Sacramento Protest WTO meeting to push GMO foods

It's almost humorous, but just almost.

What is it that Americans can't, won't, or will not understand about the real dangers of GMO "food" products?

1. Gene Modified "food" products are proprietary - this means a farmer's "products" belong to a corporate entity and NOT the farmer.

2. Pollen does not respect property lines - It is entirely possible for a field two counties away to become "genetically contaminated". This could also create a liability refered to in '1' above.

3. A crop disease could in theory completely wipe-out an entire species of crop. Imagine - a 'blight' infecting all forms of corn, and causing corn to completely disappear within two to five years.

4. There no longer exists a possibility to track allergens if rat genes are placed into apples, or pork genes in soy.

There are so many more reasons, but I think this is a good beginning...

The world is aware of the dangers - and doesn't want GMO "foods", why should America?

1. Gene Modified "food" products are proprietary - this means a farmer's "products" belong to a corporate entity and NOT the farmer.

What? The farmer who grows bt-corn doesn't own the corn after he grows it? Of course he doesn't own the intellectual property related to the product. But the farmer also doesn't own the intellectual property of the natural corn. What are you talking about?


2. Pollen does not respect property lines - It is entirely possible for a field two counties away to become "genetically contaminated". This could also create a liability refered to in '1' above.

That's why GMO products use "terminator seeds". They don't sexually reproduce.


3. A crop disease could in theory completely wipe-out an entire species of crop. Imagine - a 'blight' infecting all forms of corn, and causing corn to completely disappear within two to five years.

Wrong. Genetics 101: lethal genes do not spread through populations.


4. There no longer exists a possibility to track allergens if rat genes are placed into apples, or pork genes in soy.

What?

regarding criticism of point 3.

A technique in wildlife management for reducing numbers of outbreaking insects that people deem negative such as mosquitoes or moths is for managers to breed many sterile males and release them into the population. This temporarily increases the total number of insects, but will cause the population to crash in the next generation after the females that mated with the sterile males lay eggs that don't hatch. This is the same idea behind neutering feral cats and raccoons but not killing them off.
With regards to agricultural plants, it would really be context dependent for which type of plant it is, what the mechanism of 'termination' would be, and whether it is inserted into an autosomal or mitochondrial/chloroplast gene. The mitochondrion is a very conserved genome and transcription functions differently than in autosomal chromosomes. It is very difficult to insert a gene in any plant genome and have it function, - if any protein is to be transcribed, then the promoter for the gene etc. would also have to function. If 'termination' just involves blocking transcription of another gene, it could be easier.
But in any case, if the termination gene is carried in the male pollen, the pollen could potentially be carried to normal fields of corn. Corn is one of the only crops that is almost always from a hybrid strain. If a specific strain is bred among it's own group, it usually develops a lot of undesirable inbred traits very quickly (contrasting with many other agricultural crops) - so typically farmers don't just save a fraction of the crop for next year's seed like they might with potatoes or something, but rather will develop specific hybrid fields for purposes of getting seeds for next year. Apple seeds usually produce trees with undesirable crab apples

point 1. I read Monsanto required the farmers to sign contracts that the crop seeds belong to Monsanto only. There've been cases in which some farmers gathered and saved the crop seeds were arrested and prosecuted. Comment 1 by Hungry seems valid.

I agree that Hungry's first point is a valid one. Monsanto and other companies are now able to patent certain genetic structures, and so can and have filed suit against those who intentionally or accidentally grow genetically engineered crops on thier land. These law suits are proof of the monitary basis (rather than charity basis) of much of the genetic engineering taking place.

If genetically engineered foods become the norm and the patent system stayed in place, then growing plants in your back yard from food waste could become akin to bootlegging. Gardening and composting without licence and inspection could become illict pursuits.

My point, my intention is to say that the only motivation for patenting genetic structures is greed; as a scientist who will never make enough money to live "comfortably" I say let then have their veggies and plant them too.

That is a little paranoid dont you think?
maybe you just want to ban terminator genes. I guess that might be a good idea. I mean we dont have terminator genes on software do we..sure it is hard to enforce and there is pirating but the industry still works.

"These law suits are proof of the monitary basis (rather than charity basis) of much of the genetic engineering taking place."

Aside from a few exceptions (notably, Golden Rice), of course for-profit companies develop GE products in order to make money. Why would a for-profit company invest scarce resources into a product and give it away for charity? That makes no sense. Charities do charity. Businesses make profits.

. Gene Modified "food" products are proprietary - this means a farmer's "products" belong to a corporate entity and NOT the farmer.

if this is the case, then "all work dome on computers" will be the property if ether I.B.M. or Apple computer who hold the patents for the designs.

silly arguement...... that has no merit

Aren't there other ways to generate profits rather than coming up with such elaborate schemes of implanting terminator gene, prohibiting farmers from harvesting the crop seeds.

