China says population control key to Copenhagen deal

[Sol Invictus]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

Article Published on December 10 2009

Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.
Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

“Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth,” so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Well, they're right. It's also the only way to improve the environment without decreasing the quality of life in other areas.

They should combine this policy with the 'cap&trade' concept, each woman gets one or two 'child licenses' which may be sold on the open market.

[Sol Invictus]

Well, they're right. It's also the only way to improve the environment without decreasing the quality of life in other areas.

They should combine this policy with the 'cap&trade' concept, each woman gets one or two 'child licenses' which may be sold on the open market.

Suprising statement coming from a 'supposedly' Libertarian-American (http://www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm). :eek:

As a libertarian you should be defending my right (AND YOUR RACE!) to have as many children as I damn well please.. Not supporting enforcement of oppressive laws against it.

Umm.. Hello?! :crazy:

Population control, like gun control, would only keep children out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.. You think your Mexican neighbors down the street will be obliged to follow such laws? Blacks? Arabs? And as a Libertarian, you should be concerned about what would happen to those children and/or the parents should they break that law - because I sure as hell am.

Get real.

[Equinox]

Suprising statement coming from a 'supposedly' Libertarian-American (http://www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm). :eek:

As a libertarian you should be defending my right (AND YOUR RACE!) to have as many children as I damn well please.. Not supporting enforcement of oppressive laws against it.

Umm.. Hello?! :crazy:

Population control, like gun control, would only keep children out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.. You think your Mexican neighbors down the street will be obliged to follow such laws? Blacks? Arabs? And as a Libertarian, you should be concerned about what would happen to those children and/or the parents should they break that law - because I sure as hell am.

Get real.

1) You have, whether intentionally or otherwise, encountered but one of the problems that Libertarianism faces.

2) By the look of things, China is taking a holistic approach to global CO2 emissions. This would require all people to step in line and might very well make it easier to police illegal immigrants.

3) Telling someone what they ought or ought not do as a Libertarian is fruitless - the most basic principle in Libertarian ideology is that it is up to the individual to determine what The Good Life is and how they go about achieving it.

4) Please read this (http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/landethic.html), Aldo Leopold's The Land Ethic.

[Sol Invictus]

2) By the look of things, China is taking a holistic approach to global CO2 emissions. This would require all people to step in line and might very well make it easier to police illegal immigrants.

There still is no conclusive evidence that CO2 emissions is what is causing 'global warming', because if that were the case, there would be no debating it - which is exactly what many nations around the world are doing supported by actual science (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6553592/Climate-change-sceptic-Ian-Plimer-argues-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming.html) without hidden agendas (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/30347).


3) Telling someone what they ought or ought not do as a Libertarian is fruitless - the most basic principle in Libertarian ideology is that it is up to the individual to determine what The Good Life is and how they go about achieving it.

A basic tenant of Libertarianism that all adhere to, is that as long as it doesn't infringe on the right of someone else to go about their lives in a peaceful and independent fashion, leaving that person to persue whatever it is he desires in life free of tyrannical interference - something you support (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=150111&postcount=22) - which Libertarians staunchly oppose.

I won't read any link anyone posts whom supports the argument that a person's breath and passing gas is destroying the earth, which is an absurd concept to me and anyone else with half a brain.

[The Black Prince]

[url]
“Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth,”
hmm.. for an original approach to this problem think about this:

The republic of China has, according to the 2009 estimate, circa 1.3 billion inhabitants and according to the big climatologists the emmision of methane (CH4) is one of the strongest agents causing the global warming threat. Reckon that the people in China fart 14 times a day (human average), this means around the 18.2 billion farts. On a yearly basis this accumulates to 6643 billion farts.. the days amount is about half a litre of flatulent gas and a fart roughly consist of 10% methane.

Using these variables, the methane production of the Chinese in the rep. of China accumulates to 332.5 billion litres of methane a year.:thumb001:

Based upon this it seems a wise idea that the population of China is one of the major causes of the global warming and should be persuaded to do something about this fact!.....:D

[Sol Invictus]

Using these variables, the methane production of the Chinese in the rep. of China accumulates to 332.5 billion litres of methane a year.:thumb001:

Based upon this it seems a wise idea that the population of China is one of the major causes of the global warming and should be persuaded to do something about this fact!.....:D

If that were the case, volcanic eruptions and normal human biological activity on the earth would have destroyed it thousands, if not millions of years ago.

Mars, Pluto, and other planets are also proven with science to be heating up also, so since human activity isn't possible on those planets, how do we explain this phoenominon occuring other than blaming on the only source of heat, that being the sun.

[Cato]

Population control is key says the nation that consists of about 1/5 of the entire world in terms of bodies.

[Equinox]

There still is no conclusive evidence that CO2 emissions is what is causing 'global warming', because if that were the case, there would be no debating it - which is exactly what many nations around the world are doing supported by actual science (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6553592/Climate-change-sceptic-Ian-Plimer-argues-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming.html) without hidden agendas (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/30347).


It's funny you should claim that, when you also used this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11555) to back up your agenda. Both the skeptic and the scientist agree that CO2 emissions is what is responsible for climate change. According to your logic above, the poll on Close-Up would show that 100% of NZers disagree with you.

Make up your mind.


I won't read any link anyone posts whom supports the argument that a person's breath and passing gas is destroying the earth, which is an absurd concept to me and anyone else with half a brain.

Ignorance is bliss.


Population control is key says the nation that consists of about 1/5 of the entire world in terms of bodies.

If anyone was to know about dealing with internal problems it would be the Chinese or Indonesians - both of which are some of the most populous countries on Earth. For a (at least nominally) Communist state, I think you would find that internal stability is key. Taking this into account it is no wonder that China wishes to impose population controls.

[Sol Invictus]

Both the skeptic and the scientist agree that CO2 emissions is what is responsible for climate change.


31,486 scientists world-wide beg to differ, vs the IPCC who has 2,500 'experts' on global warming, most of which are beurecrats (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/01/18/2500-less-1-2/) and less than 1% are climatologists.


Make up your mind.

I have, and it certainly isn't to agree that farts are killing the planet.

Unless you have an asshole twice the size of Mt. St. Helens.




Ignorance is bliss.

Indeed.


If anyone was to know about dealing with internal problems it would be the Chinese or Indonesians

Oh yes, let's take China as the standard bearer on how to deal with internal problems; like executing Tibetan patriots (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102700481.html) who want liberty and self-rule, keeps dossiers (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5194a40-997d-11de-ab8c-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1) on every working citizen to see who is the biggest threat to their tyrannical regime, where dissenters are locked away in mental institutions (http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/09/video-chinese-dissidents-committed-to-mental-hospitals/), a country that has threatened nuclear holocaust (http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050715072732.3wgtz6t3.html) on America, a country that uses executed prisoners' skins as beauty products (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/13/medicineandhealth.china), a dehumanist society that is documented to routinely torture it's citizens?

Is this really the model you look upon as ideal for maintaining internal stability?

http://i50.tinypic.com/ztiybn.jpg

I think maybe you should spend a couple years in China and see how much your views change about things.

Only tyrants need worry about maintaining stability in their own country, for if they are unable to do so without forcing such horrific things on their citizens, than that government no longer has any right to be in power.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Suprising statement coming from a 'supposedly' Libertarian-American (http://www.libertarianism.com/what-it-is.htm). :eek:

As a libertarian you should be defending my right (AND YOUR RACE!) to have as many children as I damn well please.. Not supporting enforcement of oppressive laws against it.

Umm.. Hello?! :crazy:

And as a Libertarian, you should be concerned about what would happen to those children and/or the parents should they break that law - because I sure as hell am.

Get real.

Taking a long term view of things, some sort of population control is necessary to maintain a libertarian society. Support for libertarian societies comes mainly from rural areas with lots of open spaces, while urban, densely populated communities tend to oppose libertarian concepts. In densely populated areas, it is harder to resolve issues through informal voluntary agreements, and people will be more inclined to support regulations on those they are in near proximity towards.

For example, compare the 'Freedom Index' ranking:

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Freedom_in_the_50_States.pdf

With population density per state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density




Population control, like gun control, would only keep children out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.. You think your Mexican neighbors down the street will be obliged to follow such laws? Blacks? Arabs?

It's much easier to find out if someone has a kid than if they have a gun or drugs, and easy to require operations which will prevent future kids. China manages to enforce this pretty well, right? The problem would come with third world countries, but this could be made contigent on receipt of foreign aid.

Also, in nature, population corrections occured naturally, but now with mass global media, we can realistically forget about people allowing mass die-offs to occur. These preventions of die-offs also are a big spur to stateism ("what about the children!"), and preventing such kids from being born in the first place will prevent the 'need' to rush in and 'save' them with some massive government program.

[Sol Invictus]

Taking a long term view of things, some sort of population control is necessary to maintain a libertarian society.

I want to know where your reasoning comes from with this statement. What aspects of a libertarian society would be affected by overpopulation if such a thing even existed. Over 97% of the earth's land suface (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19076) is empty, with Europe and Japan soon facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population.



Support for libertarian societies comes mainly from rural areas with lots of open spaces,

I don't doubt this statement at all, even though it would be a courtesy of you to cite the source of your information. That being said, I believe that Libertarian sentiment comes mainly from said places, since, myself growing up as a boy in Rural Quebec I would agree with it - Only because there isn't restrictions in place telling people that they can only have so and so inches of height in your front lawn or backyard.

I remember days my papa stepping outside in the backyard of our farm emptying an entire clip from his ranch rifle into the woods wearing nothing but his robe and slippers with a cup of coffee in his hand. Such sense of liberty can only be experienced in such settings because there aren't authorities running around telling people what you can and cannot do - just like they would never tell you that you couldn't have a two children because it's destroying the earth.



while urban, densely populated communities tend to oppose libertarian concepts.

Again, I don't see where you are getting this, other than assuming. There are many cities in America and Canada, and all over world, some of them very densely populated yet oppose any such government control and regulation over their lives.


In densely populated areas, it is harder to resolve issues through informal voluntary agreements, and people will be more inclined to support regulations on those they are in near proximity towards.

I think that has more to do with the breakdown and disregard for traditional life, namely in America. In the olden days (granted they weren't as industrialized nor heavily populated) in large cities like Fort York, Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec City, and other places (Literally hundreds of others in the U.S) people weren't as inclined to go to war with their neighbors over petty things such as loud rock or rap music or too much dope smoking.

That, in my opinion, has more to do with a conflict in culture and race - multiculturalism, which was forced upon us - an idea that is in step with population control and eugenics, things which are very much anti-Libertarian.


It's much easier to find out if someone has a kid than if they have a gun or drugs,

That much is true, but my point is that whatever law is imposed, things like gun control or population control, there will always be people (especially the hypocrites making the laws) who will dance their way around it and acquire other means to cheat the system at the expense of those who follow such laws.


and easy to require operations which will prevent future kids.

Again, I don't agree with such Malthusian things. People by their nature are born to embrace a life a liberty, and not be subject to conspiratorial operations to deprive them, and other people of their right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.



Also, in nature, population corrections occured naturally, but now with mass global media, we can realistically forget about people allowing mass die-offs to occur.

Explain to me where you are getting this please. I don't see how a television set it hampering people's biological requirement to die off and make room for the new. If anything, I would argue it's doing exactly the opposite - namely it's pushing of dangerous psychotropic medication for pseudo scientific diagnosis of things like depression or bipolar disorder which alter people's brain patterns in such a way to make them chemically unstable and become violently suicidal, or the glorification of violence and the encouragement to do violence on other people through Hollywood movies and shoot-em-up video games.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Explain to me where you are getting this please.

All over our TV sets here, every time there is a famine or plague, we got pics of starving kids with flies on them "for only a dollar a day you can feed Botu"

[Sol Invictus]

All over our TV sets here, every time there is a famine or plague, we got pics of starving kids with flies on them "for only a dollar a day you can feed Botu"

Leave it up to the eugenicists you are supporting and you too will be on a television set with flies all over you, begging wealthy elitists for scraps of bread and something as simple as a mouthful of clean drinking water, something even now, we do not have (http://www.infowars.com/epa-says-breathing-is-deadly-but-radioactive-drinking-water-is-good-for-us/).

[SwordoftheVistula]

Leave it up to the eugenicists you are supporting and you too will be on a television set with flies all over you, begging wealthy elitists for scraps of bread and something as simple as a mouthful of clean drinking water, something even now, we do not have (http://www.infowars.com/epa-says-breathing-is-deadly-but-radioactive-drinking-water-is-good-for-us/).

How do you figure? The bare minimum of benefits from reduced birthrate and population would be more food and clean water to go around and less garbage (less breeding grounds for flies)

[Sol Invictus]

How do you figure? The bare minimum of benefits from reduced birthrate and population would be more food and clean water to go around and less garbage (less breeding grounds for flies)

There is no naturally caused shortage of food (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy)s nor unclean drinking (http://www.sustainabledelta.com/toiletbowl.html) water caused by the human population as a whole, rather, the problems we are facing with food prices (http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney04262008.html) and the like, such as GMO (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14570) and crippling restrictions on the production of food in farms through totalitarian bills like HR2749 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2749), and forcing people to eat food with petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides are problems we should be more concerned about.

No, such things are not caused by any overconsumption of goods. That is a Malthusian myth. History shows that humans create more than they destroy, unlike any known species.

On the contrary, low birthrates in conjunction with immigration would contribute even more to the destruction of our people. Look at Europe, for example. Birthrates are already in steep decline. Europe is already facing such a crisis. So what they are pushing now in Copenhagen is something that you, and every European and American should be extremely concerned about. Such a thing will put the nail in the coffin for any sort of European preservation.

[SwordoftheVistula]

here is no naturally caused shortage of foods nor unclean drinking water caused by the human population as a whole, rather, the problems we are facing with food prices and the like, such as GMO and crippling restrictions on the production of food in farms through totalitarian bills like HR2749, and forcing people to eat food with petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides are problems we should be more concerned about.


Well if it were not for genetically modified foods, petrochemical fertilizers, and pesticides then there WOULD already be a food shortage, since the crop yeilds would be significantly less. If you don't like those sort of things, then you can count that as part of a cost of overpopulation, that large scale industrial farming is required to feed it.


low birthrates in conjunction with immigration would contribute even more to the destruction of our people. Look at Europe, for example. Birthrates are already in steep decline. Europe is already facing such a crisis. So what they are pushing now in Copenhagen is something that you, and every European and American should be extremely concerned about. Such a thing will put the nail in the coffin for any sort of European preservation.

Seeing as how western birthrates are already below the replacement rate, and most of Europe is essentially already on a voluntary 'one child policy', a worldwide adoption of the 'one child policy' wouldn't have nearly as much effect on us as it would on all the third world countries.

[ikki]

but flawed...

Much better to go with population density as the base for how much to pay.
Thus population control becomes important, and noone gets ahead of someone else.. everyone can reduce populations thru forced sterilisations and masskillings.

[Sol Invictus]

Well if it were not for genetically modified foods, petrochemical fertilizers, and pesticides then there WOULD already be a food shortage, since the crop yeilds would be significantly less.

That's another Myth; GMO food actually results in less food, not more. I suggest you check out the movie Food, Inc. It has all kinds of information in it about the Monsanto patented modified seeds that actually prevents the seed from being saved or reproduced. These are called suicide seeds, or 'terminators'.

