Comments on: Crop-tastic http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/ Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:07:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-12169 saurabh Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:00:12 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-12169 RainArmy - I think your picture of evolution is warped. Natural selection simply doesn't work that way - massive changes cannot happen in a single generation. RainArmy – I think your picture of evolution is warped. Natural selection simply doesn’t work that way – massive changes cannot happen in a single generation.

]]> By: [RainArmy] http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-1085 [RainArmy] Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:38:28 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-1085 Firstly, i will confess that my knowledge of biology is limited to the frog disection in 9th grade, so the following is mere conjecture. While you give compelling reasons to believe that, in the example of this golf course bentgrass, GM plants would eventually die out either from overpopulation or because they cant survive without RoundUp, but as a student of biology wouldn't you agree that throughout the millenia, the only thing that is constant is change. It does not matter if you believe in evolution or intelligent design, the fact is that all plant and animal species while going through their natural selection process can incur massive changes in one generation due to abrupt exogenous changes. Just what if this GM bentgrass was to run wild and interact with other protiens to form a new more resilient strain that can thrive without RoundUp? Would that be because mankind is only recently daring to manipulate the natural order of life so blatantly and ill-equipped to comprehend the consequences of genetic modification, or would it be God's cruel way of reminding us that when you want meat go to the butcher, and not the cow? <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a>[RainArmy] Firstly, i will confess that my knowledge of biology is limited to the frog disection in 9th grade, so the following is mere conjecture. While you give compelling reasons to believe that, in the example of this golf course bentgrass, GM plants would eventually die out either from overpopulation or because they cant survive without RoundUp, but as a student of biology wouldn’t you agree that throughout the millenia, the only thing that is constant is change. It does not matter if you believe in evolution or intelligent design, the fact is that all plant and animal species while going through their natural selection process can incur massive changes in one generation due to abrupt exogenous changes. Just what if this GM bentgrass was to run wild and interact with other protiens to form a new more resilient strain that can thrive without RoundUp? Would that be because mankind is only recently daring to manipulate the natural order of life so blatantly and ill-equipped to comprehend the consequences of genetic modification, or would it be God’s cruel way of reminding us that when you want meat go to the butcher, and not the cow? 

Posted by [RainArmy]

]]> By: Hedgehog http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-1084 Hedgehog Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:59:55 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-1084 <b>Emily</b> : You say, "With soybeans, I believe there is nothing stopping a farmer from planting his Roundup-Ready harvest the next year except for the paper he signs when he buys the seed promising not to do so." <br/><br/>Tell it to <a HREF="http://percyschmeiser.com/" REL="nofollow">this guy</a> . Short version: Monsanto apparently spot-tests farms to ensure that unlicensed farmers aren't using their seeds. Not only did this Schmeiser guy get caught, he claims he never bought Roundup Ready seeds in the first place, but that the trait got into his plants from neighboring fields, either through pollen or through spilled crops. <br/><br/>This is what makes GM crops attractive far beyond their biological advantages. The issue is who controls the food supply. Consumers gave up control over grain crops to megafarmers years ago. At last, farmers are being forced to give up control to seed companies. Monsanto wants those dirt-worshippers out of their powerful positions -- and just in the nick of time. So far as they're concerned, the boss' chair belongs to profit-obligated companies and their friends in government -- something that's sure to find broad agreement around here. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="rhinocrisy.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">hedgehog</a> Emily : You say, “With soybeans, I believe there is nothing stopping a farmer from planting his Roundup-Ready harvest the next year except for the paper he signs when he buys the seed promising not to do so.”

Tell it to this guy . Short version: Monsanto apparently spot-tests farms to ensure that unlicensed farmers aren’t using their seeds. Not only did this Schmeiser guy get caught, he claims he never bought Roundup Ready seeds in the first place, but that the trait got into his plants from neighboring fields, either through pollen or through spilled crops.

This is what makes GM crops attractive far beyond their biological advantages. The issue is who controls the food supply. Consumers gave up control over grain crops to megafarmers years ago. At last, farmers are being forced to give up control to seed companies. Monsanto wants those dirt-worshippers out of their powerful positions — and just in the nick of time. So far as they’re concerned, the boss’ chair belongs to profit-obligated companies and their friends in government — something that’s sure to find broad agreement around here. 

