Earth entering "Uncharted Waters"

[SpiralHawk]

As the elders said it would be, so it is. We can turn this around. But it will take all of us. - SH



EARTH 'ENTERING UNCHARTED WATERS'
By Alex Kirby
BBC News - Tuesday, January 20, 2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3411053.stm

The Earth has entered a new era, one in which human beings may be the dominant force, say four environmental leaders.

In the International Herald Tribune, they say the uncertainty, magnitude and speed of change in many of the Earth's systems is without precedent.

The four, who include Margot Wallstrom, the European environment commissioner, say uncertainty cannot excuse inaction.

They believe humanity may cross some critical thresholds unawares, setting off changes which cannot be reversed.

Change at a gallop

(snip)
The authors write: "The Earth has entered the so-called Anthropocene -- the geologic epoch in which humans are a significant and sometimes dominating environmental force.

more...

[ewagner]

1. This is the frightening part

They believe humanity may cross some critical thresholds unawares, setting off changes which cannot be reversed.

We don't have a view of how the systems work together and yet, we arrogantly go on treating earth like our own personal landfill.

Caution is in order and we aren't paying attention.

Thanks for the great post.

[KoKo]

3. Kick.........thanks, Spiral......

:kick:

[Westegg]

4. Haven't we known this for some time now?

[salinen]

2. Well if you expect dissater

from over-intensafication on this grand scale, then you will not be surprized by what's about to happen.

[bahrbearian]

5. Too the moon ,Alice too the Moooon...

[JailForBush]

6. To put it in perspective...

Imagine if we somehow got our act together, executed George W. Bush (or put him in prison for life, for those who oppose the death penalty), waged a jihad against pollution and GM foods, made energy conservation a religion, etc.

It's entirely possible that we would make a horrifying discovery: It's already too late. The global warming pendulum isn't going to swing the other way in a year and maybe not for a decade. Many species that have been pushed to the brink of extinction may fall into the abyss. SARS, AIDS and mad cow disease are reminders that other, even more frightening, diseases may have already crept into our lives. And on and on.

I'm not a dommsdayer, and I don't believe that people should say "What's the use?" and give up. On the contrary, I think like is a gamble, with no guarantees under the best of circumstances (our generation might have been snuffed out by a meteorite), but we can certainly improve the odds and make life a much better experience at the same time.

And if we are doomed, I'd like to go out fighting.

[cosmicaug]

10. GM foods.

JailForBush wrote:

waged a jihad against pollution and GM foods,

What is this bloody obsession some people have with GM foods? Why can't people just leave this bullshit with the Natural Law nut-jobs where it belongs? Do people really think anything like wheat (or even maize) existed in nature?

JailForBush wrote:

SARS, AIDS and mad cow disease are reminders that other, even more frightening, diseases may have already crept into our lives. And on and on.

• SARS has caused, what,... possibly even under 1000 deaths?


• A.I.D.S. is a real plague but nothing in approaching in global scale the plagues of old. It is having a catastrophic effect on some third world countries and wreaking their economies but is something which could be slowly brought under control if the political will to do so existed (which, of course, it does not --I imagine what was spent on Iraq would have gone a long ways if it had gone toward combating the spread of A.I.D.S. instead).


• As to mad cow disease, it needs to be put into perspective. I'd worry more about getting shit on your meat as it undoubtedly kills more people in the U.S..

[HereSince1628]

13. Suggesting that bacterial/zea maize genetic chimeras as in

BT-Corn is like the origins of wheat or maize is a bit disingenuous don't you think? Exploiting increases in ploidy via fortuitous crosses of parents doesn't really seem much like gene insertions using viral vectors.

That isn't to say that horizontal gene transfers in nature aren't important. But biotech folks use of that not all together true statement erodes the credibility of an industry which is probably pretty safe, but which will undoubtedly make mistakes.

In general I agree the risk assessment leads me to expect more exposure to fecal bacteria contamination than AIDS.

But risk analysis isn't only about exposure its also about reversibility.

Even without treatment at my age, in my health condition, I can probably get over a Salmonella infection or many of the variant E. coli infections. If I got variant-CJD or AIDS that wouldn't be true.
The mortality rate of SARS scares even health professionals.

[cosmicaug]

15. Risk analysis, etc..

HereSince1628 wrote:

Suggesting that bacterial/zea maize genetic chimeras as in BT-Corn is like the origins of wheat or maize is a bit disingenuous don't you think?

If I thought it was disingenuous, I probably wouldn't have made the comparison.

HereSince1628 wrote:

Exploiting increases in ploidy via fortuitous crosses of parents doesn't really seem much like gene insertions using viral vectors.

You're right, gene insertions through various recombinant techniques, are, in some ways, a lot more controlled than spontaneous polyploidy (or not so spontaneous poliploidy --I note this because I believe this has also been, without hint of controversy, done in some fruit crops before the anti-GM hysteria was even a twinkle in any activist's eye).
By the way, there are other ways of manipulating genetics (through simple hybridization with exotic relatives) which, again, should be properly considered to be less controlled than anything that's been done with plants up to now through genetic engineering techniques.

