical culture off communities and then selling it back to them. Of course farmers are leaving the farms in droves because they can no longer afford the patent fees for seed. And if they try and save their own seed, they get sued by the seed companies.

The big question we need to ask ourselves is do we want to have the genetic material of our food supply owned by a small number of very powerful corporations? Is that really very smart of us?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Valis,
“Why should something unproven with huge potential risks not be kept in the lab until shown to be safe?”

Well you could say that about renewable energy sources like tidal and wave farms too. The impilcations to the ecosystem caused by such new technology are very well understood by ecologists, but if it looks green it’s declared to be green. It seems to work both ways really.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“If we are having problems feeding the world now how will we feed the world when we have millions more mouths to feed.”

Oh that’s an easy one Paranoid Peter,

They just have another green revolution like the one that the Rockefeller foundation started back in the early 40′s. Thats what saved India. And India has no food problems now, despite having over a billion mouths to feed. I think pollution is starting to become a bit of a problem for them though.

Talking of Youtube, you might be interested in what Jane Goodall has to say on the subject of overpopulation. It only takes a few minutes out of your life, but she has actually talked to some of the people who are worst effected by overpopulation.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B6JLvIxdbjQ&feature=related

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Its called the precautionary principle. Why should something unproven with huge potential risks not be kept in the lab until shown to be safe? In the States, if it looks like a tomato, it is declared to be a tomato and can be released without further ado. If there’s money in it, they don’t give a toss about the consequences.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog said: “I never said that it would never produce any results, only that it had failed to do so to date and that the environmental costs/risks were too high to let such failed technology free into the wild.”

Debatable of course, but the environmental costs/risks need to be outweighed against benefits – and so I guess we await to see what scientists develop. They may prove you wrong, but you may prove to be wrong too – I’m keeping an open mind on it, the Green rhetoric on this SOUNDS very closed minded. Not proven, ban it outside the lab – end of argument.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Easy, just make those who want to produce and plant GE strictly liable for any damage they cause. If its such great stuff, what’s to worry. If they’re not sure, maybe it will be kept in the lab long enough to tell. Of course, insurance companies have said they’d never insure as the risks are incalculable – on par with war and some natural disasters. Might this be a clue?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

frog – all you’ve said is that Monsanto is a corporation. We know. But how is its involvement in AGRA increasing corporate control? How is developing new non-GE seed varieties furthering corporate control?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

GE is another tool. Like any tool, it could be used for good or harm.

There are real legal concerns around GE, but these mainly involve patenting of genomes not GE per se. There are cases of farmers having their crops taken off them because they had some patented seed that had fallen off a truck in with their crop. This is a serious concern, but is not a problem with the technology but with the legal system of the USA. Provided third world governments refuse to recognise genome patents this will not be a problem.

There are also real concerns about specific things that people can do with GE – as I said it can be used for good or harm. For example, making a plant resistant to a herbicide could give it the potential to become a difficult to control weed, and can also encourage over-use of herbicides (higher costs and higher herbicide residue in product). Using terminator seeds could be damaging to subsistence farmers, as they could not keep their own seed but would need to purchase it each year. These are genuine concerns about particular applications of GE – NOT concerns about GE as a technology.

These concerns are valid reasons to carefully consider particular applications of GE (or any technology for that matter) on a case-by-case basis. They are NOT reasons to ban GE outright. They are problems with applications of the technology, not the technology itself.

Banning GE outright (or banning any technology) is a valid position for an individual to hold for emotional or religious reasons. But it is not scientific, and ultimately will fail – people who do not feel the same way emotionally or have different religious beliefs will use it anyway. But lobbying for careful assessment of the risks and benefits of each application of a technology is sensible and might result in avoiding the potential negative consequences while taking advantage of the benefits.

Find a specific problem with a particular application of GE being proposed, and we might then have something to discuss.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Indeed, Doug. People don’t breed when they’re die of starvation. Or when they use condoms. Either or.”
The problem is population not food, we should be implementing population control measures not planning how to feed the people. If we are having problems feeding the world now how will we feed the world when we have millions more mouths to feed.
Anyway with the world running out of oil we should be looking at sustainable agriculture and gm crops do not seem to be sustainable.
If you are interested type “The World according to Monsanto” into youtube and check out the movie, its in 12 parts

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

On another point.

