Stop GM food!

Its not true that no one wants GM food, I do - I really miss that GM tomato paste which Sainsbury's used to stock, it was darker and had a better flavour than the other stuff, probably because of the variety which had been engineered (maybe it was UC82-B, a Californian grown bushy Plum variety, delicious). Also I think most subsistence farmers would want whatever crops gave them the best yields - its just another tool in the toolbox of tricks available to crop breeders, among them marker-assisted breeding (another biotechnology) and genetic transformation (making transgenic plants).

Many of the best pharmaceuticals are made by genetically modified organisms, often bacteria, these are unquestionably saving lives and creating health benefits, reducing suffering. The insecticidal crystal proteins used in insect tolerant GM crops are safe -the bacteria which the proteins originated in (Bacillus thuringiensis, a natural soil bug found in Thuringia, Germany) have been sprayed on crops in a form of BIOLOGICAL CONTROL for upto 25 years ... with no safety problems.

We need to change society so that these technologies are used to do more good, rather than being mis-used for profit, but while we make that journey, why attack a whole technology - why not try to suggest to Bayer projects which they could invest in which might benefit the 3rd World, rather than being simply "anti". I'm bored of hearing the slating of GM crops by well-fed Westerners - we have no right to keep this technology in the West, and certainly have no right to take away the chance of other's food security by damaging its scientific development.

Why not ask Bayer to (I) Spend less on herbicide tolerance (II) Spend more of insect-resistance...

"Anti" in no manifesto for change, "No" is not the answer, "How...can we make things better" might be a starting point.

Starvation is political. Theres enough food to go around, according to the UN amongst others. Plus GM yield increases have been shown to be significantly smaller than those which can be achieved through 'natural' selective breeding and organic techniques.

The old arguement about GM food helping the third world is such complete and utter bollocks that I cannot believe people still tout this as a 'benefit' of GM

FOOD DISTRIBRUTION is the reason why the third world is hungry.... there is way more food being produced globally than is what is required to feed the world....
How a major multi-national charging small subsistence farmers a yearly levy to use their seeds as beneficial is beyond me..... ask any West African coffee farmer and they will tell u!

Plus u open a pointless can of worms about TRIPS too..... big corps taking people and countries to court because they 'invented' something that has been around in a diff form for decades......

The obscene amounts of money ( admittedly, private corp money ) that is being spent on development, promotion and production of the GM crops could be better spent distributing food better around the world..... and preventing certain crop prices from being held artificially low to support western commercial farmers.....

Jon says:

"why not try to suggest to Bayer projects which they could invest in which might benefit the 3rd World"

Bayer will only do what benefits it as a company and its shareholders. If this means making herbicides and pesticides which harm the environment, then it will continue to do this. It won't get involved with the "Third World" unless it can make a profit from it.

Remember, Bayer is the company which was formed from IG Farben, which made the poison gas used in the Nazi death camps. Why did it do this? Because it made money...

Now, Bayer has taken over Aventis Crop Science to form Bayer Crop Science. Their motivation is making money by getting farmers to spray their Bayer crops (which are Genetically Modified to 'tolerate' a herbicide) with Bayer herbicide to make more money for...Bayer...!

The Bayer herbicide, called ironically Liberty (Glufonisate Ammonium) kills all plant life around where it's sprayed. This is why Bayer LibertyLink rapeseed and sugar beet have been shown to be more harmful to the environment in the crop trial results revealed on 16 October 2003:

 http://www.gmfoodnews.com/

For more about IG Farben, Bayer and the history of this company which deals in death, see:

 http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/bayer/bayer1.html

and

 http://www.corporatewatch.org/genetics/bayer.htm

My hope is that Bayer goes the way of Monsanto and pulls out of trying to push GM crops on Europe and the rest of the world...

The argument that Bt products are already used in organic agriculture and that they will be just as safe in GM crops is unfortunately completely wrong.

Organic farmers use Bt sprays in without any safety problems. That is correct. The mixture contains different Bt toxins, it is sprayed over the plants and works for a short while before it is destroyed by UV light. Ususally it does not reach the soil, except maybe if a heavy rain occurs directly after spraying. Then it would be in the surface water. Bt sprays are a sustainable methods because they work for a short while, leave no residues on the plants, and they contain a mixture of toxins. They are very sustainable,becuse they can kill best without putting them under a selective pressure. That's why Bt sprays have been used for 25 years without the resistance occuring in the pest.

Genetically engineered Bt crops are completely different story: Bt crops constantly produce one Bt toxin throughout their whole life cycle. Bt crops put a high selection pressure on pests because they are constantly confronted with the same toxin, resistance development is already happening. At the same time Bt is produced in parts of the plants that are not even reached by organic Bt sprays: in the roots and in the pollen for example. Studies show negative impacts on the soil microfauna throught he constant seeping of Bt toxin in the soil around the roots. Negative impacts can be seen on butterflies and bees that collect GM pollen. First Bt crops like Bt176 maize have already been taken of the market due to high environmental impacts.

Bt crops have a different mode of action then Bt sprays. They cannot be compared in their environmant impacts. But to matters worse: Once pests become resistant to Bt toxins on Bt crops, the organic agriculture is loosing its sustainable pesticide that has worked so well for 25 years.

Interesting point about the crop producing B.t.toxin and the spraying of organic crops with a mixture of different toxins.

In fact, I have read many research papers on these toxins, and I am aware of much of the early work involved in their transfer to plants. Many varieties of the species Bacillus thuringiensis were characterised, each producing a different range of crystal proteins (bt toxin). There are many families of this crystal protein , each being toxic to different groups of insects...there is a list here:  http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/Neil_Crickmore/Bt/index.html

You can take each one, eg. Cry1Ab1 or Cry35Ba1 (Cry = crystal, no. = family etc..) and look it up in the B.thurigiensis specificity database which is here:  http://www.glfc.forestry.ca/bacillus/

eg. cry19A -> kills Culex pipiens (the nasty mosquito!)

Have a go - its fun! Now then, if you know your insect pest, and you don't want to kill non-target organisms, isn't it better to engineer a plant with a single toxin which you know kills the target organism, or spray with the same, or use a mixuture of toxins which are specific to the class of insect you need to attack.

The guidelines on 'Best Practice on GM Crop Design' from DTI specifically instruct scientists to control expression of the transgenes so they aren't expressed in non-target organs (eg. make it produce the toxin in the leaf, not the root or seed) - which is quite within the capabilities of todays technology.

The early attempts at generating transgenic plants were much cruder than what we can do today - yes, they sometimes didn't do things the best way, but at the same time, things have moved a long way - and with a little pressure from NGOs, perhaps the regulations are a little tighter (they're very tight) than they need to be, but perhaps its time to give the technology the room to flourish.

As for the Corporate side of things, yes it would be better if it was completely in the hands of public scientists, but seeing what the government has done to NHS and Education in the last two decades, I'm not sure more State involvement is really a good thing. Getting the companies to do more is the best we can do in the short term, and as for herbicide resistant crops - I don't see advantages - but insect resistance might save millions of lives.

Plump Westerners sat repleat making after dinner speeches about writing off a technology that could be used to help feed billions is vomit-inducing by anyones moral standards.

Stop forcing the countries where these billions are starving to keep using all their best land to grow cash crops to pay off international debts instead of growing food for their people. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone -- a problem of unfair distribution cannot be solved through fancy technology only affordable by the rich and controlled by the capitalist forces of multinational corporations.