Rebranding Frankenfoods

[fretslider]

Nobody in Europe wants it. The big agrochemical companies, like Monsanto etc, have really struggled and got nowhere. So what is the next move?

Simple..... change the name - again!

One of Britain’s top agricultural scientists suggested farmers should rename GM crops as “vaccinated” or “inoculated” in a bid to win over the public to the controversial technology. His proposal was immediately attacked by campaigners, who said it was a “completely desperate” idea.

Bill Clark, who runs Broom’s Barn Research Centre, part of Rothamsted Research, said the renaming could help consumers understand the science and win over millions of families, the majority of whom are sceptical or outright hostile to GM.

Yes, it is desperate stuff. Peter Melchett, Policy Director at the Soil Association, said: “This is the biggest load of desperate rubbish I’ve ever heard. And they’ve tried this before. Back in the 1980s no one had heard of GM. It was called genetic engineering, and they thought it would sound nicer if they called it GM. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.” He added that, unlike when you inoculate a human, the DNA of a plant is altered.

True, some genes can be taken up naturally in wild plants, but no tomato will ever take up a fish gene, now will it? Of course it won't. Farming of GM food on a commercial basis in Europe is outlawed, but becoming increasingly common in South America, Canada and India with 135 million hectares (334 million acres) of GM crops under cultivation – an area about ten times the size of England.

Most consumer surveys, however, suggest that the public do not favour a relaxation in the rules to allow GM farming in Europe.

[Erasmus]

There's enough work been done in the field of paleontology to know that genes are only a part of the answer. They are not programs, there is no gene for and identical chemicals produce very different results in different organisms and may be 're-used' and even spread about so that altering their position in the DNA may change their effect. Additionally, there is masses of Junk DNA in most genomes - meaning that nobody knows what it does, if anything or whatever it does, what alterations might turn it on - or indeed turn something else off.

I know of an operating system that must have been based on the same principles (RSX-11: I had a printout of it, quite small it was), and when its author left DEC they gave up on trying to develop it because it was crammed in to use as little space as possible and utilised what looked like blank space for different things at different times so that the slightest change could wreck the entire thing. DNA appears to be similar.

In principle I support genetic engineering for research and experiment, but we are at the stage with it of Marie Curie trying to build a nuclear reactor. On top of that, what has been done is largely for commercial purposses to increase contingent sales, not to improve production - such as a rice that will grow in salt water or in the dry.

Where I have seen very interesting research into GM was some videos a couple of weeks ago relating to real Jurassic Park possibilities. Hen's teeth? Suppress a gene that in turn suppresses them and there they are - vicious sabre-curved things. A tail? A chicken has a 16-vertebra tail until a gene dissolves it. Fix those and the genes that elongate the finger bones and join them in flesh, and they were eying up an emu as those three steps away from the first GM raptor dinosaur.

[fretslider]

Indeed environment plays a key role in natural selection by the pressure it brings to bear on species.

AUBURN, Alabama -- A few miles outside this college town, down a gravel road that runs through rolling woodlands, Rex Dunham has turned a set of muddy ponds into a high-security prison for fish.
Electric wire keeps the raccoons at bay. Netting blocks the herons from swooping in. Filters stop the fish from slipping out with the waste water.

Federal officials asked Dunham to protect the local environment from the catfish he grows here because nothing like them has ever cut the waters of the Earth. These catfish have been laced with DNA from salmon, carp and zebra fish, which makes them grow as much as 60% faster than normal. That could help farmers feed more people for less money and boost efforts to end world hunger.

But there also is a chance that fast-growing fish might touch off an environmental disaster, according to scientists who have studied the matter. Their greatest fear is that Dunham's catfish will escape and wipe out other fish species, as well as the plants and animals that depend on those fish to survive.

And now, some scientists and government officials are raising a second and equally troubling concern: that the federal government has limited legal authority to protect the environment from Dunham's catfish--or from some of the dozens of other genetically modified plants and animals now being readied for market.

"Here we are on the brink of remaking life on Earth through genetic engineering, and we do not have a thorough process for reviewing the environmental impacts," said William Brown, science advisor to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. "The system is full of holes."

LA Times.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The past is redolent with colossal mistakes. A predator, for example, or a pathogen, transposed into an alien environment to kill of a specific pest - biological control - which then, contrary to expectations, goes on to outcompete other native species in the food web. South London is home to a large number of Parakeets. The harsh winters have not troubled them at all. And accidents happen.

The tradition has been to test these crops in strict isolation nothing gets in and nothing gets out - in theory. So, not a lot is known about interrelations with other species, and the impact on the nature of the community.

The Earth can only support a given number of human beings, when the carrying capacity is exceeded the population crashes. We have pushed the bar continuously, increasing yields in crops and livestock.

GM crops are not exactly a success story. In complete contrast to the impression given by the industry, it is clear that they have not realised most of the claimed benefits and have been a practical and economic disaster. Widespread GM contamination has severely disrupted GM-free production including organic farming, destroyed trade and undermined the competitiveness of North American agriculture overall. GM crops have also increased the reliance of farmers on herbicides and led to many legal problems; one of the most unpleasant outcomes of the introduction of GM crops has been the accusations of farmers infringing company patent rights. A non-GM farmer whose crop was contaminated by GMOs was sued by Monsanto for $400,000

The agrochemical giants have spent a vast amount of dosh on this and they want a return on that investment sooner rather than later.

GM is all about money and control. And that's the bottom line.

[mouse]

greed greed greed and to hell with the unknown consequences