Posted by hedgehog

]]> By: saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-1083 saurabh Sun, 13 Aug 2006 05:34:36 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-1083 The footnote is essentially correct; a trait that has such a strong selective disadvantage, in fact a complete and total fitness (as in, ZERO offspring) simply cannot spread. Any trait that is detrimental to the survival of the organism will quickly be bred out of the population. It will NEVER threaten the survival of the population. This is a fact of biology.<br/><br/>Regarding <b>Elsie</b> 's comment, I agree that caution is in order, and certainly I would favor a stronger regulatory regime than exists in the U.S. I'm not particularly pro-GM; frankly I'm not particularly industrial-agriculture in general, which seems to be most of what GM facilitates. But my point was, rather, that the specific danger, while present, is probably overblown. The effects of genetic modifications such as the ones made in your typical RoundUp-ready crop are not so drastic as all that, certainly not compared to the cocktail of small molecules we douse ourselves with readily every day, and which go to market with almost no health oversight. Is it really much more dangerous for us to be ingesting slightly altered proteins than to be ingesting phthalates or bisphenols? The outcry should at least be proportionate to the danger, one would think. This is all I mean to say, not that the potential for harm is nonexistant. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> The footnote is essentially correct; a trait that has such a strong selective disadvantage, in fact a complete and total fitness (as in, ZERO offspring) simply cannot spread. Any trait that is detrimental to the survival of the organism will quickly be bred out of the population. It will NEVER threaten the survival of the population. This is a fact of biology.

Regarding Elsie ’s comment, I agree that caution is in order, and certainly I would favor a stronger regulatory regime than exists in the U.S. I’m not particularly pro-GM; frankly I’m not particularly industrial-agriculture in general, which seems to be most of what GM facilitates. But my point was, rather, that the specific danger, while present, is probably overblown. The effects of genetic modifications such as the ones made in your typical RoundUp-ready crop are not so drastic as all that, certainly not compared to the cocktail of small molecules we douse ourselves with readily every day, and which go to market with almost no health oversight. Is it really much more dangerous for us to be ingesting slightly altered proteins than to be ingesting phthalates or bisphenols? The outcry should at least be proportionate to the danger, one would think. This is all I mean to say, not that the potential for harm is nonexistant. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Yo misma http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-1082 Yo misma Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:16:34 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-1082 It has already I include/understand speak of the modification genetíca in the agriculture and of lost of the diversity biologíca since these changes in the DNA probocan the extinction of some species of alive beings who live near the cultures. I suppose that the OMG (modified Organisms genetícamente) must be signalized in the nutritional products that we consumed diaramente, and if deve is agriculture ecologíca also to put a label, although I know, that in the GMO discreetly mentions in the ingredients deel consumption product, but in biologícos articles at least in Spain if they are identified with a sticker;<br/><br/>agriculture biologíca <br/><br/> www.ifoam.org<br/>• www.agriculture.gouv.fr<br/>• www.educagri.fr<br/>• www.salon-agriculture.com<br/>• www.afssa.fr<br/>• www.pronatura.com<br/>• www.terre-net.fr<br/>www.vidasana.org<br/>www.naturasi.es<br/>www.bio-e-market.com<br/>www.organic-market.info<br/>www.ecomaz.com<br/>http://es.banterminator.org/<br/><br/>these webs are in españaol the majority but there is some in English also<br/><br/>Warm Saludo; A same one<br/> <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://smallnessofinternet.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">A same one</a> It has already I include/understand speak of the modification genetíca in the agriculture and of lost of the diversity biologíca since these changes in the DNA probocan the extinction of some species of alive beings who live near the cultures. I suppose that the OMG (modified Organisms genetícamente) must be signalized in the nutritional products that we consumed diaramente, and if deve is agriculture ecologíca also to put a label, although I know, that in the GMO discreetly mentions in the ingredients deel consumption product, but in biologícos articles at least in Spain if they are identified with a sticker;

agriculture biologíca

http://www.ifoam.org
• http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr
• http://www.educagri.fr
• http://www.salon-agriculture.com
• http://www.afssa.fr
• http://www.pronatura.com
• http://www.terre-net.fr
http://www.vidasana.org
http://www.naturasi.es
http://www.bio-e-market.com
http://www.organic-market.info
http://www.ecomaz.com
http://es.banterminator.org/

these webs are in españaol the majority but there is some in English also

Warm Saludo; A same one
 

Posted by A same one

]]> By: Yo misma http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-1081 Yo misma Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:41:50 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-1081 I have thought it better and now in Inglatera it is included/understood but well; <br/><br/>Is superinteresting the content of this pag Web of blog I suppose that because puts it of postcript in blogger since it seems by the illustration that speaks on a rhino but I eat ¨no speaking english¨ I do not understand almost what describes. Already aprendré the language bretón...<br/><br/> Good bye bis!<br/> <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://controvertedsubjects.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">A same one</a> I have thought it better and now in Inglatera it is included/understood but well;

Is superinteresting the content of this pag Web of blog I suppose that because puts it of postcript in blogger since it seems by the illustration that speaks on a rhino but I eat ¨no speaking english¨ I do not understand almost what describes. Already aprendré the language bretón…

Good bye bis!

