I don't see how there can be a risk assessment of GMO's, because
they have not been
around long enough for meaningful analysis, and also, studies are
not being done. From
a marketing standpoint, they must be excluded from organic products
or consumers would
boycott them.
--- Steve Demuth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Con,
>
> I in fact agree with nearly all of your analysis about the potential
> risks of genetically modified organisms. Clearly this is a risky
> business. Just as clearly, any chemical application has risks, both
> short and long term, as does virtually everything we do to our
> environment and each other. Notwithstanding that, we have no
> realistic option but to make choices, and try to make them as
> intelligently as possible.
>
> So my beef with the organic certifications approach is that it is a
> blanket prohibition on GM as a technique, rather than guidelines for
> what sort of modifications present greater or lesser risk:benefit
> ratios, and in practice, a blanket prohibition on "chemicals," rather
> than guidelines for testing them in terms of risk:benefit.
>
> To me, certification should server the same purpose in agriculture as
> a policy on immunization does in public health: yes, it imposes costs
> and risks, but overall, we can conclude the net benefit justifies the
> costs and risks. I don't see that kind of nuance in the organic
> guidelines, and it has really turned me off on the movement, even
> though I respect their stated goals, and individually respect many of
> the participants. Worse, when I get together with any significant
> number of organic advocates, the mind closing seems to be re-enforced
> by numbers.
>
>
> At 07:49 AM 3/14/2007, you wrote:
> >Hello again,
> >I also wanted to comment as follows on Steve's observations.
> >I am not an organic grower, and do not agree with their perspective
> >on everything. However, I do feel that the early adopters of organic
> >are very good people, who did the rest of us a service, by being
> >critical of the general consensus of the greatness of all
> >agricultural advancements, some of which, though we did not know it
> >at the time, had serious downsides as well. It is important to look
> >critically and objectively at every new development, to assess
> >whether it really can deliver what it proposes, and whether there
> >are any potential downsides that have not yet become obvious.
> >It is also important for organic producers to think critically of
> >their own stance, and find if they can also do things differently.
> >And science is a great vehicle to use in this observation.
> > From my perspective, I do have some problems with the adaptation of
> > genetically modified plants, and I think the organic groups are
> > right to be wary.
> >Apart from the nasty behaviour of corporations against farmers
> >regarding violations of their patent rights (I have a problem with
> >the practice of allowing genes to be patented), there are some
> >unresolved questions (as well as some which have probably have not
> >even been thought of yet).
> >Human health:
> >Antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes were often added to the
> >genetic cassette (the gene segment being added to the plant to
be transformed.
> >After insertion of the new genes, antibiotics are applied to the cells.
> >These kill un-transformed cells, leaving the few transformed ones.
> >Critics said that it was a bad idea to allow these transformed
> >plants having genes that are coding for resistance to antibiotics
> >into the environment, but the GM proponents said it was not a worry,
> >because it could not happen.
> >Now, quite a few years later, it is now considered bad practice to
> >leave ARM genes in transformed plants, because of the small but real
> >risk of incorporation of this DNA into the gut bacteria of plants or
> >animals than eat modified plants.
> >This is because of a trial (the only one ever conducted to see if
> >this could happen). Volunteers were fed a single meal of a burger
> >and a milk shake containing GM Soya. (Study conducted in 2002 by UK
> >Food Standards Agency). There were 12 healthy volunteers and 7
> >volunteers who had previously had their colons surgically removed.
> >In healthy volunteers there was no evidence that gut bacteria had
> >taken up the DNA. In three of the seven people without a complete
> >digestive tract, it was found that bacteria had taken up modified
> >DNA from the Soya. Implies that gut bacteria could take advantageous
> >genes from GM food, to enhance their own characteristics, and the
> >end point of such a transformation is completely unpredictable.
> >There is also the issue of allergens to human health:
> >The genes that are transferred from the donor organism are not
> >necessarily selected individually.
> >As a consequence, unintentional transfers can take place.
> >In 1993, a company developed a modified soybean (producing extra
> >methionine; a desirable trait) using donor DNA from the Brazil nut.
> >The modified soybean produced immunological reactions in people
> >usually allergic to Brazil nut.
> >Development was discontinued, and the modified soybeans destroyed.
> >The difficulty this example highlights is that until individual
> >genes coding for desirable traits can be selectively transferred,
> >without risk of also transferring undesirable genes, or the
> >mutations inevitably associated with the transfer process as
> >currently undertaken can be eliminated, plants posing a risk to
> >human or animal health could be accidentally put on sale.
> >This is because of the regulatory concept of "substantial
> >equivalence" - Basically, genetically modified plants do not need to
> >be tested for safety before being released, as they are considered
> >substantially equivalent to plants produced in conventional breeding.
