GM seeds - who benefits?

[Sandman]

I have no problem with the idea of GM crops. Most of the arguments against them are based on ignorance rather than on knowledge.

I certainly disagree with the patent system that is applied to them. Research into GM foods should be publicly funded, and aimed at utilising the technology for the public good, rather than for coporate profit.

What is important to understand is that GM crops are the latest in a series of agricultural innovations that have been continuing since the dawn of the human race. It is those innovations that have kept the human race from falling into a Malthusian trap. They will be absolutely essential should population growth start to accelerate again.

The modified genes can only spread into natural relatives of plants used for crops, not into weeds or anything else. I don't really see the problem. If people remain scared, however, then it should be possible to use GM technology to make interbreeding impossible (or as unlikely as it is in nature).

The whole question of GM crops also fades into insignificance when we consider the very real possibility of GM humans. It's not a case of if, but when.

[Gibsie]

So if GM does benefit some people and also benefits the companies that make it should still be frowned upon?

And yes, of course, that's the sole benefit to GM technology. No others exist. OK.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Hunger isn't a production problem, it's a distribution problem. GM will change it, but only by making it worse, conentrating production into fewer hands. Remember, people starve not because they can't produce food, but because they can't buy it. Free food provided by 1st world countries is often stolen by armies or armed bands of thugs either to be used by themselves, sold for currency or simply to deny it to the group who which it was intended. GM won't fix any of this.

If GM increased production and reduces the price of grain, it makes it easier for people to buy food. Granted that wouldnt help war driven famines like Sudan, but it would help with presistent poverty driven hunger - (probably not as much as industrialization and higher wages would help)

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We produce more than enough food to meet our needs right now. If we stopped feeding food animals grain and let them eat grass and bugs instead, there'd be even more food avaialble (though less meat--but meat's a luxery, not a necessity).

The world human population is expected to level off at nine billion people, and then it will start falling if current birth rate trends continue.

GM FOODS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FEEDING THE WORLD. THEY ARE ONLY ABOUT FEEDING THE WALLETS OF AGRO-BUSINESS.

There is a good use to which GM foods could be put, reducing the total amount of crop area and returning large areas back to natural habitat. That's not gonna happen, however.

orange, if you're a grain buyer, you want prices to go down. Large producers also continue to profit, but lowered prices drive their smaller competiors out of business. Their farms can then be picked up for a song. It's all about consolidation.

I agree in principle, but GM allows us one interesting opportunity related to storage and distribution. Yes, we do produce enough food, pretty comfortable, but at the moment, it is getting it to the right places without it perishing. Some GM would allow us to store easily perishable foods for longer, which would be a good thing. It would be good to have more forest back, after all, we've lost enough of it.

Another important opportunity that is may offer is not for foodstuffs but for the synthesis of fuels...we should be aiming towards being able to produce all our fuel from crops for powering engines - ethanol or perhaps modify the crops to synthesise other appropriate fuelstuffs (perhaps a heavier alcohol would work pretty well). It is an opportunity we could explore, especially if we ever perfect the ability to generate novel enzymes and express them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


From what I've read, all the major seed houses have been purchased by companies like Monsanto, ADM, etc. I don't know about Europe. I suspect that importing seed from Europe would be prohibitively expensive for American farmers. I don't how much it would cost to import enough seed to start a seed company, but I suspect a lot, since you won't recoup your cost for at least a year (as you'd have to plant it and harvest it in order to make more seed for selling--otherwise you're just a middle man for European seed banks).

Well i guess you have to wait a year to recoup investment in the seed business whereever your initial seed comes from. Yeah theres a cost to capital, and a transport cost. But if farmers waqnt non-GM seeds,and the big companies have made it completely unavailable, that would likely mean enough of a premium price to make it a very lucrative business.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We produce more than enough food to meet our needs right now. If we stopped feeding food animals grain and let them eat grass and bugs instead, there'd be even more food avaialble (though less meat--but meat's a luxery, not a necessity).

DP

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We produce more than enough food to meet our needs right now. If we stopped feeding food animals grain and let them eat grass and bugs instead, there'd be even more food avaialble (though less meat--but meat's a luxery, not a necessity).

I'm not giving up my meat. I'm a carnivore and becoming more of one as I give up carbs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm not giving up my meat. I'm a carnivore and becoming more of one as I give up carbs.

