Image: Matt Collins
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Advances in agricultural technology—including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops—have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech companies plan to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”
It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.
Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech’s successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too important to keep locked behind closed doors.
See what we're tweeting about
44 Comments
Add CommentI read recently in a Celiac website that the incidence of gluten intolerance increased rapidly from1998 - 2000, coincidentally with the flooding of the market with GMO wheat. I myself became horribly intolerant of any wheat products right around then. The "new wheat" has twice as much gluten as the original. I wonder if it is harder to digest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also noticed that I do not have an allergic reaction to French Brie, yet all American cheeses make me ill quickly....
I also notice that seedless watermelons can be purchased as "organic". If they don't have replicable seeds, they must be GMO. How can they be "organic"?
I saw Food, Inc, the new indi movie about the mass production of cattle, chicken and pigs and their feed: GMO soy and corn. One of the spokespersons on the movie said they owned 80% of the soy seed market and intended to own 100%.
I am afraid we have passed the tipping point in the US when it comes to having any say with our food. Wow. How do you fight patents, contamination of original seeds, and "food safety" laws that make it illegal to save your own seeds without a new million dollar machine?
I suggest everyone read EVERY WORD of the "food safety" laws that are soon to be passed. I was born a farmer and it gives me the willies.
Without extensive independent research on GM foods on how they impact human health and the environment, the distinct possibility exists that we're setting ourselves up for significant and potentially irreversible problems down the line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo keep the mainstream in check, we get slick multimillion dollar advertising campaigns from company's like Monsanto claiming they have the solution to feed the estimated 9 billion people expected on the planet in the not to distant future, among other claims. Who cares if these claims have not been independently verified. Who cares if the Union of Concerned Scientists have released a report on GM crop yields debunking industry claims of significant yield improvements:
"Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields."
The ongoing debate is not about stopping public relations (PR) efforts by these companies. Companies market products and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Nor is it about whether I or anyone else thinks GM foods are good or bad. Making such claims today are mostly opinion, since independent research is not available to properly inform discussions.
The debate needs to be about how our regulatory structure has sold out to industry, which is represented by a highly concentrated, centralized power structure that controls our conventional food system. It needs to be about holding the food system and our government accountable. Most important, it needs to demand companies and the government do what is right, just and fair.
The World produces enough cereals to feed everyone without needing any GM crops. This is because to produce 1 kilo of beef requires 50 kilos of cereals plus soya. So if everyone individually decided to eat less beef and dairy products, we could feed the 976,000,000 people actually starving, plus the second billion living in abject poverty. Moreover, if we only grew barley instead of wheat, we would reduce energy inputs by 50%... What we need is a war on waste...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe must have the ability to do independent research on food crops; there is so much at stake for it to be purely in the control of industry. Proprietary information notwithstanding, the information on our food supply must be unbiased, and I doubt that an entity with big financial stakes will want to publish any unfavorable data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne correction, however - a seedless watermelon is the product of two incompatible parent plants. No genetic modification required!
Currently there are no genetically modified wheat strains on the market. This is expected to change in the near term. Monsanto recently purchased one of the larger seed companies specializing in wheat. Several GM varieties are reported in test plots in Australia and the National Association of Wheat Growers is actively lobbying for introduction of GM wheat strains. The reason farmers want this is the ease of weed control and potential disease and insect resistance that can be obtained with genetic manipulation. Once GM strains are introduced there will be no effective way to prevent cross pollination with non GM strains as wheat is an open pollinated crop. All of this is taking place with only very limited and approved research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the Scientific American editors don't mention is the entomologists who complained, have literally put their careers on the line. If they are refused approval to do research on GMO crops in the future, by the companies, their careers are over. They have tremendous integrity and should be recognized for their courage.
For another report on corporate limitations placed on researchers, go to Ag Professional magazine, a trade publication for full service agricultural retailers. I had the privilege of writing Biotech Industry in a Quandary Over Research Rights (www.agprofessional.com/show_story.php?id=58449). It is the first in a three part series looking at the GM research restraint controversy and potential impact.
Beef only requires all that cereal because it's being improperly fed. Cattle are ruminants, and should not eat grains. It disrupts their digestive and immune systems (and makes them fat, which is the purpose). As a result, they must be given antibiotics to keep them from dying. They are also fed bovine growth hormone to make them unnaturally large, all in the name of profit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWatch "Food Inc." and "Fresh - the Movie" for details. It is alleged that 70 percent of US land in cultivation for "row crops" such as corn and grains are dedicated to cattle feed. If you returned that land to pasture and allowed cattle to eat their natural diet of grass and wild vegetation, the cattle, and the people, would be healthier, and the use of energy for beef production would be slashed to the bone.
