The DNA Protection Act of 2013

molten_dragon said:

I would vote no. Genetic engineering won't harm anything that animal husbandry and selective breeding doesn't. It just does it faster.

And genetically modified food is going to be a big part of what helps feed the rapidly growing population of this planet. That isn't to say it should be completely unregulated, but I wouldn't vote to ban it.

On a side note, you might get more responses to your post if you put a shorter description of what the law does in simpler terms.

Click to expand...

THIS!

Wheres the cliff notes version?

What if...? said:

While not opposed to genetic engineering itself, I am leery of it for the same reason I'm leery of nuclear power.

The risks for both are potentially exacerbated by greed.

And "heirloom" plants and animals should NOT be patentable.

Further, if your patented genes "contaminate" someone elses fields, you certainly shouldn't be able to sue the contaminee.

I'm still surprised that plants with animal genes, etc., are legal to distribute in a reproductively viable form. They expend a lot of effort making "suicide seeds", but a lot of GM stuff isn't. Always wondered aboit that. Fait accompli?

Click to expand...

Why not consider the reverse scenario?
What if patented genetics pollute the commons?
Currently the only recognition in law goes to the intellectual property, there is no recognition of the commons in that respect in current law.
You and I and everyone 'own' the commons collectively and hold the right to access such in responsible dependency for our common existence, so how can Monsanto et al's right to also access such for creating private intellectual property somehow out weigh our collective rights to protect our rights to accessing the original property especially if said original property has been genetically redesigned and through the chain reactive effects of procreation has now permeated into the commons?
Its like the chicken and the egg...can you really get one without the other in this area? The posted proposal would be the only existing protection of said commons in current law with respect to this issue and this discussion etc...so while opinions are valid, reality rolls on like a speeding locomotive.

Also DNA, it is really unnecessary to talk in legislative or civil legalese, just say plainly what you mean. I was flipping through the thread and I think the constant quoted references to the 'commons' and your associated terminology is unnecessarily cumbersome. If you are worried about natural lifeforms and organisms being patented, and worried that GMO's may result in contamination of public and private land then say so.

The truth is, we don't fully understand the implications of genetic modification. More testing was needed before its practices became mainstream. In fact, Monsanto's GMFs are destroying the natural variety of corn crops and many other crops. Corporate interests are at play here. More caution is needed!

97% of genetic variation of the vegetables grown at the turn of the 20th century are now extinct. Genetic variety is the entire purpose of sexual reproduction. Manipulating nature should not be taken so lightly. It's sad to see how willingly people turn over control of the entire food supply to corporate greed.

Sherman123 said:

Also DNA, it is really unnecessary to talk in legislative or civil legalese, just say plainly what you mean. I was flipping through the thread and I think the constant quoted references to the 'commons' and your associated terminology is unnecessarily cumbersome. If you are worried about natural lifeforms and organisms being patented, and worried that GMO's may result in contamination of public and private land then say so.

Click to expand...

OK then general Sherman let's try it this way...its easy as 123...

Evenstar said:

The truth is, we don't fully understand the implications of genetic modification. More testing was needed before its practices became mainstream. In fact, Monsanto's GMFs are destroying the natural variety of corn crops and many other crops. Corporate interests are at play here. More caution is needed!

Click to expand...

That isn't true and has no basis in scientific reality. We have conducted thousands of studies, virtually all of which have confirmed what we've known for years which is that there is no measurable health risk associated with genetically modified crops nor consequently with genetically modified food. To quote one of hundreds "The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.""

In fact the real driver behind the anti-GMO push comes from the organic food industry and smaller farmers who raise and stoke fear in an effort to protect their own corporate and business interests in the face of highly competitive and expensive to enter genetic agriculture, livestock, and food markets. The GMO classification drive in California (which failed) is a classic example of this. The top donors and petition circulators for the effort came from a mix of organic farming corporations, natural food restaurant companies, and alternative medicine & nutrition practitioners all of which is a large industry in California.

It is protectionism, which misinformed green and consumer advocates latch onto in an effort to defeat an enemy and a problem which doesn't exist.

Edit: Opposing genetically modified foods and organisms on a scientific basis is the equivalent of denying climate change. It relies on studies by individual scientists and labs conducted on the margins, and heavily publicized single cases often taken out of context and practical understanding. All while ignoring the mountains of studies and evidence that point towards the opposite. It is so extraordinarily similar to global climate change denialists.

Sherman123 said:

There is also an almost pathological inability for anti-GMO activists to differentiate between business practices and scientific standards and rigors. There is no major scientific body on the planet that has found a harmful link or negative differentiation between 'synthetic' foods and organisms and natural ones.

Click to expand...

Your quote is akin to saying its ok for hungry sharks to be the new lifeguards of the gene pool we all swim in, and the gullible root of it reminds me of a recent Allstate insurance commercial and how the standard language of your corps gov is backwards or Orwellian if you will:

Sandy Allstate Ad: Company Pulls Advertisement Featuring Couple's Destroyed Staten Island Home

I'm guessing that all these countries/govs are just paranoid from your view then right?



By Stephanie Whiteside / current.com / @stephgwhiteside

Genetically modified foods are foods made from genetically modified organisms. A few weeks ago, California voters turned down Proposition 37, which would have required that GMO foods be labeled as such. Chemical companies and processed-food manufacturers heavily — and successfully — backed a campaign opposing the proposition. Nationwide, GMO crops are prevalent and efforts to label GMO foods have yet to get off the ground.

But outside the U.S., you can find a different approach.