> >Another allergy issue was highlighted in a paper published in
> >November 2005, when a pest resistant field pea developed in
> >Australia for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic
> >reaction in mice. The gene in question, which inhibits amylase (a
> >dietary starch digestion enzyme), was transferred from beans to
> >peas. What the results showed is that the protein, when synthesized
> >in pea leaves had a different immunogenicity than when it was
> >isolated from bean leaves (the native form).
> >This was considered surprising to the researchers (though not to
> >sceptics) but was thought to be related to the presence of slightly
> >different carbohydrate chains in each plant.
> >Environmental effects:
> >Whatever about the possible health effects of consuming GM foods, at
> >least consumer have choice in this regard. Once a GM crop is
> >released to the environment, it is impossible to recall it, and
> >environmental considerations should be treated with importance.
> >The effect on non-target organisms, in for example, consuming Bt
> >crops is self-evident. They are also killed, with the adverse
> >effects on biodiversity.
> >However, the effects of gene drift to wild relatives, and the
> >knock-on to non-target organisms has not yet been defined.
> >The issue of super-weeds is also a realistic worry. It is entirely
> >possible that a crop species could become a difficult-to-control
> >weed species, or by gene drift, that an existing weeds species would
> >become more difficult to control.
> >There is also the real risk of genetically modified toxin-producing
> >plants grown for fuel or fibre accidentally transferring genes to
> >food species. You then have a toxic crop plant.
> >Not to mention liability for contamination of crops grown by farmers
> >who wish to produce GM-free ingredients. Who will pay to put things
> >right if there is damage to the environment as a result of using
> >genetically modified crops? Should the companies producing GMOs and
> >making profits from them be responsible? Or should the state pay
> >because it has approved the use of a GMO and society has had the
> >"benefit" of using them?
> >Companies and governments often argue that GM crops and foods are
> >thoroughly assessed for safety so adverse effects should, in theory,
> >be unlikely. Despite this they are often reluctant to see strict
> >liability rules introduced. The polluter pays principal would
> >dictate that companies producing GMOs should take responsibility for
> >their products, including any adverse effects on the environment.
> >Critics say that to have confidence that the whole process of GM
> >risk assessment is being undertaken rigorously, that environmental
> >liability is an important safeguard.
> >Here in Europe The Environmental Liability Directive (ELD - 2004/35)
> >provides the liability regime for environmental harm arising from
> >the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is the regime
> >that was promised during the negotiation of the Deliberate Release
> >Directive (2001/18 - Recital 16).
> >The Directive provides for very basic environmental liability
> >protection. At the moment it is highly unlikely that a biotechnology
> >company or person using GMOs would be required to pay for
> >remediation of any environmental damage that may arise unless they
> >were proven to be negligent. As a result, either damage will not be
> >repaired or the state will have to pay.
> >To conclude:
> >The arguments and list of topics that warrant argument will go on.
> >But GM crops advocates are not the only ones who have science on
> >their side. They have the science of knowing how to make these
> >transgenic plants, but not the environmental or medical science to
> >give solid assurances as to their safety. At the moment GM companies
> >in the US are being sued by farmers and food producers who have had
> >their livelihoods damaged by contamination. Here in Europe the GM
> >companies are threatening to sue governments who set tight
> >guidelines about requirements for production (such as not having
> >conventional crops that may be contaminated nearby), because they
> >are losing time in getting patent income. At least the lawyers are
> >doing well out of GM.
> >Con Traas
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email protected]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Demuth
> >Sent: 12 March 2007 02:37
> >To: Apple-Crop
> >Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
> >
> >
> >Arthur,
> >
> >"Silliness" was a poor word choice on my part. It conveys nothing
> >except an derision of it's object. I apologize.
> >
> >To be more precise, what I object to in the trajectory of the organic
> >movement, is its willingness, if not outright eagerness, to let
> >anti-science emotionalism into a process that, of all things, should
> >be evidence based. Thus we have a prohibition on genetically
> >engineered plants, when sensible genetic modification could be an
> >enormous boon to organics, and ecologically sound agriculture. Thus
> >we have a blanket prohibition on chemical pesticides, rather than a
> >considered weighing of benefit vs. risk. I just can't get behind
> >this kind of thinking.
> >
> >
> >
> >At 06:50 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote:
> > >I could agree with most of what you say about organic foods, but I'm
> > >not sure that what
> > >you regard as silliness is the same as the silliness I observe. In
> > >conventional food
> > >standards it is far more silly ---and dangerous to health---than
> > >what goes on in
> > >organics. I speak as an organic inspector and author of Harvey v
> > >Veneman. Most of my
> > >life was spent working in conventional apple orchards where the
> > >prevailing view is that
> > >Guthion---or whatever---is perfectly safe because the manufacturers
>
=== message truncated ===
On another topic, the federal law governing organic foods was
recently amended by lobbyists hired by some manufacturers. This
will allow synthetic ingredients to be added to organic-labeled foods.
If this is important to you, please visit my website,
www.RestoreOrganicLaw.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard
<http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon
Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent
"official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for
the content.