Everyone needs to know what corporate farming has done to our food supply: It has made it costly, unhealthy, unstable and vulnerable to natural and man-made disasters of all sorts. Mad cow disease, anthrax, salmonella, e. coli and many other biological threats can virtually wipe out an entire segment of our food supply without warning, because of the tremendous overcrowding of same-species animals.
I am an old cynic who, a year ago, would have made comments similar to yours. I now eat only grass-fed beef, pork and lamb and free-range chicken because I refuse to feed the corporate food machine while risking my health.
I abhor government in general, but this is one of those rare cases in which I believe the Congress should explicitly outlaw such user agreements as these companies have inflicted upon us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo individual or organization has the resources to pursue this issue through the courts against a behemoth like Monsanto, nor do I harbor the fantasy that Congress has the moral or intestinal fortitude to countermand these corporate criminals, but countermanded they must be.
The only way to do that is for enough Americans to become aware of the monster they have allowed to thrive and stop feeding it. Stop buying, eating and using any and all things associated with these criminal enterprises until they collapse of their own weight. This is the free-market solution, but it must begin with education and awareness. The movies, Food Inc. and Fresh, are a great beginning. I strongly recommend everyone watch them and promote them.
I want to thank the editors of Scientific American for this cogent comment, and the posters here for theirs. This is an extremely important issue, and deserves wider coverage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for recommendations, I would like to add Jeffrey Smith's book 'Seeds of Deception', and his ongoing coverage of the issue.
It's time for the people to take their world back from the corporations. For very democracy is at stake.
A Seedy Practice is the better title, imo. We've been covering this issue at various blogger sites (foodfreedom.wordpress, farmwars.info, ppjg.wordpress, etc.). I am thrilled to see a reputable rag like Sci-Am cover this issue. This speaks volumes for your credibility to plainfolk. Makes me wanna subscribe, now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: Celiac disease connection. It would be awfully hard for GMO wheat to be the cause of a rise in celiac's disease, considering that there is no such wheat on the market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the Union of Concerned Scientists report "Failure to Yield" only looked at two traits in two crops, and in one of them, they actually attributed 20% of the yield gain in the last 10 years to the genetically engineered trait. (Bt corn) The author of the report has tried to explain why they excluded Canola and Cotton, which have also had yield gains, and his explanation was that they just aren't grown on enough acres. When you narrow the field of vision only to what you want to see, you're little better than blind.
Personally, I would like to see more researchers able to do independent research on GE crops. It's not just about environmental impact, safety, etc, but there are many genetic reasons why this would be a good thing. What traits in other varieties of corn might make the Bt gene more effective against pests? What genes might affect it in the opposite way? University research often focuses on these kinds of questions that don't directly involve producing a product to sell, so it is possible that the seed companies might be shooting themselves in the foot by being less open.
I started a group blog about genetic engineering and the genetics of plants at http://www.biofortified.org if anyone is interested.
I am a law professor at American University in Cairo and doing research on censorship of environmental information. One of the sources that I found said that a survey of Cornell Ag faculty members quoted 40% of them as afraid to even comment honestly on GMO crops because their careers would be damaged. And, in fact, there are many verifiable horror stories in the academic world where researchers who published, or found results to the contrary of the funding sources in their department were virtually destroyed. There's a famous example that occurred at Berkeley when one of my students was working in the lab there. The current situation re credibility of scientific information of all kinds is tragic. The privatization of public university funding is a disaster for public well being. And the supposedly respected scientific journals have compromised themselves past any belief in their published results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may be a statistical problem in regards to Canola and Cotton: if they aren't grown on enough acres then there may not be sufficient statistical power to make a conclusion if the yields are not different. There are several reasons why one would a priori hypothesize that these genetic modifications are harmful to the ecosystem, and I would not be surprised if BT plants are part of the reason for bee colony collapse disorder, and secondarily bat population decrease. If they pollinate these insect repellent/killing plants, their immune systems may be compromised. Additionally, one must wonder how much roundup we are ingesting in our food supply because of how ubiquitous soy is in our food stuffs. How much roundup-ready soy is in these subsequent products?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMexican farmers produce about 22 million metric tons of corn annually on 9 million hectares, while national consumption is about 33 million tons. The Mexican government has been enticed to adopt genetically modified corn (GMC) by seed multinationals led by Monsanto, as the magic bullet to solve the problem of underproduction. Little if any consideration has been paid by the Mexican government and the multinationals to the fact that a) Mexico is the center of origin and of maximum world genetic diversity of corn or b) available non transgenic technology can push production to corn self-sufficiency. The unchallenged assumption that “coexistence between native landraces of maize and GMC is possible” has so far sufficed to get the go ahead from Mexican authorities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmall farmers - with less than 5 hectares each− plant seventy-five percent of farmland planted to corn with native seeds that they produce themselves. A huge genetic diversity of maize is involved in this operation, since more than 59 native races developed by previous generations of farmers make up the collective maize genetic pool. Seeds of the same native race and farmer community are normally interchanged, while a few ears brought from distant places are mixed at the farm level with farmers’ seed and planted together, in order to add new and desired characters through crosspollination-selection. Women are involved in selecting the seed to be planted the following year from the family granary. As this process of autochthonous maize breeding has progressed over more than 330 generations of Mesoamerican farmers, new diversity has been added and fixed in more than 59 native races of maize. This in vivo diversity can hardly be matched by either in situ or ex situ (seed banks) conservation.