Peru has said "no" to genetically modified foods — a 10-year ban on GMO foods takes effect this week. Peru's ban on GMO foods prohibits the import, production and use of genetically modified foods. The law is aimed at safeguarding the country's agricultural diversity and preventing cross-pollination with non-GMO crops. It will also help protect Peruvian exports of organic products.

Peru isn't the first country to ban GMO foods or place restrictions on their use. Earlier this year, Russia suspended imports of Monsanto's GMO corn after a French study linked the corn to cancer; France also has a temporary ban on the corn. Ireland has banned the growing of GMO crops since 2009. Japan and Egypt also ban the cultivation of GMO crops. In 2010, Switzerland extended a moratorium on genetically modified animals and plants, banning GMOs until 2013.

Even countries that don't ban GMO crops may place restrictions on them. Germany requires farmers growing GMO crops to maintain a minimum distance from conventional farms and holds them liable for damages if conventional crops are contaminated via cross-pollination. A German court upheld the restrictions, turning down a complaint that claimed the regulations unfairly damaged farmers.

In some places where GMOs are permitted, labeling is required, enabling consumers to decide if they wish to purchase foods containing GMOs. In 1998, the European Union began requiring labels for food products with more than 0.9 percent of ingredients from genetically modified processes. Other countries, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Chile and South Africa, require labeling for foods containing GMOs.

The U.S., however, has no such requirements. Efforts to ban GMO foods or require labeling have occurred only on a local level. Most recently, California's Proposition 37 was an attempt to require labeling of food containing genetically modified ingredients. The proposition was defeated at the ballot box after Monsanto and other companies poured money into opposing the effort, including an ad campaign that claimed the labeling requirement would cause the cost of groceries to skyrocket.

When other countries are taking the step to ban GMO crops outright, the U.S. remains resistant to even allowing consumers to know if they are consuming food made with genetically modified ingredients. America is embracing the cultivation of GMO crops while other countries are taking a more cautious approach — and now thousands of products in the United States contain GMOs, a contrast to Europe, where labeling is required and few products use genetically modified ingredients. Manufacturers of GMOs claim genetically engineered products are safe and well accepted, but the resistance to labeling suggest otherwise. When it comes to consumer choice on GMOs, the U.S. shouldn't be lagging behind.

DNAprotection said:

Your quote is akin to saying its ok for hungry sharks to be the new lifeguards of the gene pool we all swim in, and the gullible root of it reminds me of a recent Allstate insurance commercial and how the standard language of your corps gov is backwards or Orwellian if you will:

Sandy Allstate Ad: Company Pulls Advertisement Featuring Couple's Destroyed Staten Island Home

I'm guessing that all these countries/govs are just paranoid from your view then right?



By Stephanie Whiteside / current.com / @stephgwhiteside

Genetically modified foods are foods made from genetically modified organisms. A few weeks ago, California voters turned down Proposition 37, which would have required that GMO foods be labeled as such. Chemical companies and processed-food manufacturers heavily — and successfully — backed a campaign opposing the proposition. Nationwide, GMO crops are prevalent and efforts to label GMO foods have yet to get off the ground.

But outside the U.S., you can find a different approach.

Peru has said "no" to genetically modified foods — a 10-year ban on GMO foods takes effect this week. Peru's ban on GMO foods prohibits the import, production and use of genetically modified foods. The law is aimed at safeguarding the country's agricultural diversity and preventing cross-pollination with non-GMO crops. It will also help protect Peruvian exports of organic products.

Peru isn't the first country to ban GMO foods or place restrictions on their use. Earlier this year, Russia suspended imports of Monsanto's GMO corn after a French study linked the corn to cancer; France also has a temporary ban on the corn. Ireland has banned the growing of GMO crops since 2009. Japan and Egypt also ban the cultivation of GMO crops. In 2010, Switzerland extended a moratorium on genetically modified animals and plants, banning GMOs until 2013.

Even countries that don't ban GMO crops may place restrictions on them. Germany requires farmers growing GMO crops to maintain a minimum distance from conventional farms and holds them liable for damages if conventional crops are contaminated via cross-pollination. A German court upheld the restrictions, turning down a complaint that claimed the regulations unfairly damaged farmers.

In some places where GMOs are permitted, labeling is required, enabling consumers to decide if they wish to purchase foods containing GMOs. In 1998, the European Union began requiring labels for food products with more than 0.9 percent of ingredients from genetically modified processes. Other countries, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Chile and South Africa, require labeling for foods containing GMOs.

The U.S., however, has no such requirements. Efforts to ban GMO foods or require labeling have occurred only on a local level. Most recently, California's Proposition 37 was an attempt to require labeling of food containing genetically modified ingredients. The proposition was defeated at the ballot box after Monsanto and other companies poured money into opposing the effort, including an ad campaign that claimed the labeling requirement would cause the cost of groceries to skyrocket.

When other countries are taking the step to ban GMO crops outright, the U.S. remains resistant to even allowing consumers to know if they are consuming food made with genetically modified ingredients. America is embracing the cultivation of GMO crops while other countries are taking a more cautious approach — and now thousands of products in the United States contain GMOs, a contrast to Europe, where labeling is required and few products use genetically modified ingredients. Manufacturers of GMOs claim genetically engineered products are safe and well accepted, but the resistance to labeling suggest otherwise. When it comes to consumer choice on GMOs, the U.S. shouldn't be lagging behind.

Click to expand...

1. If you want to regulate business practices that is a COMPLETELY separate issue from attacking the health and viability of GMO's which is not reasonably debatable.