But risk analysis isn't only about exposure its also about reversibility.

Even without treatment at my age, in my health condition, I can probably get over a Salmonella infection or many of the variant E. coli infections. If I got variant-CJD or AIDS that wouldn't be true.

Actually I don't even know why I bothered to comment on that as it doesn't touch on my anti-GM weenie pet peeve and the relevance to environmental degradation is, at best, tangential (one could speculate that A.I.D.S. could be the result more humans coming into contact with wild animals, v-CJD is the result of poor animal husbandry practices and SARS I assume that it, like various flu strains from Asia, must come from husbandry practices which bring a lot of people in close contact with lot of farm animals --but I don't really know).

As to relative risks, my point is that people worry about the wrong things. Yes, v-CJD is a lot scarier (not to mention, a horrible way to die), but when your kid dies from some enteric bacteria infection because the beef industry doesn't clean up its act, your kid will be just as dead (and the latter is probably a heck more likely than the former).
And by the way, don't think I'm defending the practices which may be responsible for v-CJD transmission and other things that can ail us. I am not. I find these practices (feeding cows, shit and dead animals) to be be abhorrent and I think they constitute an unjustifiable efficiency for the sake of efficiency alone (what are the savings to the producer? some small fraction of a cent per pound of meat perhaps?).

The mortality rate of SARS scares even health professionals.

Maybe I was being too flippant or something. The point is that, in the full context of what it could have been (or might yet be) we have been pretty lucky. For that matter a good flu epidemic one of these decades is not out of the question (I am not convinced that we're somehow immune to such things in these modern times --yes imagine that, everybody's all worried about the exotic disease du jour and here I go worrying about the flu).

[HereSince1628]

16. I believe in GM products - - my post was about one of my pet

peeves about people working in GM. It has nothing to do with the safety of gm-foods. It's about the industry's common rhetorical practice of equating two processes that are biologically very different.

The lack of precision in such an equation offends me. I see the use of in formation in that way as spinning the truth in the search for a usable PR message. It gives the consuming public a false understanding. As a Biology prof that's antithetical to my life's work. Better we share the truth; it isn't so bad.

So much for pet peeves. You have yours, I have mine.

[cosmicaug]

18. Sorry.

HereSince1628

The lack of precision in such an equation offends me. I see the use of in formation in that way as spinning the truth in the search for a usable PR message. It gives the consuming public a false understanding. As a Biology prof that's antithetical to my life's work. Better we share the truth; it isn't so bad.

I guess I don't see it as just an empty rhetorical practice. Changes in ploidy, are after all, pretty drastic genetic changes*. If I had to choose between suddenly becoming Triploid Floyd (Floyd isn't my name but Triploid Floyd sounds like a much cooler name for a mutant polyploid superhero than Triploid Aug or Triploid Gus or Triploid August) or suddenly expressing some extra gene for antibiotic resistance, I know which one I'd choose. We're talking about the sort of thing which cretinists could refer to as crossing the kind barrier, after all :-).

So I hope you like my other post better (if you can even stand to read through it all) and that I was not too much of a smart-ass.

* Granted that plants seem to handle some major bizarreness in this respect well enough at times.

[JohnyCanuck]

14. OK I'll bite.

Actually I have no objection to you stuffing the stuff in your mouth and your kids' mouths if that is what you want. But personally, I'd like to have a choice as to whether I ingest the stuff and a choice as to whether my money is used to support the farmers that grow GM crops as opposed to the farmers the don't. Apparently this is a choice the agri-business industry doesn't want to give us as it refuses to label GM products (as it does in Europe).

In the free enterprises system that we are all supposed to know and love, the consumer is king and gets to make his choices known through where she chooses to spend her money, except, that is, when it comes to GM food. The chicken-shit agribusinesses do their damndest to defeat labelling laws etc. that would give North American consumers the same choice consumers have in European countries.


Below is an email newsletter from an English group called Science in Society made up of various scientists and researchers with scientific backgrounds who are opposed to the push to allow the widespread use of GM crops.

Note to mods: Science in Society gives permission to reproduce their email newsletters and web site articles etc. in full as long as credit is provided to Science in Society and a link is provided to their web site at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php


Scientists Join Farmers to Call for Enquiry into Publicly Funded Science

Prominent scientists representing more than a thousand colleagues around the world are voicing their deep concerns at the lack of social accountability of publicly funded science, especially in genetically modified (GM) crops.

They are particularly incensed at the persistent denial and dismissal by the government’s scientific advisors of the now extensive scientific evidence on the hazards of GM crops to health and the environment, and their total disregard for the precautionary principle.

The scientists will be speaking out at a special briefing in the Greater London Assembly between 2:00 to 4:00pm on Monday, 19 January 2003, where they will join representatives of independent and family farmers to call for a review of publicly funded science, and to set priority for non-GM sustainable farming in Britain.

The scientists belong to the London-based Institute of Science in Society, representing more than 670 scientists from 76 countries, Scientists for Global Responsibility, with a membership of 600, and the Independent Science Panel (ISP) on GM, launched 10 May 2003 at a public conference in London attended by the then environment minister Michael Meacher and 200 other participants.

