Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

factual/NPOV edit

Semi-newbie here, open to your feedback. Thx for the great article. I think NPOV could use cont fine tuning, but folks seem to be on it, and i'm more of a reader than an editor, just making changes that are clear-cut to me. The sentence i replaced -- "Because Golden Rice disproved many of the claims made by GM food opponents about GM food (e.g. GM crops can only help the rich, GM crops will force farmers to be dependant on multinational companies, etc.) the critics were forced to condemn this GM crop as a ploy and a public relations move." -- was false/POV because 1] Golden rice (gr) "disproving" the critics is very arguably false in the abstract, and certainly false re the reaction of many actual critics. 2] Both of the paranthetical examples of disproven critique in fact cont'd re gr. 3] The pr ploy critique is fundamental (ie that greenwashing is pervasive) and far predates golden rice; and "forced" makes it sound insincere. My replacement is accurate as a report of the critics and i believe is appropriate to "interest group reaction" under "benefits and risks". Let me know, thx again, hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your edit seems to be holding up... ;) --Tsavage 18:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I just have to add something. Anyone notice that this statement: "Proponents would argue that such a claim is hard to maintain when Golden rice is licenced for free use to subsistance farmers." sounds an awful lot like: "Heroin dealers would argue that such a claim is hard to maintain when heroin is provided for free to the needy." Anything to get that addiction going, eh? --DEL

The problem with this analogy is that herion is dangerouse and addictive. Golden rice is neither of these. Ttguy 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC

On citing sources

My suggestion specifically for a topic as current and potentially contentious as this, inline citation of sources (as in WP:CITE) should be presented with substantive changes. Of course, verifiability is the WP policy, but personally, I think inline citations can be greatly misused: they can seriously compromise readability, and also be used to bolster POV, among other things, so wholesale inline citing across all articles would seem to be not good (bibliographies may often be better)...IMO. In any case, as guidelines evolve, I bring up this up simply to point out that, HERE SPECIFICALLY, inline citations could really help produce a great, credible, all-round useful article by allowing "both sides" (which, inevitably, there are...) to actually check sources as things develop... Just a humble suggestion... --Tsavage 18:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Useful Article/Study

anyone editing the article should read this http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337253.ece TitaniumDreads 20:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with the study of Dr. Ermakova. Some rumours of unexpected teratogenity she found in RuR soybean circulated the internet already while ago, but her article didn' appear yet in peer-reviewed journal. In other words - the results are still not confirmed and no conclusions should be made from some alarming news in daily press. I am almost certain that the reported toxicity of GM soybean is result of either fungal contamination of the soybean meal used or some other inadvarent contamination. The difference between normal and GM soybean is simply too big to be caused by GM modification. Look at this - since mid nineties most of the cows, pigs and poultry in USA, Canada, Argentina and Europe are fed a diet based mostly on GM-soybean or GM-canola meal. If there is even a slightest effect on health of these millions of animals, it would have been noticed long time ago. Not speaking about 55 % mortality in piglets, calves or chicken. Xmort 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What about this story (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0522-03.htm) linked to from the above? (secret research carried out by Monsanto showed that rats fed modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood than rats fed non-GM food as part of the research project) Newlyarrived 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

Little edits

"For some, fears of the safety of GM food for human consumption remain, despite 10 years of catastrophe free consumption of such foods in the USA."

I think the latter phrase of this sentence has slightly sarcastic overtones. Since the article focuses specifically on controversies, I took out "for some" and replaced with "Some fear for the safety of GM food". It's a little stronger, but more accurate and balanced in my opinion. I also think that the entire first paragraph should be reworked to give a basic overview of people's reservations regarding GM instead of jumping to the Pusztai study (save for 2nd paragraph).

"The Royal Society's review of the Pusztai data had led to the damning verdict that the study "is flawed in many aspects of design, execution, and analysis and that no conclusion should be drawn from it" Royal Society Report."

I think "led to the damning verdict" is quite biased language, and it does make a lot of difference to how the article reads. So I replaced with the more straightforward "concluded that the study". The current reading suggests that the Royal Society review is the last word on the situation.

Memilygiraffe 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It will help you

The food will help because the food has vitemens in the food and will help cure stuff you might have or fight off something you might get in the near futer. P.S. you do have a choice wether you eat the food or not.

I hold issue with your "P.S." statement, as there is serious issue as to the labeling of products that contain GM foods. It should also be noted that GM crops can easily end up in nearby (non-GM) fields unbeknownst to the farmer. I might also add that a large amount of GM foods do not have any vitamins added, but instead resist insects or weeds. There is also evidence that those that do contain vitamins (Golden Rice for example) have little practical use, as one would have to consume far greater portions than average in order to gain the benefits. --Al the Sailor 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Golden Rice issue you refer to has been fixed by Golden Rice 2 - see Golden_rice#Subsequent development. The labeling issue is fixed because you have a choice to eat organic food. And you also have a choice to start up a brand of non-organic food that is GM free - if you think that there is a market for it Ttguy (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Corporate meddling?

This GM Food debate wreaks of meddling by corporate propogandists. I also think that some of the sarcastic overtones of the article and the "P.S." statement are snide and underserving of academia. In terms of our "choice" of whether we or not to eat GM foods or not, I think the point has been made (especially in the Schmeiser case) that often people and even farmers cannot control the pollen that is spreading from these crops, so how can we "choose" not to eat GM foods if they are literally being dispersed by the wind? - Blueelectricstorm 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Schmeiser is a thief and a liar as determined by the courts of Canada. He had a crop with 80-90% round up ready seeds. This can not occur by pollen blowing onto your field. See Genetically_modified_food#Intellectual property section. This wind blown pollen issue is blown way out of proportion. The amount of cross pollenation of crops at various distances has been well studied for different crops. The results show that the degree of cross polination varies between crops but at distances of 10s or 100s of meters it is esentially zero.

If you want GM free food buy organic and you can pretty much guaranteed to be eating GM free. Ttguy (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think for anybody new to the GM food debate, they need to see the effects that these crops have had on farmers worldwide, including: the lack of biodiversity, the destruction of heirloom and regional varieties of foods, the biopiracy of indiginous peoples and their intellectual knowledge, etc. -Blueelectricstorm 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues of crop diversity pre-date the invention of GM crops by decades. The issue is a real one but has nothing to do with the existance to GM crops. Scientists are well aware of the issue and this is why we have seed banks.

Do you have any examples of biopiracy?Ttguy (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

These companies are not "nice". Monsanto and ADM and their kind don't really care if the people of the world are fed; all they care about are profits! I think the terminator seed debate is a perfect example of the level that they will stoop to protect their bottom line - destroying the time-honored practice of seed saving and selective breeding by ensuring that the farmer purchases seed from them each and every year. -Blueelectricstorm 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Seed companies have been doing this for decades before the invention of GM crops with the selling of hybrid seeds - eg hybrid corn. It is also a total myth that GM companies are "forcing" farmers to do this. A farmer can choose to purchase a non-GM seed and save it from year to year if she desires. Are you suggesting that we should force companies to act a charity and work for nothing? In the music, film an software industries a company is allowed to protect its intelectual property - why can't they do it with crop technology?Ttguy (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's time for people of the world to rise up and start growing their own food, or at least consciously purchasing organic, non-GMO foods. We may not yet know the effects of GM foods on our bodies, but why wait until some study comes along to tell us they are unhealthy? It should seem obvious. The agro-industrial food complex is not sustainable, therefore how can it sustain us as humans? -Blueelectricstorm 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If I were you I would take a long hard look at the sustainablity of the organic food industry. Consider that these crops yield lower. They also take up more land because longer crop rotations are required in order to maintain soil fertility. Consider the improved sustainablity of "no-till" agriculture that is made possible by the use of herbicide resistant crops. A careful analysis of the relative sustainablity of GM/conventional Agrictulture vs Organic agriculture will most likely come down on the side of GM/conventional. At the very least it is not an open and shut case for Organic ag. Ttguy (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I can't take this any longer - do a search for Blueelectricstorm on Google. These zealots will never review the scientific data, they have preconceived notions about facts and truth and magical healing powers of plants not made in laboratories. I am not a corporate shill, I am a scientist (but not an agricultural scientist) - and I don't see why creating disease resistant, maximum yield, minimum fertilizer, minimum pesticide, easy to transport crops is a bad thing. These corporations may be "lining their pockets" but they are also feeding an increasingly hungry planet - are you an agricultural scientist? If you are so concerned, why don't you become one. What exactly ARE you doing to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.164.11 (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PG Economics study