2. Yes Russia and Peru are ****ty countries and are reacting to domestic political and economic considerations. Duh.

3. GMO labeling and crop banning is a fear mongering campaign that is mostly designed to suit farming interests and advocates in the organic food industry, and of course their useful but ill-informed allies in the Green and consumer advocacy community. This is really noticeable in Europe where the charge is usually led by subsidized small to medium holding farmers. It is entirely artificial. It is abominable that the Green movement has betrayed its roots and abetted this blatant profit motivated protectionism. It is anti-science and unethical.

Sherman123 said:

1. If you want to regulate business practices that is a COMPLETELY separate issue from attacking the health and viability of GMO's which is not reasonably debatable.

2. Yes Russia and Peru are ****ty countries and are reacting to domestic political and economic considerations. Duh.

3. GMO labeling and crop banning is a fear mongering campaign that is mostly designed to suit farming interests and advocates in the organic food industry, and of course their useful but ill-informed allies in the Green and consumer advocacy community. This is really noticeable in Europe where the charge is usually led by subsidized small to medium holding farmers. It is entirely artificial. It is abominable that the Green movement has betrayed its roots and abetted this blatant profit motivated protectionism. It is anti-science and unethical.

Click to expand...

Monsanto | Issues and Answers

Monsanto | Safety and Technical Information

First general I'm changing your name to Custer because often in these 'debates' the continually parroted 'talking points' that you use get quite boorish and may as well be pasted from Monsanto's own web site...duh lol...so for the sake of boredom reduction and for the training value it has for new troops I dub thee Custer123 before I return for your virtual beheading...this is where you are at this point:

DNAprotection said:

Monsanto | Issues and Answers

Monsanto | Safety and Technical Information

First general I'm changing your name to Custer because often in these 'debates' the continually parroted 'talking points' that you use get quite boorish and may as well be pasted from Monsanto's own web site...duh lol...so for the sake of boredom reduction and for the training value it has for new troops I dub thee Custer123 before I return for your virtual beheading...this is where you are at this point:

Click to expand...

Uh... what?

Sherman123 said:

That isn't true and has no basis in scientific reality. We have conducted thousands of studies, virtually all of which have confirmed what we've known for years which is that there is no measurable health risk associated with genetically modified crops nor consequently with genetically modified food. To quote one of hundreds "The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.""

In fact the real driver behind the anti-GMO push comes from the organic food industry and smaller farmers who raise and stoke fear in an effort to protect their own corporate and business interests in the face of highly competitive and expensive to enter genetic agriculture, livestock, and food markets. The GMO classification drive in California (which failed) is a classic example of this. The top donors and petition circulators for the effort came from a mix of organic farming corporations, natural food restaurant companies, and alternative medicine & nutrition practitioners all of which is a large industry in California.

It is protectionism, which misinformed green and consumer advocates latch onto in an effort to defeat an enemy and a problem which doesn't exist.

Edit: Opposing genetically modified foods and organisms on a scientific basis is the equivalent of denying climate change. It relies on studies by individual scientists and labs conducted on the margins, and heavily publicized single cases often taken out of context and practical understanding. All while ignoring the mountains of studies and evidence that point towards the opposite. It is so extraordinarily similar to global climate change denialists.

Click to expand...

Please watch both videos. The second one explains how they are inserting the rogue genetic material into the plants using virus's and bacteria. The problems which could potentially arise from these practices should be rather obvious. And what about the lack of genetic variation? A single plague could wipe out our entire food supply, not to mention that a few corporations in the world control the word's food supply. Are people really so blinded by propaganda that they cannot see this?

Evenstar said:

Please watch both videos. The second one explains how they are inserting the rogue genetic material into the plants using virus's and bacteria. The problems which could potentially arise from these practices should be rather obvious. And what about the lack of genetic variation? A single plague could wipe out our entire food supply, not to mention that a few corporations in the world control the word's food supply. Are people really so blinded by propaganda that they cannot see this?

Click to expand...

Something that I always find fascinating about this particular complaint is that the greatest tool to prevent the lateral spread of herbicide resistance or some terrible infection (which has never happened...) is... terminator seeds (GURT)! By preventing by product seeds from being replanted you can kill a generation and prepare a new one very easily and prevent a catastrophic spread. It is in fact partially what GURT was made for.

Secondly agricultural biodiversity died years ago when we shifted to the modern agricultural standard which emphasized crop uniformity to increase food output and consistency. GMO's are a recent contribution to this mix and in fact are the hoped for answer to the problems caused by the decline of agricultural biodiversity. Why? Because if we are going to have mass modern agriculture (which we will, we have billions to feed) and take that loss, it would be best to experiment and test plant and feed strains that are resistant to various blights and plagues that cause us so much trouble. While constant research and testing offers opportunities offers the chance for future anticipatory protection as well.

I am not worried. Terminator seeds do not bother me but they are not necessary. There is plenty of biodiversity on this planet.

Sherman123 said:

Uh... what?

Click to expand...

Oh my General sorry for the delay, very busy day on the front lines yesir...plenty of time to answer the "Uh what?" in a moment, but for now on that count how about start with this...lol...





Before we get on with the rest of that business though, I would like to address this new business you have raised in attempt at being rewarded with a pardon I can only suspect:

Sherman123 said:

Something that I always find fascinating about this particular complaint is that the greatest tool to prevent the lateral spread of herbicide resistance or some terrible infection (which has never happened...) is... terminator seeds (GURT)! By preventing by product seeds from being replanted you can kill a generation and prepare a new one very easily and prevent a catastrophic spread. It is in fact partially what GURT was made for.

