Barry Commoner is 81 years old and a political activist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Commoner) -- hardly the most convincing authority for your claims. But it goes with the hysterical tone of this article:

"...is it human to even imagine in our most frightened dreams that food crops would be secret factories for vaccines, contraceptives, growth hormones and other designer drugs?"

And why not? Or are we supposed to insist that they have to be provided by animals, or other humans? And what's secret about it? -- after all, these are patented processes subject to government and public scrutiny.

Perhaps behind the hysteria there is some cause for concern: but nothing in this article persuades me of it.

On one hand the author tries to scare with the possibility of cross-contamination, then ends with the "terribleness" of sterile seeds. If we are going to go down the path of GM crops I think that sterility is a great idea - although this should also be build into pollen to avoid cross-contamination.

There is also the take on "essential food crops" being used for drug production. Ummm, tobacco is not an essential food crop mate. Sometimes its useful to have your work edited by a critic. Not to mention that many of the worlds drugs are based on plant chemicals - apparently we need to stop the destruction of the amazon because of all the potential cancer-cures lurking in the shadows (ok, we should stop deforestation anyway, but you get the point).

The bit about zimbabwe not accepting US corn beig "probably" due to fears about GM are very interesting - either you know that was a reason or you dont. The government there isnt known for caring about its people and whether they live or die anyway. It would probably be more correct to suggest that the US offered corn with the conditions that free elections were held, and Mugabe stuck up his middle finger.

A lot of hype for the most part. I have no trouble with being cautious, but we need to be a bit rational too.

(I haven't yet had time to read this most timely article, so this contribution won't do it justice. However, ...)

I have changed recently from being an agnostic in regard to GM into an opponent as a result of having read the article "Using the Internet to get yourself up to speed on the half-truths of the GM crop and food lobby" at http://candobetter.org/node/627

In this article, and in the comments at the end you will find testimony of representatives of Japanese consumers who recently made the effort to travel to Western Australia to persuade farmers and the Government NOT to allow GM canola. One reason is that it is impossible to to stop GM canola from contaminating non-GM canola. Here are the words of just one Japanese consumer of WA canola:

http://candobetter.org/node/627#comment-994
"It is impossible for GM and non-GM crops to co-exist. Farmers will not be neighbours anymore, they will be enemies, aided and abetted by Monsanto's lawyers. Allowing GM farming means the guy next door who wants to stay non-GM will be in constant fear of contamination. ..."

"...

"Only four countries (US 53%, Argentine 18%, Brazil 11.5% and Canada 6.1%) currently farm 90% of the GM crops. The rest of the world continues to say NO THANK YOU.

"I hope Australia will continue to ban GM farming."

See also "G8 biofuelling biofeudalism" at http://candobetter.org/node/701

I am a believer in diversity.

When the world is reliant on a couple of dozen basic crops as staples; rice, wheat, maize, oats etc. and the most efficient variety is a single variety (engineered or natural) when a blight occurs the devastation is far more radical than if a diversity of varieties are depended upon.

Example the Irish potato famine was the result of a blight which affected only one variety of potato, not all varieties.

I note an American is presently stocking a deep hole in northern Scandinavia with a library of different seed stocks, every different variety he can get his hands on, for this very reason.

I see the possibility of genetic engineers greatly enhancing the productivity of farm production and thus food stocks.

I recognize the genetic modification of these food crops can be for good or harmful effects introducing a genetically engineered human contraceptive within a crop is a case which could be argued both ways.

The control and ownership of seed stocks by a few corporations is another danger which the world does not need. Diversity of proprietary interest being as important as diversity of seeds. This can and will be fixed by the will of government legislature.

But more important than all that, the biggest single danger is

The consequence of the unforeseen and unintentional.

We have scientists advising governments, pretending they can influence weather patterns and insisting we pay a carbon tax, without knowing the consequences of their actions.

We have scientists engineering crops supposedly for the good of humanity, without knowing the consequences of their actions.

I think both are equally foolhardy ventures and should be questioned and possibly resisted by any person capable of thinking for and beyond themselves

Oh Gosh.

And I thought the author’s previous offering of Perpetual Hunger was poorly researched.

“However, by moving the Bt gene into the alien environment of corn, in addition to the insect-killing protein, the Bt gene could give birth, and often does give birth, to dozens of other proteins with unpredictable behaviours and possibly toxic effects on human health and nature.” No it doesn’t. If it did, these proteins would be able to be found. They haven’t.

“We suspect that genetic engineering is causing trouble not because we have results from studies, which barely exist, but from the failures of experiments. Clones are not doing well.” Clones are not genetically engineered.

“Zimbabwe rejected the humanitarian food from the US probably because of the near certainty that such GM corn, if planted, would contaminate its own corn with undesirable traits and which would have long-term dangerous consequences for food security.” No they didn’t. Zimbabwe and Zambia were concerned about markets in Europe and were told by European activists they would lose their meat trade to Europe if they accepted GM food aid from the US.

“This is particularly true in the genetic engineers’ production of sterile seeds, which, should they ever reach the market, would force both the farmers and peasants to buy new seeds every growing season.” No they wouldn’t. Farmers who grow high-yielding hybrid crops have to buy seed every year anyway. Also no one forces farmers to buy anyone’s seed in particular. They can buy seed from whomever they like, provided the transaction is legal.

