Golgot must be thrilled

[Yoda]

Largest ever study finds GM crops 'harm wildlife' (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ft/20031016/bs_ft/1059480630806)

Don't party yet, Gol. There's a "but" to consider:

However, the trials yielded a mixed message, with some groups of wildlife faring better in fields sown with genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant maize.
Anyway, thought you might dig the article, regardless. I know this is your pet political issue. ;D

[Golgot]

Largest ever study finds GM crops 'harm wildlife' (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ft/20031016/bs_ft/1059480630806)

Don't party yet, Gol. There's a "but" to consider:


Anyway, thought you might dig the article, regardless. I know this is your pet political issue. ;D

Heheheh, cheers for that your Yodness. There are many buts to consider, tho i'm fascinated by this argument about complete-removal of pests/weeds being a misguided aim in the first place now entering the official/political literature [EDIT - so o'course, when they didn't attempt to reduce pest numbers, they faired better than destructive "intensive" farming on the wildlife front. I wonder if they compared with organics? They normally don't. Anyways, looking into it....]

Anyway - good to see some test results coming in. Now if only they'd do some tests on human health issues (i.e. if only the biotechs would) - and indeed, if only they'd adopt the precautionary approach (i.e. put the burden of proof on prooving their efficacy and safety - rather than putting it on proving they're dangerous etc). As it is this should help at least slow down attempts by pro-GM countries to force others to adopt this technology, with all of its associated problems.

I'm quite happy to see Monsanto pulling out of europe, as they are currently. I'd like to see research continue in Britain - but as things stand i really don't want to see this stuff grown here commercially - let alone consumed (tho of course GM animal-feed is already being used illegally as well accidentally by some).

Bah, enough - so much to say- but i'm at work. And nobody'd read it anyway ;)

What's the bluesky tho you might ask? I'll tell ya. Organic baby, organic. Holistic, adaptive, and hell, proven to be efficient too in many areas (and that's the point - you need to adapt to each ecosystem). If anything, on a pesticide/herbicide level, "intensive" farming is worse than GM (it just doesn't have the potential to mutate us or our environment - other than through the known carcinogenic properties of many of those naughty chemicals it relies on).

So, to get chant-y (squeezed into the tune of Floyd's "the wall" -or whatever it's called ;)),
"We don't need no butter mountains,
no subsidised death for free-trade debters,
just bring on organic farming,
Hey! Test it! But leave those crops alone!"

(cheesy, but good god, it's time we wised up, and treated our food chain with some respect. DNA is not "just DNA" when put into novel contexts. And quicker-and-more isn't always better)

[Sexy Celebrity]

Wow, Golgot's reached over 1,000 posts. I wish I could understand one of them.

[Sexy Celebrity]

There are many buts to consider

You hear the same thing going into a gay nightclub.

[Golgot]

Wow, Golgot's reached over 1,000 posts. I wish I could understand one of them.

if we did word-count i'd be king of long-winded insensibility :)

[Nikki]

Can you answer a question in 5 words or less?............... :rolleyes:

[Golgot]

Can you answer a question in 5 words or less?............... :rolleyes:

Yes :)

[Nikki]

:rolleyes: ........not often I suspect.......

I bet this is the first time........ :rolleyes:

[Sexy Celebrity]

Oooohhhh... he showed her.

[Golgot]

In contrast, there were more weeds in and around the GM herbicide-tolerant maize crops, more butterflies and bees around at certain times of the year, and more weed seeds - an important source of food for birds.

Researchers stressed that the differences they found were not a direct result of the way in which the crops had been genetically modified. They arose because the GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trials new options for weed control.

...

The UK trials were carried out over a three-year period using only herbicide-tolerant GM crops, not those bred to be insect-resistant. The conclusions over GM maize may be affected by the proposed European ban on atrazine, the weedkiller, which was used extensively in the experiment.

So again, this suggests that the comparison was made with "industrial" farming techniques [not Organic] - which do indeed wipe out ridiculous numbers of flora and fauna (and of course involve removing the hedgrerows which provide living conditions for bird and insect pest-predators - just so they can have more space and be more efficient - duh :rolleyes: )

The interesting points here are:

-the fact that atrazine was used on the "Conventional" (read "intensivley-farmed") crops means the apparently beneficial study is rendered useless from the start (i believe atrazine has been found to be highly carcinogenic - along with so many pest/herbicides, hence it's recent banning). Not only does this mean that a new trial is necessary, which in turn will need re-doing afterwards to be thorough, it also shows that GM is ONLY being compared to "intensive" techniques. It would be no surprise if Organic techniques promoted even more beneficial biodivirsity in comparison to these two.