Secondly agricultural biodiversity died years ago when we shifted to the modern agricultural standard which emphasized crop uniformity to increase food output and consistency. GMO's are a recent contribution to this mix and in fact are the hoped for answer to the problems caused by the decline of agricultural biodiversity. Why? Because if we are going to have mass modern agriculture (which we will, we have billions to feed) and take that loss, it would be best to experiment and test plant and feed strains that are resistant to various blights and plagues that cause us so much trouble. While constant research and testing offers opportunities offers the chance for future anticipatory protection as well.

Click to expand...

Pardon denied, explanation below:


Industrial Agriculture

Today, the majority of American farmland is dominated by industrial agriculture—the system of chemically intensive food production developed in the decades after World War II, featuring enormous single-crop farms and animal production facilities.

Back then, industrial agriculture was hailed as a technological triumph that would enable a skyrocketing world population to feed itself. Today, a growing chorus of agricultural experts—including farmers as well as scientists and policy makers—sees industrial agriculture as a dead end, a mistaken application to living systems of approaches better suited for making jet fighters and refrigerators.

The impacts of industrial agriculture on the environment, public health, and rural communities make it an unsustainable way to grow our food over the long term. And better, science-based methods are available.
Industrial Agriculture Practices: Monoculture

At the core of industrial food production is monoculture—the practice of growing single crops intensively on a very large scale. Corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton and rice are all commonly grown this way in the United States.

Monoculture farming relies heavily on chemical inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The fertilizers are needed because growing the same plant (and nothing else) in the same place year after year quickly depletes the nutrients that the plant relies on, and these nutrients have to be replenished somehow. The pesticides are needed because monoculture fields are highly attractive to certain weeds and insect pests.
Learn more:

Expanding Monoculture: Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture

Industrial Agriculture Practices: Meat Production

In the industrial system of meat production, meat animals are "finished"—prepared for slaughter—at large-scale facilities called CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), where their mobility is restricted and they are fed a high-calorie, grain-based diet, often supplemented with antibiotics and hormones, to maximize their weight gain. Their waste is concentrated and becomes an environmental problem, not the convenient source of fertilizer that manure can be for more diverse, less massively scaled farms.
Learn more:

CAFOs Uncovered (2008)
They Eat What? The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories

Impacts of Industrial Agriculture: Environmental Damage

No matter what methods are used, agriculture always has some impact on the environment. But industrial agriculture is a special case: it damages the soil, water, and even the climate on an unprecedented scale.

Intensive monoculture depletes soil and leaves it vulnerable to erosion. Chemical fertilizer runoff and CAFO wastes add to global warming emissions and create oxygen-deprived "dead zones" at the mouths of major waterways. Herbicides and insecticides harm wildlife and can pose human health risks as well. Biodiversity in and near monoculture fields takes a hit, as populations of birds and beneficial insects decline.
Learn more:

Increasing Herbicide Use: Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture
Hidden Costs of Industrial Agriculture

Impacts of Industrial Agriculture: Evolutionary Wars

Whenever we attack a population of unwanted organisms (such as weeds or bacteria) repeatedly with the same weapon, we give an evolutionary advantage to genes that make the organism less vulnerable to that weapon. Over time, those genes become more widespread, and the weapon becomes less useful—a phenomenon called resistance. Industrial agriculture has accelerated resistance problems on at least two fronts.

Overuse of antibiotics in meat production (in the U.S., more antibiotics are consumed each year by healthy animals than by sick humans) has contributed to a growing problem of antibiotic resistance that is having a serious impact on the treatment of infectious diseases.

And a similar over-reliance on the herbicide glyphosate (marketed by Monsanto Co. as Roundup) has spawned a burgeoning population of Roundup-resistant "superweeds" that has become a scourge for farmers in many areas of the U.S., especially the South and Midwest.
Learn more:

Prescription for Trouble: Using Antibiotics to Fatten Livestock
Promoting Pesticide Resistance: Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture

See also: Industrial Agriculture | Pesticide Action Network

"Humans have been farming for 10,000 years. Sixty years ago, after World War II, we started industrializing U.S. farming operations through a mix of policy decisions and accidents of history. This method of farming is neither inevitable nor efficient. More to the point, it can't be sustained.

Industrial agriculture treats the farm as a factory, with "inputs" (pesticides, fertilizers) and "outputs" (crops). The end-objective is increasing yields while controlling costs — usually by exploiting economies of scale (i.e. making a lot of one thing, or "monocropping"), and by replacing solar energy and manual labor with machines and petro-chemicals like pesticides and fertilizers.

In relying on chemical "inputs," we have un-learned how to farm.

This model of farming is inefficient and does not represent the cutting edge of modern farming. In 1940, we produced 2.3 food calories for every 1 fossil fuel calorie used. By industrializing our food and farming systems, we now get 1 food calorie for every 10 fossil fuel calories used — a 23-fold reduction in efficiency. Following this path we have become dependent on cheap, abundant oil, and on quick chemical "fixes" for agro-ecosystem challenges that are complicated and require deep, local and hands-on knowledge. In relying on chemical inputs, we have un-learned how to farm.
Hidden Costs of Chemical Dependence..." read the rest here: Industrial Agriculture | Pesticide Action Network

We will now proceed with the rest of the "Uh what?" question in the following post...General...

Sherman123 said:

Uh... what?

Click to expand...

