by frog
I always figured when I bought food that might contain US ingredients I needed to be especially careful checking what the ingredients were and where they came from if I wanted to avoid GE food. Not that I can check of course because there is no requirement for anyone to tell me what they are trying to sell me.
Now it seems I can soon add a new country to that list where it’s easier to presume genetic modification is going on than than spend the consumer time with virtually impossible detective work:
China is set to launch a US$3.5 billion research project for genetically modified (GM) crops to help address the demand for food in the world’s most populous nation
Science Magazine notes that there are concerns about GE in China:
Although China is unlikely to see the sort of protests that have derailed field trials and commercialization in Europe, there are currents of disquiet in the general population. “For consumers, the safety of GM crops is the biggest worry. Just like some people are afraid of ghosts, some people are afraid of GM crops,” says Zeng Yawen of the Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Institute of the Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Kunming.
The scientific concerns about genetic engineering are of course somewhat more credible than the scientific basis for ghosts. But it seems easy for GE proponents to paint opposition as anti-scientific despite the fact that most opponents draw heavily on science to explain our concerns.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, September 8th, 2008
Tags: China, Food, Genetic engineering, genetic modification
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
I’m afraid I’ve gone over to the dark side on this one – well, kind of.
There have been plenty of reasons to oppose genetic engineering that I can agree with; control of the food chain by large scale agribusiness, overstated benefits, chemical use, commercialisation of life, monocropping, loss of seed stock biodiversity, reduced productivity… their biggest promoters are Cargill and Monsanto, after all. They’re not a solution to the world’s food needs. I oppose GE for the same reasons as say Vandana Shiva: genetic engineering represents an aggressively utilitarian and sterile approach to nature which isn’t conducive to our or the planet’s long term health. These arguments should form the core of any opposition to genetic engineering.
However, the body of scientific opinion has been for quite a while that genetic engineering poses no significant risk to humans – the risk is small (but unquantified, and not easily quantifiable). By overstating or overemphasising that risk, the Greens end up looking quite stupid, and losing credibility among scientists. I think is a terrible shame, as the science is on the side of Greens and environmentalists on most other issues. It hurts me to say it, but I see it as the same kind of thinking that global warming “skeptics” engage in, where certain papers are taken out of context and made light of. By all means, GE isn’t properly tested, but that isn’t the same as saying it’s highly dangerous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Reluctantly I agree with georgedarroch. However, I think that we should make every effort to be a reliable producer of organic products and in consequence be very wary of ourselves producing GE products in the field or contaminating any of our produce. Certainly while the jury is still out on the benefits of GE products and while there is a good market for organics.
We really need to be sure of a way to protect our organically grown produce from GE ‘contimination’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“By all means, GE isn’t properly tested, but that isn’t the same as saying it’s highly dangerous.”
Its the same as saying we don’t really know though, and I for one think that is a totally aceptable reason to have concerns over GE.
GE is just the latest bright idea for uncontrolled exploitation of the worlds resources. The only reason for GE is profit margins for big business, it has nothing to do with “feeding the world”.
It promotes lazy land use and has nothing to do with true sustainability.
I am 100% on board with the greens on this one, GE is totally un-necessary except for making bucket loads of money, and as far as I am concerned food should be off limits for this sort of blatant capitalist piggery.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – good call and nicely put. Love your phrases,
“promotes lazy land use” and “it has nothing to do with “feeding the worldâ€?.
You’ve nailed it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sure you can draw on science when objecting to the adverse impacts of a specific class of GE products, for example I know I worry about the long term environmental and economic (though not dietary) impacts of Roundup resistant crops, but to reject all possible “GE foods” in advance simply because of the technique used to breed them is literally unreasonable.
On most issues the Greens side with the scientific evidence: Climate change, drug policy, etc. The GE paranoia is an unfortunate exception, but it is not enough to lose this biologist’s vote because climate change and peak oil are bigger and more urgent issues. If anyone ever develops a breed of cattle which don’t produce methane but have to use GE to do so, well then it might get more complicated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here is an interesting thing I found out about a few days ago. The grass pea is an extremely hardy crop, capable of surviving extreme environments (see http://www.croptrust.org/main/priority.php?itemid=32). It has been cultivated for thousands of years, and often is the only crop which can withstand droughts, and therefore save lives. It is also high in protein. The only problem is that if it is eaten for prolonged periods it can cause paralysis.