The 24 scientists on the ISP published their report, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World on 15 June 2003. The report is a complete dossier of evidence on the problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the proven successes of all forms of non-GM sustainable agriculture. It has been translated into Spanish, and French, Indonesian and Portuguese translations are on the way.

The evidence reviewed in this authoritative report, containing more than 200 references to primary and secondary sources, received ample corroboration from new data released recently. The US Department of Agriculture confirmed that GM crops increased pesticide use by 50 million tonnes since 1995. UK’s Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs), much criticised for being limited in scope and biased in methodology, nevertheless confirmed that two of the three GM crops harmed wildlife. The third, GM maize tolerant to herbicide glufosinate, appeared to do better only because the conventional maize crop was sprayed with the deadly herbicide atrazine that Europe has banned a week before the FSEs Report was released.

“Scientific evidence has gone decisively against GM crops,” says Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Director of the Institute of Science in Society, “It is incredible that our government’s scientific advisors are still giving the green light to growing GM maize.” She will be revealing at the briefing how 12 dairy cows died in a farm in Hesse, Germany, after being fed GM maize, that different GM feed also harmed other livestock and lab animals, suggesting there may be something seriously wrong with GM food and feed in general.

An important clue is to be found in the overwhelming instability of GM varieties. Practically every GM variety analysed by French and Belgian scientists recently, including the T25 GM maize that the UK government is authorising for growing in Britain, turned out to be unstable. “These results are telling us what many of us have been saying for years: the GM process itself is inherently uncontrollable and unsafe.” Dr. Mae-Wan Ho states.

“We all want to benefit from what new technologies have to offer, but history shows that, all too often, we have failed to heed well-founded warnings and made very expensive mistakes, and GM could be one of these;” says Professor Peter Saunders, bio-mathematician, King’s College, London, “Precaution is the key, and precaution is inseparable from good science.”

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, medical toxi-pathologist, Liverpool University, reminds us: “The £1.6 million given by the UK Government to Dr. Pusztai was to develop hazard assessment techniques for novel foods. That tells us the regulators recognized that the methods in use then were not adequate to protect human health. Not much has changed, and it seems that line of research is no longer seriously pursued. Consequently, the current risk assessments are still totally inadequate.”

Dr. Arpad Pusztai, formerly of Rowett Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland, agrees:
“Science is able to provide the tools for conducting thorough risk assessments on GM foods, yet this is not being done adequately. It leads one to ask, ‘Who is responsible for not ensuring that GM foods are properly assessed, and why?’”

Emeritus Professor of Plant Genetics Joe Cummins, from University of Western Ontario, Canada, says of his country: “The Canadian government pumped millions of dollars into developing GM crops, especially GM wheat, owned by the corporations. In return, the corporations agreed to enhance the salaries of agricultural bureaucrats. The cosy relationship between the corporations and government has resulted in lax regulation and widespread pollution of non-GM crops. Worse still, scientists are intimidated into silence; they are afraid to speak out, let alone do experiments on the risks and hazards of GM.”

Many scientists deplore the pervasive commercial and political conflicts of interests in both research and development and regulation of GM. Dr. Eva Novotny, astrophysicist, formerly from Cambridge University, and spokesperson for Scientists for Global Responsibility sums it up: “Vested interests must not override science, economics and what the public want.”

The scientists are keen to work in partnership with farmers in research and development of sustainable agriculture. John Turner, organic farmer from FARM, a group set up in 2002 to represent independent and family farmers in the wake of the foot and mouth epidemic, is very enthusiastic about the possibility of forming a scientists-farmers coalition. He says: “This will ensure that science can respond to the present needs of agriculture, and anticipate future aspirations and needs of farmers and consumers.”

Register NOW for GLA Briefing, Winning the GM Science Debate at:

http://www.indsp.org/GLAinvite.pdf

See also this letter from some more scientist concerned with the spread of GM crops.

Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments

Summary
We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.

Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.

GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world

The hazards of GMOs to biodiversity and human and animal health are now acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. Particularly serious consequences are associated with the potential for horizontal gene transfer. These include the spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.

In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal in January 2000, more than 130 governments have pledged to implement the precautionary principle and to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the World Trade Organization.

Successive studies have documented the productivity and the social and environmental benefits of sustainable, low-input and organic farming in both North and South. They offer the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices, and empower small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.

We urge the US Congress to reject GM crops as both hazardous and contrary to the interest of family farmers; and to support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers all over the world.

We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.

1 Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals(1). Life-forms such as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries and hence not patentable. Current GM techniques which exploit living processes are unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable, and do not qualify as inventions. Furthermore, those techniques are inherently unsafe, as are many GM organisms and products.

2. It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices that can provide food security and health around the world.

3. Two simple characteristics account for the nearly 40 million hectares of GM crops planted in 1999(2). The majority (71%) are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while most of the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests. A university-based survey of 8200 field trials of the most widely grown GM crops, herbicide-tolerant soya beans - revealed that they yield 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties(3). This has been confirmed by a more recent study in the University of Nebraska(4). Yet other problems have been identified: erratic performance, disease susceptibility(5), fruit abortion(6) and poor economic returns to farmers(7).