The 'what' is that you have no defense against the all powerful Occam's Razor like blade of the quote of destiny which is now about to be wielded to remove your head in your self imposed virtual dispatching.
Not all the kings horses or men or propaganda or scientists and not even Monsanto et al has any defense against the quote of destiny once wielded because its the simple and plain truth of this whole matter of biotech and rewards v risks etc...any further arguments on your part would simply be condition reflexive responses much as were exhibited by Harry after his virtual dispatching...body can still twitch long after head is severed.





Just as an added cherry atop your head in a basket positioning:


"Known unknowns - things we know we need to research, the results of that research might take more or less time, but we know we can figure it out before we invest into this project.

Unknown unknowns - We will start the project not knowing these things will be a problem. These will derail our project in ways we can not foresee.

Given the context it might be a silly statement, but in and of itself it explains the mentality of approaching larger projects quite succinctly."

lol...

Sherman123 said:

Something that I always find fascinating about this particular complaint is that the greatest tool to prevent the lateral spread of herbicide resistance or some terrible infection (which has never happened...) is... terminator seeds (GURT)! By preventing by product seeds from being replanted you can kill a generation and prepare a new one very easily and prevent a catastrophic spread. It is in fact partially what GURT was made for.

Secondly agricultural biodiversity died years ago when we shifted to the modern agricultural standard which emphasized crop uniformity to increase food output and consistency. GMO's are a recent contribution to this mix and in fact are the hoped for answer to the problems caused by the decline of agricultural biodiversity. Why? Because if we are going to have mass modern agriculture (which we will, we have billions to feed) and take that loss, it would be best to experiment and test plant and feed strains that are resistant to various blights and plagues that cause us so much trouble. While constant research and testing offers opportunities offers the chance for future anticipatory protection as well.

Click to expand...

One last thing GC123 while your out there still virtually twitching in your now harmless state, it should have been self-evident but I know some folks here need glasses and a mirror, but anyway the suggestion you infer above is not unlike being willing to bend over for the company slogan' give'm cancer and then pretend to have the cure, or at least pretend to treat the symptoms which usually leads to more cancer...brilliant General, make a fortune creating the probs then make a triple fortune pretending to fix them lol...not only that but surrendering the gene pool we all swim in to sharks in the process...your logic seems to be the status quot and it seems to be working quite well for the 'few' in this world so far...but the real war out there beyond these virtual walls is not yet over General...its only just begun.
Maybe Felix can help you grow a new head in the biotech lab cuz your going to need it now more than ever.

Coming next from monsanto.

Fisher said:

I am not worried. Terminator seeds do not bother me but they are not necessary. There is plenty of biodiversity on this planet.

Click to expand...

Fisher, not being worried about a speeding train coming towards you only makes sense if you don't know it is, so please stop and look around before crossing the tracks for a final conclusion on such an important issue that effects us all whether we want it to or not = loss of fundamental rights for you and me = gain of central control over the gene pool and evolution for corps/gov.
There is everything to be concerned about in regards to this issue.
Just as a first example, in the first days of the Iraq 'occupation' Monsanto et al floated a temporary test model of what their business plan is for the USA and anywhere else they can implement such through manipulated legislation or by strait forward occupation if need be:








Iraq Order 81

_______________________
Order 81: Events sponsored by INEAS

Historically, the Iraqi constitution prohibited ownership of biological resources. Farmers in Iraq have operated in a mostly free-to-little-regulated, informal seed supply system. Farm-saved seeds and the free exchange of planting materials among farmers have long been the basis of agricultural practice in Iraq. Yet all of this has become history.

On April 26, 2004, Paul Bremer, the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), issued and signed Order 81, which prohibits farmers from reusing seeds harvested from new varieties registered under the law.

When ownership of a crop is claimed, seed saving will be banned and farmers will have to be pay royalties to the registered, so-called seed owner. A "Greedy, unjust law is meant to be
disobeyed": Dr Vandana Shiva to IRAQI Farmers & Women - YouTube

The Order arises from USAID program in Iraq, which confirms that foreign aid programs are mainly "commercial opportunity" programs designed to benefit companies in the USA and Europe. It fits perfectly into the US vision for the future of Iraqi agriculture following a system dependent on large corporations selling chemical inputs and seeds. The purpose of Order 81 is to facilitate the establishment of a new seed market in Iraq, one in which Iraqi farmers are forced to make their annual purchase of seeds, including those that are genetically modified, from transnational corporations.

The law awarded US Corporations complete control over farmers' seed for 20 years. Iraqi farmers had to sign an agreement to pay a "technology fee" plus an annual license fee. Plant Variety Protection (PVP) made seed reusing and saving illegal as well as "similar" seed plantings
punishable by severe fines and imprisonment. Agribusiness wants the same rights everywhere, including in the USA. This will jeopardize the future of organic and independent farming.

Many developing countries in Africa and Asia particularly in Afghanistan, India and Iraq have been suffering from these unjust laws and the monopoly by the agricultural giants.

Therefore organizations, activists, organic food advocates, farm owners and farmers around the world are joining hand to advocate for patent-free seeds and biodiversity and to educate about the criminal practices by agricultural corporations and how their unjust laws have and will affect the future of agriculture.