Recently low toxicity varieties of grass pea have been developed using conventional breeding techniques. If someone manages to produce a non-toxic variety, the benefit will be enormous. Here are two questions:
1) Why are conventional breeding techniques acceptable, when GE techniques using modern technology are not?
2) If GE techniques could be used to develop a non-toxic variety of grass pea, would we have to reject it on the basis it was produced with “dangerous” technology (dangerous in quotes, because many scientists would consider the technique quite safe)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a very interesting and sane thread. My take is closest to pm67nz’s and George’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a ‘plantsman’ (nurseryman, permaculturalist, orchardist, herbalist, heritage seed grower etc.) working with plants all day and every day, my very strong opinion is that the genetic modification of plants is
UNNECESSARY.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“1) Why are conventional breeding techniques acceptable, when GE techniques using modern technology are not?”
Because conventional breeding is within the natural genetic range of existing plants.
GE is about making money, it is simply not necessary to feed the world population.
GE is totally opposite to true sustainable management, it is simply trying to bend the rules of nature to suit unsustainable practice.
It is the equivalent of making natural resources a slave to humanity.
True sustainable management is based on accepting certain limits to our ability or desire to manipulate the environment around us, and managing our production with techniques where both people and the environment benefit.
In my opinion keeping NZ GE free is as big a deal (or bigger) than the anti nuclear stance was.
GE is simply not necessary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
An interesting article on the radio this morning. It seems that one of our bigger milk producers is requiring a change for their herds starting this autumn. They want their farmers to use “A” not “B” protein semen for all impregnation from now on, changing the ‘type’ of milk completely over a generation (about 16 years I think). (This really is all beyond my scientific pay grade.)
My question is, is this not genetic engineering of the dairy herd?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
GD: “snap” that there are moral, social and economic reasons to oppose GM. We don’t support or oppose something purely on scientific grounds.
The science, as you imply, is ambiguous, “hard to quantify”. Doesn’t that mean there’s nothing much to say GM is dangerous, and nothing to say it isn’t?
Hence, the Greens advocate a precautionary approach, no?
The benfits can only be said to outweigh the costs when you have a number on both sides of the scale.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings: I too am a bit out of my scientific comfy zone. But surely selective breeding – even at the most highly organised level – is a different gig to gene splicing by a significant order of magnitude?
Perhaps the difference is quantitative, not qualitative. But major-time quantitatively different, nonetheless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings – no. Shunda answers your question eloquently (just think ‘cows’ where you see ‘plants’)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Aside from the question of medicines, who will benefit most from the engineering of genes? Follow the money and you don’t end up in the hovel of a hungry person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes greenfly, that’s it – it’s the profit motive that distorts neutral science to social and economic disaster.
I read a really interesting article recently about how a roundup resistant weed is smothering the American cotton crop, but I can’t find it offhand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The argument that GM by gene splicing is ‘the same’ as traditional plant breeding because you end up with a ‘modified plant’ is rubbish. The introduction of foreign genes into the DNA of a different species by means of what is essentially a viral infection technique, is very clever, but a different ball game entirely.
Apart from that there are many economic & social reasons for being very wary of GM not least of which is the hijacking of whole industries by giant corporations (with limited liability). Capital has no conscience and as we have been shown over the last hundred years, big business has a sorry record in responsible development of ‘new technology’ – OIL & it’s partner in crime the motor vehicle industry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
Thanks for that, I’ll form my enquiries appropriately.
Paradox
I too have the problem of ignorance. As I see it, ‘splicing’ a piece of a rose onto another rose to create a different rose is modifying the genes of one plant with those of another. However, it seems that this is OK, as is the introduction of different (is that foreign or not I wonder) proteins (the building blocks of a gene as I understand it) through artificial insemination of a cow is OK, but doing that same introduction in a Petri dish (al la a different form of ‘artificial insemination’ is not.
Folks. I have this real problem – at what point is modification not modification? The basic proteins of life are, I read in Asimov (the scientist version not the SF one), finite and all genes are composed of them in various combinations, making it difficult for this amateur to understand where the boundary is!
Help!