There seems to be a general view that Genetic Engineering is something that happens only in a laboratory. This has never been true, and most Genetic Engineering that has taken place over the years has been undertaken by farmers and gardeners splicing varieties of planty that they valued or liked to create a hybrid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29)

I seem to remember (I may be wrong) walking past Ms. K’s house a few years ago, and admiring a hybrid rose plant that was blossoming bloomingly.

I do hope that all who post here (and anywhere else) on the vileness of Genetic Engineering will ensure that their homes and gardens are cleared of all hybrid plants, and run campaigns to ensure thast local bodies (such as Wellington City Council) do the same. After all, it’s just not on WCC celebrating the many varieties or rose that can be produced through graft-facilitated Genetic Engineering as it does so blaringly in the Rose Garden at the Botanical Gardens!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>
>>I was not allowed to speak at the conference, or attend any bilateral meetings or negotiating sessions, presumably for fear that I might not reflect the party line.
>
Why would you presume (or ass/u/me) that? The reality is that you went, at your own cost, as a private individual (otherwise the party should have paid your costs) and were never part of NZ’s formal delegation. The fact that that formal delegation allowed you to tag along with them (albeit not as a registered delegate and therefore not able to attend the bilateral meetings, or speak in the main assembly, should not have been either a surprise or disapointment to you.

So way was the point of making that point? I’d really like to know.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

keithng – US-based Monsanto is the world’s largest producer of GM crops. 90 percent of the area under biotech cultivation worldwide has been sowed with the company’s GM tolerant and pest-resistent variaties. Monsanto is also famous for it’s continuous takeovers of seed companies, in order to better control the market. If this isn’t corporate control, what is? This is just one multinational company.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog, you still need to substantial the “corporate control” argument. Does that refer to fertiliser – an argument which applies to any attempts to breed higher yielding crop – or to seeds? And if it’s seeds, surely, non-GE seeds won’t have any issues regarding terminator seeds, and even if it is GE, it still doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re terminator seeds.

Or does “corporate control” refer to something else entirely?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Indeed, Doug. People don’t breed when they’re die of starvation. Or when they use condoms. Either or.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Oh, liberty – such dramatics! Such hysterics! I never said that GE should be scrapped, only that it should be kept in the laboratory. I never said that it would never produce any results, only that it had failed to do so to date and that the environmental costs/risks were too high to let such failed technology free into the wild.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It looks like nothing has been learned from the first green revolution then.

People shouldn’t be asking how another green revolution can be implimented, but why one is needed in the first place.

Malthus wasn’t wrong. He was dead right!

-subsistence severely limits population-level

-when the means of subsistence increases, population increases

-population-pressures stimulate increases in productivity

-increases in productivity stimulate further population-growth

-since this productivity can not keep up with the potential of population growth for long, population requires strong checks to keep it in line with carrying-capacity

-individual cost/benefit decisions regarding sex, work, and children determine the expansion or contraction of population and production

-checks will come into operation as population exceeds subsistence-level

-the nature of these checks will have significant effect on the rest of the sociocultural system — Malthus points specifically to misery, vice, and poverty

Just look at the sudden surge in population growth after the first green revolution, and see what happens if this one works too.

Only problem is that nobody has figured out how to make the planet any bigger yet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog- You say “Can you prove that GE has provided any of the benefits that you spout? No.”

I can’t, but neither can you prove there will wont be any. You’re blanking out the chance that science will advance the technology further. Why do that? The utter arrogance that you have a monopoly of foresight of scientific knowledge is too incredible for words. Could anyone have foreseen the benefits of harnessing electricity, of cross-breeding, of using isotopes for chemotherapy, of the wheel? No. You can’t say “all the evidence is that pest and chemical resistant GE strains just breed more tolerant pests.”

So just give up right? Just throw away biotechnology because YOU haven’t been convinced. It isn’t failed. It is like telling Charles Darwin that because he hasn’t found the missing link, his theory is flawed, failed, throw it away. It is like telling the Wright Brothers that – oh you can’t fly fast, high or with enough payload to carry passengers and freight – so give up, stick to trains and ships.

You’re scaremongering pure and simple. Of course if we had rigorous enforcement of property rights then the issue of contamination could be enforced through tort law – which would in itself provide an excellent discipline on what you are concerned about.

GE is just a tool, a very sophisticated tool that most people don’t understand. Pest resistance has been crossbred into plants and animals for generations. You assume farmers don’t know what they are doing, you’re also assuming they get forced – they don’t. Let choice flourish, let tort law protect property rights over those who don’t want “contamination”. Then let GE technology flourish.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)