Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Battling the Threat of Famine with One Hand Tied — Thanks Again Greenpeace and FOE
A virulent strain of stem rust identified as Ug99 is spreading rapidly through wheat crops in Africa. For decades, this devastating fungal disease has been kept in check thanks to the work of plant breeders like Peace Nobelist Norman Borlaug. As the Washington Post reported earlier this week:
Eighty percent of Asian and African wheat varieties are now susceptible, and so is barley, FAO experts said. Scientists named the new menace Ug99 for its discovery in Uganda in 1999. But they say it probably started earlier in Kenya, where more wheat is grown.
The [International Wheat and Maize] research center in Mexico published a warning of "a pending disaster in global agriculture."...
Unlike common rust infestations, which reduce but do not wipe out yields, stem rust can topple a whole field. "It can take everything," said Robert McIntosh, former director of Australia's rust-control program. "It is the most damaging of the rusts."
As Borlaug warned in a New York Times op/ed last year:
If millions of small-scale farmers see their wheat crops wiped out for want of new disease-resistant varieties, the problem will not be confined to any one country. Rust spores move long distances in the jet streams and know no political boundaries. Widespread failures in global wheat production will push the prices of all foods higher, causing new misery for the world’s poor.
Ug99 could reduce world wheat production by 60 million tons.
The good news is that wheat breeders have identified some varieties that contain genes that confer some resistance to the Ug99 strain. The bad news is that wheat breeders have to rely on slower traditional crossbreeding rather than faster modern biotech methods to get the fungus-resistant genes into productive varieties. As Nature reports:
All these approaches will probably rely on traditional breeding methods, and public reluctance about transgenic crops is likely to keep transgenic approaches off the table for some time. In 2004, Monsanto, an agricultural company headquartered in St Louis, Missouri, announced that it was halting development of transgenic herbicide-resistant strains of wheat after US farmers expressed concerns that they would not be able to export the crops to other countries. "The transgenic option is open," says [Beat] Keller [a wheat researcher from the University of Zurich in Switzerland], "but I don't think we're going to see that application very soon."
And just why is the public leery of using genetic engineering to improve crops? Because activist organizations like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and the Organic Consumers Association, have spent millions on unscientific campaigns (aka spreading lies) about biotech crops.
Let's hope that plant breeders constrained by politicized science will, nevertheless, succeed in developing rust-resistant varieties in time to prevent a stem rust famine.
SpongePaul|2.20.09 @ 4:38PM|#
You can blame the crop failures on the wing nuts who think that scientific genetic modification of plants is somehow bad. As the article states, it can be done through crossbreeding, a time honored slow but effective method. but science can transfer the genes in one swoop with a mod.
SpongePaul|2.20.09 @ 4:40PM|#
er.... what my point was is that genetic enginering just speeds up the crossbreeding and the viral genetic drift. it does not replace it, or make the plants evil.
SpongePaul|2.20.09 @ 4:43PM|#
This is like No Blade of Grass. Creepy. And bad.
__________________________________________
lets legalize hemp, the seed is food, the fiber is canvas and
cloth, it is a weed. no sucsptible to grass diseases for the most
part.the seed oil can be made into biodiesle, it is also a much
sought after paint additive in art, because the hempseed oil will
not cause the paint fade and crack up like linseed can in time. it
is a medicine etc etc etc.
sorry, just seemed like a place to plant some good info about alt
crops, lol
|2.20.09 @ 5:03PM|#
"Horizontal Gene Transfer": nature does it all the time.
Annual Review of Genetics
Vol. 28: 237-261 (Volume publication date December 1994)
(doi:10.1146/annurev.ge.28.120194.001321)
Horizontal Gene Transfer: Evidence and Possible Consequences
by M Syvanen
"Progress in the field of molecular genetics over the last 25 years
has led to many different observations consistent with horizontal
gene transfers. It is not just that there are dozens of examples of
likely horizontal transfers, but that the mechanisms which could
accommodate horizontal transfer of DNA are observed everywhere.