Dude, I bought $50 worth of meat in the past few days (got my tax refund). I'm not saying this is a desireable situation, I'm just countering the fallacy that GM crops are needed to counter world hunger in the future.

Gibsie, if that's the sole benefit of GM technology, we can stop right now. Vitimin A enriched rice has already been developed (though I wonder what the energy requirements for growing this crop are).


I'm not opposed to GM technology. Far from it, I think it's a good thing in principle. What I disagree with is that it's not being used to benefit mankind but to enhance specific corporations.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If GM increased production and reduces the price of grain, it makes it easier for people to buy food. Granted that wouldnt help war driven famines like Sudan, but it would help with presistent poverty driven hunger - (probably not as much as industrialization and higher wages would help)

It doesn't make it easier on those who are already starving. They have no money in the first place, and what little they do get is often from farming - which is becoming less and less profitable with the advent of all these new agricultural technologies, especially for third-world farmers who still have to plow and harvest by hand.

[Az]

The genes.

Nobody knows what they would do, it could get us all into deep trouble.

1) the chance of a certain gene getting from one creature to another is as small with GMs as it is with any other species.
2) We know what genes do. They create proteins. We can check the impact those proteins do on humans.

What is your knowledge of biology, UR?

A general point: I have issues with the way that genetic engineering is used. I, however, disagree with all those who sweepingly condemn Genetic Modification for it's essense.

[chequita guevara]

Life forms aren't like computers, Azazel. Because we know how a gene will work in one organizism doesn't mean we know how it will work in another. That's why we test and test and test.

[orange]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
orange, if you're a grain buyer, you want prices to go down.

Well no ****. The point I'm making is that this isn't desirable for most producers.

Large producers also continue to profit, but lowered prices drive their smaller competiors out of business. Their farms can then be picked up for a song. It's all about consolidation.

Exactly.

[Az]

It doesn't make it easier on those who are already starving. They have no money in the first place, and what little they do get is often from farming - which is becoming less and less profitable with the advent of all these new agricultural technologies, especially for third-world farmers who still have to plow and harvest by hand.

If that would be the case, BioTech companies are hardly the bad guy here. They're just introducing a product. Can you say that ford is a bad guy for making the car and harming carriage drivers' living?

The problem is the system. Blaming any individual player is illogical, because no one player can change it by itself, unless it can create a closed system.( like the soviet union.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel

If that would be the case, BioTech companies are hardly the bad guy here. They're just introducing a product. Can you say that ford is a bad guy for making the car and harming carriage drivers' living?

The problem is the system. Blaming any individual player is illogical, because no one player can change it by itself, unless it can create a closed system.( like the soviet union.)

what hes saying is that GM grains do not reduce starvation, since people who are starving have NO money, so a reduction in grain prices brings them no benefit. Now one could argue that a reduction in grain prices is a good thing anyway - there are a lot of poor non-starving people who have SOME but little money, and whose standard of living would be improved - but then we would also have to look at the social disruptions increases in grain yields and lower prices have on marginal grain producers, etc. And in the context of fears of ecological damage, well the case might not look open and shut. Certainly not as much as it does when we are talking about saving human lives.

A fuller understanding of the issue would require a fuller understanding of world hunger - how much is caused by war related distribution problems, how much by droughts that starve subsistence farmers (who would not benefit from lower grain prices) and how much impacts low wage workers not in the grain business - urban populations, rural workers in coffee, tea, cocoa, etc. IE how much of a hunger benefit is there from lower grain prices?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


It doesn't make it easier on those who are already starving. They have no money in the first place, and what little they do get is often from farming - which is becoming less and less profitable with the advent of all these new agricultural technologies, especially for third-world farmers who still have to plow and harvest by hand.

So when the IMF pressures governments to reduce or eliminate bread subsidies, this does not cause hunger???

[Az]

Life forms aren't like computers, Azazel. Because we know how a gene will work in one organizism doesn't mean we know how it will work in another. That's why we test and test and test.

we do know that pretty much. the transcription mechanism is pretty much the same in all eukariotic species, although transcription in different occasions, but that also varies from tissue to tissue in the same organism as well ( the so-called unactive genes). The same mRNA is created, and thus, the same protein is created.

if I am mistaken somewhere, I am sure Provost will correct me.

[chequita guevara]

lotm's on the mark.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Azazel

we do know that pretty much. the transcription mechanism is pretty much the same in all eukariotic species, although transcription in different occasions, but that also varies from tissue to tissue in the same organism as well ( the so-called unactive genes). The same mRNA is created, and thus, the same protein is created.

if I am mistaken somewhere, I am sure Provost will correct me.