There used to be a claim (by user Acaryatid) that the PG economics web site did not have anything to justify their claim that GM crops have reduced green house gas emissions on their web site. Well on the page linked to [1] there is a link to a PDF version of the study. [2]. And inside this document is much detail on how they came up with the figures. For eg page 83 of the report has data on how the reduction in the sprays of insecticides on cotton plants that are now GM rather than non-GM has reduced the number of tractor passes with a concequential redcution in the use of fossil fuels. So there is in fact evidence that GM crops have reduced green house gas emissions available on the web site. Hence I deleted this spurious claim Ttguy 06:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The article also used to have the following text which I have deleted

For example, one report which PG Economics did have posted cites a corn boer crop loss as a problem, which could destroy 15% of a crop total. In the summary they cite the RoundUp seed as reducing the loss by 70%. The total crop increase is actually 70% of 15% which is actually a 10.5% increase in the harvest total. Similar selective reporting techniques are common among firms in the investment community so all data should be taken with the understanding it is produced to encourage stock holders to support the stock.

Acaryatid has not referenced what report he is refering to. This means no-one can check the if the article being refered to is in fact trying to claim a 70% increase in yield. I doubt that any article from the PG economics would make such a claim. What also makes me doubt that this Acaryatid has correctly interpreted what ever article he/she is refereing to is that fact that they suggest is is "RoundUp Seed" that is preventing crop loss from Corn borer. The GM trait that protects corn from Corn borer is BT corn - other wise known as insect resistant corn - not "roundup seed" which is a herbicide tolerance trait. I would also mention that a 10.5% yield increase is a very signigicant yield increase in the scheme of crop improvment since plant breeders often stuggle to get yield increases of 2-3% with conventional plant breeding. Get your facts straight and cite your source and then re-edit the page. Ttguy 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Acaryatid writes further quotes below and claims that this exchange proves that GM crops do not increase yield or reduce pesticide use. This data has no bearing on the overall global impact of GM crops on yield nor pesticide use and thus I have deleted it from the article.

Further indications that GM crop yields are not increased, nor pesticide use decreased are reflected in the following

Press Release from DuPont with comments by Monsanto. [2] -- Note that this link is now dead.

Bloomberg News 5/21/04 DuPont creates new gene trait for corn By Jack Kaskey

The DuPont Co…has developed a genetic trait that would compete with technology from rival Monsanto Co….Researchers found corn modified with the trait flourished in fields sprayed with six times the usual dose of glyphosate…to compete with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready seed technology…

Repeated applications of glyphosate can lower crop yields of Monsanto's seeds as the herbicide builds up in the plant. Monsanto has developed newer traits to overcome this, company spokesman Bryan Hurley said.

Big deal - a Monsanto spokesman admits that repeated spraying of roundup can reduce yields. The reason why this has no bearing on the discussion about improved yields is that farmers do not repeatedly spray roundup on their crop - it is too expensive to do this when one spray is enough.

Benefits and Risk section NPOV and cleanup

I removed section talking about future possible benefits as this is pie in the sky. I removed the weaselling about the benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions. If someone wants to dispute this fact then they need to counter the analysis in the PG economics study that proves this point. Pointing the finger at who may or may not have funded this study does not count as a criticism. Specific criticism of the methods used in the study or of the statistical data that the study is based on would count as criticism. The fact is that insect resistant GM crops are selling very well. They cost more to the farmer to buy. Thus, they must work or the farmers would not still be buying them. Thus, the farmers must be spraying less insecticide (other wise why would they spend more on the crop but still have to spray insecticide). Less spraying means less tractor passes over the crop means less fuel used means less greenhouse gases. This is, IMHO, not disputable Ttguy 06:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This contribution from Acaryatid (that I removed) is nothworthy in itself because it wrong in so many ways

It is noteworthy that the RoundUp or glyphosate used as a pure herbicide is strictly controlled by the EPA and banned from sale in many states. Inside the seeds as a GMO "food" it falls to the FDA and USDA who do not require safety testing.

1. Glyphosate is not banned from sale in any state of the US as far as I am aware. If the author would like to mention which states and supply a source for this statement it would be good.

2. Glyphosate is not "inside" the seeds of GMO foods. Rather the glyphosate resistance gene is inside the seeds of GM crops. These are total different things and it a sign of the authors great ignorance to equate the two.

3. The EPA under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 348a) enforces specific limits on herbicide residues on crops and that these residue limits are set after the herbicides have undergone safety testing.

4. The safety of the glyphosate resistance gene has been studied - there are at least 14 peer reviewed studies in the literature - see below.

Hammond BG, Vicini JL, Hartnell GF, Naylor MW, Knight CD, Robinson EH, Fuchs RL, Padgette SR. 1996 The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J Nutr. 126:717-27.

Sidhu RS, Hammond BG, Fuchs RL, Mutz JN, Holden LR, George B, Olson T. 2000 Glyphosate-tolerant corn: the composition and feeding value of grain from glyphosate-tolerant corn is equivalent to that of conventional corn (Zea mays L.). J Agric Food Chem. 48:2305-12.

Cromwell GL, Lindemann MD, Randolph JH, Parker GR, Coffey RD, Laurent KM, Armstrong CL, Mikel WB, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF. 2002 Soybean meal from roundup ready or conventional soybeans in diets for growing-finishing swine. J Anim Sci. 80:708-15.

Brown PB, Wilson KA, Jonker Y, Nickson TE. 2003 Glyphosate tolerant canola meal is equivalent to the parental line in diets fed to rainbow trout. J Agric Food Chem. 51:4268-72.

Donkin SS, Velez JC, Totten AK, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF. 2003 Effects of feeding silage and grain from glyphosate-tolerant or insect-protected corn hybrids on feed intake, ruminal digestion, and milk production in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 86:1780-8.

Erickson GE, Robbins ND, Simon JJ, Berger LL, Klopfenstein TJ, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF. 2003 Effect of feeding glyphosate-tolerant (roundup-ready events GA21 or nk603) corn compared with reference hybrids on feedlot steer performance and carcass characteristics. J Anim Sci. 81:2600-8.

Grant RJ, Fanning KC, Kleinschmit D, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF. 2003 Influence of glyphosate-tolerant (event nk603) and corn rootworm protected (event MON863) corn silage and grain on feed consumption and milk production in Holstein cattle. J Dairy Sci. 86:1707-15.

Ipharraguerre IR, Younker RS, Clark JH, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF. 2003 Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn as whole plant silage and grain produced from a glyphosate-tolerant hybrid (event NK603). J Dairy Sci. 86:1734-41.

Taylor ML, Hartnell GF, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Karunanandaa K, George B, Astwood JD. 2003 Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing grain from roundup ready (NK603), yieldgard x roundup ready (MON810 x NK603), non-transgenic control, or commercial corn. Poult Sci. 82:443-53.

Taylor ML, Hartnell GF, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Karunanandaa K, George B, Astwood JD. 2003 Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing grain from YieldGard (MON810), YieldGard x Roundup Ready (GA21), nontransgenic control, or commercial corn. Poult Sci. 82:823-30.

Brake DG, Evenson DP 2004 A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development. Food Chem Toxicol. 42:29-36.

Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M. 2004 Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol. 42:1003-14.