Multiple mechanisms for the physical transfer of DNA from one
species to another are known. Recombination mechanisms that can
absorb this DNA are ubiquitous. Examples of cells and organisms
that will express and incorporate products from foreign genes are
too numerous to list."
Horizontal Gene Transfer: Evidence and Possible
Consequences
tarran|2.20.09 @ 5:08PM|#
Some farmers should go ahead and plant the crop anyway.
Then, when the non-resistant variaties are decimated, the guys who
are opposed to genetically engineered food will face the choice
between paying twice as much for an "unsullied" bushel of wheat
than they would for a resistant bushed.
I doubt their opposition to genetically engineered foodstuffs would
overcome such a huge price differential.
|2.20.09 @ 5:12PM|#
Greenpeace and FOE: Making the world a better place. One dead African at a time.
BakedPenguin|2.20.09 @ 5:25PM|#
I'll stick with my rapeseed oil, thanks.
I thought you cooked with opium latex and coca oil...
SpongePaul|2.20.09 @ 5:29PM|#
I doubt their opposition to genetically engineered foodstuffs
would overcome such a huge price differential
_______________________________________________
ever tried to reason with a peta person.....
|2.20.09 @ 5:29PM|#
I don't want to interrupt the Two-Minute Hate, but is sorghum
susceptible to stem rust? How about oats, or rye, or millet?
Is the choice really biotech wheat or dead Africans?
SpongePaul|2.20.09 @ 5:31PM|#
oh and by peta person, i mean the way out there enviromentalist types, i just lump them all in with peta. 6 of one half a dozen of the other same same.
¢|2.20.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Greenpeace and FOE: Making the world a better place. One
dead African at a time.
Don't be unkind. It's thousands at a time.
Tens, sometimes.
Progress!
BakedPenguin|2.20.09 @ 5:36PM|#
Maurkov, these are subsistance farmers. If their entire crop is destroyed, starvation could ensue long before the next growing season comes around for them to switch crops.
|2.20.09 @ 5:39PM|#
a pending disaster in global agriculture
is a feature of our policies, not a bug.
torpido|2.20.09 @ 5:39PM|#
It's not quite true that direct genetic manipulation is just a faster version of crossbreeding. The former can create genetic codes that would never occur through crossbreeding no matter how long you did it.
Paul|2.20.09 @ 5:39PM|#
Is the choice really biotech wheat or dead
Africans?
Always a good question. But at this point, I'd have to assume that
if simply planting another crop were the solution, I'm guessing
that would have been done already, and we wouldn't be reading about
this.
It's probably way more complex than that. BakedPenguin's comments
on subsistence farmers being one of those issues.
|2.20.09 @ 5:42PM|#
I propose banning the importation into Washington, DC of any crops, genetically modified or otherwise, and any animal or animal products that have been tainted with crops through feeding. Also, anyone who works in DC (specifically on Pennsylvania Avenue) but lives outside the city, should be forced not to consume any crops or animal products, with a strict testing regime in place.
|2.20.09 @ 5:42PM|#
Maurkov,
IANAF (farmer), but I'm fairly certain than some crops grow better
in some environments, while other crops thrive in different
environments.
We don't grow a lot of oranges here in Michigan.
|2.20.09 @ 5:44PM|#
Is the choice really biotech wheat or dead
Africans?
Oh, the dilemma! How shall I choose?!
The agony!
Biotech wheat or dead Africans? I JUST CAN'T DECIDE which is
worse!
Jester the Molester|2.20.09 @ 6:07PM|#
Every time I see The Assault on Reason by Al Gore, I chuckle
because I assume the title is ironic in a way Mr. Gore wouldn't see
irony.
I've never bothered to read it. Anyone know what his take on
biotech is since he's someone the new Admin would listen to?