4. According to the UN food programme, there is enough food to feed the world one and a half times over. While world population has grown 90% in the past 40 years, the amount of food per capita has increased by 25%, yet one billion are hungry(8). A new FAO report confirms that there will be enough or more than enough food to meet global demands without taking into account any yield improvementsthat might result from GM crops well into 2030 (9). It is on account of increasing corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the poor are getting poorer and hungrier(10). Family farmers around the world have been driven to destitution and suicide, and for the same reasons. Between 1993 and 1997 the number of mid-sized farms in the US dropped by 74,440(11), and farmers are now receiving below the average cost of production for their produce(12). The farming population in France and Germany fell by 50% since 1978(13). In the UK, 20 000 farming jobs were lost in the past year alone, and the Prime Minister has announced a £200m aid package(14). Four corporations control 85% of the world trade in cereals at the end of 1999(15). Mergers and acquisitions are continuing.

5. The new patents on seeds intensify corporate monopoly by preventing farmers from saving and replanting seeds, which is what most farmers still do in the Third World. In order to protect their patents, corporations are continuing to develop terminator technologies that genetic engineer harvested seeds not to germinate, despite worldwide opposition from farmers and civil society at large(16).

6. Christian Aid, a major charity working with the Third World, concluded that GM crops will cause unemployment, exacerbate Third World debt, threaten sustainable farming systems and damage the environment. It predicts famine for the poorest countries(17). African Governments condemned Monsanto's claim that GMOs are needed to feed the hungry of the world: "We..strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us… we believe it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and …undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.(18)" A message from the Peasant movement of the Philippines to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the industrialized countries stated, "The entry of GMOs will certainly intensify landlessness, hunger and injustice.(19)"

7. A coalition of family farming groups in the US have issued a comprehensive list of demands, including ban on ownership of all life-forms; suspension of sales, environmental releases and further approvals of all GM crops and products pending an independent, comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, health and economic impacts; and for corporations to be made liable for all damages arising from GM crops and products to livestock, human beings and the environment(20). They also demand a moratorium on all corporate mergers and acquisitions, on farm closures, and an end to policies that serve big agribusiness interests at the expense of family farmers, taxpayers and the environment(21). They have mounted a lawsuit against Monsanto and nine other corporations for monopolistic practices and for foisting GM crops on farmers without adequate safety and environmental impact assessments(22).

8. Some of the hazards of GM crops are openly acknowledged by the UK and US Governments. UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has admitted that the transfer of GM crops and pollen beyond the planted fields is unavoidable(23), and this has already resulted in herbicide-tolerant weeds(24). An interim report on UK Government-sponsored field trials confirmed hybridisation between adjacent plots of different herbicide tolerant GM oilseed rape varieties, which gave rise to hybrids tolerant to multiple herbicides. In addition, GM oilseed rape and their hybrids were found as volunteers in subsequent wheat and barley crops, which had to be controlled by standard herbicides(25). Bt-resistant insect pests have evolved in response to the continuous presence of the toxins in GM plants throughout the growing season, and the US Environment Protection Agency is recommending farmers to plant up to 40% non-GM crops in order to create refugia for non-resistant insect pests(26).

9. The threats to biodiversity from major GM crops already commercialized are becoming increasingly clear. The broad-spectrum herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant GM crops decimate wild plant species indiscriminately, they are also toxic to animals. Glufosinate causes birth defects in mammals(27), and glyphosate is linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma(28). GM crops with bt-toxins kill beneficial insects such as bees(29) and lacewings(30), and pollen from bt-corn is found to be lethal to monarch butterflies(31) as well as swallowtails(32). Bt-toxin is exuded from roots of bt-plants in the rhizosphere, where it rapidly binds to soil particles and become protected from degradation. As the toxin is present in an activated, non-selective form, both target and non-target species in the soil will be affected(33), with knock on effects on species above ground.

10. Products resulting from genetically modified organisms can also be hazardous. For example, a batch of tryptophan produced by GM microorganisms was associated with at least 37 deaths and 1500 serious illnesses(34). Genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone, injected into cows in order to increase milk yield, not only causes excessive suffering and illnesses for the cows but increases IGF-1 in the milk, which is linked to breast and prostate cancers in humans(35). It is vital for the public to be protected from all GM products, and not only those containing transgenic DNA or protein. That is because the process of genetic modification itself, at least in the form currently practised, is inherently unsafe.

11. Secret memoranda of US Food and Drug Administration revealed that it ignored the warnings of its own scientists that genetic engineering is a new departure and introduces new risks. Furthermore, the first GM crop to be commercialized - the Flavr Savr tomato - did not pass the required toxicological tests(36). Since then, no comprehensive scientific safety testing had been done until Dr. Arpad Pusztai and his collaborators in the UK raised serious concerns over the safety of the GM potatoes they were testing. They conclude that a significant part of the toxic effect may be due to the " construct or the genetic transformation (or both)" used in making the GM plants(37).