It is common place that recombinant DNA technology cannot control the site of transgene insertion in the chromosome space, with the result that the more than the 49 independent transgenic events available worldwide are scattered throughout the chromosomes of maize. This makes it theoretically possible that the 49 transgenes may be accumulated into a single plant through cross-pollination, with unknown effects on its biology. This fact plus active autochthonous maize breeding may produce an irreversible accumulation of transgenes in Mexican native maize with unknown effects on its genetic diversity.
seedless watermelons are hybrid, not gmo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome thoughts and questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs or is there not a regulatory mechanism, laws, in the United States to name, specify and limit the control that companies and corporations may or may not exert over their own products when these products impinge upon public health and well being? Or is it that certain companies and corporations are indeed their own watchdogs and regulatory bodies?
Is it at all ethical, should it be at all permissible that the food supply of an entire nation, or a food crop basic to the planet's food supply, should be left into the hands of food corporations to be tampered with, modified or in any way changed by those corporations free from outside third party supervision, testing, research, scientific monitoring and regulation?
Are seeds, crops or the information contained in seeds and crops subject to being declared 'property' by anyone? Is the information derived from research on seeds and crops the 'intellectual property' of the labs and corporations doing or sponsoring such research? At present this is indeed the case. Which only demonstrates and proves how very lost we humans are!
There is NO SUCH INTELLECTUAL OR ANY OTHER KIND OF
'PROPERTY' regardless of who says or maintains what, regardless of our misguided laws. The thinking that conceived such irrationalities and abominations needs be abolished. The thinking that renders such irrationalities and abominations valid and legally binding is not only untenable and unacceptable, but it is as deadly as the thought that validates and permits genocide.
That upon which life depends, that which nurtures life on earth--the life of any living being, be it plant, animal or human, is NOT and can never be made subject to anyone's property. Nor is information or knowledge gained or derived from research done on seeds, crops, or any substance that nurtures and sustains life ever be, be considered, or be made anyone's property, intellectual or otherwise.
That which nurtures life, that which is food to any organism--the plants and animals that feed and are fed upon by other plants and animals--and the knowledge derived from studies, research, investigations done on them by anyone for any purpose --all this is Nature's property. Not ours. Not any corporation's, not any entity's, not anyone's.
To think, say or allow laws to maintain the contrary is but a statement of how lost we are, how alienated from the very nature of Nature and the nature of Life itself. It is also a signpost on the path we tread.
Dear Farmgirl, If this were the only tipping point we've already surpassed! If only... But, to my thinking, the only IF left before us now is the one Robert Frost and T.S.Eliot considered fifty years ago: 'How will it (meaning civilization) end, with a Bang or a Whimper? T.S.Eliot signed-in on the whimper's side. Frost thought the bang more likely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, today, I see the world already riddled with small but deadly bangs--from killing robotics to human bombs, and with massively spreading whimpers from hunger and malnutrition, from a plethora of diseases without known causes, from secret torture in secret prisons, from sexual, physical, verbal abuses on ever-increasing scales. As the human population escalates and runs amok so do the evils of dehumanization, alienation and anti-social behavior, to say nothing of environmental degradation on a global scale. Those dying early will prove to be the luckier ones. Rocky times ahead, kids, and seat belts will do us no good!