Of course, I can look it up right now. But thought I'd throw it out
there for everyone to at worst, make me laugh, when this subject is
so depressing.
Jester the Molester|2.20.09 @ 6:12PM|#
Hazel,
Al Sharpton is busy prosecuting a political cartoon right now to
weigh in on your current dilemma.
He'll wait until after the famine and then tell us we were all
racists because we didn't do anything.
|2.20.09 @ 6:36PM|#
torpido sez:
It's not quite true that direct genetic manipulation is just a
faster version of crossbreeding. The former can create genetic
codes that would never occur through crossbreeding no matter how
long you did it.
Did you read the paper I cited and quoted from, along with all the
other similar papers?
Nature transfers genes between species all the time.
It's called "horizontal gene transfer".
So your point is invalid according to observational data.
|2.20.09 @ 6:41PM|#
Paul, it probably is more complex. I'd like to read that
article.
It seems that if there's time to plant a different strain then
there's time to plant a different species. I doubt subsistence
farmers are going to run out in droves to buy the latest
seeds.
J sub D, we're talking about cereals-- grass, basically. There are
varieties that grow from Siberia to Ethiopia. IANAF, either, but I
am a gardener, and I've been disappointed with plants advertised as
resistant to X. If I've got a problem with X, I'm usually better
off with a crop that doesn't get X than with one that can tolerate
it.
|2.20.09 @ 6:46PM|#
I thought you cooked with opium latex and coca
oil...
I didn't say one word about cooking with rapeseed oil.
|2.20.09 @ 7:08PM|#
IANAF, either, but I am a gardener, and I've been
disappointed with plants advertised as resistant to X. If I've got
a problem with X, I'm usually better off with a crop that doesn't
get X than with one that can tolerate it.
Join the Peace Corps. Off you go Africa and teach the ignorant
savages what is the best food to grow on the land their ancestors
have farmed for centuries.
Just don't ignore that their customers want wheat, are used to
wheat and will buy wheat from their neighbors until the blight hits
and none is available. Thge sorghum planters will make a fortune
then if his new crop actually comes in. I just hope he doesn't
starve waiting for the stem rust to wiupe out the
competitors.
Oh yeah, I garden too. Different grasses thrive in different
environments. Anyone with a lawn will tell you that.
|2.20.09 @ 7:14PM|#
It seems that if there's time to plant a different strain
then there's time to plant a different species.
So African farmers should be forced to switch to an entirely new
crop, and experience a radical alteration in dietary habits, rather
than subject them to the horrors of eating a plant with a miniscule
genetic modification.
Because it's "unnatural" to modify plant genes.
Yeah. Lets do that. Anything to avoid polluting the genetic purity
of plantlife.
Jester the Molester|2.20.09 @ 7:30PM|#
No, the worse part is that gen alt strains would require the
entire Continent to lose its designation as 'organic'.
Then Europe would stop importing those billions of metric tons of
foodstuffs it does annually from Africa.
|2.20.09 @ 7:30PM|#
Quiz Time:
Which organized political groups wanted to use coercive means to
enforce the genetic purity of certain strains of H.
sapiens?
Which organized political groups want to use coercive means to
enforce the genetic purity of certain strains of T.
durum?
|2.20.09 @ 8:28PM|#
J sub D, how is suggesting a different crop (that many of them
already grow) any more 'teaching the ignorant savages' than
providing them with a new strain (that they didn't develop)? Right
or wrong, what I'm not ignoring is that their customers (in Europe)
want GMO free food.
Sorghum is native to Africa. Nigeria is already the world's second
largest producer of millet. I'm not suggesting a campaign of agent
orange followed by a carpetbombing of quinoa. These are crops many
Africans already grow.
Hazel, have you noticed yet that I'm not railing against GMO crops?
Keep arguing with the environmentalist in your head. You'll
convince him soon, I'm sure.