Hyun Y, Bressner GE, Ellis M, Lewis AJ, Fischer R, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF. 2004 Performance of growing-finishing pigs fed diets containing Roundup Ready corn (event nk603), a nontransgenic genetically similar corn, or conventional corn lines. J Anim Sci. 82:571-80.

Taylor ML, Stanisiewski EP, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, George B, Hartnell GF 2004 Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing roundup ready (event RT73), nontransgenic control, or commercial canola meal. Poult Sci 83:456-461

Ttguy 07:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What does this 1998 quote from from Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications have to do with risks ? "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration]'s job." This is a statement of fact. The FDA regulates GM crops. Monsanto does however, have to supply data to the FDA proving the safety of the crops. It is then however, the FDA that vouches that the data is sufficent and that the crops are safe. The quote was just dropped into the article without explaination and does not bring the to the article - I deleted it. Ttguy 09:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

substantial equivalence

This passage is wrong

In 1994 Monsanto's attorney, Michael Taylor, working at the FDA rewrote the food laws. He created the term "substantial equivalence". What this invented term meant was that Monsanto and others could add to or alter foods in any way they chose and it would be legally regarded as equal as long as the measures of nutrients within those food were equal to unaltered ones. It is this blank check for biotech which has alarmed some consumers.

The FDA did not invent the term "substantial equivalence" as a basis for risk assesment of GM foods. As this FDA document shows the FDA used to use the term "substantial similarity" but they changed this to "substantial equivalence" to fall into line with the terminology used by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO). Ttguy 13:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin Supplements as an alternative to GM foods

I AM RELATIVELY NEW TO THIS GM THING, AND i AM STALLING ON MY RESEARCH PAPER AS I WRITE, BUT SOMEONE MENTIONED THE VITAMIN A IN GLODEN RICE THING, AND i AM NOT FLIPPING THRU MY PAGES OF MICROSCOPICALLY PRINTED WORDFILES TO FIND THE EXACT INFO, BUT i THINK IT WAS FROM A MONBOIT ARTICLE THAT QUESTIONED, "WHY DON'T WE JUST GO GIVE THOSE IN DEVELOPING COUNRTIES WITH DEFICIENCIES IN VITAMIN (INSERT CORRECT LETTER HERE) OH YEAH, A, DUH, SUPPLEMENT SHOTS? DUH! tHOSE USING WIKI SHOULD KNOW ALL OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO GM FOODS. THANKS TO Ttguy, MONSANTO IS A CHIP ON MY SHOULDER. --Ivy Savage 00:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it is better to give people a long term, low tech, cost free solution rather than I costly high tech solution. Give them a seed. They plant it and replant it. They breed from it. They multiply it up. Problem solved forever. I dont have to keep giving people vitamin supplements. Ttguy 15:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A small point...

Shabang50 10:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC) hello my name is shabang50. i am a new wikipedian and am only 13. my question is why dont you add an 'in a nutshell'section to the bottom of a disputed or complex article? i am going todo it on the articles i contrbute or edit. i understand this article but it is very dry.ty ps plz edit my article User:shabang50.

"Dangerous potatoes?" section

The "Dangerous potatoes?" section in particular is organized in a way that is not beneficial to NPOV (and sadly, in a way that I have seen far too often in Wikipedia articles). It reads like:

1. Study A shows product B is harmful (don't mention any specifics now, we'll save them for later)
2. Criticism of study A: Reputable sources C and D question the veracity of study A for reasons E and F.
3. Response to criticism: Despite being questioned by C and D, study A shows that product B has harmful effects X, Y, and Z.

The final point is not response to criticism, despite the fact that this section is organized as if it were. It's smoke and mirrors, nothing else. Possible responses to criticism would include:

• Reputable source G questions the assumptions behind reasons E and F.
• A new study H that addresses the concerns of reasons E and F has been conducted, and study H supports the conclusions of study A.

...or even (although it is far from original and has problems of its own)...

• The impartiality of sources C and D should be questioned because they are tied in some way to product B.

I see some of this actual response in the discussion above, but none in the article. I am more than happy to reorganize the section to resemble a rational debate:

1. Study A shows product B is harmful. In particular, it has harmful effects X, Y, and Z.
2. Criticism of study A: Reputable sources C and D question the veracity of study A for reasons E and F.
3. Response to criticism: If there is real criticism, mention it here. If not, don't pretend there is.

However, I am sure that some on anti-GM food side of the debate will see this as moving the article further from NPOV. I would rather see someone fix the section by adding some real response to the criticism, and with that response in place organize it a more NPOV (and easier to follow) way. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added specific critisims of the Pustztai potato data. I checked the links that used to be there where it was claimed that Pustztai had published further data on this. But none of them actually have any further data. Which is not suprising because Pustztai is retired and is not generating data any more. None of the links had anything addressing any of the specific critisims of the potato work. So I deleted this section. So in the spirit suggested by CyborgTosser we can wait to see if anyone can actually address the specific critisims of the Pustztai work rather than just generating heat. Ttguy 12:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Acaryatid - June 2006, waiting for help

The recent edits by Acaryatid are very POV, full of uncited comments (eg "Some people raise concerns," "Many believe regulatory models fail," etc.) Also they seem to be directly plagiarised from a number of anti-GM websites. Could someone who has more experience with editing fix this up? Perhaps a full revert is in order.

They were also formatted in such a way that they ruined the layout of the page... I have fixed that up but the shoddy content remains. (26 May 2006)

Regarding Truefoodnow.org

Hey, I'm not sure - but should this be added? Its here: http://www.truefoodnow.org/shoppersguide/guide_printable.html Its a printable guide to all GM and Non-GM foods out there on the market. If this page is supposed to cover the topic of GM Food, should we at least reference, if not list, this information? Well, I thought I would bring it up to the people who actually deal with this topic. Dante the Bard 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the list was compiled in 2003. Since then a lot of things might have changed. I think that it is getting more and more difficult for the food processors to avoid GM ingredients even in europe, were they build quite elaborate bureacratic system to label every batch of gm grain from farm (shipload) to final product (bottle of oil). in the USA there is no need to label, thus no need to test, thus the list cannot be verified. So i guess it only serves to promote some particular brands on the expenses of others Xmort 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Monsanto Enforcing its patents

Under a heading Other Enforcement Cases there was a link to yet one more anti-GM web site - The Nelson Family Farm site (http://nelsonfarm.net/). This link brings nothing to the debate as it presents no independantly verifiable facts. This farmer is being sued by Monsanto but how are we to know who has done what when all we have is a web site of the defendant. If we had some court evidence then this would be of value.

Further more the secton cites http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm stating that "thousands of America's farmers ... have been forced into dangerous and uncharted territory" This line purpetuates the myth that farmers are "forced" to use GM seeds. The are not. If they want to use GM seeds they sign a contract with the company that owns that seed and as part of the contract they promise not to save the seed. If the company finds people breaking the contract they have the right to attempt to procecute. No where on the links supplied is any evidence offered that Monsanto is procecuting farmers who have low levels of round up ready seeds as would arrise from cross polination of a conventional crop. If Monsanto is procecuting such cases then then show us the evidence.

This section is being deleted

Introduction far from NPOV

• "Many agricultural scientists and food policy specialists view GM crops as an important element in sustainable food security [1] [2] [3] [4]."

This is POV by undue weight - whilst many academics may view GM crops as an important element, similar numbers do not. The academic postion is just as divided as popular opinion - this sentence belies this, indicating that the academic community is widely pro-GM, which is a flasehood.

The academic community is in no way equally divided. The so called workd Scientists Statement (Open Letter from Scientists to All Governments calling for a moratorium on GE technology) organised by Mae-Wan Ho has some 850 names on it - a large number of which are not scientists. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.shtml.