So if anything, it makes things worse (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3082). So if you want to talk about any potential food shortage, then let's talk about how it requires farmers to keep coming back and buying more and more of their products -- and if they can't handle the cost of doing that, well then, there'll be no harvest and no money, and if you aren't using Monsanto's GMO patent, then they'll shut you down (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12309) and out of the food industry.

Trust me. These people do not have the interest of humanity at heart. These people aren't your friends and they are not here to save you.



and most of Europe is essentially already on a voluntary 'one child policy',

Source?



a worldwide adoption of the 'one child policy' wouldn't have nearly as much effect on us as it would on all the third world countries.

Couple it with a steady influx of immigrants from these third world countries then you have an obvious problem, added to an already devastating crisis that can only be reversed if action is taken now.

[Sol Invictus]

everyone can reduce populations thru forced sterilisations and masskillings.

That's just fine and dandy as long as you're the one doing the killing, right? I guess since you think it's such a good idea, maybe you should volunteer to be amongst the exterminated. You know what they say: lead by example.

How would you feel if I shove this pistol in your mouth and said "you have to die because there's no room for you and you're destroying the planet" ?

[ikki]

That's just fine and dandy as long as you're the one doing the killing, right? I guess since you think it's such a good idea, maybe you should volunteer to be amongst the exterminated. You know what they say: lead by example.

How would you feel if I shove this pistol in your mouth and said "you have to die because there's no room for you and you're destroying the planet" ?

im just being logical in the alternative reality wherein climate change is happening, is due to co2 and is somehow bad.

Lack of logic is to be a child, unworthy of being taken seriously.

Nw, there is no evidence whatsoever for that anything those climatebats are saying. Its nothing but bullshit engineered to enrichen the few and impoverish everyone else.
All in line with the previous 80 years and shrinking standards of living..

[Sol Invictus]

im just being logical

No, you're being a tool.


in the alternative reality wherein climate change is happening, is due to co2 and is somehow bad.


there is no evidence whatsoever for that anything those climatebats are saying.

Somehow indeed. Why don't you educate me since you seem to know something I do not. Infact, it's just been published that the U.S and much of the world have actually broken record lows in temperatures (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/are-record-temperatures-abnormal/), and there hasn't been any groundbreaking increase in temperatures in any continent on earth since 1974. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html)


Lack of logic is to be a child, unworthy of being taken seriously.

Yes indeed. So what does that make me?

[Monolith]

Mars, Pluto, and other planets are also proven with science to be heating up also, so since human activity isn't possible on those planets, how do we explain this phoenominon occuring other than blaming on the only source of heat, that being the sun.
Apparently, the climatologists say the Sun is responsible for but a fraction of the overall increase of temperature, and yet they hold it responsible for the Maunder Minimum and the ensuing Little ice age in late 1600s. Isn't that self-contradictory?

[Sol Invictus]

Apparently, the climatologists say the Sun is responsible for but a fraction of the overall increase of temperature, and yet they hold it responsible for the Maunder Minimum and the ensuing Little ice age in late 1600s. Isn't that self-contradictory?

No. It's called sun-spots -- they come and go.

[Monolith]

No. It's called sun-spots -- they come and go.
Yes, I know. But doesn't that mean that the sun itself caused a significant climate change, i.e. global cooling in this case? So why wouldn't it be able to cause a global warming?

[SwordoftheVistula]

That's another Myth; GMO food actually results in less food, not more.

How do you figure? Why would someone genetically modify a crop to produce less, and who would buy it if they did? Genetic engineering is just a speeding up of the process of 'selective breeding to make crops produce more.


Couple it with a steady influx of immigrants from these third world countries then you have an obvious problem, added to an already devastating crisis that can only be reversed if action is taken now.

Wouldn't there be a lot less immigrants from countries if they had a 'one child policy'? Not that many immigrants come to western countries from China anymore, comparatively.


Much better to go with population density as the base for how much to pay.

Not really, because there's all those desert countries and Africa which are overpopulated for what they can support even though their density is probably low, then you have countries like Luxemburg with a high density but also a high achieving population which can support itself.

[Sol Invictus]

How do you figure? Why would someone genetically modify a crop to produce less, and who would buy it if they did? Genetic engineering is just a speeding up of the process of 'selective breeding to make crops produce more.

It's a scam plain and simple. You modify the seeds so they can't reproduce.
Forces the farmer to come back to the owners of the patent each time he has to harvest, which in turn yields more money.




Wouldn't there be a lot less immigrants from countries if they had a 'one child policy'?

Maybe, but that sure doesn't help our cause to increase our numbers.
It makes it worse. There's plenty of room for more babies in Europe and in the North America, (Especially Canada).

[Lahtari]

and most of Europe is essentially already on a voluntary 'one child policy',Source?

It's not an enforced policy, it's the state of reality. European countries generally have reproduction rates from just over 1 to around 1.7 children per woman.

One benefit of such a global policy would be that our present immigrants would also stop reproducing. But it wouldn't stop the pressure of already born people from the poor and already overpopulated third world. And, how the hell is anybody supposed to prevent people making kids in some God-forsaken third world hick county? By counting the people of a village once in 10 years and shooting the extra? :D

And even then, a one child policy would lead to a coming stagnation in Europe - just as it is now, as the vacuum is being replaced with immigrants by the morons who understand nothing about society. A global two child policy would be more optimal, although even then it would hinder our reproductional ability more because it would only target those few wanting to have bigger families. A better one would be an obligation for every country to drop their reproduction rate to two with no means specified, so the Laestadians could have their 10 child families and the city-yuppies their careers. But again, I doubt the third world countries would even try: their leaders are corrupt and cultures based around the family.

So I agree with you, global birth control would be harmful to us, and would fail to address the real problem which is reckless breeding in developing countries. Somehow I feel the Chinks might have a strategic interest of their own in mind. Like... India?

[SwordoftheVistula]

It's a scam plain and simple. You modify the seeds so they can't reproduce.
Forces the farmer to come back to the owners of the patent each time he has to harvest, which in turn yields more money.

Ok, even assuming that to be the case, how does that negate the fact that these crops are essential to maintaining the current quantity of food production, and without them we'd have a lot less food?

[Sol Invictus]

Ok, even assuming that to be the case, how does that negate the fact that these crops are essential to maintaining the current quantity of food production, and without them we'd have a lot less food?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Go back and read what I said.

It doesn't help food production, it makes it worse. And even if it didn't, that doesn't excuse the risks of using GMO on crops which will be consumed by humans.

[Lahtari]

It doesn't help food production, it makes it worse. And even if it didn't, that doesn't excuse the risks of using GMO on crops which will be consumed by humans.

Risks? Sure, playing around with genes can result to unpredictable things. But in this case the results can be accurately measured: if the crops do not contain anything poisonous to humans and are not lacking anything essential, then they're edible.

[SwordoftheVistula]

http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n34/v2n34a04-mcgloughlin.htm

Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Be Important To The Developing World
Martina McGloughlin
University of California, Davis
The objective in this article is to challenge misconceptions often put forward about the technologies of biotechnology. In particular, I challenge many of the arguments put forward by Altieri and Rosset in their paper published in this issue of AgBioForum. My main conclusion is that biotechnology will be very important to the developing world in the next 50 years.
Key words: biotechnology; Green Revolution; benefits; productivity gains; food safety; environmental risk.
Biotechnology companies, national and international organizations, including the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and numerous academics (e.g., Ruttan 1999) have continued to argue for the need to increase agricultural productivity so that sufficient food supplies exist to meet the demand forthcoming from a swelling world population. Despite Altieri and Rosset's (this issue) assertion, population density is hardly the issue. In the absence of significant productivity gains, or expansion of agriculture into marginal lands (e.g., forests), there will be not be sufficient food quantities to feed the projected levels of population. This simple reality is independent of income distribution or the location of the population. And hardly anyone, including Altieri and Rosset, will argue about the pragmatism of population projections. So in the absence of a good alternative—and in the face of a proven slow down in the productivity gains from the Green Revolution—biotechnology is by default our best, and maybe, only, way to increase production to meet future food needs.

My objective in this article is to challenge misconceptions often put forward about biotechnology. Within this context I challenge many of Altieri and Rosset's arguments which are not generally supported by existing scientific evidence. I follow their numbering of arguments to facilitate point-by-point comparisons.

1. The argument that hunger is a complex socioeconomic phenomenon, tied to lack of resources to grow or buy food, is correct. Equally correct is the argument that existing food supplies could adequately feed the world population. But how food and other resources (e.g., land, capital) are distributed among individuals, regions, or the various nations is determined by the complex interaction of market forces and institutions around the world. Unless our civic societies can come up quickly with an economic system that allocates resources more equitably and more efficiently than the present one, 50 years from now we will be faced with an even greater challenge. Calorie for calorie there will not be enough food to feed the projected population of about 9 billion. With the purchasing power and wealth concentrated in the developed countries, and over 90 percent of the projected population growth likely to occur in developing and emerging economies, it is not difficult to predict where food shortages will occur. Unless we are ready to accept starvation, or place parks and the Amazon Basin under the plough, there really is only one good alternative: discover ways to increase food production from existing resources. Bottom line, Altieri and Rosset may want to argue against Western-style capitalism and market institutions if they so choose to—but their argument is hardly relevant to the issue of biotechnology.

2. The assertion that most innovations in biotechnology are not need driven is incorrect. Here are a few well-documented examples of biotechnology innovations targeting pressing needs:

* Development of a rice strain that has the potential to prevent blindness in millions of children whose diets are deficient in Vitamin A. Vitamin A is a highly essential micronutrient and widespread dietary deficiency of this vitamin in rice-eating Asian countries has tragic undertones: five million children in South East Asia develop an eye disease called xerophthalmia every year, and 250,000 of them eventually become blind. Improved vitamin A nutrition would alleviate this serious health problem and, according to United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), could also prevent up to two million infant deaths because vitamin A deficiency predisposes them to diarrhea diseases and measles. A research team led by Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, in collaboration with scientists from the University of Freiburg in Germany have succeeded in producing the precursor to this vitamin, beta-carotene in rice (Potrykus, 1999).

* Development of rice strains with increased iron content and lowered anti-nutrients. Approximately 30% of the world's population suffers from iron deficiency, especially in less developed countries. Anemia characterized by low hemoglobin is the most widely recognized symptom of iron deficiency, but there are other serious problems such as impaired learning ability in children, increased susceptibility to infection and reduced work capacity. An adequate supply of iron is crucial during the first two years of life because of rapid body growth. Yet the body can use less than 20% of ingested iron. Most iron found in the soil is in the ferric state, an ionic form that can not be utilized until it is converted to the ferrous form. Plants can convert ferric to ferrous iron, however, humans lack the enzyme needed for such conversion. One approach to treating iron deficiency in people is to create plants that contain more iron. The gene for ferritin, an iron-rich soybean storage protein, has been introduced into rice under the control of an endosperm-specific promoter. Grains from transgenic rice plants contained three times more iron than normal rice. The bioavailability of the mineral has been increased also through biotechnology. Seeds store the phosphorous needed for germination in the form of phytate, which is an anti-nutrient because it strongly chelates iron, calcium, zinc and other divalent mineral ions, making them unavailable for uptake. The same Swiss group that created beta-carotene rice has developed a series of transgenic rice lines designed to deal with this problem by introducing a gene that encodes phytase, an enzyme that breaks down phytate. In addition, sulfur containing proteins enhance iron reabsorption so to further promote the reabsorption of iron, a gene for a cystein-rich metallothionein-like protein has also been engineered into rice by Potrykus (Goto et al., 1999; Potrykus, 1999).

* Improvements to hybrid rice by introducing the gene of interest directly into maintainer or restorer lines. Early results at transforming rice with the nodulin gene indicate that this staple can be colonized by bacteria that fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. This would improve productivity in the absence of synthetic fertilizers, which are typically unavailable to resource-poor farmers in less developing countries (LDCs) (Dowling, 1998).

* Edible vaccines, delivered in locally grown crops, could do more to eliminate disease than the Red Cross, missionaries, and United Nations (UN) task forces combined, at a fraction of the cost (Arakawa et al., 1998; Tacket et al., 1998; Hag et al., 1995).

All these and numerous other technologies are being advanced and directed towards resource-poor farmers and locations.

Biotechnology is being advanced and directed towards resource-poor farmers and locations. Altieri and Rosset ignore the substantial technology pipeline and the efforts of thousands of scientists across the world to safeguard food safety and improve human nutrition and quality of life. They prefer to focus exclusively on the earliest biotechnology products that were broadly commercialized Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) and Roundup Ready technologies. Equally absent in Altieri and Rosset's arguments is an elementary understanding of market-economics and innovation dynamics.

In market-driven economies, need and profit are closely connected. Companies, large and small, profit only when they offer products and services that address needs and induce willingness to pay. Bt and Roundup Ready technologies have been adopted faster than any other agricultural innovation on record (Kalaitzandonakes, 1999). These adoption levels have taken place despite abundant supplies of conventional seed with which farmers can exercise their "age-old right to save and replant." The reason for the quick adoption, of course, is that farmers profit from the use of such technologies through reduced chemical sprays, improved yields, labor savings, shifts to reduced tillage systems and other benefits (Maagd, et al. 1999; Abelson & Hines, 1999). Over half of all economic benefits generated by these technologies have gone to farmers, more than what has been appropriated by biotechnology and seed companies combined (Traxler & Falk-Zepeda, 1999; Falk-Zepeda, Traxler, & Nelson, in press).

3. The argument that the integration of chemical pesticides and seed-use has led to lower returns for farmers is incorrect. To support their argument Altieri and Rosset reference an obscure manuscript while they ignore several comprehensive studies that point to increased net returns and reduced chemical loads (Rice, 1999; Klotz-Ingram et al., 1999; Falk-Zepeda, Traxler, & Nelson, in press; Gianessi, 1999; Abelson & Hines, 1999; USDA/ERS, 1999a, 1999b).

Because of their improved production economics, the introduction of Bt- and herbicide resistant crops have forced tremendous competition in herbicide and insecticide markets. Prices of many herbicides and insecticides have been slashed by over 50% in these markets in order to compete with the improved economics of biotechnology seed/chemical solutions. Such price reductions have led to significant discounting of weed and insect control programs and have benefited even farmers who have not adopted biotechnology crops. Because of lower prices and reduced volumes synthetic pesticides from the use of biotechnology crops, the agrichemicals sector has experienced significant financial losses over the last two-three years.

There is ample evidence to suggest that Altieri and Rosset's assertion that "the integration of seed and chemical industries appears destined to (deliver) lower returns" is incorrect. What is surprising, however, is the lack of rudimentary understanding of farm economics and decision making. Why would thousands of farmers adopt technologies that lead them to losses year after year while conventional seed and pesticide solutions are readily available and cheaper than before the introduction of biotechnology crops?

4. The assertion that "genetically engineered seeds do not increase the yield of crops" is misleading. Generally, Bt-type technologies are expected to increase yields while herbicide-resistant technologies are expected to reduce costs and input use. Conventional weed control programs applied on conventional seed may be as effective in controlling weeds as herbicide resistant plants and are expected to yield similarly. However, conventional weed treatment programs are expected, on average, to cost more and involve larger amounts of synthetic pesticides. In addition herbicide tolerant crops eliminate the need for pre-emergent spraying with far less benign herbicides. On the other hand, Bt-crops enjoy greater protection from hard to control insect pests relative to conventional plants that are applied to chemical insecticides. As a result, when insect pests exceed certain thresholds, Bt-crops are expected to yield better. Such effects will tend to vary from one region to another and from one year to another as insect pest pressures and weed infestations tend to be variable.