More information:

Full text of Order 81: http://www.trade.gov/static/iraq_memo81.pdf
People's rights to water and food: http://www.navdanya.org/organic/index.htm
GM Science Exposed: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/pdf/Papers_on_GM_Hazards.pdf
The agenda in Afghanistan & Iraq: GRAIN — The soils of war
International Seeds Day & Order 81: Latha Jishnu: Order 81 and the plunder of farming
The US Green Party endorses International Seeds Day on April 26, asks for repeal of Order 81 which makes Iraqi farmers dependent on US firms: The Green Party endorses International Seeds Day on April 26, asks for repeal of Order 81 which makes Iraqi farmers dependent on US firms | Independent Political Report: Third Party News
Merry Fitzgerald's speech at Third Iraqi Turkmen Media Council Conference in Istanbul on 10-12 April 2009: Third Iraqi Turkmen Media Council Conference in Istanbul « EUROPE TURKMEN FRIENDSHIPS

DNAprotection said:

Fisher, not being worried about a speeding train coming towards you only makes sense if you don't know it is, so please stop and look around before crossing the tracks for a final conclusion on such an important issue that effects us all whether we want it to or not = loss of fundamental rights for you and me = gain of central control over the gene pool and evolution for corps/gov.
There is everything to be concerned about in regards to this issue.....

Click to expand...

History tells me that corporations fail. Even if you look at Monsanto, they have bought and sold off pieces of the puzzle before. I do not support being able to patent but for a short time genetic alterations, but at the end of the day, the GM does not concern me. Sorry. At worst, it just means Burpee needs to get on the ball......

Fisher said:

History tells me that corporations fail. Even if you look at Monsanto, they have bought and sold off pieces of the puzzle before. I do not support being able to patent but for a short time genetic alterations, but at the end of the day, the GM does not concern me. Sorry. At worst, it just means Burpee needs to get on the ball......

Click to expand...

Fisher, history tells of men with ultimate power being ultimately corrupted and of the far reaching yet still limited destruction in their wake compared to that which is possible with this technology even if the corps fails as you say. In fact what if a giant bp type gulf disaster happened with respect to biotech and such ends up being the reason for the kind of failure you speak of?
Far different mess to clean up for all the big Fishers and little Fishes etc, one you can't wash off with dove or wash off a dove...and it actually means that the Fishers of the world need to 'get on the ball'...

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops

by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson

How should a regulatory agency announce they have discovered something potentially very important about the safety of products they have been approving for over twenty years?

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus

Cauliflower Mosaic Virus

What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).

The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.

In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm.

The Choices for Regulators
The original discovery by Podevin and du Jardin (at EFSA) of Gene VI in commercial GMO crops must have presented regulators with sharply divergent procedural alternatives. They could 1) recall all CaMV Gene VI-containing crops (in Europe that would mean revoking importation and planting approvals) or, 2) undertake a retrospective risk assessment of the CaMV promoter and its Gene VI sequences and hope to give it a clean bill of health.

It is easy to see the attraction for EFSA of option two. Recall would be a massive political and financial decision and would also be a huge embarrassment to the regulators themselves. It would leave very few GMO crops on the market and might even mean the end of crop biotechnology.

Regulators, in principle at least, also have a third option to gauge the seriousness of any potential GMO hazard. GMO monitoring, which is required by EU regulations, ought to allow them to find out if deaths, illnesses, or crop failures have been reported by farmers or health officials and can be correlated with the Gene VI sequence. Unfortunately, this particular avenue of enquiry is a scientific dead end. Not one country has carried through on promises to officially and scientifically monitor any hazardous consequences of GMOs (1).

Unsurprisingly, EFSA chose option two. However, their investigation resulted only in the vague and unreassuring conclusion that Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes” (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This means literally, that changes of an unknown number, nature, or magnitude may (or may not) occur. It falls well short of the solid scientific reassurance of public safety needed to explain why EFSA has not ordered a recall.

Can the presence of a fragment of virus DNA really be that significant? Below is an independent analysis of Gene VI and its known properties and their safety implications. This analysis clearly illustrates the regulators’ dilemma.

The Many Functions of Gene VI
Gene VI, like most plant viral genes, produces a protein that is multifunctional. It has four (so far) known roles in the viral infection cycle. The first is to participate in the assembly of virus particles. There is no current data to suggest this function has any implications for biosafety. The second known function is to suppress anti-pathogen defenses by inhibiting a general cellular system called RNA silencing (Haas et al. 2008). Thirdly, Gene VI has the highly unusual function of transactivating (described below) the long RNA (the 35S RNA) produced by CaMV (Park et al. 2001). Fourthly, unconnected to these other mechanisms, Gene VI has very recently been shown to make plants highly susceptible to a bacterial pathogen (Love et al. 2012). Gene VI does this by interfering with a common anti-pathogen defense mechanism possessed by plants. These latter three functions of Gene VI (and their risk implications) are explained further below:

1) Gene VI Is an Inhibitor of RNA Silencing
RNA silencing is a mechanism for the control of gene expression at the level of RNA abundance (Bartel 2004). It is also an important antiviral defense mechanism in both plants and animals, and therefore most viruses have evolved genes (like Gene VI) that disable it (Dunoyer and Voinnet 2006).
Cauliflower mosaic virus genome


read the rest here: Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops or in my next post...

continued from last post...

This attribute of Gene VI raises two obvious biosafety concerns: 1) Gene VI will lead to aberrant gene expression in GMO crop plants, with unknown consequences and, 2) Gene VI will interfere with the ability of plants to defend themselves against viral pathogens. There are numerous experiments showing that, in general, viral proteins that disable gene silencing enhance infection by a wide spectrum of viruses (Latham and Wilson 2008).