GMO crops are one of Ronald Bailey's favorite hammers. He has
failed to convince me that this is a nail.
economist|2.20.09 @ 10:04PM|#
"J sub D, how is suggesting a different crop (that many of them
already grow) any more 'teaching the ignorant savages' than
providing them with a new strain (that they didn't develop)?
"
I'll answer this one.
One: The genetically modified crops are essentially the same in
food quality as the original crops. Most people don't like being
told to change what they eat, if there's an alternative.
Two: I highly doubt most of their customers in Europe really would
be so averse to GMO crops as the environmentalists make them out to
be. Otherwise, they wouldn't buy these brands, which tends to put a
damper on business.
JB|2.21.09 @ 2:46AM|#
Liberals killing poor people and getting off on it: part one
million.
Sick, sick puppies. Torture is too good for them.
Technomist|2.21.09 @ 7:07AM|#
Do understand that in Europe Monsanto is not seen as a kindly
group of pioneering scientists in leather-patched cardigans trying
to feed the planet.
Over here they have a major public image problem, all science
aside. They have just about the same public image as the
white-caots lunatics who work in Dr No's laboratories at his evil
lair under the watchful eye of fanatical and jump-suited armed
guards.
Everytime they try a charm offensive using the kinds of corporate
methods that work in the States they come across as self-serving
American imperialists selling snake oil. Whatever they do ,they
aren't cool or amusing enough and what they do does not impress
anyone.
I don't have the answer to it, but I do see the problem. They ask
the European public to trust them but the are too earnestly and
proudly Corporate America for that to happen.
Kreel Sarloo|2.21.09 @ 7:42AM|#
So, what I'm hearing is that Greenism is the Eurotrash
equivalent of Fundieism in the USA.
I understand why the innumerate and barely literate proles hold
these ideas. What I don't understand is why well informed and
educated people push them.
VM|2.21.09 @ 10:41AM|#
and don't forget about how gene technology is being blamed for
the bees!
P&T interviewed Borlaug on one of their better shows :)
|2.21.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Sorghum is native to Africa. Nigeria is already the world's
second largest producer of millet.
Africa, the second largest continent, has a wide variety of soils,
climate conditions, growing season lengths, native pests etc. This
dictatesor at least strongly influences what crops are planted.
Africa is a big fucking place.
North America is already the world's largest producer of wheat. Why
don't they grow it in Nunavut? Jesus H. McChrist, different parts
of a relatively small state like Michigan are suitable/unsuitable
for different crops.
|2.21.09 @ 12:06PM|#
North America is already the world's largest producer of
wheat. Why don't they grow it in Nunavut?
That's not a fair comparison. North America has a much wider
variety of climates than Africa (for instance, nothing grows in
Nunavut). No one is saying they should try growing sorghum in the
Sahara.
|2.21.09 @ 1:54PM|#
That's not a fair comparison. North America has a much wider
variety of climates than Africa (for instance, nothing grows in
Nunavut). No one is saying they should try growing sorghum in the
Sahara.
No shit, Sherlock. I was pointing out the fallacy of Nigeria
growing millet means "African" farmers can just switch willy nilly
from wheat to other grains, lumping a continent's farmers and
environments together.
BTW,
More than lichens and reindeer grow in Nunavut.
SpongePaul|2.21.09 @ 2:52PM|#
understand why the innumerate and barely literate proles hold
these ideas. What I don't understand is why well informed and
educated people push them.
__________________________________________
to keep controll of the proles
|2.21.09 @ 3:14PM|#
@Technomist
We're quite happy to take huge swathes off tech off teh yankie
corpurayshuns though eh?
We're actually pretty happy to smoke genetically modified skunk,
(probably more so the fuzzy middle class kids who are most active
in spreading the propaganda against GM).
I think Greenpeace have just got alot more clout over here and they
got in fast with the propaganda,
Then you've got that ex-imperialistic condescending attitude to
Africa where "we know best" what the poor victim african's should
do
I actually think most europeans care more about the elephants than
the people and kind of think that there's something noble about
poverty.