To effectively measure the yield and cost impacts of biotechnologies, one must control for all other variation (e.g., year-to-year weather and pest infestation variation, variability in seeding rates, differences in farming systems, and so on). Currently, a small number of studies have measured the yield impacts under proper statistical controls. In these few cases, adoption of herbicide resistance and insect resistance were generally associated with increases in yields and variable profits (Klotz et al., 1999; Falk-Zepeda, Traxler, & Nelson, in press; Maagd et al., 1999; Abelson & Hines, 1999).

5. The assertion that "there are potential risks of eating (bioengineered) foods" is alarmist. Citing unspecified "recent evidence" Altieri and Rosset fail to acknowledge the extensive scientific evidence that consistently finds that the use of biotechnology methods and biotechnology products pose risks no different from those of other genetic methods and products.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has evaluated technical evidence on all proteins produced through biotechnology and which are currently in commercial food products. All of the proteins that have been placed into foods through the use of biotechnology and are currently in the market are non-toxic, sensitive to heat, acid and enzymatic digestion, and hence rapidly digestible, and have no structural similarities with proteins known to cause allergies (Thompson, 2000). Under their oversight structure, the FDA does not routinely subject foods from new plant varieties to pre-market review or to extensive scientific safety tests, although there are exceptions. The agency has judged that the usual safety and quality control practices used by plant breeders, such as chemical and visual analyses and taste testing, are generally adequate for ensuring food safety. Additional tests are performed, however, when suggested by the product's history of use, composition, or characteristics.

Similarly, the argument that insertion of new DNA can alter the metabolism of plants or animals causing them to produce new allergens and toxins is deceptive. For one thing, these kinds of changes can happen through natural mutations or with any type of plant transformation (e.g., through traditional breeding or bioengineering). For another, newly developed plants (resulting from traditional breeding or bioengineering) are subjected to extensive testing that demonstrates that such plants look and grow normally, and have the expected levels of nutrients and toxins. Extensive scientific evidence suggests that there are no food safety issues with bioengineered plants (ibid.). Presence of a substance that is completely new to the food supply or of an allergen presented in an unusual or unexpected way (for example, a peanut protein transferred to a potato) invokes greater scrutiny by the agency. This focus by the FDA on safety-related characteristics, rather than on the method by which the plant was genetically modified, reflects the scientific consensus that "the same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods," and, therefore, "no conceptual distinction exists" (National Research Council, 1989).

Finally, Altieri and Rosset assert that Roundup Ready soybeans are nutritionally inferior due to reduced quantities of isoflavons, known anti-cancer agents. Yet, to-date there exist no studies that properly control for variations in the supply of water, light, minerals, pests and even germplasm, all of which are known to affect the amounts of isoflavons in soybeans, as they assess the effect of transgenes on such amounts (e.g., Taylor & Hefle, 1999).

Over the years, scientists working on bioengineered crops have used strict scientific principles and thorough analyses to confirm for themselves and the public that the genes and techniques used are safe for the consumer and the environment. The most we can ask is that all foods produced by whatever method receive the same level of evaluation. Millions of people have already consumed the products of genetic engineering and no adverse effects have been reported or demonstrated. Scientists are confident in the validity of the system that regulates and oversees the food supply.

6. The argument that the new bioengineered varieties will fail, as pests develop resistance to the natural Bt-toxins produced by these varieties because they violate the basic principles of integrated pest management (IPM), is misleading. Pests tend to overcome any control mechanism, including those introduced through biotechnology, synthetic pesticides, or even the broader integrated approaches suggested by Altieri and Rosset. In biology no solutions are permanent. Once selection pressure is applied on a population, that population is effectively enriched for resistant organisms. That is why it is imperative to develop a multi-pronged approach. Integrating crop rotation and ecology with biotechnology is not only feasible but also the logical way to progress. Indeed biotechnology companies like Ecogen and AgraQuest use biotechnology to identify and enrich natural predators of damaging pests.

However, biotechnology supplies yet one more mode of defense. For instance, many variations and combinations of Bt genes are currently being produced to minimize pest selection pressure. Indeed, Altieri and Rosset are incorrect when they drive a parallel with the "one pest-one pesticide" paradigm. Biotechnology is striving for a "one pest-many genes" paradigm. Molecular biologists recognize the need to study and apply multiple and diverse mechanisms for controlling pests and pathogens to reduce selection pressure. Simultaneous or sequential deployment of different resistance genes has the same rationale as crop rotation. Pathogen evolution is less able to overcome a changing environment or an environment made inhospitable by an array of resistance genes.

There are many sources of resistance genes in addition to those found in nature. Combinations and re-combinations of genes may be used or completely synthetic genes can be developed. By having a range of gene products with subtle variations produced for example through directed evolution (a technology that mimics the natural process of evolution and brings together advances in molecular biology and classical breeding), or, by creating suites of synthetic genes which the target pest would never encounter in nature, the selection for resistance is greatly reduced. Diverse mechanisms of action of gene products can also be employed to reduce selection pressure through a technique called gene pyramiding whereby genes with very different modes of action such as chitinases, feeding inhibitors, maturation inhibitors, and so on, are used in combination. The probability of any single organism overcoming all of these diverse strategies is vanishingly small. Finally, use of refuges where conventional crops are planted along side of bioengineered ones can further reduce pest selection. The recent refuge regulation introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) targets long-term protection from selection and development of resistance among pests. In conclusion, not only can biotechnology be integrated with ecological and other pest management methods it also supplies several new modes of action thereby enriching IPM.

7. The argument that biotechnology crops have been commercialized without proper testing while posing risks to human health and the environment is incorrect. Biotechnology crops and foods have been massively tested over the years both in the laboratory and in controlled natural environments under the oversight of the EPA, the FDA and the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service / United States Department of Agriculture (APHIS-USDA). Over 4,000 field tests have been performed in some 18,000 sites throughout the United States over the last 15 years for efficacy, performance and suitability for release in the environment. Thousands of similar field tests have been performed in other countries around the world. Volumes of data have been generated on the food safety of bioengineered foods as well, with no evidence of safety risks as indicated above.

Effective procedures of field testing and food safety assessment have been developed after careful consideration and subject to scientific standards (for example see National Research Council, 1989; Report of a Joint Food & Agriculture Organization / World Health Organization [FAO/WHO] Consultation, 1991; Organization for Economic and Cooperation on Development [OECD], 1993).

Altieri and Rosset fail to explain precisely how the FDA, EPA, APHIS-USDA and the vast majority of the scientific community, in undertaking more than 20 years of extensive assessment of biosafety claims, have been negligent. More importantly they should provide stronger scientific evidence in support of their arguments. Specifically:

* The argument that adoption of biotechnology crops is "creating genetic uniformity" inducing vulnerability to new matching strains of pathogens is incorrect. Transgenes are added to existing locally adopted germplasm and have no inherent influence on the genetic variation of the varieties planted. For example, there are over one thousand Roundup Ready varieties of soybeans cultivated in the United States alone. Hence, adoption of biotechnology has not increased the vulnerability of germplasm to homogeneous or other strains of pathogens and has not led to genetic erosion. Quite the opposite. Biotechnology tools are allowing traditional varieties to be revived and safeguarded (see for example Woodward et al., in this issue) or develop new genetic variation.

* The argument that herbicide resistant crops "reduce agrobiodiversity" is incorrect. While minimal restrictions are put on specific rotations (e.g., following Roundup Ready corn with Round-Ready soybeans), equally minimal planning can easily by-pass such restrictions. Indeed, herbicide resistant plants improve agrobiodiversity by encouraging minimum tillage and no-tillage cultivation systems.

* Unlike conventional tillage, which controls weed growth by plowing and cultivating, no-till agriculture depends on selective herbicides to kill weeds. The resulting vegetation detritus protects seedlings when they are most vulnerable. Soil erosion is reduced. Beneficial insects in the debris are protected. And the till-less technique reduces equipment, fuel, and fertilizer needs and, significantly, the time required for tending crops. It also improves soil-aggregate formation, microbial activity in the soil, and water infiltration and storage.

* Assertions that cultivation of herbicide resistant plants will result in "superweeds" through gene flow are misleading and alarmist. Gene flow is the exchange of genetic information between crops and wild relatives. The movement of genes via pollen dispersal provides, in principle, a mechanism for foreign genes to "escape" from a genetically engineered crop and spread to weedy relatives growing nearby. Gene flow becomes an environmental issue when the associated trait confers some kind of ecological advantage. This is a particular concern in the case of herbicide resistance genes, for example, where transfer of the resistance trait to weedy relatives that are more difficult to control.

* The risk of gene flow is not specific to biotechnology. It applies equally well to herbicide resistant plants that have been developed through traditional breeding techniques (e.g., STS soybeans). Moreover, gene flow is a constant concern of plant breeders who worry about unwanted genes flowing into their fields. It is widely recognized that the "superweed" concept is exaggerated. Resistance to a particular herbicide, if and when developed, implies that use of other herbicides may be necessary for effective control. Currently, there exist effectual alternative chemistries for most economically relevant weeds.

These arguments aside, gene flow is possible and could deem certain chemistries ineffective. The questions then become how possible is such gene flow and what are some alternative strategies that may be used to address the potential risk.

It is important to remember that for any transgene to spread (nuclear or plastomic), there must be successful hybrid formation between a sexually compatible crop plant and recipient species. The two species must flower at the same time, share the same insect pollinator (if insect-pollinated), and be close enough in space to allow for the transfer of viable pollen. Thus, the transfer of transgenes will depend on the sexual fertility of the hybrid progeny, their vigor and sexual fertility in subsequent generations, and the selection pressure on the host of the resident transgene.

There are also strategies to reduce the, however small, risk of gene flow from transgenic crops. One possibility is the use of male sterile plants, which works well but is limited to a few species. For the many crops in which chloroplasts are strictly maternally inherited, which is to say not transmitted through pollen, transformation of the chloroplast genome should provide an effective way to contain foreign genes. Henry Daniell and colleagues at Auburn University introduced a gene for herbicide resistance into tobacco, showed that it was stably integrated into the chloroplast genome, and demonstrated that transgenic plants contained only transformed chloroplasts. This result advances the potential for chloroplast transformation to be an effective strategy to manage the risk of gene flow (Daniel et al., 1998).

To test the theory of gene flow for herbicide tolerant genes introduced through chloroplast transformation, Scott and Wilkinson (1999) studied a 34-km region near the Thames River, United Kingdom where oilseed rape is cultivated in the vicinity of a native weed, wild rapeseed. Oilseed rape, the cultivated form of Brassica napus, and the wild rapeseed (B. rapa) are capable of exchanging pollen to produce viable hybrids. The study was designed to determine whether oilseed chloroplasts could be transferred to wild rapeseed, and how long the hybrids and maternal oilseed plants would survive in the wild. To identify chloroplasts, the authors created primers specific to chloroplast DNA non-coding regions. In PCR experiments, oilseed chloroplasts produced a single amplification product of 600 bp, whereas wild rapeseed produced a 650 bp product. In all cases, the chloroplasts from hybrid plants contained the PCR product of the maternal line demonstrating that they are not transferred in pollen.

The authors studied the frequency of hybrid formation and viability of oilseed and hybrids in non-cultivated areas over a three-year period. Their studies show that oilseed has a very low survival rate outside cultivated fields. On average, only 12-19% of oilseed survived each growing season. At the same time, a very low level of natural hybridization was observed (0.4-1.5%). Taken together, the results indicate that there is a very low possibility of transgene movement into feral populations of maternal lineage. However, the persistence of the maternal line in the wild will be of limited duration.

* Assertions about the impacts of Bt-crops on non-target insects are misleading. Reports of the potential for effects from these Bt corn hybrids on Monarch butterflies or other lepidoptera are not new. They have been reported in the scientific literature and regulatory review documents since at least 1986. The environmental protection agency has been provided data on the potential for impacts on non-target species from Bt pollen for years. Their analyses indicated that, when compared with the numerous other relevant factors, the impacts from such pollen were likely to be negligible. Despite popular belief, Losey et al. (1999) demonstrated nothing new other than that force feeding monarch caterpillars is still not as hazardous as using chemical insecticides.

Indeed, the use of Bt-crops may have a positive impact on biodiversity. Ongoing monitoring by companies of Bt-corn fields since their introduction shows that insect biodiversity and population densities in Bt-corn fields is significantly higher than in fields treated with chemical pesticide sprays. Bt-corn may help enhance beneficial insect populations that would otherwise be threatened by the use of pesticidal sprays. This could lead to benefits for, among others, insect eating birds and small mammals.

Strategies to minimize impact on non-target insects are also being developed. For example, the current generation of Bt corn is aimed at reducing crop losses to an imported pest from Europe, the European corn borer. This pest eats corn stalks. Varieties of corn are already under development that could express Bt or other genes of similar effect only in corn stalks, and not in other parts of the crop (e.g., leafs, pollen). Likewise chloroplast transformation described above will eliminate expression in pollen. Such corn varieties would also eliminate entirely any risks to non-target organisms that might come from Bt containing pollen.

The issue of vector recombination and creation of new viruses has been considered by scientists independently and in specific forums. For example, the USDA-APHIS and the American Institute of Biological Sciences convened a workshop in 1995, to address risk issues associated with the possible generation of new plant viruses in transgenic plants expressing viral genes that confer virus resistance. Most workshop participants believed that current data obtained from laboratory and field research indicate the risk associated with the generation of new plant viruses through recombination is minimal and should not be a limiting factor to large-scale field tests or commercialization of transgenic plants expressing viral transgenes. Genomic viral RNA transcapsidated with coat protein produced by a transgenic plant should not have long-term effects, since the genome of the infecting virus is not modified. Similarly, synergistic interactions between an infecting virus and a viral transgene should not have long-term impacts on the agricultural production. The weight of opinion, though, was that, given time and opportunity, all viral recombinations are possible. With or without the use of transgenic plants, new plant viruses will develop that will require attention. Hence, this is an area where additional research is needed.

8. Many of Altieri and Rosset's "unanswered ecological questions regarding the impact of transgenic crops" are not unanswered. Indeed, there is a substantial body of knowledge and volumes of data on both the environmental and food safety of biotechnology crops and foods demonstrating their overall suitability. This is not to say that environmental and other impact assessment of biotechnology crops should not be expanded. Indeed, more impact assessment studies are needed to augment and expand the existing empirical evidence, answer any unanswered questions and put risks and benefits of biotechnology crops and foods in a proper perspective. This need is explicitly recognized in a recent report of a Task Force reporting to the Land Grant University and Extension Service administrators which placed high priority on assessment studies (ESCOP/ECOP Report, 2000).

9. Altieri and Rosset misrepresent the position of CGIAR and their research direction. Indeed Ismail Serageldin, Chairman of the CGIAR noted that, a priori, biotechnology could contribute to food security by helping to promote sustainable agriculture centered on smallholder farmers in developing countries. Furthermore, they misrepresent the potential of "rotations, inter-cropping and biological control agents" as singular solutions for environmentally sound and productive agriculture. Despite Altieri and Rosset's indirect references to scientific evidence which they report has confirmed repeatedly the dramatic effects of such methods, the evidence in the published literature remains scant.