We have become too much onto ourselves! And no government or institution, no agency or corporation, no resource or ecosystem, no one and nothing can monitor, limit or sustain the burden we represent. Globally! We've had it, kids, same as the Sumerians and the Greeks, the Romans and the Anasazis, the Mayans and the Kmer. Welcome onboard their ship of no return!
As for the food issue, my solution has been to eat less, eat organic locally grown produce, locally produced goat milk and dairy, and learn to do without flesh foods. Definitely no imports further than Oregon or the next county! And, now, NO prepared foods from anywhere! I'll die soon, but hope to die being and feeling well!
Does anyone know what 'cultured dextrose' happens to be?Check it out! A recent addition to an infamous list and, apparently, the newest type of 'organic GE additive'? Is it? Supposedly it is 'natural,' added as a 'natural' preservative to some breads and many prepared foods. It is in nearly all of Trader Joe's 'hummus,' even the one labeled organic. It retards spoilage, extends shelf life, protects profits, and on a Google search a Canadian website states it is a GE produced additive. Is it?
I recently saw the documentary Food, Inc., which I feel everyone should see, especially this country's law makers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd also recommend the book Seeds Of Deception by Jeffery Smith.
If you have a few concerns about GM crops, or none at all, both the book and the movie will cause you to think about that next bite you put in your mouth -- and your child's mouth!
Dear Sc.Am.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome weeks ago I did read Julian Ninio's book "The empire of ignorance, hypocrisy and obedience. What's wrong with America ... and how we can fix it.
In relation to GM foods he mentions Jeffrey M.
Smith's book "Seeds of deception " Scribe publications 2004.
See page 24-26 in J. Ninio.
(Ad Christiaensen. The Netherlands)
Some weeks ago I did read the book by Julian Ninio, "The
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisempire of ignorance, hypocrisy and obedience. What is wrong with America... and how we can fix it".
He writes that it is quite problematic for researchers to do
independent work , and those who received public funds to test GM foods found such alarming results they recommended banning them. He mentiones some examples
and the title of a book
from which he quotes, Jeffrey M. Smith's , "Seeds of deception"
Scribe Publications. 2004
Not very,..... uh,... 'democratic',... is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDick Cheney,... Monsanto,... hmmm.... passing laws that protect their own interests, um,... no, not democratic. Nope.
Doesn't make sense? Do your homework! It WILL then. Trust me.
Has anyone determined to investigate whether there is a correlation between GM seed crops and the disappearance of bee populations? Could it be possible that the bees are not attracted to these crops because of some chemical signatures or lack thereof? And , what impact will this have for future agriculture: will there be no "natural" seeds/crops in the future? Maybe the world of "Rollerball" or "Soylent Green" of giant monopolies ruling instead of governments is not so far away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGMO means genes added that are not "normally" in the species by common criteria. For example, a gene constructed in a lab, or taken from a different class of organims that normally would never breed is inserted by special molecular techniques -- technologically. Bt is from a bacterium, for example. By legal definitions, genome with a gene that could not have been incorporated by hybridization can be patented. Hybrids are not patentable like GMOs, which was a legal question initially, and the many countries defined a new kind of living organism thereby patentable. Legal definitions are human devices to capture historical and/or economic advantages, as do drug companies with new pharmaceuticals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't these scientists go out and find farmers willing to volunteer their fields and crops for study? The farmer uses the seeds for a permitted use and receives no compensation from the scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, I never thought I would see the name Dick Cheney in a discussion about GMO seeds. Maybe it's all a Bush-Cheney plot, like everything else.
The Bush administration pushed a law through Congress that granted private citizen's rights to giant corporations. As a result their decisions and processes can now be almost completely hidden from public view, and regulation has been made a lot more difficult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Freedom of Information Act is no longer of any use in these debates, and as long as our government is in the pockets of these same corporations, they will continue to grant favorable treatment at the expense of independent thought and our general well-being.
Also, the sun is shining. Isn't it a glorious day?
Intellectual property laws do not protect the secrecy of technology, quite the opposite. Therefore I must conclude that it is the very volatility of these issues that perpetuates these inconsistencies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may be necessary, in the end, to register the germ of an idea at some official level. This would allow the protection of property rights without unnecessary risks associated with unilateral advancement. Unfortunately, many modern technologies would gain unfair advantage if this were to occur, and technology is already making moot many aspects of intellectual property law. Gene manipulators, and other biochemical researchers need special protections just as society needs special protection from them.