2) Gene VI Is a Unique Transactivator of Gene Expression
Multicellular organisms make proteins by a mechanism in which only one protein is produced by each passage of a ribosome along a messenger RNA (mRNA). Once that protein is completed the ribosome dissociates from the mRNA. However, in a CaMV-infected plant cell, or as a transgene, Gene VI intervenes in this process and directs the ribosome to get back on an mRNA (reinitiate) and produce the next protein in line on the mRNA, if there is one. This property of Gene VI enables Cauliflower Mosaic Virus to produce multiple proteins from a single long RNA (the 35S RNA). Importantly, this function of Gene VI (which is called transactivation) is not limited to the 35S RNA. Gene VI seems able to transactivate any cellular mRNA (Futterer and Hohn 1991; Ryabova et al. 2002). There are likely to be thousands of mRNA molecules having a short or long protein coding sequence following the primary one. These secondary coding sequences could be expressed in cells where Gene VI is expressed. The result will presumably be production of numerous random proteins within cells. The biosafety implications of this are difficult to assess. These proteins could be allergens, plant or human toxins, or they could be harmless. Moreover, the answer will differ for each commercial crop species into which Gene VI has been inserted.

3) Gene VI Interferes with Host Defenses
A very recent finding, not known by Podevin and du Jardin, is that Gene VI has a second mechanism by which it interferes with plant anti-pathogen defenses (Love et al. 2012). It is too early to be sure about the mechanistic details, but the result is to make plants carrying Gene VI more susceptible to certain pathogens, and less susceptible to others. Obviously, this could impact farmers, however the discovery of an entirely new function for gene VI while EFSA’s paper was in press, also makes clear that a full appraisal of all the likely effects of Gene VI is not currently achievable.

Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?
When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.

Is Gene VI Protein Produced in GMO Crops?
Given that expression of Gene VI is likely to cause harm, a crucial issue is whether the actual inserted transgene sequences found in commercial GMO crops will produce any functional protein from the fragment of Gene VI present within the CaMV sequence.

There are two aspects to this question. One is the length of Gene VI accidentally introduced by developers. This appears to vary but most of the 54 approved transgenes contain the same 528 base pairs of the CaMV 35S promoter sequence. This corresponds to approximately the final third of Gene VI. Deleted fragments of Gene VI are active when expressed in plant cells and functions of Gene VI are believed to reside in this final third. Therefore, there is clear potential for unintended effects if this fragment is expressed (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993; Ryabova et al. 2002; Kobayashi and Hohn 2003).

The second aspect of this question is what quantity of Gene VI could be produced in GMO crops? Once again, this can ultimately only be resolved by direct quantitative experiments. Nevertheless, we can theorize that the amount of Gene VI produced will be specific to each independent insertion event. This is because significant Gene VI expression probably would require specific sequences (such as the presence of a gene promoter and an ATG [a protein start codon]) to precede it and so is likely to be heavily dependent on variables such as the details of the inserted transgenic DNA and where in the plant genome the transgene inserted.

Commercial transgenic crop varieties can also contain superfluous copies of the transgene, including those that are incomplete or rearranged (Wilson et al 2006). These could be important additional sources of Gene VI protein. The decision of regulators to allow such multiple and complex insertion events was always highly questionable, but the realization that the CaMV 35S promoter contains Gene VI sequences provides yet another reason to believe that complex insertion events increase the likelihood of a biosafety problem.

Even direct quantitative measurements of Gene VI protein in individual crop authorizations would not fully resolve the scientific questions, however. No-one knows, for example, what quantity, location or timing of protein production would be of significance for risk assessment, and so answers necessary to perform science-based risk assessment are unlikely to emerge soon.

Big Lessons for Biotechnology
It is perhaps the most basic assumption in all of risk assessment that the developer of a new product provides regulators with accurate information about what is being assessed. Perhaps the next most basic assumption is that regulators independently verify this information. We now know, however, that for over twenty years neither of those simple expectations have been met. Major public universities, biotech multinationals, and government regulators everywhere, seemingly did not appreciate the relatively simple possibility that the DNA constructs they were responsible for encoded a viral gene.

This lapse occurred despite the fact that Gene VI was not truly hidden; the relevant information on the existence of Gene VI has been freely available in the scientific literature since well before the first biotech approval (Franck et al 1980). We ourselves have offered specific warnings that viral sequences could contain unsuspected genes (Latham and Wilson 2008). The inability of risk assessment processes to incorporate longstanding and repeated scientific findings is every bit as worrysome as the failure to intellectually anticipate the possibility of overlapping genes when manipulating viral sequences.

This sense of a generic failure is reinforced by the fact that this is not an isolated event. There exist other examples of commercially approved viral sequences having overlapping genes that were never subjected to risk assessment. These include numerous commercial GMOs containing promoter regions of the closely related virus figwort mosaic virus (FMV) which were not considered by Podevin and du Jardin. Inspection of commercial sequence data shows that the commonly used FMV promoter overlaps its own Gene VI (Richins et al 1987). A third example is the virus-resistant potato NewLeaf Plus (RBMT-22-82). This transgene contains approximately 90% of the P0 gene of potato leaf roll virus. The known function of this gene, whose existence was discovered only after US approval, is to inhibit the anti-pathogen defenses of its host (Pfeffer et al 2002). Fortunately, this potato variety was never actively marketed.

A further key point relates to the biotech industry and their campaign to secure public approval and a permissive regulatory environment. This has led them to repeatedly claim, firstly, that GMO technology is precise and predictable; and secondly, that their own competence and self-interest would prevent them from ever bringing potentially harmful products to the market; and thirdly, to assert that only well studied and fully understood transgenes are commercialized. It is hard to imagine a finding more damaging to these claims than the revelations surrounding Gene VI.