Crop rotation has been with us since the manor system of medieval times. And although there are no regulatory or technological barriers to its use, it has had only modest adoption by producers because of the limitations it places on resource management and because of its economics. In and of itself crop rotation has not proven to be the singular solution to our increasing food demand problem.

Use and commercialization of biological agents in crop production has also been limited despite decades of research both in the private and public sector. Companies like Ciba, DuPont, American Cyanamid and various startups like Mycogen invested millions of dollars in research of biopesticides and biological agents and, ultimately, disposed them as uneconomical. Even companies that specialize in biological agents and biopesticides, like Ecogen and Agraquest, have focused primarily on high value markets with few chemical pesticide alternatives.

The most misleading aspect of Altieri and Rosset's argument, however, is the artificial dichotomy they draw between biotechnology versus agroecology. As amply described above, biotechnology and agroecological approaches are synergistic and should be combined to improve the sustainability of our agriculture and food systems. Altieri and Rosset use an artificial dichotomy to mask an underlying issue: that there is "an urgent need to challenge the patent system and intellectual property rights intrinsic to the WTO." Ultimately, Altieri and Rosset are after market and political institutions that are unrelated to biotechnology.

10. Altieri and Rosset extend their artificial dichotomy further to pass judgement on what kind of agriculture we should have. "Small farmers using agroecological approaches and low input practices," who are presumably discovering better ways to yield more in environmentally benign and socially responsible ways, is the way to go. Again, there is nothing inherent in biotechnology that justifies the small versus large farm dichotomy. Biotechnologies are size neutral and can benefit small holders and large commercial farmers alike. As Florence Wambugu director of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) in Kenya notes, the great potential of biotechnology to increase agriculture in Africa lies in its "packaged technology in the seed", which ensures technology benefits without changing local cultural practices. In the broader context, one must also question the wisdom of Altieri and Rosset's argument. In the presence of social, environmental and economic advantages they describe, why are small holder agroecological production systems not quickly dominating?

While laudable in its intent to reduce environmental impact, much of Altieri and Rosset's philosophy is founded on a fallacy. They support a form of farming in which average crop yields on a variety of soils are about half those of intensive farming (Avery, 1999; Evans, 1998; Tillman, 1998). As populations rise, inefficient farming will destroy a much greater quantity of wilderness and its associated wildlife as farming infringes in those areas.

Concluding Comments

Altieri and Rosset's arguments are neither scientifically supported or even really about biotechnology. Their arguments are primarily directed against Western-type capitalism and associated institutions (e.g., intellectual property rights, the WTO). Biotechnology is used as a Trojan Horse. They fail to acknowledge the scientifically proven potential of biotechnology and the ways it can contribute to environmental sustainability and food security. The developing and developed world will need and use biotechnology in many ways during this century. Those with political battles to fight may want to use other, more appropriate fora to fight them.

[Sol Invictus]

Oh look, I can copy and paste too.

50 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS

In a sentence

This article outlines the many harmful effects of GM or genetically-modified foods (known also as genetically-engineered foods) and representng lab-created GMOs or genetically-modified organisms.









By

Nathan Batalion, ND

We are confronted with what is undoubtedly the single most potent technology the world has ever known - more powerful even than atomic energy. Yet it is being released throughout our environment and deployed with superficial or no risk assessments - as if no one needs to worry an iota about its unparalleled powers to harm life as we know it - and for all future generations.

Updated 2009. Comments email: naturolism@gmail.com More blue underlined links shortly in an ongoing update.

Sign up now for our Newsletter to get invaluable updates and more



Introduction

What is called "biotechnology" is a vital issue that impacts all of us.

Largely between 1997 and 1999, genetically modified (GM) food ingredients suddenly appeared in 2/3rds of all US processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization. Since then thousands of applications for experimental genetically-modified (GM) organisms, including quite bizarre GMOs, have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad. Furthermore an economic war broke out to own equity in firms that legally claimed such patent rights or the means to control not only genetically modified organisms but vast reaches of human food supplies. This has been the behind-the-scenes and key factor for some of the largest and rapid agri-chemical firm mergers in history. The merger of Pioneer Hi-Bed and Dupont (1997), Novartis AG and AstraZeneca PLC (2000), plus Dow's merger with Rohm and Haas (2001) are three prominent examples, Few consumers are aware this has been going on and is ever continuing. Yet if you recently ate soya sauce in a Chinese restaurant, munched popcorn in a movie theatre, or indulged in an occasional candy bar - you've undoubtedly ingested this new type of food. You may have, at the time, known exactly how much salt, fat and carbohydrates were in each of these foods because regulations mandate their labeling for dietary purposes. But you would not know if the bulk of these foods, and literally every cell had been genetically altered!

In just those three years, as much as 1/4th of all American agricultural lands or 70-80 million acres were quickly converted to raise genetically-modified (GM) food and crops. And in the race to increase GM crop production verses organics, the former is winning. For details, see our article Who is Winning The Race Between GM Global and Organic Crop Production?


Core Philosophical Issues

When Gandhi confronted British rule and Martin Luther King addressed those who disenfranchised Afro-Americans, each brought forth issues of morality and spirituality. They both challenged others to live up to the highest principles of humanity. With the issue of GM food technology, we should naturally do the same, and with great respect for both sides. It is not enough to list fifty or more harmful effects but we need to also address moral, spiritual and especially worldview issues. Here the stakes are incredibly huge. For an introductory discussion of the philosophical issues involving GMOs, why this technology represents the impregnation of a mechanical worldview, a death-centered vision of nature that is greatlyt accelerating the death of species on earth, see our article GMOs - Philosophical Issues of a Thanoptic (Death-Delivering) Technology.

FROM HYBRIDIZATION TO GMOs

Another challenging phenomenon to face in our modern world is that of hybridization. It seems to have worked so very successfully in some commercial realms, and as a major application of Gregor Mendel's revolutionary Gene Theory. Mendel offered a logical extension of the larger mechanical worldview. Just as we create factory assembly lines for manufacturing inanimate products, why can't we also manufacture living organisms, and using the same or similar principles? Why not take this assembly-line process to the next logical and progressive level?

What's wrong then with the "advance" of genetic engineering? No doubt, with hybridizations conscious life is manipulated. But living organisms continue to make some primary genetic decisions amid limited selections. We can understand this with an analogy. There is an immense difference between being a matchmaker and inviting two people to a dinner party, to meet and see if they are compatible. This differs essentially from forcing their meeting and union or a violent date rape. The former act may be divine, and the latter considered criminal. The implication is that biotechnology involves vital moral issues in regard to the whole of life in nature.

With biotechnology, roses are no longer crossed with just roses. They are mated with pigs, tomatoes with oak trees, fish with asses, butterflies with worms, orchids with snakes. The technology that makes this all possible is called biolistics - a gunshot-like violence that pierces the nuclear membrane of cells. This essentially violates not just the core chambers of life (physically crossing nuclear membranes) but the conscious-choice principle that is part of living nature's essence. Some also compare it to the violent crossing of territorial borders of countries, subduing inhabitants against their will.

What will happen if this technology is allowed to spread? Fifty years ago few predicted that chemical pollution would cause so much vast environmental harm. Now nearly 1/3rd of all species are threatened with extinction (and up to half of all plant species and half of all mammals). Few also knew that cancer rates would skyrocket during this same period. Nowadays approximately 41% on average of Americans can expect cancer in their lifetime.

ALARM SIGNALS

No one has a crystal ball to see future consequences of the overall GMO technology.Nevertheless, there are silent alarm signals like the early death of canaries in a mine shaft. There is, for example, growing evidence that the wholesale disappearance of bees relates directly to the appearance of ever more GM pollen. If we understand certain philosophical issues about the 17th century's worldview, the potential harm of GMOs actually can potentially far outweigh that of chemical pollution. This is because chemistry deals mostly with things altered by fire (and then no longer alive, isolated in laboratories - and not infecting living terrains in self-reproducible ways). Thus a farmer may use a chemical for many decades, and then let the land lie fallow to convert it back to organic farming. This is because the chemicals tend to break down into natural substances over time, Genetic pollution, however, can alter the oil's life forever!

Farmers who view their land as their primary financial asset have reason to heed this warning. They need to be alarmed by evidence that genetically-modified soil bacteria contamination can arise. This is more than just possible, given the numerous (1600 or more) distinct microorganisms that can be found in a single teaspoon of soil. If that soil contamination remains permanently, the consequences can be catastrophic. Someday the public may blacklist precisely those farms that have once planted GM crops. No one has put up any warning signs on product packaging for farmers, including those who now own 1/4 of all agricultural tracks in the US. Furthermore, the spreading potential impact on all ecosystems is profound.

Writes Jeremy Rifkin, in The Biotech Century,

"Our way of life is likely to be more fundamentally transformed in the next several decades than in the previous one thousand years...Tens of thousands of novel transgenic bacteria, viruses, plants and animals could be released into the Earth's ecosystems...Some of those releases, however, could wreak havoc with the planet's biospheres."

In short these processes involve unparalleled risks. Voices from many sides echo this view. Contradicting safety claims, no major insurance company has been willing to limit risks, or insure bio-engineered agricultural products. The reason given is the high level of unpredictable consequences. Over eight hundred scientists from 84 countries have signed The World Scientist open letter to all governments calling for a ban on the patenting of life-forms and emphasizing the very grave hazards of GMOs, genetically-modified seeds and GM foods. This was submitted to the UN, World Trade Organization and US Congress. The Union of Concerned Scientists (a 1000 plus member organization with many Nobel Laureates) has similarly expressed its scientific reservations. The prestigious medical journal, Lancet, published an article on the research of Arpad Pusztai showing potentially significant harms, and to instill debate. Britain's Medical Association (the equivalent of the AMA and with over a 100,000 physicians) called for an outright banning of genetically-modified foods and labeling the same in countries where they still exist. In a gathering of political representatives from over 130 nations, drafting the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, approximately 95% insisted on new precautionary approaches. The National Academy of Science report on genetically-modified products urged greater scrutiny and assessments. Prominent FDA scientists have repeatedly expressed profound fears and reservations but their voices were muted not due to cogent scientific reasons but intense political pressure from the Bush administration in its efforts to buttress and promote the profit-potentials of a nascent biotech industry.

To counterbalance this, industry-employed scientists have signed a statement in favor of genetically-modified foods. But are any of these scientists impartial? Writes the New York Times (Feb 20, 2000) (about a similar crisis involving genetic engineering and medical applications).

"Academic scientists who lack industry ties have become as rare as giant pandas in the wild...lawmakers, bioethics experts and federal regulators are troubled that so many researchers have a financial stake [via stock options or patent participation] ...The fear is that the lure of profit could color scientific integrity, promoting researchers to withhold information about potentially dangerous side-effects."

Looked at from outside of commercial interests, perils of genetically modified foods and organisms are multi-dimensional. They include the creation of new "transgenic" life forms - organisms that cross unnatural gene lines (such as tomato seed genes crossed with fish genes) - and that have unpredictable behavior or replicate themselves out of control in the wild. This can happen, without warning, inside of our bodies creating an unpredictable chain reaction. A four-year study at the University of Jena in Germany conducted by Hans-Hinrich Kaatz revealed that bees ingesting pollen from transgenic rapeseed had bacteria in their gut with modified genes. This is called a "horizontal gene transfer." Commonly found bacteria and microorganisms in the human gut help maintain a healthy intestinal flora. These, however, can be mutated.

Mutations may also be able to travel internally to other cells, tissue systems and organs throughout the human body. Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and external genetic pollution can make the substance of science-fiction horror movies become terrible realities in the future. The same is true for the bacteria that maintain the health of our soil - and are vitally necessary for all forms of farming - in fact for human sustenance and survival.

Without factoring in biotechnology, milder forms of controlling nature have gravitated toward restrictive monocropping. In the past 50 years, this underlies the disappearance of approximately 95% of many native grains, beans, nuts, fruits, and vegetable varieties in the United States, India, and Argentina among other nations (and on average 75% worldwide). Genetically-modified monoculture, however, can lead to yet greater harm. Monsanto, for example, had set a goal of converting 100% of all US soy crops to Roundup Ready strains by the year 2000. If this plan were effected, it would have threatened the biodiversity and resilience of all future soy farming practices. Monsanto laid out similar strategies for corn, cotton, wheat and rice. This represents a deepest misunderstanding of how seeds interact, adapt and change with the living world of nature.

One need only look at agricultural history - at the havoc created by the Irish potato blight, the Mediterranean fruit fly epidemic in California, the regional citrus canker attacks in the Southeast, and the 1970's US corn leaf blight. In the latter case, 15% of US corn production was quickly destroyed. Had weather changes not quickly ensued, most all crops would have been laid waste because a fungus attached their cytoplasm universally. The deeper reason this happened was that approximately 80% of US corn had been standardized (devitalized/mechanized) to help farmers crossbreed - and by a method akin to those used in current genetic engineering. The uniformity of plants then allowed a single fungus to spread, and within four months to destroy crops in 581 counties and 28 states in the US. According to J. Browning of Iowa State University: "Such an extensive, homogeneous acreage of plants... is like a tinder-dry prairie waiting for a spark to ignite it."

The homogeneity is unnatural, a byproduct again of deadening nature's creativity in the attempt to mechanize, to grasp absolute control, and of what ultimately yields not control but wholesale disaster. Europeans seem more sensitive than Americans to such approaches, given the analogous metaphor of German eugenics.

HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS

Overall the "biotech revolution" that is presently trying to overturn 12,000 years of traditional and sustainable agriculture was launched in the summer of 1980 in the US. This was the result of a little-known US Supreme Court decision Diamond vs. Chakrabarty where the highest court decided that biological life could be legally patentable.

Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, a microbiologist and employee of General Electric (GE), developed at the time a type of bacteria that could ingest oil. GE rushed to apply for a patent in 1971. After several years of review, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) turned down the request under the traditional doctrine that life forms are not patentable. Jeremy Rifkin's organization, the Peoples Business Commission, filed the only brief in support of the ruling. GE later sued and won an overturning of the PTO ruling. This gave the go ahead to further bacterial gmo research throughout the 1970's.

Then in 1983 the first genetically-modified plant, an anti-biotic resistant tobacco was introduced. Field trials then began in 1985, and the EPA approved the very first release of a GMO crop in 1986. This was a herbicide-resistant tobacco. All of this went forward due to a regulatory green light as in 1985 the PTO also decided the Chakrabarty ruling could be further extended to all plants and seeds, or the entire plant kingdom.

It then took another decade before the first genetically-altered crop was commercially introduced. This was the famous delayed-ripening "Flavr-savr" tomato approved by the FDA on May 18, 1994. The tomato was fed in laboratory trials to mice who, normally relishing tomatoes, refused to eat these lab-creations and had to be force-fed by tubes. Several developed stomach lesions and seven of the forty mice died within two weeks. Without further safety testing the tomato was FDA approved for commercialization. Fortunately, it ended up as a production and commercial failure, and was ultimately abandoned in 1996. This was the same year Calgene, the producer, began to be bought out by Monsanto. During this period also, and scouring the world for valuable genetic materials, W.R. Grace applied for and was granted fifty US patents on the neem tree in India. It even patented the indigenous knowledge of how to medicinally use the tree f(what has since been called biopiracy). Also by the close of the 20th century, about a dozen of the major US crops - including corn, soy, potato, beets, papaya, squash, tomato and cotton - were approved for genetic modification.