I've got no probs with alot of what greenpeace do, saving the
whales seems reasonable and being pro alt-energy is cool but the
anti-GM stuff is just messed up
Naga Sadow|2.21.09 @ 3:30PM|#
MaterialMonkee,
You have stumbled over a pet peeve of mine. Alternative energy? If
there was a good alternative to fossil fuels, we would be using it
now. Until the market can find a suitable alternative energetically
superior while being cost effective, any lobbyist pressures at all
will only delay it's implementation.
Whew! That was a lot so . . .
DRINK!!!
Jester|2.21.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Our counterparts in Europe are definitely more 'green' (on
avg.). Like us, they have powerful farm lobby, but a farm lobby
that differentiates itself with the word 'organic' or (in France)
'artisanale' whereas ours is all 'agribusiness' (quantity over
quality.)
Feeding the world, I think it's fair to first worry about quantity,
but when you look at Europe you see that they are protecting their
version of farm lobby. It's why they obsess so much over
'origine'.
Here in America, of course, both quantity and quality exist
although our lobby is more about the quantity sector. If you want
to blow your whole paycheck at Whole Foods, go for it. If you want
to economize and eat Ramen with MSG, that's an option.
Unfortunately, the battle of the lobbies has spilled over into the
LDCs in a farm version of the Cold War.
Jester|2.21.09 @ 4:06PM|#
The US Civil War probably did more to save whales than anything.
It got us off of our whale oil habit and into petroleum. Had that
change not occurred in the 1860s, whale pops prolly woulda been
decimated long before the hug-a-whale campaigns got into gear at
elementary schools around the world.
I think it shows that Naga is right about his alt energy comment as
well.
Rationalitate|2.21.09 @ 4:16PM|#
It's misleading to say that the only reason that foreign countries what biocrops banned is because of leftist environmentalist organizations. Another big factor is that Western countries often insist that poorer countries respect their intellectual property "rights" with respect to these seeds. If Monsanto were to give up its government-sanctioned monopolies, poorer countries might be more willing to let in their seeds.
|2.21.09 @ 4:44PM|#
In 2007 the global planting of biotech crops rose to an all time high of 282 million acres, a 12 percent increase over 2006. In addition, the number of farmers choosing to grow biotech crops rose from 10.3 million in 2006 to over 12 million in 2007. The ISAAA report notes that 11 million of the biotech growers are resource poor farmers in developing countries, the majority of whom cultivate insect-resistant cotton. Biotech crops are now planted in 23 countries, and 29 others have approved the import of biotech food and feed.
...
"Who Benefits from GM Crops?" As the ISAAA report clearly shows, millions of farmers around the world think that they benefit from biotech crops. Since this is so, FOE can only conclude that these farmers are either stupid or deluded or both. If biotech crops did not deliver their promised benefits, farmers around the world would not be adopting them at exponential rates. Not even FOE's most determined efforts to spread anti-biotech misinformation can obscure this plain fact.
From here. IOW, the
farmers of the world are increasingly willing to pay Monsanto for
their innovations/inventions.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time arguing the point. Farmers
like biotech as it improves the bottom line. The biggest implement
to biotech adoption by poorer countries is the knowledge they won't
be able to export to Europe. That barrier will fall to economic
reality in a decade or too. Greenpeace and FOE might as well raise
the white flag now.
Jester|2.21.09 @ 5:18PM|#
It isn't just leftist environmentalist. They merely help along
the rationale of the European Farm Lobby. The propaganda the avg.
European is subjected to in terms of 'organic', etc. is stunning.
In America, not choosing organic might limit what social circles
you can run around in. In Europe you'd probably be ostracized by
just about everyone. The fact that European gov't wants to even
take that choice from its consumers is an illustration of that
intense pressure.