12. The safety of GM foods was openly disputed by Professor Bevan Moseley, molecular geneticist and current Chair of the Working Group on Novel Foods in the European Union's Scientific Committee on Food(38). He drew attention to unforseen effects inherent to the technology, emphasizing that the next generation of GM foods - the so-called 'neutraceuticals' or 'functional foods', such as vitamin A 'enriched' rice - will pose even greater health risks because of the increased complexity of the gene constructs.

13. Genetic engineering introduces new genes and new combinations of genetic material constructed in the laboratory into crops, livestock and microorganisms(39). The artificial constructs are derived from the genetic material of pathogenic viruses and other genetic parasites, as well as bacteria and other organisms, and include genes coding for antibiotic resistance. The constructs are designed to break down species barriers and to overcome mechanisms that prevent foreign genetic material from inserting into genomes. Most of them have never existed in nature in the course of billions of years of evolution.

14. These constructs are introduced into cells by invasive methods that lead to random insertion of the foreign genes into the genomes (the totality of all the genetic material of a cell or organism). This gives rise to unpredictable, random effects, including gross abnormalities in animals and unexpected toxins and allergens in food crops.

15. One construct common to practically all GM crops already commercialized or undergoing field trials involves a gene-switch (promoter) from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) spliced next to the foreign gene (transgene) to make it over-express continuously(40). This CaMV promoter is active in all plants, in yeast, algae and E. coli. We recently discovered that it is even active in amphibian egg(41) and human cell extract(42). It has a modular structure, and is interchangeable, in part, or in whole with promoters of other viruses to give infectious viruses. It also has a 'recombination hotspot' where it is prone to break and join up with other genetic material(43).

16. For these and other reasons, transgenic DNA - the totality of artificial constructs transferred into the GMO - may be more unstable and prone to transfer again to unrelated species; potentially to all species interacting with the GMO(44).

17. The instability of transgenic DNA in GM plants is well-known(45). GM genes are often silenced, but loss of part or all of the transgenic DNA also occurs, even during later generations of propagation(46). We are aware of no published evidence for the long term stability of GM inserts in terms of structure or location in the plant genome in any of the GM lines already commercialized or undergoing field trials.

18. The potential hazards of horizontal transfer of GM genes include the spread of antibiotic resistance genes to pathogens, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause disease and mutations due to the random insertion of foreign DNA, some of which may lead to cancer in mammalian cells(47). The ability of the CaMV promoter to function in all species including human beings is particularly relevant to the potential hazards of horizontal gene transfer.

19. The possibility for naked or free DNA to be taken up by mammalian cells is explicitly mentioned in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance to industry on antibiotic resistance marker genes(48). In commenting on the FDA's document, the UK MAFF pointed out that transgenic DNA may be transferred not just by ingestion, but by contact with plant dust and air-borne pollen during farm work and food processing(49). This warning is all the more significant with the recent report from Jena University in Germany that field experiments indicated GM genes may have transferred via GM pollen to the bacteria and yeasts in the gut of bee larvae(50).

20. Plant DNA is not readily degraded during most commercial food processing(51). Procedures such as grinding and milling left grain DNA largely intact, as did heat-treatment at 90deg.C. Plants placed in silage showed little degradation of DNA, and a special UK MAFF report advises against using GM plants or plant waste in animal feed.

21. The human mouth contains bacteria that have been shown to take up and express naked DNA containing antibiotic resistance genes, and similar transformable bacteria are present in the respiratory tracts(52).

22. Antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM plants have been found to transfer horizontally to soil bacteria and fungi in the laboratory(53). Field monitoring revealed that GM sugar beet DNA persisted in the soil for up to two years after the GM crop was planted. And there is evidence suggesting that parts of the transgenic DNA have transferred horizontally to bacteria in the soil(54).

23. Recent research in gene therapy and nucleic acid (both DNA and RNA) vaccines leaves little doubt that naked/free nucleic acids can be taken up, and in some cases, incorporated into the genome of all mammalian cells including those of human beings. Adverse effects already observed include acute toxic shock, delayed immunological reactions and autoimmune reactions(55).

24. The British Medical Association, in their interim report (published May, 1999), called for an indefinite moratorium on the releases of GMOs pending further research on new allergies, the spread of antibiotic resistance genes and the effects of transgenic DNA.

25. In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol successfully negotiated in Montreal in January, 2000, more than 130 governments have agreed to implement the precautionary principle, and to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the WTO. Similarly, delegates to the Codex Alimentarius Commission Conference in Chiba Japan, March 2000, have agreed to prepare stringent regulatory procedures for GM foods that include pre-market evaluation, long-term monitoring for health impacts, tests for genetic stability, toxins, allergens and other unintended effects(56). The Cartegena Biosafety Protocol has now been signed by 68 Governments in Nairobi in May, 2000.

26. We urge all Governments to take proper account of the now substantial scientific evidence of actual and suspected hazards arising from GM technology and many of its products, and to impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental releases, including open field trials, in accordance with the precautionary principle as well as sound science.