Going a step further, on April 12, 1988, PTO issued its first patent on animal life forms (known as oncomice) to Harvard Professor Philip Leder and Timothy A. Stewart. This involved the creation of a transgenic mouse containing chicken and human genes. Since 1991 the PTO has controversially granted other patent rights involving human stem cells, and later human genes. A United States company, Biocyte was awarded a European patent on all umbilical cord cells from fetuses and newborn babies. The patent extended exclusive rights to use the cells without the permission of the donors. Finally the European Patent Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women who had been genetically altered to produce proteins in their mammary glands. Baylor essentially sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Other attempts have been made to patent cells of indigenous peoples in Panama, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea, among others.

Thus the groundbreaking Chakrabarty ruling evolved, and within little more than two decades from the patenting of tiny, almost invisible microbes, to allow the genetic modification of virtually all terrains of life on Earth.

Certain biotech companies then quickly, again with lightening speed, moved to utilize such patenting for the control of first and primarily seed stock, including buying up small seed companies and destroying their non-patented seeds. In the past few years, this has led to a near monopoly control of certain genetically modified commodities, especially soy, corn, and cotton (the latter used in processed foods when making cottonseed oil). As a result, between 70-75% of processed grocery products, as estimated by the Grocery Manufacturers of America, soon showed genetically-modified ingredients. Yet again without labeling, few consumers in the US were aware that any of this was pervasively occurring. Industry marketers found out that the more the public knew, the less they wanted to purchase GM foods. Thus a concerted effort was organized to convince regulators (or bribe them with revolving-door employment arrangements) not to require such labeling.

About the 50 Harmful Effects of GM Foods

This article does more than dispute the industry and certain government officials' claims that genetically-modified (GM) foods are the equivalent of ordinary foods not requiring labeling. It offers an informative list of the vast number of alarm signals, at least fifty hazards, problems, and dangers. also interspersed are deeper philosophical discussion of how the "good science" of biotechnology can turn against us as a thano-technology, grounded in a worldview that most seriously needs to be revisied.

When pesticides were first introduced, they also were heralded as absolutely safe and as a miracle cure for farmers. Only decades later the technology revealed its truer lethal implications. Here the potentially lethal implications are much broader.

The following list of harms is also divided into several easily referred-to sections, namely on health, environment, farming practices, economic/political/social implications, and issues of freedom of choice. There is a concluding review of means of inner activism - philosophical, spiritual, worldview changing. Next there is a list of action-oriented, practical ideas and resources for personal, political and consumer action on this vital issue. Finally, I want the reader to know that this article is a living document, subject to change whenever new and important information becomes available.

The reader is thus encouraged to return to this article as a resource, explore other parts of our site, and otherwise keep in touch with us and the Websites we link to. Most importantly please sign up for our newsletter so we can exchange vital information with you.

[Sol Invictus]

HEALTH

"Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of three billion years of evolution. Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms: animal and plant breeding...All the earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species...Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain...this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."

Deaths and Near-Deaths

1. Recorded Deaths from GM: In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically modified version of the food supplement L-tryptophan creating a debilitating ailment known as Eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS) . Released without safety tests, there were 37 deaths reported and approximately 1500 more were disabled. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by the manufacturer, Showa Denko, Japan's third largest chemical company destroyed evidence preventing a further investigation and made a 2 billion dollar settlement. Since the very first commercially sold GM product was lab tested (Flavr Savr) animals used in such tests have prematurely died.


2. Near-deaths and Food Allergy Reactions: In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans to provide the added protein methionine and by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they can go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Using genetic engineering, the allergens from one food can thus be transferred to another, thought to be safe to eat, and unknowingly. Animal and human tests confirmed the peril and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. The animal tests conducted, however, were insufficient by themselves to show this. Had they alone been relied upon, a disaster would have followed."The next case could be less than ideal and the public less fortunate," writes Marion Nestle author of Food Politics and Safe Food, and head of the Nutrition Department of NYU in an editorial to the New England Journal of Medicine. It has been estimated that 25% of Americans have mild adverse reactions to foods (such as itching and rashes), while at least 4% or 12 million Americans have provably more serious food allergies as objectively shown by blood iImmunoglobulin E or IgE levels. In other words, there is a significant number of highly food-sensitive individuals in our general population. The percentage of young children who are seriously food-allergenic is yet higher, namely 6-8% of all children under the age of three. In addition, the incidence rates for these children has been decidedly rising. Writes Dr. Jacqueline Pongracic, head of the allergy department at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, "I've been treating children in the field of allergy immunology for 15 years, and in recent years I've really seen the rates of food allergy skyrocket." The Center for Disease Control confirmed the spike on a US national level. Given the increased adulteration of our diets, it is no wonder at all that this is happening. Yet the FDA officials who are sacredly entrusted to safeguard the health of the general public, and especially of children, declared in 1992, under intense industry-lobbying pressure, that genetically-modified (GM) foods were essentially equivalent to regular foods. The truth is that genetically modified foods cannot ever be equivalent. They involve the most novel and technologically-violent alterations of our foods, the most uniquely different foods ever introduced in the history of modern agriculture (and in the history of biological evolution). To say otherwise affronts the intelligence of the public and safeguarding public officials. It is a bold, if not criminal deception to but appease greed-motivated corporate parties and at the direct expense and risk of the public's health. The FDA even decided against the advice of its own scientists that there was no need at all for FDA allergy or safety testing of these most novel of all foods. This hands-off climate (as promoted by the Bush Administration and similar to what was done with the mortgage and financial industry) is a recipe for widespread social health disasters. When elements of nature that have never before been present in the human diet are suddenly introduced, and without any public safety testing or labeling notice, such as petunia flower elements in soybeans and fish genes in tomatoes (as developed by DNA Plant Technology Corporation in the 1990s), it obviously risks allergic reactions among the most highly sensitive segments of our general population. It is a well-know fact that fish proteins happen to be among the most hyper-allergenic, while tomatoes are not. Thus not labeling such genetically modified tomatoes, with hidden alien or allergenic ingredients, is completely unconscionable. The same applies to the typical GMO that has novel bacterial and viral DNA artificially inserted. Many research studies have definitively confirmed this kind of overall risk for genetically modified foods:

CORN- Two research studies independently show evidence of allergenic reactions to GM Bt corn,
- Farm workers exposed to genetically-modified Bt sprays exhibited extensive allergic reactions.

POTATOES - A study showed genetically-modified potatoes expressing cod genes were allergenic.

PEAS - A decade-long study of GM peas was abandoned when it was discovered that they caused allergic lung damage in mice.

SOY - In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory discovered that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the year before, which corresponded with the introduction of genetically-modified soy from the US. It was the first time in 17 years that soy was tested in the lab among the top ten allergenic foods.

Cancer and Degenerative Diseases


3. Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links: GH is a protein hormone which, when injected into cows stimulates the pituitary gland in a way that the produces more milk, thus making milk production more profitable for the large dairy corporations. In 1993, FDA approved Monsanto's genetically-modified rBGH, a genetically-altered growth hormone that could be then injected into dairy cows to enhance this feature, and even though scientists warned that this resulted in an increase of IGF-1 (from (70%-1000%). IGF-1 is a very potent chemical hormone that has been linked to a 2 1/2 to 4 times higher risk of human colorectal and breast cancer. Prostate cancer risk is considered equally serious - in the 2,8.to 4 times range. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, this "induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells." Canadian studies confirmed such a suspicion and showed active IGF-1 absorption, thyroid cysts and internal organ damage in rats. Yet the FDA denied the significance of these findings. When two award-winning journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, tried to expose these deceptions, they were fired by Fox Network under intense pressure from Monsanto. The FDA's own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 40-46%- a sign of developing leukemia. The contention by Monsanto that the hormone was killed by pasteurization or rendered inactive was fallacious. In research conducted by two of Monsanto's own scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 15 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UN's Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continued to market this product in the US until 2008 when it finally divested under public pressure. This policy in the FDA was initiated by Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine and former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto. This is part of a larger revolving door between Monsanto and the Bush Administration. She spearheaded the increase in the amount of antibiotics farmers were allowed to have in their milk and by a factor of 100 or 10,000 percent. Also Michael Taylor, Esq. became the executive assistant to the director of the FDA and deputy Commissioner of Policy - filling a position created in 1991 to promote the biotech industry and squelch internal dissent. There Taylor drafted a new law to undermine the 1958 enacted Delaney Amendment that so importantly outlawed pesticides and food additives known to cause cancer. In other words carcinogens could now legally be reintroduced into our food chain. Taylor was later hired as legal counsel to Monsanto, and subsequently became Deputy Commissioner of Policy at the FDA once again. On another front, GM-approved products have been developed with resistance to herbicides that are commonly-known carcinogens. Bromoxynil is used on transgenic bromoxynmil-resistant or BXN cotton. It is known to cause very serious birth defects and brain damage in rats. Glyphosate and POEA, the main ingredients in Roundup, Monsanto's lead product are suspected carcinogens.

As to other degenerative disease links, according to a study by researcher Dr. Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA. The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops. A similar view is echoed by Dr. Joe Cummins, Professor of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, noting that animal experiments have demonstrated how exposure to such genetic elements may lead to inflammation, arthritis and lymphoma (a malignant blood disease).


4. Indirect, Non-traceable Effects on Cancer Rates: The twentieth century saw an incremental lowering of infectious disease rates, especially where a single bacteria was overcome by an antibiotic, but a simultaneous rise in systemic, whole body or immune system breakdowns. The epidemic of cancer is a major example and is affected by the overall polluted state of our environment, including in the pollution of the air, water, and food we take in. There are zillions of potential combinations for the 100,000 commonly thrust upon our environment. The real impact cannot be revealed by experiments that look at just a few controlled factors or chemicals isolates. Rather all of nature is a testing ground. Scientists a few years ago were startled that combining chemical food additives into chemical cocktails caused many times more toxic effects than the sum of the individual chemicals. More startling was the fact that some chemicals were thought to be harmless by themselves but not in such combinations. For example, two simple chemicals found in soft drinks, ascorbic acid and sodium benzoate, together form benzene, an immensely potent carcinogen. Similarly, there is the potential, with entirely new ways of rearranging the natural order with genetic mutations and that similar non-traceable influences can likewise cause cancer. We definitively know X-rays and chemicals cause genetic mutations, and mutagenic changes are behind many higher cancer rates or where cells duplicate out of control. In the US in the year 1900, cancer affected only about 1 out 11 individuals. It now inflicts 1 out of 2 men and 1 out of 3 women in their lifetime. Cancer mortality rates rose relentlessly throughout the 20th century to more than triple overall.

Viral and Bacterial Illness


5. Superviruses: Viruses can mix with genes of other viruses and retroviruses such as HIV. This can give rise to more deadly viruses - and at rates higher than previously thought. One study showed that gene mixing occurred in viruses in just 8 weeks (Kleiner, 1997). This kind of scenario applies to the cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV, the most common virus used in genetic engineering - in Round Up ready soy of Monsanto, Bt-maise of Novaris, and GM cotton and canola. It is a kind of "pararetrovirus" or what multiplies by making DNA from RNA. It is somewhat similar to Hepatitis B and HIV viruses and can pose immense dangers. In a Canadian study, a plant was infected with a crippled cucumber mosaic virus that lacked a gene needed for movement between plant cells. Within less than two weeks, the crippled plant found what it needed from neighboring genes - as evidence of gene mixing or horizontal transfer. This is significant because genes that cause diseases are often crippled or engineered to be dormant in order to make the end product "safe." Results of this kind led the US Department of Agriculture to hold a meeting in October of 1997 to discuss the risks and dangers of gene mixing and superviruses, but no regulatory action was taken. A French study also showed the recombination of RNA of two Cucomoviruses, and under conditions of minimal selection and in supposedly virus resistant transgenic plants. The issue and research involved are also detailed in the consumer reports article by Mae Wan Ho, Angela Ryans and Joe Cummins, Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter - A Recipe for Disaster?


6. Antibiotic Threat Via Milk: Cows injected with rBGH have a much higher level of udder infections. The Center for Food Safety claims a 25% increase in the frequency of udder infections in cows that are given this growth hormone. Since this hormone causes infections, farmers will use more antibiotics that may eventually end up in the dairy products we consume. Even worse, labels do not warn of this growth hormone so many do not realize what they are consuming. The unacceptable levels of antibiotic residues in the milk can cause allergic reactions and weaken the effects of other antibiotics due to a growth in resistant bacteria. Scientists have warned of public health hazards due to growing antibiotic resistance.The overuse of antibiotics can be strongly linked to hard-to-treat illnesses in people. Most companies have been catching onto the consumer's uproar and many have since become rBGH free due to increasing concerns.


7. Antibiotic Threat Via Plants: Much of the techniques of genetic implantation are ineffective so scientists must use a marker to track where the gene goes into the plant cell. In the article "Why We Need Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food," Jean Halloran and Michael Hansen state that the most common marker is a gene for antibiotic resistance and most genetically engineered food products contain this gene. GM maize plants use an ampicillin resistant gene. In 1998, the British Royal Society called for the banning of this marker as it threatens a vital antibiotic's use. Halloran and Hansen elaborate on this saying that some European countries have prohibited the growth of certain genetically engineered corn due to the fact that the gene can be transfered to the food chain. The resistant qualities of GM bacteria in food can be transferred to other bacteria in the environment and throughout the human body causing society to be less receptive to common antibiotics. What's worse is that some genes can be transferred to disease-causing bacteria making them also resistant to our antibiotics in the future. The GMO Compass explains how the plants with the resistance markers are the only ones to survive after being injected with the antibiotic, thus proving they are resisting the antibiotic. We are vulnerable to those resistant cells due to easy transference.


8. Resurgence of Infectious Diseases: The Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease journal reported in 1998 that gene technology may be implicated in the resurgence of infectious diseases. This occurs in multiple ways. There is growing resistance to antibiotics misused in bioengineering, the formation of new and unknown viral strains, and the lowering of immunity through diets of processed and altered foods. There is also the horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA among bacteria. Several studies have shown bacteria of the mouth, pharynx and intestines can take up the transgenic DNA in the feed of animals, which in turn can be passed on to humans. This threatens the hallmark accomplishment of the twentieth century - the reduction in infectious diseases that critically helped the doubling of life expectancy. A study by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) recommended that due to the secondary horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA on livestock and human beings, no genetically modifed food be fed to animals since it can render our common infectious diseases untreatable via the food chain.

Allergies

9. Increased Food Allergies: The loss of biodiversity in our food supply has grown in parallel with the increase in food allergies. This can be explained as follows. The human body is not a machine-like "something" that can be fed assembly line, carbon copy foods. We eat for nourishment and vitality. What is alive interacts or changes with its environment. Unnatural sameness - required for patenting of genetic foods - are "dead" qualities. Frequently, foods we eat and crave are precisely those testing positive for food allergies.Allergic reactions are misguided defense reactions aganist incoming parasites and in GM food cases, the body senses an unnatural invasion. Cells in our body recognize this lack of vitality, producing antibodies and white cells in response. This is analogous to our brain's cells recognizing and rejecting mechanically repeated thoughts - or thinking "like a broken record." Intuitively our body cells and the overall immune system seems to reject excess homogeneity. Each new food item produced contains many new potentially allergenic proteins.