In contrast the Petition from Scientists In Support Of Agricultural Biotechnology http://www.agbioworld.org/declaration/index.html has some 3400 names and most of these are actual scientists in a field qualified to offer an opinion. Ttguy 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That second reference - is just academics in favour of Agricultural Biotechnology - it says nothing about support for claims that it will address food security. From what research I have done, the common academic stance is that GM may help, but it is not the only answer, and for some, not the most important area to focus on (By Dyson, T: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/11/5929 and http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/gec/gecko/detsdysn.htm for an example)--Cooper-42 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Based on the proven historical economic and human welfare impacts of plant breeding research, the case for placing high human welfare value in new crop technologies such as GM crop varieties, is very well documented."

Is misleading - plant breeding is not the same as Genetic Modification. Whilst plant breeding has well documented welfare benifits, GM varieties have a very mixed set of results, none of which are as long-term as plant breeding (considering the length of time plant breeding has continued (centuries) vs Genetic Crop Modification (decades))

What are the mixed results from GM crops? And are they any more or less mixed than plant breedings results. For example wheat crops are bred to be resistant to rust disease but every 3 or 4 years or so the rust species change and overcome the plant resistance and a new wheat varitety it required. This is a mixed result in my book. The fact is that plant improvement has documented benefits. And GM is plant improvement. GM has only been around 10 years and has allready had documented sucess. So where is the problem with this statement?Ttguy 00:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The largest counter-argument to this is that GM crops are more controlled than traditionally bred species, and those businesses which control them use mechanisms which are detrimental to the welfare of small-scale farmers. Whilst this has greatly improved in recent years, following rulings in India in 2001, and a greater focus on benifits for smaller scale farmers, the above quote over-emphasises the benifits to the point of almost blatant triumphalism --Cooper-42 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• "There is considerable evidence from Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines that food prices have gradually declined as modern conventionally bred plant varieties have been widely adopted by farmers."

Again - misleading - wide adoption of modern plant breeding varieties, not as much adoption of GM varieties.

• "In China, economic studies show that investment in agricultural research led to higher farm output and, in turn lowered food prices that account for 30% of the reduction in urban poverty between 1992 and 1998. In India, investments on agricultural research are associated with higher crop output, reduced rural poverty and a reduction in food prices. In these studies, decline in food prices is also associated with a reduction in urban poverty [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]."

Correct - but again highly misleading. This paragraph simply states 'investment in agricultural research increases crop yields and reduces prices' - A correct statement, but no direct relevance. 'Agricultural research' could include Genetic Modification, but it could also include herbicides/insecticides, conventional plant breeding, tool and machinery, even research in organic alternatives.

At current, the intro reads as a very poorly written pro-GM argument, based on proof only by relation.

I'm not even anti-GM myself, and this stinks...--Cooper-42 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed these comments and i have already been bold and cut the intro down to something more managable and relevant to the article. At present I have dumped the politics into its own section although i think that whole section seem to be irrelevant with respect to GM food. Clearly GM food is not just about bringing down the price of food although i suppose that might happen. I would have thought a major point with respect to to science, politics and the environment would be to increase the breeding potential (new genes from a variety of sources) or to increase the dependance on one companies chemicals (monsanto/glyphosphate) or even to make agriculture more sustainable (less chemicals). David D. (Talk) 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Even more misleading statements

• "In particular, Bt corn, which produces the the pesticide within the plant itself is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These consitute "input-traits" that financially benefit the producers, yet have only indirect environmental and marginal cost benefits to consumers."

Unreferenced, and heavily disputed.

Financial benifit of producers is highly disputed - whilst those who produce the GM crops have research that shows financial benifits - independent academic research has disputed this - citing the costs of pesticides and herbicides (as they are limited to proprietary products, developed by those who developed the seed, which often cost more than traditional products) and the oft-quoted 'terminator genes' which require annual purchasing of seeds. --Cooper-42 15:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as comercial terminator gene. Some GM crops are sold on the basis that the farmer must purchase seed each year or pay a royality. This is because the farmer has agreed to licence a technology developed and owned by someone else. Why is this wrong? No one forces the farmer to aggree to this.

The genome of GM crops is about mostly non GM, A GM crop plant is a traditional variety with one new gene added. The yields and desirable characteristics of these crops are mostly attributable to

1) nature 2) centuries of breeding by farmers

A plant cannot accurately be called "technology" however much it is bred or even genetically modified. Biotechnology could not create even a simple plant from scratch. Patenting a gene in effect patents the whole plant. Bureaucracy ensures that plant breeding is in the sole hands of biotech companies, and regulations like National Seed lists do in fact force farmers to agree to grow a very limited range of crop varieties.

The terminator gene was arguably abandoned due to public and NGO outcries. Other licence costs exceed those affordable by many smaller-scale farmers.--Cooper-42 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case then why is the Indian cotton crop made up of a huge amount of GM cotton?

And who are you to dictate how a company should price the technology that they developed and own? Ttguy 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As to the financial benefits being unreferenced and disputed. You can not dispute the fact that GM crops have been rapidly taken up in the market place (in the USA in particular).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 61 percent of all U.S. corn acres this year are planted to biotech varieties, up from 52 percent in 2005. USDA estimates that 89 percent of U.S. soybean acres are planted to biotech varieties (87 percent in 2005), and 83 percent of U.S. cotton acres (79 percent in 2005). It's estimated that well over half of U.S. canola acreage (the vast majority of which is planted in North Dakota) and papaya (Hawaii) are planted to biotech varieties. http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2006/08/03/ag_news/opinion/opinion11.txt

The degree of uptake is also noted in the article "The area sown in 2002 was 145 million acres (587,000 km²) and for 2003 was 167 million acres (676,000 km²). In 2004, the value was about 200 million acres (809,000 km²) [24]."

No, and I would be wrong to suggest GM crops have not had benifits for American farmers - as they have been widely proven to. But 'farmers' doesn't just mean your US cotton grower --Cooper-42 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But you did say "Financial benifit of producers is highly disputed". And the USA is not the only place to take up GM crops in droves. Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Australia. Each of these place must have financial benefits to the farmer. Monsanto prices the technology at a price within the reach of these farmers in these countries. Otherwise they would not be growing it. So admit you are wrong. The financial beneif is NOT highly disputed. The facts on the ground are indisputable.

Economic benefits are also documented with references eg "Economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented. [22] [23]"

If there was no financial benefit to the producer then the producers of the world would not have taken up the more-expensive-to-purchase GM crops. Farmers are smart business people. They montior the bottom line all the time. They share info. If a neighbor trys a new crop they will be asking them how it worked for them. There is no way that these GM crops can be having a negative financial impact on producers and have GM crops being taken up to such a degree.Ttguy 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was not to say that there are not financial benifits, but that these benifits are far from available to all farmers. The quote above suggests that any farmer can benifit, which is currently unlikely --Cooper-42 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of a NPOV I respectfully suggest that this story be added to the article where GM crops in India are discussed: GEAC Rejects 3 Varieties of Monsanto Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/India-Rejects-Monsanto-Bt4may05.htm. Also, Bt Cotton Banned in India State of Andhra Pradesh http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/india051205.cfm. Newlyarrived 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

So what. This same report states "GEAC.. approved four new Bt cotton hybrids for commercial cultivation in south India, including Andhra Pradesh. " So they rejected 3 GM cultivars and allowed 4. This is nothing to do with the varieties being GM or non GM. It is to do with the agronomic sutabilty of the cultivars to the Indian enviroment. It is highly disingenous to quote "3 GM cultivars rejected" as some sort of horror story. Ttguy 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that not all GM cotton provides benefits to all farmers, as Cooper-42 has already correctly pointed out. To state otherwise is clearly misleading. Newlyarrived 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

Where in the article was it ever stated that "all GM cotton provides benefits to all farmers"? I smell a straw man here. Ttguy 15:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No straw man, only successful examples of GM crops are presented in the article, absolutely no mention is made of the many many failures. This is not neutral. Newlyarrived 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

WRT the approved GM cotton, the article quite clearly states that they are new so therefore it is as yet unclear as to whether they will provide farmers any benefits. WRT the GM cotton that has been disallowed, the article states that, "The GEAC also disallowed commercial cultivation of Mech-12 Bt in entire south India on receiving adverse reports about its performance in the last three years". In the interests of a NPOV this should be made clear. It's nothing to do with "horror stories", & everything to do with objectivity & balance. Or do the farmers etc in Andhra Pradesh not have a say?? Newlyarrived 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

This is an artice on GM food not an article on 3 cultivars of GM cotton in India. Get some perspective. Who cares if 3 cultivars of GM cotton are not approved or are approved. The bottom line is GM crops are a increaseing in popularity in India and else where. So they obviously benefit some farmers.Ttguy 15:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about "approval" though is it? The farmers who suffered clearly care about the economic loss GM crops caused them, but they don't seem to matter, all that's permitted is a lopsided litany of success after success, with not one failed example permitted, even though there are many. Here's something that might help you to get some perspective:

In the state of Maharashtra, 2,300 cotton farmers have committed suicide since 2000 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/18/news/farmers.php)

Suicide: The New Harvest of GM Cotton (http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/370).