There is a great potential ahead in this area, fraught with unfathomable risks, and divided by the very essence of human nature. The rights of individuals must retain priority throughout if we value our culture.
WRQ
Ten thousand more reasons to grow your own and trade at farmers markets (hippies with beards and tinfoil hats grow the best grapes!).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen again, something has to reign in the human population as its sheer size becomes the #1 risk to itself & viability of life on earth in general. With widespread dispersal of GMOs, the unhealthy, uninformed & uninterested have a better chance of dying off early.
Yin/Yang, baby.
Interesting - can you provide the bill number or name so I can look into this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAd Christiaensen. Netherlands.
I want you to know that the Dutchy daily newspaper NRC
on saterday 15 august, page 15,
published a page on the biotechsector (Monsanto etc. - Crop Life International)) and Dutch firms (branchorganisation Plantum) quarrel aboutthe octrooi(?)right on plants..
CLI writes the Dutch government not to change the right.
Monsanto buys Dutch firms. Several Dutch firms already
are out of the game. Other firms are in trouble.
Part of the story is about the Canadian farmer P. Schmeiser.
Formerly seed-improver-firms could work with the seeds of
other producers and were protected by the so called "kwekersrecht", accepted by many countries. That changed after biotechfirms entered the market and octrooi-right
was introduced. Several examples of practices (e.g. only
three firms deliver worldwide 80-90 procent of all seeds for
spinachcrops). A translation into the english language would
be good. See the arguments of Plantum at nrc.nl
Ad Christiaensen - Netherlands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a small message. The Dutch daily newspaper NRC
saturday 15 of august, at page 15, wrote a story about
a conflict between Monsanto etc. (Crop Life International)
and the Dutch branchorganisation of seed-firms Plantum.
Monsanto did buy several Dutch firms. It seems a rather serious, affair, as some Dutch firms already are out of the game, and others are in problems. CLI wrote a letter to the
Dutch government not to change the octrooi(?)-right.
(which limits other firms to work with seeds of Monsanto
etc. as was possible before the octrooi-right existed, before
the coming to the market of biotech-companies.
A translation of the story in the English language would be
worthwhile. The stand and arguments of Plantum can be seen at nrc.nl
Hmmmm, seems that Monsanto and other agribusiness giants want to protect the monopoly they have in these GM foods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore interestingly, their tactics in preserving their monopoly power is very similar to climate-change 'scientists' who rely on government funding for their 'research'......... Come up with the right answer and get another year at the trough!
"We've already arrived at the conclusion (AGW consensus) now we need the science to back us up".... That doesn't reflect sound scientific theory.
Ad Christiaensen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear pitchfork peasant,
Maybe you know that about two years I did read somewhere
that the world produced enough food as to feed the world population two times (at least at that moment).
So you can ask wheather solving world food-shortage and relieving hunger is the real goal of the biotech giants.
Sceptics as far as climate change is concerned, must come with better reasons for, and causes of, the changes observed, if they do not belief that the scientists working at it, are honest in publishing their results. In the scientific community it must be possible to come with deviating points of view.
I also did read that Bill Gates wants to spray cooling water at the surface of the ocean, to prevent certain climate- and weather-problems.
In "Unlimited solar energy from the ocean ?" , 2008, is written that "Experts estimate that on an average day, 60 million square kilometers of tropical seas absorb an amount of solar radiation that is equal in heat content to about 250 billion of barrels of oil. To get a better perspective on these numbers,this actually means that less than 0.001% of this energy converted into electric power would be sufficient to supply over 20 times the electricity consumed daily in the United States".
If the surfacetemperature is causing more weathertrouble,
a lot a spraying to cool the surface of the ocean is necessary.
If CO2 (and other greenhouse-gases), prevent warmth from escaping into space, warming will go on.
May be you know that firms in conflict with Monsanto who lost their case and had to pay, are not allowed to talk about
the amount they had to pay. (????????).
About farmer Schmeiser: genetical modification of certain plants can spread naturally, which means that the crop of
farmer Schmeiser may have become polluted with characteristics of GE seed without his knowledge or his
action. Nevertheless he was condemned by the court.
A man working at the agricualtural Wageningen University, Niels Lauwaars, says that the goal needs to be open innovation.
The lobbyletters of Monsanto, Syngenta and Crop Life International, and the meaning of Plantum can be found
at nrc.nl
The problem is not only science. Individual persons an firms
can come into big problems by the behavoir these biotech-firms choose. And as wriiten, what will become of nature if it can spontaneuosly be inflicted by GE-practises ?