27. Successive studies have documented the productivity and sustainability of family farming in the Third World as well as in the North(57). Evidence from both North and South indicates that small farms are more productive, more efficient and contribute more to economic development than large farms. Small farmers also tend to make better stewards of natural resources, conserving biodiversity and safeguarding the sustainability of agricultural production(58). Cuba responded to the economic crisis precipitated by the break up of the Soviet Bloc in 1989 by converting from conventional large scale, high input monoculture to small organic and semi-organic farming, thereby doubling food production with half the previous input(59).

28. Agroecological approaches hold great promise for sustainable agriculture in developing countries, in combining local farming knowledge and techniques adjusted to local conditions with contemporary western scientific knowledge(60). The yields have doubled and tripled and are still increasing. An estimated 12.5 million hectares worldwide are already successfully farmed in this way(61). It is environmentally sound and affordable for small farmers. It recovers farming land marginalized by conventional intensive agriculture. It offers the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices. Most of all, it empowers small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.

29. We urge all Governments to reject GM crops on grounds that they are both hazardous and contrary to ecologically sustainable use of resources. Instead they should support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers the world over.

Signed by 676 scientists from 76 different countries, including:


Dr. David Bellamy, Biologist and Broadcaster, London, UK
Prof. Liebe Cavalieri, Mathematical Ecologist, Univ. Minnesota, USA
Dr. Thomas S. Cox, Geneticist, US Dept. of Agriculture (retired), India
Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, Spokesperson for African Region, Ethiopia
Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Biologist/Ecologist, Rutgers University, USA
Dr. Vladimir Zajac, Oncovirologist, Genetisist, Cancer Reseach Inst, Czech Republic
Dr. Brian Hursey, ex FAO Senior Officer for Vector Borne Diseases, UK
Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Geneticist, Harvard University, USA
Prof. Jonathan King, Molecular Biologist, MIT, Cambridge, USA
Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Laboratoire de Biochimie & Moleculaire, Univ. Caen, France
Dr. David Suzuki, Geneticist, David Suzuki Foundation, Univ. British Columbia, Canada
Dr. Vandana Shiva, Theoretical Physicist and Ecologist, India
Dr. George Woodwell, Director, Woods Hole Research Center, USA
Prof. Oscar B. Zamora, Agronomist, U. Philippines, Los Banos, Philippines


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

[cosmicaug]

17. I must be a glutton for punishment, I'll bite back.

I have no objection to a little caution. I object to a prevalent neo-Luddite attitude which would have us give up a potentially very useful tool out of what is, for the most part, ignorance and unfounded hysteria. I will attempt to answer (and have a little fun with), off the top of my head, some of the points raised as much as I can without going out and reading the research (which would take days if not weeks --assuming I had it at my fingertips which I don't).
Yes, I admit it. It's a very superficial way to make a rebuttal but it is less so than just copying and pasting (and I just don't have the time). Besides, the only way you can avoid all of the supposed risks from having genetically engineered food would be through the activism of the Society for D.N.A. free food.


Quoting the letter:

1 Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals(1). Life-forms such as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries and hence not patentable. Current GM techniques which exploit living processes are unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable, and do not qualify as inventions. Furthermore, those techniques are inherently unsafe, as are many GM organisms and products.

I agree there are intellectual property issues that are not well resolved. I do not necessarily like the way the resolution of these issues seems to be headed (I feel it's favoring corporate interests at the expense of the public interest). I obviously disagree on the last statements. These techniques of genetic manipulation are no more inherently unsafe than fire is. This is not an argument against the technology.

Quoting the letter:

2. It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices that can provide food security and health around the world.

The above is opinion. This might be an objection to the way the technology is being deployed. There's no reason you cannot have sustainability be aided, in some instances, by the judicious use of these genetic engineering technologies. Of course, with the all or nothing attitude which is encouraged by the anti-GM hysteria, this is not an option (as all genetically engineered products are seen as being equally evil and unsafe).

Quoting the letter:

3. Two simple characteristics account for the nearly 40 million hectares of GM crops planted in 1999(2). The majority (71%) are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while most of the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests. A university-based survey of 8200 field trials of the most widely grown GM crops, herbicide-tolerant soya beans - revealed that they yield 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties(3). This has been confirmed by a more recent study in the University of Nebraska(4). Yet other problems have been identified: erratic performance, disease susceptibility(5), fruit abortion(6) and poor economic returns to farmers(7).

If this is true, the free market will sort this out soon enough. Agricultural corporations not employing the crops with the above shortcomings will see better yields and realize higher profits. Eventually everybody will catch up and we´ll be back to the non genetically engineered varieties. How this is to be seen as an argument against any (much less all) use of genetic engineering technologies for food crops is beyond me.


Quoting the letter:

4. According to the UN food programme, there is enough food to feed the world one and a half times over. While world population has grown 90% in the past 40 years, the amount of food per capita has increased by 25%, yet one billion are hungry(8). A new FAO report confirms that there will be enough or more than enough food to meet global demands without taking into account any yield improvementsthat might result from GM crops well into 2030 (9).