-Note that there's also a potential problem with maize and Monsanto's patented Roundup spray (they'll "own" the world's food supplies potentially if they get their way y'know - not good. Feel like paying for what ole mother-nature provides for free [and not so drastically unstably as these science-god-crops tend to be]? Not me.)

This latter problem, not yet conclusive, is a huge shame if true, as Roundup is indeed far "eco-friendlier" than most sprays. (it just comes with a company-dependancy price-tag as it were. you have to be Monsanto's bitch to use it ;))

...

Still - i'm still sick of the spin - GM crops at the moment cannot in anyway fix even half the probs they claim they can. The hunger problem claims for example (whose main cause is economic anyway - AND notice that all their attempts so far have either failed or been worse than natural alternatives). If they do acheive good ends, their properties seem more likely to cross-pollinate and spread than even non-GM-altered herbicide-resistant plants. And the safety and stability of GE processes have never been examined in any depth by the biotechs. Everyone outside the industry says they're unstable (and things like Dolly's "unravelling" back this up). Overall, where's the benefit?

And as for intensive farming? It's killing 3rd world farmers in huge droves, especially due to highly dangerous sprays that are banned in the US/Europe, but which we happily sell over there (to illiterate, often barefoot, farmers who can't read the warnings that they must use small amounts and protective-body-suits). Other variants are killing people and mutating births in the first world too - but there you go.

[Golgot]

:rolleyes: ........not often I suspect.......

I bet this is the first time........ :rolleyes:

*sigh* just coz i'm a thorough ranter ;)

I've got at least 5 posts to my name with less than five words in them -
The rest all come with extra added free of charge :)

[Nikki]

*sigh* just coz i'm a thorough ranter ;)

I've got at least 5 posts to my name with less than five words in them -
The rest all come with extra added free of charge :)

I bet those posts are in the games section......*sigh*

[Golgot]

I bet those posts are in the games section......*sigh*

Nope (2 are here now ;))

[Golgot]

I'll let someone else do the talking ;)

Here's a nice mini summary of how things stand at the mo:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1066174,00.html

-GM superweeds all over Canada (and probably US too - but no one's checking :rolleyes: )

-incidences of food-related illness have doubled since GMO's introduction to US's food chain.

-insurance companies in Britain refuse to protect GM farmers, and have compared GM to thalidomide, asbestos and even terrorism!

-even without industry investigation into health issues multiple potential problems have been identified already: antibiotic gut bacteria resistance, heightened oestrogen in GM baby-foods (connected to the startling increase in age of puberty onset in girls - a phenomenon which brings a greatly increased probability of brest cancer)

And on and on and on. [anyone who wants to know about other risks, just ask and i'll provide ;)]

Oh yes, and the field-trials did compare GM crops to atrazine-treated intensively-farmed crops in the case of maize. Atrazine is now illegal - the comparison is invalid - and in Canada alone we know that MORE damaging sprays are being used, thanks to superweeds, rather than less.

DEMAND LABELLING NOW. AND THEN DEMAND HEALTH-INVESTIGATIONS. It's the industry's duty to demonstrate safety - not the consumer's to demonstrate danger. We need a precautionary approach with novel products. Non-biotech scientists recognise the dangers. Biotech scientists don't. Anyone surprised?

[Golgot]

Thought i'd just add this link here. Just an example of the type of evidence that means the biotechs are back to square one again on all their claims - especially this recent "but....."

http://www.pan-uk.org/press/GMtrial.htm

i.e. even their claims to be better than "intensive"/pesticide-n-herbicide-heavy farming are off the mark. In almost all cases they're either using comparable amounts of dangerous chemicals or the "product" just doesn't work in the first place - or it works too "efficiently" and exposes the idiocy and counter-productiveness of its design.

Thanks for the thread Yods - but i think i'll go re-inhabit my old ranting ground ( "GM is dangerous but how right are the Greens" for anyone interested ;))

Plenty more info to come once my computer gets up and running again.

:partying-smilie: [tho a sedate party til some genuine attempts are made to investigate-fully and regulate the genuine down-sides of these "novel" products]