Newlyarrived 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived.

I agree that this article should not be discussing masses of case studies. Not to mention it barely mentions transgenic animals. David D. (Talk) 15:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to mention masses of case studies. However, all it does mention at the moment are "successful" ones, to whit:

"Indian national average cotton yields have been boosted to close 50% above the long term average yield during this period. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect resistance has encouraged the adoption of better performing hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially reduced losses to insect predation. Economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented. [15] [16]" I have clearly demonstrated how GM cotton has been economically deleterious to many Indian farmers, to the point where 3 types of GM cotton have been banned in Andhra Pradesh. Furthermore, as I've pointed out below, GM cotton was disastrously unsuccessful in Indonesia, yet absolutely no mention is made of this. Surely if this article is to be truly neutral, mention must be made of the many many documented failures of GM crops, not just the successes? It's not necessary to go case-by-case, it might be enough to point out that GM has not proved successful in many cases, with refs & links provided. It's very easy to obtain these, as there are so many. Newlyarrived 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

Is cotton food? It seems like this whole example should be in a different article. Or you change the title of this article. David D. (Talk) 20:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of this?: "Bt cotton planting has given us more harm than good" "In the first year of planting, during which the government aimed to assess the crop's performance before deciding on whether to allow further commercialisation, there were reported failures of Bt cotton - the crop succumbed to drought [8] and hundreds of hectares were attacked by pests [9]. The drought had led to a pest population explosion on Bt cotton, but not on other cotton varieties. As a result, instead of reducing pesticide use, farmers had to use a different mix and larger amounts of pesticides to control the pests [10]. Furthermore, the Bt cotton - engineered to be resistant to a pest that is not a major problem in Sulawesi - was susceptible to other more serious pests."... "But as the yields were poor, many farmers were caught out. Research conducted by various Indonesian institutions clearly showed that, in the year 2002, farmers planting Bt cotton had lower income compared to farmers planting non-GM cotton [12]." http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BrokenPromises.php

To say nothing of the bribes Monsanto paid to Indonesian officials, or the fine of $1.5 million Monsanto was ordered to pay to the US government over the affair!

Or this? (from the link above):

GM sweet potato project turns sour ""Monsanto's showcase project in Africa fails", runs the headline in the magazine, New Scientist, pronouncing the project to develop genetically modified (GM) sweet potatoes a flop [1]."

Virus resistant crops using GM technology does work - just ask the Hawaian papaya industry. This industry would not exist if not for virus resistant varieties produced by GM. One particular trial of one particular variety of GM sweet potato may have failed to work. But this is the nature of science. This does not mean that the whole concept is flawed. The golden rice story is a case in point on this. All the nay sayers were so quick to jump on the fact that the beta carotene levels in the golden rice were low and were saying how this meant the whole idea was bad. Well then along came an improved version with much higher levels of beta carotene. But the nay sayers still bang on about how bad golden rice is. Ttguy 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned golden rice, I'm only interested in a balanced article on GM, which this patently isn't. All the examples mentioned are successful ones, & none of GM's many well-documented failings appear to be permitted. What's so scary???

As for golden rice in particular, & GM food in general, some of the main objections have already been outlined in the wikipedia article on golden rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Controversy), but apparently no such criticism is allowed in this Genetically Modified Food article. I note also that according to a number of publications, "it remains to be proven that the provitamin A is absorbed and converted into vitamin A when people eat the rice." (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7196). Do you have any recent studies to hand?

So much in this wikipedia article is stated as fact but in reality is contested or remains unproven, and the whole article appears to me to be wholly one-sided. When I have the time I'll go over all of it, for the time being the links I've provided at the bottom of this page provide an ample & comprehensive refutation of the appallingly disingenuous slur of anti-GM organisations. Newlyarrived 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

Really, no mention at all. Hardly NPOV IMHO. Newlyarrived 12:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived→

What about vaccines?

• "Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B"

Yes, invisaged - but widely debunked - it is not possible to control vaccine dosages (and a few mg too little can kill by not protecting the consumer, too much can also kill)

I would dispute your assertion that too little vaccine kills people. Too little vaccine fails to protect people. But it the disease that kills you.

Which is what I meant, albeit not as clearly stated--Cooper-42 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes the edible vaccine technology has some issues with getting the appropriate dose. But it has yet to be shown that these issues can not be fixed. Maybe you can produce a vaccine where overdose is in no way a problem. Then you make sure you eat enough of it to be sure you have not underdosed. The potential positive aspect of this technology - cheap and does not require refrigiration. Does not require technology to deliver etc mean it is surely worthwhile persuing. Ttguy 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a recent article about a potentailly usefull vaccine for the chickens of the poor.

Mexican researchers have genetically modified maize to create an edible vaccine against Newcastle disease, a major killer of poultry in developing countries. The scientists, who published their findings online in Transgenic Research on 12 August, hope their approach can help small-scale poultry farmers protect their flocks.

Vaccines against the disease that can be given to poultry on food already exist, but are not usually available in the small quantities required by single families or villages. Octavio Guerrero-Andrade of the Center for Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV) in Guanajuato and his colleagues inserted a gene from the Newcastle disease virus into maize DNA.

Chickens that ate the genetically modified (GM) maize produced antibodies against the virus. The maize provided a level of protection against infection comparable to that of commercial vaccines. "The disease is important and a big killer," says Frands Dolberg of the Network for Smallholder Poultry Development, which works with partners in developing countries to promote poultry farming as a way of improving livelihoods.

"There is a big problem in delivering the vaccine to the many millions of poor poultry keepers around the world, and the GM maize could be a possibility," he told SciDev.Net. Dolberg says that its success would depend on how accessible the GM maize was to poultry farmers.

But he points out that the poor, the landless and women - the main groups that keep poultry on a small scale in the South - generally struggle to access new technologies.

Ttguy 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If a vaccine is formed in the cells of a plant - how can you ensure that a plant grows the required number of cells for the dosage, or even the required number of cells +/- a few hundred thousand? Once the technology of perfectly formed, shaped and weighted food is developed, it will have much more far reaching impacts than providing vaccines... Saying GM foods may provide vaccine doses without mentioning the huge barrier to development is somewhat dubious. --Cooper-42 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• "While their practability or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects."

This sounds like trumpet blowing at its best - The next decade may see exponential increase of GM development, it may also see widespread rejection of GM.

• "The majority of commercially available crops have an agronomic advantage like herbicide tolerance or insect resistance.These traits offer major benefits to the farmer and the environment."