Posted by A same one

]]> By: Yo misma http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-1080 Yo misma Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:45 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-1080 Hello!<br/><br/>Quiza sea superinteresante <br/>el contenido de esta pag web <br/>de blog supongo que porque <br/>lo pone de coletilla en blogger<br/> <br/>ya que parece por la ilustración <br/>que habla sobre un rinoceronte <br/><br/>pero yo como ¨no speaking english¨ <br/>no entiendo casi lo que describe. <br/><br/> Ya aprendré el idioma bretón...<br/><br/>Good bye!<br/><br/> <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://controvertirdos.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">Una misma</a> Hello!

Quiza sea superinteresante
el contenido de esta pag web
de blog supongo que porque
lo pone de coletilla en blogger

ya que parece por la ilustración
que habla sobre un rinoceronte

pero yo como ¨no speaking english¨
no entiendo casi lo que describe.

Ya aprendré el idioma bretón…

Good bye!

 

Posted by Una misma

]]> By: Martin J Frid http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-1079 Martin J Frid Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:39:27 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-1079 The GMO terminator debate cannot be simply summarized like you did in the footnote. The fact is that DNA will mutate, so you don't know how the terminator trait will spread.<br/><br/>And when farmers in developing countries, such as here in Asia, heard about this, they felt a threat to their immediate existence, as they are totally depending on saving seends for their survival. To argue that they are "ignorant" makes me wonder if you have any idea about the incredible suffering that companies like Monsanto are imposing on poor people in many countries.<br/><br/>Having said that, I'm glad you are active and at least trying to stimulate debate on this issue. The GMO terminator debate cannot be simply summarized like you did in the footnote. The fact is that DNA will mutate, so you don’t know how the terminator trait will spread.

And when farmers in developing countries, such as here in Asia, heard about this, they felt a threat to their immediate existence, as they are totally depending on saving seends for their survival. To argue that they are “ignorant” makes me wonder if you have any idea about the incredible suffering that companies like Monsanto are imposing on poor people in many countries.

Having said that, I’m glad you are active and at least trying to stimulate debate on this issue.

]]> By: Elsie Wilson http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-1078 Elsie Wilson Sat, 12 Aug 2006 07:23:15 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-1078 I don't think it's fully fair to say "[t]he fact of the matter is, the danger posed by GM crops is not really that substantial." We don't know that. GM crops have not been around long enough to make that decision. The fact of the matter is that companies who have a vested financial interest have been saying loud and clear just what you say here. Companies who stand to make money are being allowed to make ethical decisions for us. This is why the go-slow approach in Europe is better/more sensible.<br/><br/>Certainly, i agree, monoculture is a problem. It hase been for decades, if not longer, and is also scary (though not as much so as GM crops).<br/><br/>But the most awful thing of all is that people who ought to know better (scientists with an "objective" view, politicians "responsible" to the people, &c.) are abdicating their responsibilities and doing things like writing into the new Iraqi constitution that GM foods must be used there, and must be from certain US companies. Now that is scary! <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="www.rhydypennau.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="elsiewilson at juno dot com">Elsie</a> I don’t think it’s fully fair to say “[t]he fact of the matter is, the danger posed by GM crops is not really that substantial.” We don’t know that. GM crops have not been around long enough to make that decision. The fact of the matter is that companies who have a vested financial interest have been saying loud and clear just what you say here. Companies who stand to make money are being allowed to make ethical decisions for us. This is why the go-slow approach in Europe is better/more sensible.

Certainly, i agree, monoculture is a problem. It hase been for decades, if not longer, and is also scary (though not as much so as GM crops).

But the most awful thing of all is that people who ought to know better (scientists with an “objective” view, politicians “responsible” to the people, &c.) are abdicating their responsibilities and doing things like writing into the new Iraqi constitution that GM foods must be used there, and must be from certain US companies. Now that is scary! 

Posted by Elsie

]]> By: saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/08/crop-tastic/comment-page-1/#comment-1077 saurabh Sat, 12 Aug 2006 06:37:39 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=661#comment-1077 Farmers tend not to be the ones developing new crops in the developed world, and most of what we eat is hybrid crops that are the product of Green Revolution institutions, etc., but this is certainly not the case worldwide. And it's certainly true for a lot of crops not sold on the global market; a lot of investment goes into making hybrid corn varieties, but I'm not even sure what "parval" is called in English, and I suspect it hasn't seen as much attention. Somehow I don't see the Rice Institute, etc., getting involved in all of that. But this is treading more on critique of the Green Revolution, which is maybe a separate issue. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> Farmers tend not to be the ones developing new crops in the developed world, and most of what we eat is hybrid crops that are the product of Green Revolution institutions, etc., but this is certainly not the case worldwide. And it’s certainly true for a lot of crops not sold on the global market; a lot of investment goes into making hybrid corn varieties, but I’m not even sure what “parval” is called in English, and I suspect it hasn’t seen as much attention. Somehow I don’t see the Rice Institute, etc., getting involved in all of that. But this is treading more on critique of the Green Revolution, which is maybe a separate issue. 

Posted by saurabh

]]>