Yeah, the genome is essentially the same between different types of cells, but the expression pattern is completely different which affects the nature of the cell produced and thus the histology of the tissue. And yes, one organism should be able to transcribe the gene, but the issue comes about in the correct expression: what cell do you want the gene to be switched on in? Where do you want the protein product to be localised to? It's trickier than just sticking a gene in and expressing it...the devil is in the detail after all...

[Az]

first of all, I must admit that I am not quite knowledgeable on the exact technique of transgenic engineering in plants.

of course, the switching of the gene is an issue, but the gene can be either activated or not acitivated. the protein will remain the same. thus, if the protein itself is not harmful to humans, while in the original species, It will remain harmless if produces by a plant.

The other part is the influence the protein may have on the biochemistry of the target tissue/organism, and whether it is actually localized to a certain tissue. as we both already said.
In theory this can be checked fairly easily as well, through the master key genes system, or any parallel system the plant world has, by checking the way genes are trasncripted in different tissues, and using the same code to isolate the transcription of this gene to a certain tissue.

But when the GM organism is ready, We can already see all the effects. Either they're bad -> back to the drawing board. or they're good -> Let's make more of this baby.

Of course, all this sounds very easy on paper.... but some parts, esp. the specification of the expression of genes in certain tissues... well, there is plenty more work to be done in standartising the working process. If this is achieved, however, we can churn out GMs in enormous numbers, even assuring genetic variety, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
lotm's on the mark.

Thank you.

I also thank you for refocusing me and all of us on the issue of world hunger.

[Az]

oh, lotm, I know what he said, but then he shouldn't go and blaim the Biotechs.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, an easy way to stop grain from going towards meat would simply be to mandate that animals can't be fed grain. This, however, would cause the price of grain to collapse, since it's major market would vanish (more grain goes to feeding animals than humans). It would probably also kill the meat market, as grass feed meat isn't very flavorful.

Not sure about that. Aussie and Kiwi beef isn't half bad, and I am quite sure they much on grass only.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
we do know that pretty much. the transcription mechanism is pretty much the same in all eukariotic species, although transcription in different occasions, but that also varies from tissue to tissue in the same organism as well ( the so-called unactive genes). The same mRNA is created, and thus, the same protein is created.

if I am mistaken somewhere, I am sure Provost will correct me.

It's not that simple. If you have a gene in a GM plant, you know exactly where it is. However, if it is somehow spliced into another species via actions of insects or becteria, for example, there's no telling where the gene will go.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
what hes saying is that GM grains do not reduce starvation, since people who are starving have NO money, so a reduction in grain prices brings them no benefit. Now one could argue that a reduction in grain prices is a good thing anyway - there are a lot of poor non-starving people who have SOME but little money, and whose standard of living would be improved - but then we would also have to look at the social disruptions increases in grain yields and lower prices have on marginal grain producers, etc. And in the context of fears of ecological damage, well the case might not look open and shut. Certainly not as much as it does when we are talking about saving human lives.

It's worse. Most of the Third World are agrarian, and these farmers plant food crops. When food prices drop, they are driven out of business, and these countries will be forced to import more food, when the money could go toward education or infrastructure before. So GM crops will only help to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few.

[Az]

It's not that simple. If you have a gene in a GM plant, you know exactly where it is. However, if it is somehow spliced into another species via actions of insects or becteria, for example, there's no telling where the gene will go.

The chances of that are not higher than for a gene coming from a regular source.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It's worse. Most of the Third World are agrarian, and these farmers plant food crops. When food prices drop, they are driven out of business, and these countries will be forced to import more food, when the money could go toward education or infrastructure before. So GM crops will only help to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few.

If they're subsistence farmers then low food prices cant drive them out of business. Food prioces only hurt farmers if they are producing for the market. Theyre certainly not producing for first world markets, since no basic food products (i exclude items like coffee, bananas, and sugar) are imported by the 1sr world from the 3rd world. So you are presumbly talking about 3rd world farmers seling food to 3rd world non-farmers (or at least non food producers) in which case the farmers are hurt, but the non-farmers benefit.

Again if low food prices are always a bad thing for 3rd world people, why the protests when the IMF presses 3rd world govts to drop food price controls and subsidies????