“This green giant of high tech (genetic engineering) will very likely stumble and fall primarily because it is an immoral intervention in agriculture, without doubt the most sacred of all life-giving traditions.” If agriculture is the most sacred of all life-giving traditions, why isn’t the author out hand weeding crops and squashing bugs instead of writing this tripe?

The premise of this article is entirely factual. Deny it all you want, but morons who support GE in the manner (cross contamination is a fact, for one) of it's currrent use are like the idiot farmers who once were clamouring for the cane toad. Uneducated, opinionated morons ruining things all the time. Keep it up, guys. This is why the Murray Darling was ruined. You should all be shot.

"Uneducated, opinionated morons ruining things all the time. Keep it up, guys. This is why the Murray Darling was ruined. You should all be shot."

Now, that's the kind of witty, well-thought-out riposte that makes this forum worth participating in.

I take it that 'ruining things' means 'questioning your unconsidered beliefs'...?

"I take it that 'ruining things' means 'questioning your unconsidered beliefs'...?"

That's probably the same question posed to people against the introduction of cane toad to Australia.

Col Rouge
About this hole in the North Pole:
"I note an American is presently stocking a deep hole in northern Scandinavia with a library of different seed stocks, every different variety he can get his hands on, for this very reason."
Monsanto stocks their GM Seeds as well.

For something completely different please check out this site which altogether argues that our natural diet should be entirely plant based and essentially raw, or with the minimum of either cooking and processing. And should certainly not contain the cocktail of toxic chemicals found in most/all canned and packaged processed "foods".

http://www.beyondveg.com

Needless to say, from the perspective that informs this site, most of what is sold as "food" in your local super market is not food in any sense of the word.

Nor are genetically modified "foods" either.

The Instinctive Diet people also argue that even conventional hybrid fruits and vegetables are not really suitable either.

The ideas presented on this site are affirmed by a piece of Wisdom in the Bible re how God gave us the fruits and seeds etc as our food.

Plus http://www.foodnsport.com

So Steel, despite the ease with which it is possible to demonstrate that Vallianatos had many of his points wrong, you still believe “The premise of this article is entirely factual”. This must be a new meaning of the word factual, one that doesn’t occur in any of my dictionaries?

And if I don’t agree with this “entirely factual” article, I should be taken out and shot. This attitude has so many parallels with totalitarian governments who take their “non-believing” citizens and throw them in jail or shoot them. I won’t bother asking you if you agree with the behaviour of such governments.

I find this essay quite compelling re the inherent feudalism, and altogether bad intentions of those who promote GMO "foods".

And their (as always) desire to avoid the very real possibility of being sued, by consumers who suffer the inevitable dis-eases that such "foods" WILL CREATE somewhere down the line.

It is titled CODEX DESIGNATES GMO's As CONTAMINANTS.

1. http://www.naturalnews.com/023838.html

Agronomist, you forgot to read the word I used which was "premise". As for being shot, that was obviously a joke, but it of course has an edge that is serious. Destruction is infinitely easier and quicker to achieve than creation. The price could be staggering to future generations and the current conduct of random trials and secrecy as it reaches the consumers who may want to have nothing to do with it, is arguably criminal. I'm all for genetic research and such but the conduct of governments so far is not so different from past mistakes, such as how in the last couple of decades people attacked environmentalists when they should have been listening very intentl to them. Why the secrecy and concealment from consumers? Why the open trials that have no regard at all for any side effects in the natural world? Both are not necessary. You know about the delayed effects of asbestos...this could be very similar to it, or worse.

Steel, no I didn't forget you used the word premise, I quoted it after all. Surely, if the premise was "entirely factual", there would be abundant evidence to support that premise? Why then could Vallianatos not find any real evidence and resorted to repeating stories that were wrong? Is there evidence to support your belief the the premise 'GM crops lead to feudalism' is "entirely factual" because Vallianatos provides none, or do you prefer to live an evidence-free existence?

Given your apparent inability to separate fact from fiction and your view that I am an "uneducated, opinionated moron", you will have to forgive me for not understanding your "joke" about wanting me taken out and shot. I have seen too much evidence of people not grounded in the real world living out their fantasies.

And no, GM crops cannot be anything like asbestos. You need a mechanism for disease; asbestos has one, GM per se does not.

Wait...did I read that right? You think GM has no mechanism? That's hilarious.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/dn8347-gm-pea-causes-allergic-damage-in-mice.html

Steel, no I didn’t say that. I said “GM per se had no mechanism”.

The peas in question included an amylase inhibitor. These enzymes stop us digesting our food properly, so you need to cook your beans properly. They are also known to belong to a class of proteins that produce allergenic effects. The peas were modified differently in beans compared to peas and that raised the possibility of increased allergenicity. The project was terminated when this was discovered. This is exactly the same natural process that results in a few people having allergy to cereals. This sort of change was detected as part of the requirements for approval of the pea.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/australian-gmo-trouble-troublesome.html

http://www.csiro.au/news/GMPeaStudy.html