So if our children are all right but not our children's children, this is fine with this group of people? Way to plan ahead, dudes!

Quoting the letter:

It is on account of increasing corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the poor are getting poorer and hungrier(10). Family farmers around the world have been driven to destitution and suicide, and for the same reasons. Between 1993 and 1997 the number of mid-sized farms in the US dropped by 74,440(11), and farmers are now receiving below the average cost of production for their produce(12). The farming population in France and Germany fell by 50% since 1978(13). In the UK, 20 000 farming jobs were lost in the past year alone, and the Prime Minister has announced a £200m aid package(14). Four corporations control 85% of the world trade in cereals at the end of 1999(15). Mergers and acquisitions are continuing.

This seems to be proposing that the greater efficiencies of production brought about by transgenic crops will hasten the demise of the small farmer. If true, this hardly makes genetic engineering of food crops a unique factor and worthy of being singled out. Also, I find it funny how the previous point is arguing that genetically modified food crops are bad because they produce less. Which is it?

Quoting the letter:

5. The new patents on seeds intensify corporate monopoly by preventing farmers from saving and replanting seeds, which is what most farmers still do in the Third World. In order to protect their patents, corporations are continuing to develop terminator technologies that genetic engineer harvested seeds not to germinate, despite worldwide opposition from farmers and civil society at large(16).

In my opinion, a valid criticism and something which should be given serious thought. This still does not constitute anything resembling a reason for the blanket condemnation of genetic engineering technologies most activists seem to advocate.

Quoting the letter:

6. Christian Aid, a major charity working with the Third World, concluded that GM crops will cause unemployment, exacerbate Third World debt, threaten sustainable farming systems and damage the environment. It predicts famine for the poorest countries(17). African Governments condemned Monsanto's claim that GMOs are needed to feed the hungry of the world: "We..strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us… we believe it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and …undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.(18)" A message from the Peasant movement of the Philippines to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the industrialized countries stated, "The entry of GMOs will certainly intensify landlessness, hunger and injustice.(19)"

I have no idea what this organization bases their assessment on (there's probably a kernel of truth in there somewhere but who knows what it might be without going to the source). For instance, how would a project that would allow small farmers a better yield on marginal soil be detrimental to said farmer?

Quoting the letter:

7. A coalition of family farming groups in the US have issued a comprehensive list of demands, including ban on ownership of all life-forms; suspension of sales, environmental releases and further approvals of all GM crops and products pending an independent, comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, health and economic impacts; and for corporations to be made liable for all damages arising from GM crops and products to livestock, human beings and the environment(20). They also demand a moratorium on all corporate mergers and acquisitions, on farm closures, and an end to policies that serve big agribusiness interests at the expense of family farmers, taxpayers and the environment(21). They have mounted a lawsuit against Monsanto and nine other corporations for monopolistic practices and for foisting GM crops on farmers without adequate safety and environmental impact assessments(22).

Again, I see nothing in that which should constitute a blanket condemnation of all genetic engineering uses in food crops.

Quoting the letter:

8. Some of the hazards of GM crops are openly acknowledged by the UK and US Governments. UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has admitted that the transfer of GM crops and pollen beyond the planted fields is unavoidable(23), and this has already resulted in herbicide-tolerant weeds(24).

Yup, this is probably likely as the Cruciferae are a very big group and there's probably not much difference between some wild mustard and a rapeseed plant.

Quoting the letter:

An interim report on UK Government-sponsored field trials confirmed hybridisation between adjacent plots of different herbicide tolerant GM oilseed rape varieties, which gave rise to hybrids tolerant to multiple herbicides. In addition, GM oilseed rape and their hybrids were found as volunteers in subsequent wheat and barley crops, which had to be controlled by standard herbicides(25). Bt-resistant insect pests have evolved in response to the continuous presence of the toxins in GM plants throughout the growing season, and the US Environment Protection Agency is recommending farmers to plant up to 40% non-GM crops in order to create refugia for non-resistant insect pests(26).

So there are some legitimate issues. Enough for the blanket condemnation of the technology that would be advocated by the anti-GM weenies? I don't think so.

Quoting the letter:

9. The threats to biodiversity from major GM crops already commercialized are becoming increasingly clear. The broad-spectrum herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant GM crops decimate wild plant species indiscriminately, they are also toxic to animals. Glufosinate causes birth defects in mammals(27), and glyphosate is linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma(28). GM crops with bt-toxins kill beneficial insects such as bees(29) and lacewings(30), and pollen from bt-corn is found to be lethal to monarch butterflies(31) as well as swallowtails(32). Bt-toxin is exuded from roots of bt-plants in the rhizosphere, where it rapidly binds to soil particles and become protected from degradation. As the toxin is present in an activated, non-selective form, both target and non-target species in the soil will be affected(33), with knock on effects on species above ground.

Herbicide toxicity was an issue before any of these crops were out and will remain an issue. As to the BT toxin, problem, I do not believe it is settled that it is indeed a problem (laboratory conditions do not necessarily replicate conditions in the wild --i.e. these larvae tend to feed on the underside of leaves were exposure to BT pollen is quite reduced).