10. Birth Defects and Shorter Life Spans: As we ingest transgenic human/animal products there is no real telling of the impact on human evolution. We know that rBGh in cows causes a rapid increase in birth defects and shorter life spans and the number of calves born with birth defects to dairy cows has increased significantly. A Circle of Responsibility article says that while no thorough study of long term effects has been conducted, Canada and the European Union have taken precautions and banned the use of rBGH in their dairy cows. In a very recent study by Cornucopia Institute Research the following information was reported:

"...The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating..." Reported May 20,2009.

As a result of this research "the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on 'Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.' They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, 'Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,' including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, 'There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,'as defined by recognized scientific criteria. 'The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.' (see: Institute for Responsible Technology.)


11. Interior Toxins: "Pesticidal foods" have genes that produce a toxic pesticide inside the food's cells. The food is engineered to produce their own built in pesticide in every cell which produces a poison that splits open a bug's stomach and kills them when the bug tries to eat the plant. This represents the first time "cell-interior toxicity" is being sold for human consumption. There is little knowledge of the potential long-term health impacts. However, while some biotech companies claim that the pesticide called Bt has been approved safe and used by farmers for natural insect control, the Bt-toxin in GM plants is thousands of times more concentrated than the natural bug spray, can not be washed off the plants, and has a properties of allergens. We are now ingesting this interior plant toxin from GM foods.

12. Lowered Nutrition: A study in the Journal of Medicinal Food (Dr. Marc Lappé, 1999) showed that certain GM foods have lower levels of vital nutrients - especially phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect the body from heart disease and cancer. In another study of GM Vicia Faba, a bean in the same family as soy, there was also an increase in estrogen levels, what raises health issues - especially in infant soy formulas. Milk from cows with rBGH contains substantially higher levels of pus, bacteria, and fat. Monsanto's analysis of glyphosate-resistant soya showed the GM-line contained 28% more Kunitz-trypsin inhibitor, a known anti-nutrient and allergen.

General

13. No Regulated Health Safety Testing: The FDA only requests of firms that they conduct their own tests of new GM products in what Vice President Quale back in 1992 referred to as a "regulatory relief program." The FDA makes no review of those tests unless voluntarily requested by the company producing the product. Companies present their internal company records of tests showing a product is safe - essentially having the "fox oversee the chicken coup." As Louis J. Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist explained, companies tailor tests to get the results they need. They further relinquish responsibility as Pjil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications expressed it "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech foods. Our interest is in selling...Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." But the FDA has not assumed the responsibility. Essentially it is "like playing Russian roulette with public health," says Philip J. Regal, a biologist at the University of Minnesota. In his contacts with the FDA, he noted that in the policy of helping the biotech industry grow, "government scientist after scientist acknowledged there was no way to assure the health safety of genetically engineered food... [yet] society was going to have to bear an unavoidable measure of risk." The situation was summarized by Richard Steinbrecher, a geneticist working for the Women's Environmental Network "To use genetic engineering to manipulate plants, release them into the environment and introduce them into our food chains is scientifically premature, unsafe and irresponsible."

14. Unnatural Foods: Recently, Monsanto announced it had found "unexpected gene fragments in their Roundup Ready soybeans. It is well known that modified proteins exist in GE foods, new proteins never before eaten by humanity. In 1992, Dr. Louis J. Pribyl of the FDA's Microbiology Group warned (in an internal memo uncovered in a lawsuit filed) that there is "a profound difference between the types of expected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering." He also addressed industry claims of no "pleiotropic" (unintended and/or uncontrolled) effects. This was the basis for the industry position that GM foods are "equivalent" to regular foods, thus requiring no testing or regulation. "Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically engineered plants...at frequencies of 30%...increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified intoxicants, increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g. pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable alterations in the level of nutrients may escape breeders' attention unless genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these changes." Other scientists within the FDA echoed this view - and in contrast to the agency's official position. For example, James Marayanski, manager of the FDA's Biotechnology Working Group warned that there was a lack of consensus among the FDA's scientists as to the so-called "sameness" of GM foods compared to non-GM foods. The reason why this is such an important issue is that Congress mandated the FDA to require labeling when there is "something tangibly different about the food that is material with respect to the consequences which may result from the use of the food."

15. Radical Change in Diet: Humanity has evolved for thousands of years by adapting gradually to its natural environment - including nature's foods. Within just three years a fundamental transformation of the human diet has occurred. This was made possible by massive consolidations among agri-business. Ten companies now own about 40% of all US seed production and sales. The Biotech industry especially targeted two of the most commonly eaten and lucrative ingredients in processed foods - corn and soy. Monsanto and Novaris, through consolidations, became the second and third largest seed companies in the world. They also purchased related agricultural businesses to further monopolize soy and corn production. Again within three years, the majority of soybeans and one third of all corn in the US are now grown with seeds mandated by the biotech firms. Also 60% of all hard cheeses in the US are processed with a GM enzyme. A percentage of baking and brewery products are GM modified as well. Most all of US cotton production (where cotton oil is used in foods) is bioengineered. Wheat and rice are next in line. In 2002, Monsanto plans to introduce a "Roundup" (the name of its leading herbicide) resistant wheat strain. The current result is that approximately two-thirds of all processed foods in the US already contain GM ingredients - and this is projected to rise to 90% within four years according to industry claims. In short, the human diet, from almost every front, is being radically changed - with little or no knowledge of the long-term health or environmental impacts.

[Sol Invictus]

ENVIRONMENT

"Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers."

David Ehrenfield: Professor of Biology, Rutgers University

General Soil Impact

16. Toxicity to Soil: The industry marketing pitch to the public is that bioengineered seeds and plants will help the environment by reducing toxic herbicide/pesticide use. Isolated examples are given, but the overall reality is exactly opposite. The majority of GM agricultural products are developed specifically for toxin-resistance - namely for higher doses of herbicides/ pesticides sold by the largest producer companies - Monsanto, Dupont Novaris, Dow, Bayer, Ciba-Geigy, Hoescht, AgroEvo, and Rhone-Poulenc. Also the majority of research for future products involves transgenic strains for increased chemical resistance. Not to be fooled, the primary intent is to sell more, not less of their products and to circumvent patent laws. According to an article by R.J. Goldburg scientists predict herbicide use will triple as a result of GM products. As an example of the feverish attempt to expand herbicide use, Monsanto's patent for Roundup was scheduled to expire. Not to lose their market share, Monsanto came up with the idea of creating "Roundup Ready" seeds. It bought out seed companies to monopolize the terrain - then licensing the seeds to farmers with the requirement that they continue buying Roundup past the expiration of the patent. These contracts had stiff financial penalties if farmers used any other herbicide. As early as 1996, the investment report of Dain Boswell on changes in the seed industry reported that Monsanto's billion dollar plus acquisition of Holden Seeds (about 1/3rd of US corn seeds) had "very little to do with Holden as a seed company and a lot to do with the battle between the chemical giants for future sales of herbicides and insecticides." Also as revealed in corporate interviews conducted by Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey (authors of Against the Grain - Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of your Food), the explicit aim was to control 100% of US soy seeds by the year 2000 only to continue to sell Roundup - or to beat their patent's expiration. In fact in 1996, about 5000 acres were planted with Roundup Ready soy seeds when Roundup sales accounted for 17% of Monsanto's $9 billion in annual sales. Not to lose this share but to expand it, Monsanto saw to it that by 1999, 5000 acres grew to approximately 40 million acres out of a total of 60 million - or the majority of all soy plantings in the United States. Furthermore, Roundup could now be spayed over an entire field, not just sparingly over certain weeds. However, the problem with evolving only genetically cloned and thus carbon-copy seeds and plants is that historically, extreme monoculture (high levels of sameness in crop planting) has led to a loss of adaptive survival means - or where deadly plant infections have spread like wildfire. As a separate issue, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Monsanto's Roundup already threatens 74 endangered species in the United States. It attacks photosynthesis in plants non-specifically - their quintessential, life-giving way to process sunlight. Farmers sowing Roundup Ready seeds can also use more of this herbicide than with conventional weed management. Since the genetically modified plants have alternative ways to create photosynthesis, they are hyper-tolerant, and can thus be sprayed repeatedly without killing the crop. Though decaying in the soil, Roundup residues are left on the plant en route to the consumer. Malcolm Kane, (former head of food safety for Sainsbury's chain of supermarkets) revealed that the government, to accommodate Monsanto, raised pesticide residue limits on soy products about 300-fold from 6 parts per million to 20 parts. Lastly Roundup is a human as well as environmental poison. According to a study at the University of California, glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup) was the third leading cause of farm worker illnesses. At least fourteen persons have died from ingesting Roundup. These cases involved mostly individuals intentionally taking this poison to commit suicide in Japan and Taiwan. From this we know that the killing dose is so small it can be put on a finger tip (0.4 cubic centimeters). Monsanto, however, proposes a universal distribution of this lethal substance in our food chain. All of this is not shocking, given Monsanto's history - being the company that first distributed PCBs and vouched for their safety.


17. Soil Sterility and Pollution: In Oregon, scientists found GM bacterium (klebsiella planticola) meant to break down wood chips, corn stalks and lumber wastes to produce ethanol - with the post-process waste to be used as compost - rendered the soil sterile. It killed essential soil nutrients, robbing the soil of nitrogen and killed nitrogen capturing fungi. A similar result was found in 1997 with the GM bacteria Rhizobium melitoli. Professor Guenther Stotzky of New York University conducted research showing the toxins that were lethal to Monarch butterfly are also released by the roots to produce soil pollution. The pollution was found to last up to 8 months with depressed microbial activity. An Oregon study showed that GM soil microbes in the lab killed wheat plants when added to the soil.

Seeds

18. Extinction of Seed Varieties: A few years ago Time magazine referred to the massive trend by large corporations to buy up small seed companies, destroying any competing stock, and replacing it with their patented or controlled brands as "the Death of Birth." Monsanto additionally has had farmers sign contracts not to save their seeds - forfeiting what has long been a farmer's birthright to remain guardians of the blueprints of successive life. Golden Harvest Organics explains in an article that "the failure of commercial plant breeding has left global agriculture badly prepared for the challenges of the near future, such as climate change and the need to wean ourselves off dependence on fossil fuels. It is now time to start rolling back the monopoly privileges of the seed industry, not to strengthen them further."

Plants

19. Superweeds: It has been shown that genetically modified Bt endotoxin remains in the soil at least 18 months (according to Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey) and can be transported to wild plants creating superweeds - resistant to butterfly, moth, and beetle pests - potentially disturbing the balance of nature. A study in Denmark (Mikkelsen, 1996) and in the UK (National Institute of Agricultural Botany) showed superweeds growing nearby in just one generation. A US study showed the superweed resistant to glufosinate (which differs from glyphosate) to be just as fertile as non-polluted weeds. Another study showed 20 times more genetic leakage with GM plants - or a dramatic increase in the flow of genes to outside species. Also in a UK study by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, it was confirmed that superweeds could grow nearby in just one generation. Scientists suspect that Monsanto's wheat will hybridize with goat grass, creating an invulnerable superweed. The National Academy of Science's study stated that " concern surrounds the possibility of genes for resisting pests being passed from cultivated plants to their weedy relatives, potentially making the weed problem worse. This could pose a high cost to farmers and threaten the ecosystem." (quoting Perry Adkisson, chancellor emeritus of Texas A&M University, who chaired the National Academy of Science study panel). An experiment in France showed a GM canola plant could transfer genes to wild radishes, what persisted in four generations. Similarly, and according to New Scientists, an Alberta Canada farmer began planting three fields of different GM canola seeds in 1997 and by 1999 produced not one, but three different mutant weeds - respectively resistant to three common herbicides (Monsanto's Roundup, Cyanamid's Pursuit, and Aventis' Liberty). In effect genetic materials migrated to the weeds they were meant to control. Now the Alberta farmer is forced to use a potent 2,4-D what GM crops promised to avoid use of. Finally Stuart Laidlaw reported in the Toronto Star that the Ontario government study indicated herbicide use was on the rise primarily largely due to the introduction of GM crops.

20. Plant Invasions: We can anticipate classic bio-invasions as a result of new GM strains, just as with the invasions of the kudzu vine or purple loosestrife in the plant world.

Trees

21. Destruction of Forest Life: GM trees or "supertrees" are being developed which can be sprayed from the air to kill literally all of surrounding life, except the GM trees. There is an attempt underway to transform international forestry by introducing multiple species of such trees. The trees themselves are often sterile and flowerless. This is in contrast to rainforests teaming with life, or where a single tree can host thousands of unique species of insects, fungi, mammals and birds in an interconnected ecosphere. This kind of development has been called "death-engineering" rather than "life-" or "bio-engineering." More ominously pollen from such trees, because of their height, has traveled as much as 400 miles or 600 kilometers - roughly 1/5 of the distance across the United States.


22. Terminator Trees: Monsanto has developed plans with the New Zealand Forest Research Agency to create still more lethal tree plantations. These super deadly trees are non-flowering, herbicide-resistant and with leaves exuding toxic chemicals to kill caterpillars and other surrounding insects - destroying the wholesale ecology of forest life. As George McGavin, curator of entomology Oxford University noted, "If you replace vast tracts of natural forest with flowerless trees, there will be a serious effect on the richness and abundance of insects...If you put insect resistance in the leaves as well you will end up with nothing but booklice and earwigs. We are talking about vast tracts of land covered with plants that do not support animal life as a sterile means to cultivate wood tissue. That is a pretty unattractive vision of the future and I for one want no part of it."

Insects and Larger Animals

23. Superpests: Lab tests indicate that common plant pests such as cottonboll worms, will evolve into superpests immune from the Bt sprays used by organic farmers. The recent "stink bug" epidemic in North Carolina and Georgia seems linked to bioengineered plants that the bugs love. Monsanto, on their Farmsource website, recommended spraying them with methyl parathion, one of the deadliest chemicals. So much for the notion of Bt cotton getting US farmers off the toxic treadmill. Pests the transgenic cotton was meant to kill - cotton bollworms, pink bollworms, and budworms - were once "secondary pests." Toxic chemicals killed off their predators, unbalanced nature, and thus made them "major pests."

24. Animal Bio-invasions: Fish and marine life are threatened by accidental release of GM fish currently under development in several countries - trout, carp, and salmon several times the normal size and growing up to 6x times as fast. One such accident has already occurred in the Philippines - threatening local fish supplies.

25. Killing Beneficial Insects: Studies have shown that GM products can kill beneficial insects - most notably the monarch butterfly larvae (Cornell, 1999). Swiss government researchers found Bt crops killed lacewings that ate the cotton worms which the Bt targeted. A study reported in 1997 by New Scientist indicates honeybees may be harmed by feeding on proteins found in GM canola flowers. Other studies relate to the death of bees (40% died during a contained trial with Monsanto's Bt cotton), springtails (Novartis' Bt corn data submitted to the EPA) and ladybird beetles.

26. Poisonous to Mammals: In a study with GM potatoes, spliced with DNA from the snowdrop plant and a viral promoter (CaMV), the resulting plant was poisonous to mammals (rats) - damaging vital organs, the stomach lining and immune system. CaMV is a pararetrovirus. It can reactivate dormant viruses or create new viruses - as some presume have occurred with the AIDES epidemic. CaMV is promiscuous, why biologist Mae Wan-Ho concluded that "all transgenic crops containing CaMV 35S or similar promoters which are recombinogenic should be immediately withdrawn from commercial production or open field trials. All products derived from such crops containing transgenic DNA should also be immediately withdrawn from sale and from use for human consumption or animal feed."