Biotechnology, it is often forgotten, is not just a technology. It is an experiment in the proposition that human institutions can perform adequate risk assessments on novel living organisms. Rather than treat that question as primarily a daunting scientific one, we should for now consider that the primary obstacle will be overcoming the much more mundane trap of human complacency and incompetence. We are not there yet, and therefore this incident will serve to reinforce the demands for GMO labeling in places where it is absent.

What Regulators Should Do Now
This summary of the scientific risk issues shows that a segment of a poorly characterized viral gene never subjected to any risk assessment (until now) was allowed onto the market. This gene is currently present in commercial crops and growing on a large scale. It is also widespread in the food supply.

Even now that EFSA’s own researchers have belatedly considered the risk issues, no one can say whether the public has been harmed, though harm appears a clear scientific possibility. Considered from the perspective of professional and scientific risk assessment, this situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure.

But the saga of Gene VI is not yet over. There is no certainty that further scientific analysis will resolve the remaining uncertainties, or provide reassurance. Future research may in fact increase the level of concern or uncertainty, and this is a possibility that regulators should weigh heavily in their deliberations.

To return to the original choices before EFSA, these were either to recall all CaMV 35S promoter-containing GMOs, or to perform a retrospective risk assessment. This retrospective risk assessment has now been carried out and the data clearly indicate a potential for significant harm. The only course of action consistent with protecting the public and respecting the science is for EFSA, and other jurisdictions, to order a total recall. This recall should also include GMOs containing the FMV promoter and its own overlapping Gene VI.

Deuce said:

Ignorant anti-science nonsense. Here's a specific example of genetic engineering: Bananas.

You know what also has unintended consequences?

Everything.

Click to expand...

Cut loose like a Deuce another troller in the night who's blinded by Reich...'Everything' is exactly what they want to effect...ultimate level of central control of the markets they profit from, not to mention controlling the genetics of the common gene pool as well as manipulating the evolution of such in intended or unintended ways...you know what also has unintended and intended consequences Deuce? Uninformed voters that help bring about springtime for Hitler...







IBM and the Holocaust - Home Page

On the book's release, Holocaust survivors filed suit against IBM for its alleged role in the Holocaust; Gypsies earlier this month threatened their own lawsuit.
Though the first suit was withdrawn and the second has yet to be filed, hundreds of critics and historians have weighed in against the company, with others coming to its defense. The range of the controversy can be gleaned from the pages of BusinessWeek alone, which in a March review excoriated the "illogical, overstated, padded, and sloppy" book for fostering "a new myth--the automated Holocaust," and in an April commentary said the "enlightening" book "should be required reading for every first-year MBA student."
At the heart of Black's argument is that information technology--in the form of IBM's Hollerith punch-card machines--provided the Nazis with a unique and critical tool in their task of cataloguing and dispatching their millions of victims.
As the book's title suggests, Black attempts to establish that IBM didn't merely vend its products to Hitler--as did many American companies--but maintained a strategic alliance with the Third Reich in which it licensed, maintained and custom-designed its products for use in the machinery of the Holocaust.



American supporters of the European Fascists
Bayer, Dupont etc...

American supporters of the European Fascists






3..2..1...the voters have spoken and the show must go on

DNAprotection said:

Ok so first on another post you incorrectly write that the proposal would ban all research and now your writing that the wording is not strong enough and full of loop holes?
lol...make up your mind...don't be like the squirrel who keeps running back and forth in indecision when a car is racing towards you...just pick a direction and run...
Seriously then, if its so get around-able then whats the problem?
You said your against banning and restriction so apparently this proposal according to you would be no problem to over come from Monsanto et al's perspective right?
Well then why be against it?

Click to expand...

Your intent was to ban genetic engineer, a fact not excused simply because you are too incompetent accomplish it in practice. I have been quite consistent in speaking out against both your motivations and your ignorance.

Why not give folks the opportunity to learn about the topic?
People assume much about this topic and I've noticed that usually such is incorrect, like Harry's notion of hybrids = GEO or Felix (who claims works in the field) lumping insects with 'animals' with regard to the laws in the USA...I could go on but it should be clear that folks have a lot to learn about this critical issue.

Click to expand...

You are the one who needs to learn about this issue. The giants holes in your bill don't require an expert to see, merely someone who is familiar with lower division college biology courses.

rathi said:

Your intent was to ban genetic engineer, a fact not excused simply because you are too incompetent accomplish it in practice. I have been quite consistent in speaking out against both your motivations and your ignorance.



You are the one who needs to learn about this issue. The giants holes in your bill don't require an expert to see, merely someone who is familiar with lower division college biology courses.

Click to expand...

Well then rathi, why keep me suspending in ignorance unless ye fears democracy? I pray do tell where the language should be improved?
Enlighten us all with the good manners to back up your words with action and explanation that reach further than shots in the dark at irrelevant ghost targets...show what you know...give us your known unknowns so we can all know that what we know is at least known.
So knock out some ballot measure wording for us so we can all make the most informed decisions possible rathi...I'm not joking, lets have it if the proposal is somehow in need of such?

Isaac Asimov
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

"In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants."
--Lewis Black

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
--James Bovard

"Our DNA is as a consumer company - for that individual customer who's voting thumbs up or thumbs down. That's who we think about. And we think that our job is to take responsibility for the complete user experience. And if it's not up to par, it's our fault, plain and simply."
Steve Jobs