I must admit that leftist environmentalists are consistent. DDT ban
vs. millions each year dying of malaria. They really at least the
shrillest among them don't shrink from declaring the world would be
a better place with few or no humans.
|2.21.09 @ 6:48PM|#
@NS
"If there was a good alternative to fossil fuels, we would be using
it now"
Its starting, at least during the oil peak last year wind was
cheaper than oil and gas. I think solar convesion tech (as in not
solar cells but focusing light onto a heat conductive chemical to
turn a turbine) was pretty close aswell. Geothermal has always been
cheaper but its only available in a few places. Biofuels would be
cheaper than fossil fuels if it wasn´t for mercantilist
agricultural subsidies. Most cars manufactured in Brazil nowerdays
can run on them. Solar cells (photovoltaics) the type you get on
your calculator won't be competitive for a long time.
I don´t think anything is ever (our life time) gonna be cheaper
than coal for many parts of the world USA, China. Western Europe's
pretty much out of the stuff though.
Alt-energy is awsome thought for survivalist types
"Whew! That was a lot so . . .
DRINK!!!"
man the in laws are round so I'm as sober as a judge :(
economist|2.22.09 @ 12:11AM|#
"Biofuels would be cheaper than fossil fuels if it wasn´t for
mercantilist agricultural subsidies."
No it wouldn't. For one, you can't put ethanol through a pipeline
(it leaches impurities and spoils the fuel), so the cost of
transport is much higher. Then there's the costs of growing the
crops that get distilled into ethanol. This involves a crapload of
energy inputs that are long to list here.
For the short term, I'm thinking fission as an alternative source
of electricity, and possibly a supplement to gasoline (more hybrid
vehicles). In the long term, I think someone will finally
effectively control nuclear fusion for energy purposes.
Wind, solar, and geothermal might work as stopgap measures in some
places, but I don't think they will be the replacement (or even the
major supplement) for fossil fuels.
|2.22.09 @ 2:24AM|#
For a poster called Rationalite...
Are you saying that those poor countries would rather watch their
citizens starve than respect a patent?
|2.22.09 @ 4:44AM|#
First, the Greens eliminated the most effective disease control method ever developed by mankind (DDT). Then they shutdown development of the only energy source that could demonstrably replace everything else (nuclear). Then they shut down development of hydro, the only really reliable "renewable" source. Then they started to go after the only remaining energy source, fossil fuels. They are trying (and succeeding) in driving the humans on this planet back to a subsistence level, with a VERY low population level.
VM|2.22.09 @ 10:24AM|#
"man the in laws are round so I'm as sober as a judge :("
ohnoes! where are you?
rxc: don't forget about wind turbines and birds!!
an "Du weisst wen" - servus scheisskerl.
Naga - for that (since Material can't), you have to do two extra at
some point during the week. preferably something different, and
dammit, without those goddammmmmm umbrellas you're so fond
of.
AND NO APPLE-TINIS.
NONE WHATSOEVER.
|2.22.09 @ 12:57PM|#
. They are trying (and succeeding) in driving the humans on
this planet back to a subsistence level, with a VERY low population
level.
Nuclear waste disposal, disruption of river flow affecting silt
deposition and fish reproduction, and carbon emissions are all
legitimate environmental concerns. Let's not impute sinister
motives to the people we disagree with unless there's some
independent evidence of that, K?
Naga Sadow|2.22.09 @ 1:09PM|#
VM,
No appletinis? At all? What about champagne? The bubbles tickle my
throat on the way down.
VM|2.22.09 @ 1:34PM|#
perhaps some bubbly.
and we can all raise our glasses to glaring at dickheads
everywhere! (*fixes glare on bicycler who ran stop sign*)
Naga Sadow|2.22.09 @ 2:03PM|#
VM,
I was jesting. I drink wine(mostly red), bourbon, and pale ale
beers. Bout it. Though a 15 year Dom P. is fantastic stuff. I've
gotta get my girlfriend the Rose' Dom P. But in such a setting as
it makes everyone around us weep with envy. That's how I roll.