27. Animal Abuse: Pig number 6706 was supposed to be a "superpig." It was implanted with a gene to become a technological wonder. But it eventually became a "supercripple" full of arthritis, cross-eyed, and could barely stand up with its mutated body. Some of these mutations seem to come right out of Greek mythology - such as a sheep-goat with faces and horns of a goat and the lower body of a sheep. Two US biotech companies are producing genetically modified birds as carriers for human drug delivery - without little concern for animal suffering. Gene Works of Ann Arbor, Michigan has up to 60 birds under "development." GM products, in general, allow companies to own the rights to create, direct, and orchestrate the evolution of animals.


28. Support of Animal Factory Farming: Rather than using the best of scientific minds to end animal factory farming - rapid efforts are underway to develop gene-modified animals that better thrive in disease-promoting conditions of animal factory farms.

Genetic Uncertainties

29. Genetic Pollution: Carrying GM pollen by wind, rain, birds, bees, insects, fungus, bacteria - the entire chain of life becomes involved. Once released, unlike chemical pollution, there is no cleanup or recall possible. As mentioned, pollen from a single GM tree has been shown to travel 1/5th of the length of the United States. Thus there is no containing such genetic pollution. Experiments in Germany have shown that engineered oilseed rape can have its pollen move over 200 meters. As a result German farmers have sued to stop field trials in Berlin. In Thailand, the government stopped field tests for Monsanto's Bt cotton when it was discovered by the Institute of Traditional Thai Medicine that 16 nearby plants of the cotton family, used by traditional healers, were being genetically polluted. US research showed that more than 50% of wild strawberries growing inside of 50 meters of a GM strawberry field assumed GM gene markers. Another showed that 25-38% of wild sunflowers growing near GM crops had GM gene markers. A recent study in England showed that despite the tiny amount of GM plantings there (33,750 acres over two years compared to 70-80 million acres per year in the US) wild honey was found to be contaminated. This means that bees are likely to pollinate organic plants and trees with transgenic elements. Many other insects transport the by-products of GM plants throughout our environment, and even falling leaves can dramatically affect the genetic heritage of soil bacteria. The major difference between chemical pollution and genetic pollution is that the former eventually is dismantled or decays, while the later can reproduce itself forever in the wild. As the National Academy of Science's report indicated - "the containment of crop genes is not considered to be feasible when seeds are distributed and grown on a commercial scale." Bioengineering firms are also developing fast growing salmon, trout, and catfish as part of the "blue revolution" in aquaculture. They often grow several times faster (6x faster for salmon) and larger in size (up to 39X) so as to potentially wipe out their competitors in the wild. There are no regulations for their safe containment to avoid ecological disasters. They frequently grow in "net pens," renown for being torn by waves, so that some will escape into the wild. If so, commercial wild fish could be devastated according to computer models in a study of the National Academy of Sciences by two Purdue University scientists (William Muir and Richard Howard). All of organic farming - and farming per se - may eventually be either threatened or polluted by this technology.

30. Disturbance of Nature's Boundaries: Genetic engineers argue that their creations are no different than crossbreeding. However, natural boundaries are violated - crossing animals with plants, strawberries with fish, grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes with bacteria, viruses, and fungi; or like human genes with swine.


31. Unpredictable Consequences of a Gunshot Approach: DNA fragments are blasted past a cell's membrane with a "gene gun" shooting in foreign genetic materials in a random, unpredictable way. According to Dr. Richard Lacey, a medical microbiologist at the University of Leeds, who predicted mad cow disease, "wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random manner...causes some degree of disruption...It is impossible to predict what specific problems could result." This view is echoed by many other scientists, including Michael Hansen, Ph.D., who states that "Genetic engineering, despite the precise sound of the name, is actually a very messy process."

IMPACT ON FARMING

"The decline in the number of farms is likely to accelerate in the coming years...gene-splicing technologies... change the way plants and animals are produced."

Jeremy Rifkin

Small Farm Livelihood and Survival

32. Decline and Destruction of Self-Sufficient Family Farms: In 1850, 60% of the working population in the US was engaged in agriculture. By the year 1950 it was 4%. Today it is 2% (CIA World Factbook 1999 - USA). From a peak of 7 million farms in 1935, there are now less than one-third or 2 million left. In many urban areas, the situation is starker where family farms are becoming largely extinct. For example, Rockland Country, New York (1/2 hour from New York City) had 600 family farms in 1929. Exactly seventy years later only 6 remained. Similar declines have occurred throughout the US and abroad. Of the one-third remaining US farms, 100,000 or 5% produce most of our foods. Agri-corporations have taken economic and legislative power away from the small, self-sufficient family farms - sometimes via cutthroat competition (such as legal product dumping below production costs to gain market share - what was legalized by GATT regulations). The marketing of GM foods augments this centralizing and small-farm-declining trend in the US - as well as on an international level. For example, two bioengineering firms have announced a GM vanilla plant where vanilla can be grown in vats at a lower cost - and which could eliminate the livelihood of the world's 100,000 vanilla farmers - most of whom are on the islands of Madagascar, Reunion and Comoros. Other firms are developing bioengineered fructose, besides chemical sugar substitutes, that threatens, according to a Dutch study, a million farmers in the Third World. In 1986, the Sudan lost its export of gum arabic when a New York company discovered a bioengineering process for producing the same. Synthetic cocoa substitutes are also threatening farmers. It is estimated that the biotech industry will find at least $14 billion dollars of substitutes for Third World farming products. Far beyond hydroponics, scientists are developing processes to grow foods in solely laboratory environments - eliminating the need for seeds, shrubs, trees, soil and ultimately the farmer.

33. General Economic Harm to Small Family Farms: GM seeds sell at a premium, unless purchased in large quantities, which creates a financial burden for small farmers. To add to this financial injury, Archer Daniels Midland has instituted a two-tier price system where it offers less to farmers per bushels for GM soybeans because they are not selling well overseas. Many GM products, such as rBGH, seem to offer a boom for dairy farmers - helping their cows produce considerably more milk. But the end result has been a lowering of prices, again putting the smaller farmers out of business. We can find similar trends with other GM techniques - as in pig and hen raising made more efficient. The University of Wisconsin's GM brooding hens lack the gene that produces prolactin proteins. The new hens no longer sit on their eggs as long, and produce more. Higher production leads to lower prices in the market place. The end result is that the average small farmer's income plummeted while a few large-scale, hyper-productive operations survived along with their "input providers" (companies selling seeds, soil amendments, and so on). In an on-going trend, the self-sufficient family farmer is shoved to the very lowest rung of the economic ladder. In 1910 the labor portion of agriculture accounted for 41% of the value of the finally sold produce. Now the figure has been estimated at between 6-9% in North America. The balance gets channeled to agri-input and distribution firms - and more recently to biotech firms. Kristin Dawkins in Gene Wars: The Politics of Biotechnology, points out that between 1981 and 1987, food prices rose 36%, while the percentage of the pie earned by farmers continued to shrink dramatically.

Organic Farming

34. Losing Purity: At the present rate of proliferation of GM foods, within 50-100 years, the majority of organic foods may no longer be organic.

35. Mixing: A Texas organic corn chip maker, Terra Prima, suffered a substantial economic loss when their corn chips were contaminated with GM corn and had to be destroyed.

36. Losing Natural Pesticides: Organic farmers have long used "Bt" (a naturally occurring pesticidal bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis) as an invaluable farming aide. It is administered at only certain times, and then sparingly, in a diluted form. This harms only the target insects that bite the plant. Also in that diluted form, it quickly degrades in the soil. By contrast, genetically engineered Bt corn, potatoes and cotton - together making up roughly a third of US GM crops - all exude this natural pesticide. It is present in every single cell, and pervasively impacts entire fields over the entire life span of crops. This probably increases Bt use at least a million fold in US agriculture. According to a study conducted at NYU, BT residues remained in the soil for as much as 243 days. As an overall result, agricultural biologists predict this will lead to the destruction of one of organic farming's most important tools. It will make it essentially useless. A computer model developed at the University of Illinois predicted that if all US Farmers grew Bt resistant corn, resistance would occur within 12 months. Scientists at the University of North Carolina have already discovered Bt resistance among moth pests that feed on corn. The EPA now requires GM planting farmers to set aside 20-50% of acres with non-BT corn to attempt to control the risk and to help monarch butterflies survive.

Control and Dependency

37. Terminator Technology: Plants are being genetically produced with no annual replenishing of perennial seeds so farmers will become wholly dependent on the seed provider. In the past Monsanto had farmers sign agreements that they would not collect seeds, and even sent out field detectives to check on farmers.


38. Traitor Technology: Traitor technologies control the stages or life cycles of plants - when a plant will leaf, flower, and bear fruit. This forces the farmer to use certain triggering chemicals if he is to yield a harvest - again causing much deeper levels of economic dependence. These technologies are being developed and patented at a furious pace.

Farm Production

39. Less Diversity, Quality, Quantity and Profit: One of the most misleading hopes raised by GM technology firms is that they will solve the world's hunger. Some high technology agriculture does offer higher single crop yields. But organic farming techniques, with many different seeds interplanted between rows, generally offer higher per acre yields. This applies best to the family farm, which feeds the majority of the Third World. It differs from the large-scale, monocrop commercial production of industrialized nations. Even for commercial fields, results are questionable. In a study of 8,200 field trials, Roundup Ready soybeans produced fewer bushels of soy than non-GM (Charles Benbrook study, former director Board of Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences). The average yield for non-GM soybeans was 51.21 bushels per acre; for GM soybeans it was 49.26. This was again confirmed in a study at the University of Nebraska's Institute of Agricultural Resources. They grew five different strains of Monsanto soya plants in four different locations of varied soil environments. Dr. Elmore of the project found that on average GM seeds, though more expensive, produced 6% less than non-GM relatives, and 11% less than the highest yielding conventional crops. "The numbers were clear," stated Dr. Elmore. The yield for Bt corn, however, in other studies was higher. But this did not lead to greater profit because GM related costs in terms of insecticides, fertilizer and labor were nearly $4 more per acre.


40. Fragility of Future Agriculture: With loss of biological diversity there inevitably develops a fragility of agriculture. During the Irish potato famine of the 19th century, farmers grew limited varieties of potatoes. This allowed a crop blight to spread throughout. By contrast, there are thousands of varieties of potatoes in Peru - what provides adaptability and thus a constant resource for blight resistance. Farm researchers have tapped into this treasure chest for the benefit of the rest of the world. Reminiscent of the Irish potato catastrophe of the 1840's, Cornell Chronicle reports a still more virulent strain than ever - known as potato late blight is presently attacking Russian potato crops and threatening regional food shortages. The new strain can survive harsh winters. In January of 2000, the NY Times reported a citrus canker blight in Southern Florida - one seriously threatening the state's entire $8.5 billion citrus fruit industry. Coca plants, monocropped and nearly identical, are also endangered by an international blight. Thus the destruction rather than preservation of alternative, adaptable seed stocks by GM companies, follows a dangerous path for the future of all of agriculture.

41. Lower Yields and More Pesticides Used With GM Seeds: Contrary to claims, a Rodale study shows that the best of organic farming techniques - using rich natural compost - can produce higher drought resistance as well as higher yielding plants than with current technological attempts. Dr. Charles Benbrook, a consultant for the Consumer's Union, published a summary of a report revealing Roundup Ready soybeans actually used 2-5 times more pounds of herbicides per acre than conventional soybeans sprayed with other low-dose pesticides.


42. Monopolization of Food Production: The rapid and radical change in the human diet was made possible by quick mergers and acquisitions that moved to control segments of the US farming industry. Although there are approximately 1500 seed companies worldwide, about two dozen control more than 50% of the commercial seed heritage of our planet. The consolidation has continued to grow, In 1998 the top five soy producers controlled 37% of the market (Murphy Family Foods; Carroll's Foods, Continental Grain, Smithfield Foods, and Seaboard). One year later, the top five controlled 51% (Smithfield, having acquired Murphy's and Carroll's, Continental, Seaboard, Prestige and Cargill). Cargill and Continental Grain later merged. With corn seed production and sales, the top four seed companies controlled 87% of the market in 1996 (Pioneer Hi-Bred, Holden's Foundation Seeds, DeKalb Genetics, and Novaris). In 1999, the top three controlled 88% (Dupont having acquired Pioneer, Monsanto having acquired Holden's and DeKalb, and Novaris. In the cotton seed market, Delta and Land Pine Company now control about 75% of the market. The concentration is staggering. National farming associations see this dwindling of price competition and fewer distribution outlets as disfavoring and threatening the small family farm. Average annual income per farm has plummeted throughout the last decade. Almost a quarter of all farm operating families live below the poverty level, twice the national average - and most seek income from outside the farm to survive. A similar pattern is developing in Europe.

43. Impact on Long -Term Food Supply: If food production is monopolized, the future of that supply becomes dependent on the decisions of a few companies and the viability of their seed stocks. Like the example of Peru, there are only a few remaining pockets of diverse seed stocks to insure the long-term resilience of the world's staple foods. All of them are in the Third World. Food scientists indicate that if these indigenous territories are disturbed by biotech's advance, the long-term vitality of all of the world's food supply is endangered.

ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THREATS

44. Biocolonization - In past centuries, countries managed to overrun others by means of fierce or technologically superior armies. The combined control of genetic and agricultural resources holds a yet more powerful weapon for the invasion of cultures. For only when a person loses food self-sufficiency do they become wholly dependent and subservient. That is why 500,000 farmers in India staged a protest on October 2, 1993 against GATT trade regulations and now oppose GM seed products.

45. Dependency: Under the new regulations of WTO, the World Bank, GATT, NAFTA, the autonomy of local economies can be vastly overridden. Foreign concerns can buy up all the major seed, water, land and other primary agricultural resources - converting them to exported cash rather than local survival crops. This is likely to further unravel the self-sufficiency of those cultures - and as with the past failures of the "green revolution."

46. Health/Environmental/Socio-Political Reasons: The lack of labeling of genetically modified food violates and harms your right to know what is in our foods - given the list of health, environmental, and socio-political reasons to avoid GM ingredients. Even if GM foods were 100% safe, the consumer has a right to know such ingredients - due to their many potential harms.

47. For Religious Dietary Reasons: Previously if someone wanted to avoid foods not permitted by certain religions, the process was simple. With transgenic alterations, every food is suspect - and the religious and health-conscious consumer has no way of knowing without a mandated label. The lack of labeling makes it impossible for religious people to observe dietary customs.

DEEP ECOLOGY

"All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons [and daughters] of the Earth."

Chief Seattle of the Duwamish Tribe

48. Contradiction in Terms: The term bioengineering is a contradiction in terms. "Bio" refers to life - that which is whole, organic, self-sufficient, inwardly organizing, conscious, and living. That consciousness of nature creates a web that is deeply interconnecting The term "engineering," on the other hand, refers to the opposite - to mechanical design of dead machines - things made of separate parts, and thus not consciously connected - to be controlled, spliced, manipulated, replaced, and rearranged.


49. Imposing a Non-Living Model onto Nature: "The crying of animals is nothing more than just the creaking of machines," wrote the philosopher René Descartes in the 17th century. This powerfully expressed an inhumane and mechanical view of nature that does not respect life. The genetic model is derivative of this mechanistic way of relating to nature.