(PS I can only believe the rose ‘creator’, as well as the dairy farmer, is looking for ‘profit’, otherwise why wopuld they go to all that trouble?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
strings – you can think of it this way. If a talented farmer or grower can do it in his or her farm or garden shed, it’s o.k. If it takes truck loads of cash and a sophisticated laboratory, look at it sideways and look hard
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“(PS I can only believe the rose ‘creator’, as well as the dairy farmer, is looking for ‘profit’, otherwise why wopuld they go to all that trouble?)”
Well the rose creator is possibly breading as much for passion as profit, the way I see it GE makes rose breeding a very sterile undertaking. Whats the glory in something thats been enginered? surely part of the passion of rose breeding is the uncertainty of what you may get?
As for the dairy farmers profits, you have to ask the question how much profit should some one who grows food make? I don’t see many dairy farmers driving around in beat up old holdens any more, when does a profit margin become obsene?
We need to be realistic on the limits of profitability vs sustainable management, just cause we can do something dosen’t mean we should.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
GE modification of crop is a have really (even if you ignore gene transfer and health issues).
An example of this is Roundup Ready Soy. Soy is a legume and as such does not need nitrogenous fertiliser……….unless it is Roundup Ready Soy where it does need it.
Roundup Ready Soy has approximately 40% less root growth and as such is not as vigorous as non GE Soy and is nowhere near as hardy. That is it nowhere near as able to stand up to environmental variation. If it gets too dry, it suffers, if it is too wet it suffers. Yields are also lower. The “good thing” about this crop is that you cut or drop back on other sprays in favour of markedly increasing your Roundup application. (who benefits here anyone?)
A year or two ago there was a tour around cropping areas of Australia where several meetings were held with farmers. The dialogue at these meetings went something along the lines of this:
1: You all know about the natural vigour of hybrids and how they are hardy and produce better yields making you more money?
Answer from the floor: – Yes.
2: Well Roundup Ready Soy is a hybrid.
Answer from the floor: – Aha!
They never state how wonderful Roundup Ready Soy is but the inference is made.
If farmers were given the facts they wouldn’t actually consider changing to this crop. Pity is they are not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can’t say that just because a dairy farmer’s onto a winner that he’s not entitled to some kind of technology – that’s totally arbitrary.
You DO NOT have to ask the question “how much profit shold someone who grows food make” (unless you’re talking about tax policy, of course). Someone who grows lots of good food is just as entitled to lots of profit as someone who sells lots of good advertising or good legal services.
Nor can you call into question the “passion” of the producer. What about those whose passion IS profit? Lamentable, I know, but you can’t outlaw it if they’re not doing anyone else any harm.
BBKiwi: you’re implying (or I’m inferring) that while “different things entirely”, the difference between selective breeding and gene splicing is still quantitative, rather than qualitative. I.e. a matter of degree. While pig genes in fruit seems weird to the point of abhorrent, where exactly do we help Strings draw the line between that and choosing seeds from the best plants only?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If farmers were given the facts they wouldn’t actually consider changing to this crop. Pity is they are not.”
In Argentina the facts seem to be out there, but farmers are faced with a difficult economic decision – GE soy is highly profitable in the short term, particularly as less labour is required. In the long term the soil collapses, more inputs are required (the glyphosate in Round-Up kills Rhizobium so GE soy doesn’t fix nitrogen) more erosion and Monsanto is pushing for royalties on the seeds. So what do you do if you are a struggling small farmer? Screw yourself now or later?
GE crops are another triumph of capital over labour. More money, more research, more corporate control, less people needed to farm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s the age-old story Sam. The ‘little guy’ gets screwed. Any suggestions? This is a scenario being played out here and now, not only with ge but a raft of other ‘modern farming technologies’ (wondering aloud…intensive dairying…chemical pasture management…)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, no science here to support the anti-GE position. Just lots and lots of envy and scaremongering.
In fact, I thought I was on the global warming thread for a minute.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat?
I thought Sam’s comment,
‘(the glyphosate in Round-Up kills Rhizobium so GE soy doesn’t fix nitrogen)’
had a distinct ‘sciencey’ ring to it. Did you not care to address the statement, given that it reflects poorly on the claims of the ‘GE soy is best’ lobby?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)