Again, unreferenced and a highly debated statement. --Cooper-42 15:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmental benefits

There are many refernces in the article about environmental benefits. Eg greatly reduced synthetic pesticide use in the US, Australia and India - reference 26 eg "Economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented." - ref 22 and 23. Ttguy 01:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cross-polination into organic farms would certainly not have benifits for the non-GM growing farmer (organic status revoked) and there are widely held academic arguments that the reduction in biodiversity (both of the crop itself and other plants) and habitat (http://www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk/corporate/about/publications/gm-debate/gm-impact-on-biodiversity.htm as a good summary of the issues)

Cross polination to organic crops does not cause a farmer to lose organic status. Organic certification is a process based thing. The farmer says he uses an organic process and he gets organic certification. No one is testing organic foods for cross polination from GM crops. Ttguy 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Unnecessary delays to GM crop use by farmers pose another kind of risk. Agricultural scientist and economists express concern about the harm delaying welfare and environmental improvements, for instance by pro-vitamin A enriched Golden rice which has the potential to prevent much childhood death from infectious disease"

See above about vaccination - this is another debunked theory - a child would have to eat kilos upon kilos of 'Golden Rice' to get anywhere near the RDA of Vit A. Also - no reference? --Cooper-42 15:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference - a link to a whole wiki article on golden rice. If you read it you will note that there is a golden rice Ver2 that has much higher levels of pro-vitamin A and so the old "you have to eat X kg" argument just does not fly any more Ttguy 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's news to me - it's been a couple of years since I've done any research on the issue in any depth. Even so, there is a particular academic argument which says it is unethical to rush-out new developments (of any kind, but particularly of GM crops which may affect millions) without proper safety research. --Cooper-42 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And the saftey research is being done and has been done. So what is the problem. Ttguy 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zambia and food aid

Additionally, why is there no mention of GM food aid issues? Many NGOs argue that forcing GM food as food aid with no alternative is potentially harmful, for a variety of reasons. The major example being the famine in Zambia after the goverment refused GM food as aid, due to worries that it would loose the EU as a customer, given the strict importantion regulations --Cooper-42 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes maybe someone should mention Greenpeaces crime against humantiy because that is what this was. Greenpeace and their ilk killed Zambians because they gave the Zambian government an excuse to refuse food aid. Then they could give the food they did have to their political friends. The aid that was offered was US corn. The same corn Americans eat. Since GM corn is not segregated in the US there was no way the US could offer GM free corn since it does not exist. The "Zambia migh loose exports" argument was a big furphy since Zambia does not export corn to Europe. Ttguy 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

According to New Scientist, "the main reason behind Zambia's decision to reject food aid in 2002" was "doubts over the safety of genetically modified foods voiced by the British Medical Association" http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3317. In the end the famine was not nearly as severe as first feared (http://www.genet-info.org/genet/2003/Apr/msg00039.html) & was averted without the need for GM maize. By 2004 Zambia was able to export maize for the first time since 1991 http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25585. There are those who suggest that the "crisis" was "manufactured by those looking for a new source of traction in the evolving global debate over agricultural biotechnology" http://www.biotech-info.net/zambian_statement.html. In any case a report has been published by a number of NGOs making the case that "non-GM food aid is both possible and desirable. It argues moreover that non-GM alternatives exist at national, regional and international levels" It's available here: http://www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/docdisplay.cfm?doc=DOC14810&resource=Default Newlyarrived 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Newlyarrived

The crux of the www.eldis.org (Friends of the Earth) article is that donor countries should be forced to donate money rather than food and that this donated money would be used to buy non-GM food locally. This sounds good except that we are talking about seriously corupt govenments. So donor countries prefer to donate food because there is a better chance of this making it to hungry people. If the USA wants to donate food then why should they have to buy GM free food for a gift to a country in crisis when their own populous do not eat this same food. In fact as I understand it there is a US law that prohibits the US from donating food that US citizens do not eat. So the proposal for the USA to source different corn from what is consumed domesitcally is probably illegal.

Whither the scurrilous attack on "Greenpeace's crimes against humantiy [sic]"? And are you suggesting that it is illegal for people outside the US to say, "No, I don't want to eat that" because of some US ruling???

No I am saying that US laws govern what US governments can and can't do. If the US law says that the US must donate the same food that its citizens eat then I guess it has to do this. If someone chooses not to accept this donation then that is their business. You seem to be forgeting that food aid is a gift. And donor recipients are not in possitions to dictate what the gift should be. And why should they be?Ttguy 15:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean, but I would say that food aid is not a gift when it's attached with all sorts of conditions, but that's a debate for another place. In spite of what you say, the US was able to provide non-GM food aid, as I've already made clear. Newlyarrived 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

Probably not illegal after all. As it happens, the article also makes clear that non-GM maize was available from India, Mexico & indeed the US itself, so really, what's the problem? In fact, from the same article it is clear that "USAID was able to provide non-GM sorghum to Zambia after Zambia rejected GM maize." (p.14)

If anything, the US could quite possibly be violating the Food Aid Convention (http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Zambia-Food-Refusal-Crime5dec02.htm)

It's certainly the case that the "WFP and all donors should seek to guarantee and support local purchases of staple foods in recipient countries" (FoEI doc again, p.15) inasmuch as possible, as this helps to grow the local economy, as well as reducing logistic & environmental overheads. This can be done by the donor agencies/ngdos etc on the ground, circumventing corrupt governments as much as possible. Where corruption is a problem, there are mechanisms attempting to address this, certainly cash could be collected from donors by an organisation such as the WFP & disbursed appropriately. "We" are not always talking about seriously corrupt governments, but in any case, corruption should be addressed substantively, not used to surreptitiously or bullyingly introduce unwanted GM foodstuffs. Newlyarrived 13:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

It is also not true that Zambia survived the crisis without GM food imports. They accepted GM corn imports but insisted that the corn be milled. A totally uncessary expense. There was at least one report of starving Zambians breaking into the mill and stealling the corn before it was milled - because they could not wait for the milling process. Ttguy 10:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. I said the famine in Zambia "was averted without the need for GM maize", which is true. According to that article, "Zambia managed to cope with the crisis without GM food aid. In 2003, Zambia even produced a bumper crop of non-GM maize." (p.11). I can't find one verified report of starving Zambians breaking into any mill to get at GM maize, though I note the article above highlights the importance of the Zambian supplies of (non-GM) cassava in averting the crisis. If you are privy to other sources of information, please share them.Newlyarrived 13:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

One source I dug up about this was Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death- Paul Driessen, http://www.Eco-Imperialism.com. "The fact that Americans have been consuming this corn for years did not change Mwanawasa's position. Nor was he swayed by repeated scientific studies concluding that biotech foods are safe to eat - or by the demands of his own starving people, who on several occasions attempted to break into the warehouses." Ttguy 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't find any others, & as is well documented, the famine was averted without the need for GM foodstuffs. The US was able to provide the Zambians with non-GM food aid after all, so perhaps the whole insistence on "GM or starve" was a ploy to foist GM on reluctant recipients, as Britain's most senior scientist remarked upon. In any case Zambia is now an exporter of maize without the need for any GM, so I guess Mwanawasa might be feeling a little vindicated! Newlyarrived 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

The whole portrayal of the Southern African food crisis of 2002 as an "accept GM or starve" situation has been shown to be demonstrably false, at least with respect to Zambia (never mind the moral implications). I suggest you check these docs out:

THE DECISION OF THE ZAMBIAN GOVERNMENT TO BAN GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AID http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000562/P474_Zambia_GM_Fig_012003.pdf

African Consumer Leaders Support Zambia http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ACLSZ.php

Also of interest was Prof David King's view at the time, he not being famous for any particular anti-GM stance:

Observer 1 Sep 2002 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,784262,00.html

"· A rift between the UK and the US over genetically modified foods erupted last night when Blair's chief scientific adviser denounced the United States' attempts to force the technology into Africa as a 'massive human experiment'.

In a scathing attack on President Bush's administration, Professor David King also questioned the morality of the US's desire to flood genetically modified foods into African countries, where people are already facing starvation in the coming months."