50. Atomic Weapons vs. Gene Mutated Foods: The image of modern progress brought about solely by perfected mechanisms or technology was punctured in the 1940's with the explosion of atomic weapons - which brought humanity to the brink of global annihilation. Einstein's formulas created the bomb. His formulas hinged on the very same ideas of the philosopher René Descartes for their foundation. Descartes developed the underlying geometry that space may be universally or infinitely separated ("Cartesian coordinates") into distinct points. If we perfectly visualize this, we run the risk of bringing that exact image to life. Einstein's famous formula (E = mc2), for example, allows us to explode space. Only in hindsight and seeing this result, Einstein expressed the wish of never having taken on the career of a physicist. Genetic engineering, or the splicing of genes, may be viewed as a still more perilous outcome of a Cartesian-like approach to nature. We can prevent nuclear disaster or hopefully keep nuclear weapons bottled up. But genetic engineering applies a similar philosophy and creates products intentionally released - with potential chain reactions that may not be stoppable. Genetic engineering essentially forms a violence against nature. It takes gene guns and aims them at the heart of each cell or its nucleus, and where the depth of life and consciousness lives. This does violence to that innate consciousness, the life principle in nature, as we impose the mechanical view of genetics. It is much overdue that in the 21st century we become wiser - and learn to rather live in peace and harmony with ourselves and all other living creatures on earth.


Source (http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.)

[SwordoftheVistula]

OK, so we've gotten "something bad might happen in the future" and some ramblings from Jeremy Rifkin, who is associated with the 'Church of Euthanasia'

None of this though backs up your claim that genetically modified foods yield less per acre, and you still haven't explained why farmers would buy GMOs if they did in fact produce less food.

[Sol Invictus]

OK, so we've gotten "something bad might happen in the future" and some ramblings from Jeremy Rifkin, who is associated with the 'Church of Euthanasia'

None of this though backs up your claim that genetically modified foods yield less per acre, and you still haven't explained why farmers would buy GMOs if they did in fact produce less food.

You clearly didn't read what I posted.

Read it again.

And tests have been done proving that it yields less, and costs more.

Let me point it out to you.


Farm Production

39. Less Diversity, Quality, Quantity and Profit: One of the most misleading hopes raised by GM technology firms is that they will solve the world's hunger. Some high technology agriculture does offer higher single crop yields. But organic farming techniques, with many different seeds interplanted between rows, generally offer higher per acre yields. This applies best to the family farm, which feeds the majority of the Third World. It differs from the large-scale, monocrop commercial production of industrialized nations. Even for commercial fields, results are questionable. In a study of 8,200 field trials, Roundup Ready soybeans produced fewer bushels of soy than non-GM (Charles Benbrook study, former director Board of Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences). The average yield for non-GM soybeans was 51.21 bushels per acre; for GM soybeans it was 49.26. This was again confirmed in a study at the University of Nebraska's Institute of Agricultural Resources. They grew five different strains of Monsanto soya plants in four different locations of varied soil environments. Dr. Elmore of the project found that on average GM seeds, though more expensive, produced 6% less than non-GM relatives, and 11% less than the highest yielding conventional crops. "The numbers were clear," stated Dr. Elmore. The yield for Bt corn, however, in other studies was higher. But this did not lead to greater profit because GM related costs in terms of insecticides, fertilizer and labor were nearly $4 more per acre.

And FYI this is not "my claims". This is scientific research, my friend.

[Sol Invictus]

And I already proved why farmers are forced to pay the GMO companies for their patent. You just don't take the time to read, obviously.

Again, if you want answers, go back and read. Then come back and tell me how much you love the Rockefeller Foundation and their plans for humanity, including you.

[Sol Invictus]

GM crops were, are, and always will be about providing agribusiness with complete control of the food supply

Exposed: the great GM crops myth
Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.

The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.

Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"

He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.

The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.

The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.

The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields.

But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.

A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over. (See graphic above.)

Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped. It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would.

Critics doubt whether the company will achieve this, saying that it requires more complex modification. And Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington – and who was one of the first to predict the current food crisis – said that the physiology of plants was now reaching the limits of the productivity that could be achieved.

A former champion crop grower himself, he drew the comparison with human runners. Since Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile more than 50 years ago, the best time has improved only modestly . "Despite all the advances in training, no one contemplates a three-minute mile."

Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.

Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: "The simple answer is no."

[SwordoftheVistula]

And I already proved why farmers are forced to pay the GMO companies for their patent.

Well obviously, if someone goes to all the time and expense to invent something and patent it, they should expect to be paid for it.

All the studies claiming neutral or decreased yields come from the American midwest, the ones claiming increased yields come mainly from other countries and the increased yields come from making the crops more resistant to weeds, pests, and pesticides, whereas if those things had already been dealt with effectively, it wouldn't be much benefit to bring in an extra-weed-resitant plant.

Besides, why would anyone buy these things, if they didn't get some kind of benefit from them?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Do-GM-Crops-Increase-Yield-by-Brad-Mitchell-090316-227.html

Recently, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically-modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops.

Both claims are simply false.

In agriculture, desirable crop characteristics are known as traits. One of the most important traits is yield. Improving crop yield can be accomplished through both breeding and biotechnology. GM crops generally have higher yields due to both breeding and biotechnology.

Germplasm
Germplasm is the basic genetic information in a seed that influences the growth and development of the plant. For example, germplasm for different varieties of tomatoes may vary in pest and disease resistance, drought tolerance, color, size, yield potential and many other characteristics.

Breeding
Starting long before modern biotechnology, plant breeders have worked to improve germplasm--for example, to develop seeds with the best mix of characteristics to deliver the best yield possible for the soil and climatic conditions where they will be grown.

Today, plant breeders use a mix of both traditional and modern methods to improve plants. Modern methods include marker assisted breeding, which enables breeders to use a blueprint of the genome to select seeds with the most desirable properties. Marker assisted breeding in effect helps speed up the time it takes to do traditional breeding--breeders can better select whether to cross tomato A with tomato B, or C, or D, or E, or F, or …--you get the idea--to get the desired improvement.

Biotechnology
Biotechnology is a more direct approach than breeding since it allows you to incorporate genetic material directly into the germplasm. This allows you to create plants with traits that would be difficult or impossible to achieve through breeding. In some GM crops, the genetic material originates from another species. The most common traits in GM crops are herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). HT plants contain genetic material from common soil bacteria. IR crops contain genetic material from a bacterium that attacks certain insects.

Yield
Yield can be increased by breeding and through the addition ofGMtraits.
Germplasm improvements from traditional breeding have contributed to modest but steady increases in yield. Marker-assisted breeding has nearly doubled the rate of yield gain when compared to traditional breeding alone.

GM traits, such as insect and herbicide tolerance, help to increase yields by protecting the yield that would otherwise be lost due to insects or weeds. The degree to which a farmer enjoys increased yields because of insect and herbicide tolerance traits will in large part be determined by how effective the farmer’s weed and insect control programs were before planting a crop with these traits. If weeds and insects had been controlled well, then the insect and herbicide tolerance traits will not be the primary factor in increasing yield.

In developing countries, where resources to effectively control weeds and insects are often limited, these traits have increased yield substantially. The same is also true for developed countries where there are particular pests that are hard to control--such as the corn rootworm complex or some perennial weeds.
The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:

* Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
* Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
* Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
* Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
* Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
* India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.
Even where insect and herbicide tolerance are not the primary factors in increasing yield, they provide many other benefits. Analysis by PG Economics also show that GM crops are credited with decreasing pesticide and fuel use, and with facilitating conservation tillage practices that reduce soil erosion, improve carbon retention and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Decreased inputs aren’t just a savings and convenience for farmers; they offer significant environmental benefits for everyone:

* The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with GM crops for 2006 is estimated to be equal to removing more than half a million cars from the road.
* On average, the volume of herbicide used on corn has dropped 20 percent since herbicide tolerant corn was introduced in 1996.

Approximately 95 percent of the soybeans and 75 percent of the corn in the United States are GM. More than 95 percent of the soybeans in Argentina and half the soybeans grown in Brazil are GM. Where given the choice, farmers have consistently adopted GM crops quickly and widely because they see the improvement these products deliver. Whether it is increases in yield, or other benefits, farmers clearly see value in GM crops.

Misinformation and Setting the Record Straight
Irresponsible journalists and activists continue to misrepresent data and claim that GM crops actually reduce yields. For example, Geoffrey Lean recently published a story in the UK newspaper The Independent entitled Exposed: the Great GM Crops Myth. Lean concluded that yields were lower with GM crops based in large part on a study published by Dr. Barney Gordon of Kansas State University. Lean failed to understand or explain that the purpose of Gordon’s research was not to examine yields, but to look at how certain GM soybean varieties respond to manganese levels. Dr. Gordon has since published a response which characterizes the article as “a gross misrepresentation of my research and a good example of irresponsible journalism”.
Despite Dr. Gordon’s clarification and statements, some anti-GMO activists continue to reference the Gordon study and the Lean article as evidence of lower yields with GMOs. Dr. Mae Wan Ho of the Institute for Science in Society cited the Gordon study as evidence that biotech crops do not increase yields. The Center for Food Safety also referenced the study as evidence of decreased yields.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5608/900

Onfarm field trials carried out with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in different states of India show that the technology substantially reduces pest damage and increases yields. The yield gains are much higher than what has been reported for other countries where genetically modified crops were used mostly to replace and enhance chemical pest control. In many developing countries, small-scale farmers especially suffer big pest-related yield losses because of technical and economic constraints. Pest-resistant genetically modified crops can contribute to increased yields and agricultural growth in those situations, as the case of Bt cotton in India demonstrates.


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/uoc--gmc020303.php

Berkeley - Cotton crops in India that were genetically modified to resist insects produced dramatically increased yields and significantly reduced pesticide use compared with non-bioengineered crops, according to the results of farm trials reported by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Bonn in Germany.
The study, published Friday, Feb. 7, in the journal Science, holds particular promise for small-scale, low-income farmers in developing nations, said the researchers. These farmers, especially those in tropical regions, regularly risk large, pest-related crop losses because they cannot afford to use the pesticides available to larger farms.

"Many critics have questioned whether genetically modified crops would be economically and environmentally beneficial to farmers in developing countries," said David Zilberman, UC Berkeley professor of agricultural and resource economics and co-author of the study. "Our research indicates that transgenic crops should be a viable option. This is the first paper to show such a substantial increase in yield for bioengineered crops."

The researchers reported the results of field trials conducted on 157 farms in three major cotton-producing states in India during the seven-month cotton season that began in June 2001. The field trials were initiated by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco), which has been studying Bt hybrids in India since 1997.

The farm sites contained three adjacent plots that measured 646 square meters each. One plot was planted with cotton bioengineered with a gene from the insecticidal bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), the second with the same hybrid of cotton but without the Bt gene, and the third with a cotton hybrid traditionally grown in the local area.

The Bt cotton, produced by the Monsanto Company and Mahyco, is resistant to the three species of bollworm that plague crops in India. Prior studies in India show that crop damage from bollworm attacks averaged 50 to 60 percent.

In the study, the researchers found that average yields for Bt cotton were a remarkable 80 percent greater than their non-Bt counterparts, and 87 percent greater than the local cotton hybrids. In addition, the Bt cotton crops were sprayed against bollworms three times less often than both the non-Bt and local cotton crops.

For the sucking insects - such as aphids, jassids and whitefly - that Bt does not protect against, there were no significant differences in pesticide applications among the three types of crops.

"We are reporting on cotton, but the results are easily transferable to food crops since the type of pest damage they would sustain would be the same," said Matin Qaim, assistant professor of agricultural and development economics at the University of Bonn's Center for Development Research and the study's lead author. "With populations in developing countries growing exponentially, and available farmland stagnating, there is an urgent need to find ways to increase crop yields on the land that is available."

While transgenic crops have been shown to reduce the use of certain chemical pesticides, they have not been known to substantially increase crop yields in the countries where they have been grown. For example, the yield gains of insect-resistant cotton crops in the United States and China average less than 10 percent. Bioengineered corn and soybeans have even less impressive gains, and in some cases, the yield effects are negative.

Why the difference in India? The answer seems to be that the region suffers from a significantly higher pressure of crop-destroying pests, and that there has not been a widespread adoption of chemical pesticides in India to control crop damage. Transgenic crops would likely have greater potential to increase yields in such regions, said the authors.

"The large scale applications of genetically modified crops in the United States or China are not truly representative of what would happen if the crops were grown in the small farm sectors of poor countries in tropical and subtropical climates," said Qaim, who conducted the research while he was a post-doctoral fellow at UC Berkeley's Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, which is within the College of Natural Resources. "The results we see in India are much more representative of what would happen if transgenic crops were used in sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia."

The temperature and humidity of tropical regions produce ripe conditions for insects that munch on crops. Absent the regular use of pesticides, crops in those regions are defenseless against pests.

Qaim said the reason China has not seen significant yield gains in its transgenic crops is that the country has long had a well-developed infrastructure to support pesticide use for its farmers. Since pesticide sprays are widely used for non-transgenic crops, the loss of yield is not as severe.

But for the majority of developing nations, the high cost of pesticides makes them too risky an investment for small, non-commercial farmers, the authors argued. In addition, chemical pesticides are much more harmful to farmers' health and the environment, and require a significant amount of technical knowledge to be used properly, they said.

"Many of the rural poor in developing countries are undereducated," said Qaim. "If they had effective pesticides, they would still have to know that the proper time to spray would be when the bollworms are in a certain larval stage, a window of opportunity that lasts a mere two to three days."

"Understanding how to use pesticides properly is difficult, but replacing the type of seed used is easy and thus more desirable," Zilberman added. "The bottom line is, biotechnology has the potential to positively impact the lives of small, poor farmers in developing nations. It would be a shame if anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) fears kept important technology away from those who stand to benefit the most from it."

[Sol Invictus]

the studies claiming neutral or decreased yields come from the American midwest,

All the more reason to get rid of GMO.


Well obviously, if someone goes to all the time and expense to invent something and patent it, they should expect to be paid for it.

If you want to pay double the money for decreased yields, all the power to you. I don't, and neither do traditional organic farmers trying to make it by as it is.


Besides, why would anyone buy these things, if they didn't get some kind of benefit from them?

Because they have completely bought up the seed market. Farmers are left with no choice. And if they somehow manage to get non-GMO seeds, then Monsanto will simply hire contractors to contaminate their fields, and then sue the farmers claiming ownership of it.

[Sol Invictus]

I highly recommend people watch this video for information about Monsanto and the GMO seed market which they control 90% of. You deserve to know what kind of people you are trusting to put food on your table.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844&ei=egguS4udAcKDlgfdppzhBQ&q=monsanto&hl=en#

Follow the money trail folks. These people routinely falsify and manipulate data for the almighty dollar and they have demonstrated they'll do anything to get it. The biotech GMO programs are all directly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and you should already know by now what kind of people the Rockefellers are.

Wake up people.

[Lahtari]

John Preston, I really am interested in hearing even one valid reason why GM foods are harmful to humans, as well as the reasoning why they're harmful to nature. But please, if you are going to copy-paste pageloads of stuff that starts with philosophical hippie BS of how wrong it is to "infiltrate the very foundations of life" (DNA) and the rights of molecyles, could you please take the time to highlight the parts that contain the hard evidence and valid arguments (like Swordofthevistula did)?

Thank you.