None of these companies invented life itself. They're only tweaking with the genetic code and put in some self-destruct mechanism. This itself, to me, violates the natural evolution process. It doesn't make sense to me. Putting in a self-destruct mechanism in any life form for profits scares me. It's a life form, and NOT a death form.

Lawsuit in U.S.A. Uncovers Disagreement
Within FDA Over Safety of Biotech Foods


Agency Contradicted Own Experts in Approving Genetically Engineered Foods
-- Misrepresented Facts in Order to Promote U.S. Biotech Industry


Statement by Steven M. Druker, J.D., executive director of the Alliance
for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain
mandatory safety testing and labeling of gene-spliced foods, and an
attorney on the case (in collaboration with the Legal Department of the
Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C.).


In May 1998, a coalition of public interest groups, scientists, and
religious leaders filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of all
genetically engineered foods (Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et. al. v.
Shalala). Nine eminent life scientists joined the coalition in order to
emphasize the degree to which they think FDA policy is scientifically
unsound and morally irresponsible. Now, the FDA's own files confirm how
well-founded are their concerns. The FDA was required to deliver copies
of these files--totalling over 44,000 pages--to the plaintiffs'
attorneys.


False Claims and a Policy at Odds with the Law


The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be
safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while
claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal
reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly
cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail
different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and
(2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who
crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the
same as natural ones.


Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based,
this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without
testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by
qualified experts.


FDA Scientists Protest Attempt to Equate Genetic Engineering with
Conventional Breeding


The FDA admits it is operating under a directive "to foster" the U.S.
biotech industry; and this directive advocates the premise that
bioengineered foods are essentially the same as others. However, the
agency's attempts to bend its policy to conform with this premise met
strong resistance from its own scientists, who repeatedly warned that
genetic engineering differs from conventional practices and entails a
unique set of risks. Numerous agency experts protested that drafts of the
Statement of Policy were ignoring the recognized potential for
bioengineering to produce unexpected toxins and allergens in a different
manner and to a different degree than do conventional methods.


According to Dr. Louis Priybl of the FDA Microbiology Group, "There is a
profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from
traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over
in this document." He added that several aspects of gene splicing "...may
be more hazardous."


Dr. Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, objected that the agency was
"...trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ... [by] trying to force
an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified
by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding
practices." She said: "The processes of genetic engineering and
traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical
experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."


Moreover, Dr. Jim Maryanski, the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator,
acknowledged there is no consensus about the safety of genetically
engineered foods in the scientific community at large, and FDA scientists
advised they should undergo special testing, including toxicological
tests.


Misrepresenting the Facts in Order to Approve the Foods


Nonetheless, so strong was the FDA's motivation to promote the biotech
industry that it not only disregarded the warnings of its own scientists
about the unique risks of gene-spliced foods, it dismissed them and took
a public position that was the opposite. Its official policy asserts:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by
these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform
way...." Thus, although agency experts advised that genetically
engineered foods should be subjected to special testing, the bureaucrats
in charge of the policy proclaimed these foods require no testing at all.


Violating Federal Law


Besides violating basic canons of ethics, the FDA's behavior flagrantly
violates the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which mandates that new
food additives be established safe through testing prior to marketing.
While the FDA admits that bioengineered organisms fall under this
provision, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are
"generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), even though it knows they are not
recognized as safe even by its own scientists let alone by a consensus in
the scientific community.


Further, the statute prescribes that additives like those in
bioengineered foods can only be recognized as safe on the basis of tests
that have established their harmlessness. But no such tests exist for
gene-spliced foods. So, although the GRAS exemption was intended to
permit
marketing of substances whose safety has already been demonstrated
through
testing, the FDA is using it to circumvent testing and to approve
substances based largely on conjecture--conjecture that is dubious in the
eyes of its own and many other experts.

Where's the source of the info posted? Web site(s) available?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22FDA+Over+Safety+of+Biotech+Foods%22

That was on the FDA website in PDF format along with a few other studies about possible dangers from GM foods

The original pdf is no longer at the original link, but is is Google cached:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I5B132A25


There still is an rtf document on the FDA site at:

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/00/apr00/042700/emc0108.rtf

For a list of articles on this topic on the FDA's website:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1C152A25

We all must become informed voters and consumers nowdays. There're just too many irresponsible characters in our society whose purpose in life is to make as many quick bucks possible without a care for anyone else.

"Putting in a self-destruct mechanism in any life form for profits scares me. It's a life form, and NOT a death form."

- music for example has pirates and they supply most of the world it seems. So if the GE companies abuse their power they can expect piracy to be rampant and for governments to just not bother to enforce laws.

Oh well fuck em I got some great footage of these pigs to go with my other footage of inglewood pigs and placer county pigs.

My city has lots of stupid violent criminals in it. I'm glad when pigs are around with a visible presense to remind them to act civilized.

Some of them ARE pigs.