Lots more here: http://ngin.tripod.com/forcefeed.htm. Newlyarrived 13:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

• "Some organisations are very concerned about corporate influence in developing countries. See TJ Buthelezi, Chengal Reddy, CS Prakash, Foodsecurity.net, AfricaBio, ISAAA, Nuffield and the article Trade Wars and Media Campaigns[13]"

• "Such groups will point to the U.S. Trade Repesentative launching a WTO case against the European Union over its moratorium on GM product approvals, and point out that he was flanked not by the heads of the U.S. corporations that stood to benefit from the hoped for improvement in international trade, but by scientists who came, at least originally, from India and Kenya and by a 'small farmer' from South Africa ."

• "They will assert that there is reason for scepticism about some of the pro-industry 'faces' being flown in from the global South in such a case. They will imply that in some cases 'small farmers' supposedly leading a 'hand-to-mouth existence' in Asia or Africa have turned out not to be subsistence farmers at all. Such rhetoric might include unsubstantiated comments like 'Some have been groomed by Monsanto and appear to be reading carefully scripted statements'."

How does the above passage constitute a NPOV? There is a lot more to the widely & easily available criticisms of GM crops in lower-income countries. Here's a short list of some research that involved a little more than "unsubstantiated comments":

Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh: a three-year assessment http://www.ddsindia.com/www/PDF/BT_Cotton_-_A_three_year_report.pdf

Golden rice solution to vitamin A deficiency: what lies beneath http://www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/docdisplay.cfm?doc=DOC19020&resource=Default

Genetically modified crops and sustainable poverty alleviation in Sub Saharan Africa: an assessment of current evidence http://allafrica.com/sustainable/resources/view/00010161.pdf

GM crops: going against the grain (ActionAid report) http://www.actionaid.org.uk/_content/documents/gatg_2462004_1524.pdf#search=%22GM%20crops%3A%20going%20against%20the%20grain%22

Bt cotton: benefits for poor farmers? http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/KNOTS/PDFs/Briefing9.pdf

Genetically modified crops: a decade of failure (Friends of the Earth report) http://www.foei.org/publications/link/gmo/index.html

Bad for the poor and bad for science (Guardian article by Colin Tudge) http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1152102,00.html Newlyarrived 19:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Newlyarrived

Too long

i just stumbled on this page and it looks like the result of a battle ground. It seems to be very bloated. Would others agree with this? may be we can work to tighten it up a bit? David D. (Talk) 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a start at trying to make this article more accessible by breaking it into subsections. This is a work in progress and I do not think the currrent structure is the best. However, i don't want to step on toes here and wish to see what kind of response these edits will receive. David D. (Talk) 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

first bit to be axed

i just removed the following section:

Based on the proven historical economic and human welfare impacts of plant breeding research, the case for placing high human welfare value in new crop technologies such as GM crop varieties, is very well documented. There is considerable evidence from Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines that food prices have gradually declined as modern conventionally bred plant varieties have been widely adopted by farmers. In China, economic studies show that investment in agricultural research led to higher farm output and, in turn lowered food prices that account for 30% of the reduction in urban poverty between 1992 and 1998. In India, investments on agricultural research are associated with higher crop output, reduced rural poverty and a reduction in food prices. In these studies, decline in food prices is also associated with a reduction in urban poverty. .

I'm not sure this is suitable for this article and barely touches on the GM food issues discussed in this particular article. It is well sourced and good information, is there another article it could be merged into? David D. (Talk) 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Title change

From reading the article and the discussion i have to wonder if this page name should be changed. The focus seems to be on the effectiveness of GM technology. Alternaitvely a new page titled GM crops should be started. David D. (Talk) 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Highly POV

Not knowing much about the GM food debate, I decided to read through the article to get a background. I was disappointed to find that the controversies section reads like a point-counterpoint defense of GM crops. The exposure I have had with the debate is from the side of family farmers in Scotland who are being overrun by larger agribusiness able to harness GM technology. Whereas I don't know enough about this side of the debate to vouch for either side, I can agree that it should at least be addressed, which this article fails to do. I hate to say it, but I might actually turn to news sources to find a more balanced picture - one that is not apparently skewed by advocacy groups.

What GM crops can be grown in Scotland? I don't think there are any GM crops allowed to be grown anywhere in the UK at the moment. It might be the case that Scottish farmers are having trouble competing with overseas farmers that can make use of GM tecnology but I don't think family farmers in Scotland could be over run by other local agribusinesses driven by GM technology because GM technology is not available in Scotland. But when it is - who is to say family farmers can not use it? The certainly do in the USA and Australia. Ttguy 11:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this page

well from my POV this page is pretty bias, i mean the author spent 1k of words talking about the advantages of GM food, but spend 3.5k of word on degrading it, how is this a neutral POV and how are we to accept his views of disadvantages without having a bias in our minds as well.

Hmm well I bet thats cuz there are more harms.

here is what i can think of off the top of my head

-From an objective point of view GM crops are more harmful, and this warrants the longer section. There are very little benefits and motives to use them.

• Many GM crops Yield LESS (ie RR soy)

You say many but only offer up RR soy as an example of this. Where are the other examples? It is true that in the earliy varieties of RR soy there may have been some "yield drag". However, this only ever amounted to a few percent difference. If this difference was ever major then you would not have seen droves of US farmers growing RR soy.Ttguy 22:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The crops that “may” yield more, cost more to produce per LB of food.

They do yield more. The evidence is clear. Yield gains for Bt. corn over traditional varieties have been 5% higher in the United States, 6% higher in Spain, and about 10% higher in Argentina and South Africa. In field trials, Bt. corn yields were up to 24% higher in Brazil, between 9 and 23% higher in China and 41% higher in the Philippines James, C. 2004. Wider adoption of biotech corn in developing world could boost yields. ISAAA (U.S./Philippines).Ttguy 22:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Loss of biodiversity

This claim is based soley on the fact that herbicide resistant crops control weeds better. This is then extrapolated to mean that on farms with fewer weeds there will be fewer insects / bird etc that feed on these weeds. It is highly debatable that farms be regarded as centers of biodiversity. This is a very dubious argument. What about the positive impact on biodiversity of having improved yeilds meaning less pressure to have farming encroching into wild envionronments? Ttguy 22:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of testing, thus dangers to consumers

GM foods are tested. To say they are not is a blatent lie. See Genetically_modified_food#Safety_testing.

• Impossible to recall their mistakes as the pollen will cross pollinate other crops

Not true. As the son of a wheat farmer I know that wheat varieties in Australia where "recalled" when it became known that they were no longer resistant to the current strain of wheat rust. Farmers we no longer allowed to plant the suceptable varieties. If there ever was some sort of hypothetical disaster then you could simply revert to another variety. Crops do not survive in the wild.

• Law suits against farmers which no moral person would support. As it should be Monsanto’s or the farmers using the products responsibility to fence their crop in, not other farmers to fence the pollen out.

You need to read exactly what the Monsanto vs Schmeiser case was about. It was about Schmeiser having 80% RR ready seed in a crop and not paying the royality. It was not about pollen accidently arriving on Schmeiser's fields. Monsanto does not care about that and will not sue someone over that. They will sue if you use their technology - ie have a crop that is 80% their variety - and do not pay the royality. Ttguy 23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Terminator seed. This hugely endangers food security as the plants still produce pollen (thus can cross pollinate).

Doh. Terminator seed = sterile crop. Doh. Cross polination in a terminator crop produces sterile seed - so no risk of the trait crossing out. Doh. PS. No terminator technology exists. Ttguy 23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The huge increase in pesticide use, eg, RR crops

In Brazil, Aprasoja (the Federation of Soybean Producers) reported a 50% reduction in the use of agrochemicals despite producing a record crop in 2003 ‘Record crops due to transgenics.’ 10 June 2003. Estado de São Paulo (Brazil).