VM|2.22.09 @ 2:08PM|#
good. goooooooooooood.
then you're forbidden from sniffing at a saucy white zin.
and have a double booker's and you'll be fine.
it scares the zombies.
Naga Sadow|2.22.09 @ 2:12PM|#
VM,
What are you doing here, anyway? Your girl Uma Thurman is on right
now in Kill Bill vol 1 and 2. Then again Verminators is
also on. Choose wisely, grasshopper.
|2.22.09 @ 2:16PM|#
Sorry to interrupt your playful frat boy banter, but I thought
this thread was about environmentalists and GMO foodstuffs. If you
guys want to exchange sly, pithy and extratopical email messages
fine, but there's no need to force the rest of us to read it by
posting it here.
Thank you.
Naga Sadow|2.22.09 @ 3:24PM|#
VM,
You gotta hide your comments when they don't have a "Rabscuttle
thread approved" stamp on em.
Example:
I feel that GMO's are good and will help poor, starving
Africans.[You gotta hide the comments here, friend. He'll never
figure it out.] Enviromentalists hate poor, starving Africans
because they oppose GMO's.
You can feel like Anne Frank.
|2.22.09 @ 9:12PM|#
Naga, I'm just saying what everyone else is thinking but doesn't
want to rock the boat.
People like you and VM are the reason we have to have red ammonia
indicator in swimming pools.
DADIODADDY|2.22.09 @ 9:15PM|#
Rust spores move long distances in the jet streams and know no political boundaries...this just in...., PETA signs non-aggression pact with UG99, rust spores promise not to damage anY more crops in exchange for a date with Angelina Jolie
Ol\' Lobsterhead Is Back|2.23.09 @ 12:13AM|#
You know what they say about the size of African fungi's spores....
|2.23.09 @ 12:18AM|#
Rabscuttle -
You must have been a hall monitor - just remember now though -
you're not in charge of these halls.
|2.23.09 @ 1:03AM|#
I feel that GMO's are good and will help poor, starving
Africans.
Enviromentalists hate poor, starving Africans because they oppose
GMO's.
I'd put it more like this. The arguments against GMOs are so
blatantly stupid and unscientific that a four year old could refute
them.
Hence the anti-GMO environmentalists have to be either criminally
retarded, or deliberately lying.
I'm actually paying them a compliment by assuming they are lying
malicious assholes.
Cause I'm a nice person, and hence try to avoid assuming that other
people are mental defectives.
|2.23.09 @ 8:34AM|#
*sigh*
Whenever this topic comes up, I grow wistful and nostalgic for my
years of work with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Yep, I found
a gene that, when overexpressed, increased the pathogenic
efficiency of the Agrobacterium.
Agro is the most beautiful (imho) example of a natural
genetic engineer. It infects a plant wound and inserts a set of
genes into the plant's DNA. It's gorgeous, really. The DNA has to
be processed and travel across bacterial membrane, plant cell wall,
cytoplasmic membrane, nuclear membrane... Anyway, the genes are
then expressed by the plant, yielding a cancer-like growth of cells
that produce scads of food for the bacteria.
Plunk your gene of choice into that transferred packet of DNA and
you have... a genetically modified plant.
It's easy.
It's also perfectly natural.
If only the OTT at IU could be convinced of my super-transformer's
abilities, I'd be sitting pretty with Monsanto right now.
Alas...
|2.23.09 @ 6:32PM|#
"Biofuels would be cheaper than fossil fuels if it wasn´t for
mercantilist agricultural subsidies"
What a fascinating example of wishful thinking. If that were the
case, they why aren't people in other countries which can't afford
mercantilist agricultural subsidies all using biofuels?
The fact is, oil is still cheaper than the alternatives. If and
when that ceases to be the case, we'll switch, and it won't take
tax money to make it happen.
-jcr
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245