Fw: GMO stuff for Guy

["Sal" <sals@rain.org>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Toby Hemenway <hemenway@jeffnet.org>
To: permaculture <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 8:05 AM
Subject: GMO stuff for Guy


> Guy: Here are a few bits on GMO's, though I haven't the time to find
> references for you-this is just off the top of my head.
>
> GE plants require more fertilizer and other inputs to grow; this has been
> established and the reason is simple physics. They are producing extra
> proteins (Bt protein, or an anti-glyphosate enzyme for Roundup-Ready) and
> it takes more energy to do this, hence more fertilizer. This is why yields
> of GE plants are lower. And obviously a Roundup-ready plant will not
lower,
> but raise, the use of pesticides: that's the whole point of Monsanto's
> marketing it. Glyphosate (Roundup) does not break down in the soil as
> quickly as Monsanto says (3 weeks in ideal lab conditions); field tests
> show that it remains in soil for at least a year, in river sediments for
up
> to 4 years. One study showed that when a field was sprayed with Roundup in
> fall and planted with lettuce in spring, the lettuce contained significant
> amounts of Roundup. It's also toxic to soil organisms, fish, and birds. It
> is the largest cause of pesticide-related illness among farm workers in
> California. The Journal of Pesticide Reform, circa 1996, is my source for
> the Roundup data.
>
> Bt-containing potatoes and other plants will, as Monsanto researchers have
> stated, eliminate the usefulness of Bt within 5-10 years as insects
develop
> resistance to such a widespread toxin. 5-10 years profit is enough
> justification for Monsanto to wipe out a primary tool for organic farmers.
>
> Bacteria and viruses readily pick up useful DNA from other organisms (we
> found viruses with human immune-suppressing genes in them-an awesome
> adaptation!), so spreading the antibiotic resistance genes via Bt- and
> other GE-crops will surely breed antibiotic-resistant microbes. I believe
> it's already been documented (by the way, this weakens the argument that
GE
> crops are significantly different from hybrids or natural ones, since
> nature swaps genes between species all the time. But I think the ethical
> and economic arguments against GE are far more potent than the technical
> ones).
>
> The revolving door is real. My old employer's head of Regulatory Affairs
> was a former FDA official (he had lots of buddies on the drug approval
> panel; the other panel members were scientists that many of our
researchers
> had worked with; that's not a conspiracy, though, it's just how the world
> works since everyone knows others in their field, like we do. I will admit
> that the scientist-panelists were very tough and fair).
>
> I'm not sure if you mentioned that we don't need more food, just better
> distribution of what we have. The whole  bovine growth hormone thing is
> nonsense, since we generate vastly more milk than we use already: we don't
> need more productive cows. It just puts small farmers, who can't afford
the
> extra expense, out of business. Cows with BGH have far greater instances
of
> bovine mastitis and other disease, and die at a much younger age.
>
> A recent issue of "The Ecologist" printed a letter that Monsanto sent to
> 30,000 farmers, informing them that they had sued the crap out of two
> farmers who had dared to save seed from Bt-engineered soybeans. The letter
> began "we thoght you'd like to know how this case is going" or something
> like that; a simple threat. So farmers can no longer save seed, something
> they've always done, because a company took a plant from the public domain
> that thousands of breeders had worked on for centuries, made a very simple
> change in the genome, and then removed it from the public domain.
>
> Enough for now; if I run across references I'll send them.
> Toby
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: sals@rain.org
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>