In Canada, between 1995 and 2000 when the proportion of the canola (oilseed rape) crop that was biotech rose from 10% to 80%, the amount of herbicide used fell by 40%, equivalent to a 36% reduction in environmental impact (calculated by human and animal toxicity and environmental persistence). Brimner, T. Gallivan, G.J. Stephenson, G.R. 2004. Influence of herbicide-resistant canola on the environmental impact of weed management. Pest Management Science (UK).

Monsanto told investors to expect farm chemical sales to fall $1 billion, or 28%, by 2008 because biotech crops are reducing demand. ‘Monsanto says sales will soar.’ 1 Oct 2004. St Louis Post-Dispatch (U.S.). Bayer similarly blamed its third quarter loss in 2003 on worldwide weakness in its farm chemicals business and specifically on the increased acreage of biotechnology-derived crops which require less chemical pesticides. ‘Bayer Posts 3rd-Quarter Net Loss of $138M’. 12 Nov 2003. Associated Press (U.S.)

• The loss of the organic pesticide Bt, because of the artificial selection of resistant corn borers by the superfluous use in Bt Corn

Funny you should mention this. The only insect to actually become resistant to BT in the field is the diamondback moth. It became resistant many years before the introduction of BT crops and was thus created by the use of the "organic Bt" pesticide. So far but no pest has evolved resistance to transgenic Bt crops in the field. Jeffrey L Fox, Nature Biotechnology, Sept 2003 Vol. 21 No. 9 Ttguy 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Our inability to predict the gene interaction of the effected cells

No need to predict gene interaction - you just measure it by observing how well the new crop performs in both the laboratory and in the field.

• the inaccurate nature of the GM technique

It is as inaccurate as convential breeding in one respect - you don't know where the gene is going to go (but see point 2 below). However it is more acurate than conventional breeding in some other respects.

1. You know exactly what gene and what protein you are puting in. In conventional breeding you have no idea about what gene is going across. For example the conventionally bred potato variety Lenape was withdrawn from the market because of its toxicity. Because the conventional breeding is inacurate breeders did not know they were introducing a toxin into the potato untill AFTER it got to market. Beier RC (1990) Natural pesticides and bioactive components in foods. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 113:47-137 Ttguy 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Once the gene has been transfered you can sequence around where it landed and so you know exactly where it is in the new crops genome. So, although you can not predict where the new gene will end up durring both conventional and genetic engineering, with GE you can find out where it has ended up after you have transfered it. You can then determine if you have disrupted an existing gene or not. With conventional plant breeding you can not do this.Ttguy 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that the public cannot choose in N america due to not having labeling. this is due to strong lobbying by the companies

You can choose to buy organic food. And if there was a market - some one in the US would be producing GM free brands. There is nothing in the US regulations preventing someone from voluntarily labeling their products GM free.Ttguy 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of traceability of harms, due to lack of labeling

Furphy. There is labeling for food additives. But can you tell me which foods you have eaten in the last year with additive number 51 for example. Epidemioligy is a powefull tool. If GM foods were causing harm an epidemioligist could find out - labeling does not enter in to it. Eg the recent spinach food poisioning in the US. No lablels but the FDA found the cause.Ttguy 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Creation of monoculture.

We have had monoculture for at least 50 years. So nothing to to with GM crops. Ttguy 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lowering food security

? How ? Ttguy 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And what were the benefits?

• Monsanto gains control over the world food supply?
• Monsanto makes money?
• Farmers loose their rights?
• Food costs more to produce?
• Monsanto will give food support to Africa, but only if not milled so that it can contaminate and they give control

hmmm

On this topic, not sure where to put it. Any particular reason every link in "suggested readings" is opposed? - JR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.18.50 (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

rbGH

Why is a section on Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH) included in this article on genetically modified food. rbGH does not involve genetic modification. The only thing rbGH shares with GMF is that both are "unnatural" and banned in Europe. 207.172.222.90 01:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

-From an objective point of view GM crops are more harmful, and this warrants the longer section. There are very little benefits and motives to use them. -Many GM crops Yield LESS (ie RR soy) -The crops that “may” yield more, cost more to produce per LB of food. -Loss of biodiversity -Lack of testing, thus dangers to consumers -Impossible to recall their mistakes as the pollen will cross pollinate other crops -Law suits against farmers which no moral person would support. As it should be Monsanto’s or the farmers using the products responsibility to fence their crop in, not other farmers to fence the pollen out. -Terminator seed. This hugely endangers food security as the plants still produce pollen (thus can cross pollinate). -The huge increase in pesticide use, eg, RR crops -The loss of the organic pesticide Bt, because of the artificial selection of resistant corn borers by the superfluous use in Bt Corn -Our inability to predict the gene interaction of the effected cells -the inaccurate nature of the GM technique -The fact that the public cannot choose in N america due to not having labeling. -this is due to strong lobbying by the companies -Lack of traceability of harms, due to lack of labeling -Creation of monoculture. Lowering food security

And what were the benefits? -Monsanto gains control over the world food supply? -Monsanto makes money? -Farmers loose their rights? -Food costs more to produce? -Monsanto will give food support to Africa, but only if not milled so that it can contaminate and they give control

hmmm

Toxic GM-potatoes? Citation

This section seems very inconsistent with the book "Seeds of Deception" referenced earlier in the article.

... and shown stunted growth. The lectin expressed by the genetically modified potatoes is toxic to insects and nematodes and is allegedly toxic to mammals.

This form of lectin, according to "Seeds of Deception", was proven to be not harmful to mammals. The confusion related to this might be from a press release given by another researcher who misspoke about the lectin in a interview. Could someone please clarify? At least a citation of this potentially harmful lectin would do...

RalphLeon 19:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Section

Herbert Boyer then founded the first company to use recombinant DNA technology, Genentech, and in 1978 the company announced that it had produced a strain of E. coli that could produce the human insulin protein.[6][7] Herbert Boyer then founded the first company to use recombinant DNA technology, Genentech, and in 1978 the company announced that it had produced a strain of E. coli that could produce the human insulin protein.[8]

Um... why is the phrase repeated? I tried to fix it myself, but couldn't find the problem in the edit thingo. must be a glitch. whoever fixes it, make sure that you get all three sources attatched to the same phrase

Separate GM controversies article

It has been noted that the controversies section of this article is not neutral - and is overly lenghty. I suggest splitting this information off into another article called Genetically Modified Food Controversies (or Criticism). See vaccine as an example where there is still a healthy section on controversies, it links to a much more lengthly article that does full justification for the issue. Like an article on abortion should not centre on its controversies, but what it is, neither should this article. Looking forward to your comments, Lethaniol 13:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, let's move the debate to Controversy over genetically modified food or GM food controversy - or some such name like that.

This new spin-off article should describe both:

1. Why some people support GM food: helps alleviate starvation in Third World; makes money for Third World farmers.
2. Why some people oppose GM food: it might be dangerous to humans; wealthy farmers in Europe will have competition.

I'm not sure I'm stating this in an utterly fair or neutral way, but it's a start. Other will join in to ensure neutrality, I expect. --Uncle Ed 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if there is already a GM food controversy all this info should be moved there. (It can be renamed/redirected at later date if necessary). If no one is in opposition then it should be done sooner rather than later. Lethaniol 15:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know...will take a look...yet removing the entire section on controversy outside amounts to massive subversion...i havnt looked at all at the section...perhaps it should be summarized with the most important info and links to both sides of the issue...with the longer section somewhere else...to remove the section entirely amounts to handing the issue over to one side...the side that says there is no controversy over GE food and we dont need to concern ourselves over it and its a settled issue...personaly id like to see both the best pro-GM food case and the best anti-GM food case laid out explicitly in the main article...lets see...ill take a look...Benjiwolf 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why no animals?

Since there seems to be a serious attempt to get this page in order, I'll again ask why the focus on plants? There are many examples of GM animals too. David D. (Talk) 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because there are no genetically modified animals used for food as far as I know.Ttguy 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetically modified animals are used to create proteins for the medical industry (e.g. insulin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.68.189 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)