Ad Christiaensen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Pitchfork Peasant.
You'll find people and reasons do back you up.
One thing , for instance . Persons and firms who lost their case against Monsant are sometimes forbidden to
talk about the amount of money they had to pay (????????).
And farmer Schmeiser may have been unaware of his crop,
polluted by Monsanto-seed, because certain GE-characteristics can spread spontaneous. (Bert Lotz,
GM specialist at wageningen university. May be such
scientific knowledge does serve your sceptic mind).
Ad Christiaensen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just discoverd an error in my previous writing.
I meant to write that the scientific discovery that GE- characterisitics can spread spontaneously, maybe, does NOT
serve your sceptic mind.
Can someone suggest how we can encourage politicians or members of EPA to pass legislation that will remove such restrictions (for independent research) and prevent companies from doing this in the future? These articles about Monsanto and other GM companies frustrate the hell out of me and I'd like to take some sort of action such as emailing EPA or concerned politicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe story is really interesting and very informative...Thank you...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.construction-estimating.com/ConstructionEstimatingSoftware
http://www.ecompal.com/CreditCards
http://www.youreover50.com/ReducingWrinkles
Can someone suggest how we can encourage politicians or members of EPA to pass legislation that will remove such restrictions (for independent research) and prevent companies from doing this in the future? These articles about Monsanto and other GM companies frustrate the hell out of me and I'd like to take some sort of action such as emailing EPA or concerned politicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was raised on a small farm in upstate NY and today it would be called organic, no chemicals, hormones or drugs were used on animals or crops. We worked at improving production through selective breeding and varried crops and species of crops. Nowdays we can't even get some of the seeds for crops that aren't tinged with GM seeds. the down fall of this is that when plants produce there own pesticides the plant isn't selective of which bugs die. Wonder about collony collapse in the honey bees, reduced populations of butterflies,etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as our elected officials are financed by corperations rather than blind funding you will never see a change in how our goverment works. Senators will goble up whatever the corparations give them and in turn grant whatever Tyson Foods, Con-agri, ADM(Archer Danniels), General Electric, etc want.
I know this is not a pollitical site but an objective site, science based thought proccesses. However after watching the happenings in our foods we need to change SOON or suffer.
As far as i am currently aware there are no cultivated varieties of wheat that are GMO so it was not the source of your allergy and as for seedless watermelon they are not achieved by genetic engineering, they are achieved through breeding a diploid parent with one that is a tetraploid. This created an offspring (seed) that is a triploid and will not produce viable seed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm with you on GMOs. But seedless varieties have been around for decades, long before GMOs. Mules are a sterile cross between a horse and donkey, the fact it can't reproduce itself doesn't mean it was genetically modified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"They are able to use fewer pesticides" According to new 2012 research this is not true:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.
read the reseach yourself: http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-24-24.pdf
Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are
reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed
management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of
herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."
Eco-Steve
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "World", Steve, doesn't produce anything. Individuals do. Individuals produce things to make a living. Individuals produce wheat because there is a market for it from individuals that raise beef for individuals that eat beef. If individuals stopped eating beef the beef producers would stop raising beef and the wheat producers would stop producing wheat. From where then would this wheat come to feed these 2 billion people? What we need is a war against collectivists and statists. Answer this; What do you think is stopping these "starving" people from buying or growing wheat to eat?
Your final point of bought regulators goes way beyond just food products but in almost every agency that regulates almost everything we do as a society.. As we all know money talks and BS walks.. It is all about greed and how to make more quickly damn the consequences to the public..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisidiots like you need to be removed from the gene pool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no GMO wheat in the US there never has been any GMO wheat in the US and there won't be any GMO wheat in the US for some time.
And maybe you need to familiarize yourself with seedless watermelons before you rant about them.
Despite all your rantings to the contrary, corporate farming has made food less expensive and easier on the environment.
Most beef in the US all ready starts out on pasture and only goes to the feedlot for finishing. This allows farmers to fatten the animals up and reduce the time needed to grow them to a good size. So there can be more beef produced in that method vs pasture raised.
Ever priced grass finished beef? Twice as expensive as regular.
Food snobs can afford that, lots of folks can't.
I can tell you have little intelligence but have lots of fear and hate.
Typical of the no nothing anti GM crowd.
Spoken like a true hate-filled-know-nothing Big Ag troll sammydwm...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this