Quoting the letter:

10. Products resulting from genetically modified organisms can also be hazardous. For example, a batch of tryptophan produced by GM microorganisms was associated with at least 37 deaths and 1500 serious illnesses(34).

Geez, the only role for genetic engineering here was in easily producing a strain of whatever organism was used which naturally overproduced tryptophan. This particular quality control problem would have happened regardless of how an overproducing strain had been produced in the first place.

Quoting the letter:

Genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone, injected into cows in order to increase milk yield, not only causes excessive suffering and illnesses for the cows but increases IGF-1 in the milk, which is linked to breast and prostate cancers in humans(35). It is vital for the public to be protected from all GM products, and not only those containing transgenic DNA or protein. That is because the process of genetic modification itself, at least in the form currently practised, is inherently unsafe.

The fact that IGF-1 might be able to promote some cancers is one thing, whether one can get enough through cows milk to do so is another thing altogether (not to mention whether it even survives the digestive process sufficiently to have an effect --I believe IGF-1 is a short polypeptide and might not even make it out of the stomach).

Quoting the letter:

11. Secret memoranda of US Food and Drug Administration revealed that it ignored the warnings of its own scientists that genetic engineering is a new departure and introduces new risks. Furthermore, the first GM crop to be commercialized - the Flavr Savr tomato - did not pass the required toxicological tests(36). Since then, no comprehensive scientific safety testing had been done until Dr. Arpad Pusztai and his collaborators in the UK raised serious concerns over the safety of the GM potatoes they were testing. They conclude that a significant part of the toxic effect may be due to the " construct or the genetic transformation (or both)" used in making the GM plants(37).

I'm sorry, I don't know anything about these supposed toxicological tests the Flavr Savr tomato failed (I thought anti-GM types always keep saying there's no testing). As to the potato issue, I didn't find that very convincing when it came out.

Quoting the letter:

12. The safety of GM foods was openly disputed by Professor Bevan Moseley, molecular geneticist and current Chair of the Working Group on Novel Foods in the European Union's Scientific Committee on Food(38). He drew attention to unforseen effects inherent to the technology, emphasizing that the next generation of GM foods - the so-called 'neutraceuticals' or 'functional foods', such as vitamin A 'enriched' rice - will pose even greater health risks because of the increased complexity of the gene constructs.

13. Genetic engineering introduces new genes and new combinations of genetic material constructed in the laboratory into crops, livestock and microorganisms(39). The artificial constructs are derived from the genetic material of pathogenic viruses and other genetic parasites, as well as bacteria and other organisms, and include genes coding for antibiotic resistance. The constructs are designed to break down species barriers and to overcome mechanisms that prevent foreign genetic material from inserting into genomes. Most of them have never existed in nature in the course of billions of years of evolution.

14. These constructs are introduced into cells by invasive methods that lead to random insertion of the foreign genes into the genomes (the totality of all the genetic material of a cell or organism). This gives rise to unpredictable, random effects, including gross abnormalities in animals and unexpected toxins and allergens in food crops.

What can I say, unforeseen effects occur naturally. Viruses and transposons and other naturally occurring agents (not to mention random mutation) which can alter the genome are not human creations. As to the constructs, almost all of them are going to be sourced from nature at this stage in the game (the trick is that we package things in unusual ways --i.e. to make sure the appropriate gene is expressed rather just silently incorporated into the genome).

Quoting the letter:

15. One construct common to practically all GM crops already commercialized or undergoing field trials involves a gene-switch (promoter) from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) spliced next to the foreign gene (transgene) to make it over-express continuously(40). This CaMV promoter is active in all plants, in yeast, algae and E. coli. We recently discovered that it is even active in amphibian egg(41) and human cell extract(42). It has a modular structure, and is interchangeable, in part, or in whole with promoters of other viruses to give infectious viruses. It also has a 'recombination hotspot' where it is prone to break and join up with other genetic material(43).

All the above means is that a certain promoter from a plant virus seems to work well in all eukaryotes where this has been looked at. I'm guessing this is probably not terribly surprising. The fact that it works well in E. coli might be a little bit more surprising. To make much of this probably could be considered scaremongering (do you think that nice piece of turnip you just ate doesn't have some fully functional and naturally occurring promoters?).

Quoting the letter:

16. For these and other reasons, transgenic DNA - the totality of artificial constructs transferred into the GMO - may be more unstable and prone to transfer again to unrelated species; potentially to all species interacting with the GMO(44).

"Potentially to all species interacting with the GMO"? Forgive me but that is bullshit scaremongering. Join previously mentioned Society for D.N.A. free food if you really believe that because only D.N.A. free food will be absolutely safe.

Quoting the letter:

17. The instability of transgenic DNA in GM plants is well-known(45). GM genes are often silenced, but loss of part or all of the transgenic DNA also occurs, even during later generations of propagation(46). We are aware of no published evidence for the long term stability of GM inserts in terms of structure or location in the plant genome in any of the GM lines already commercialized or undergoing field trials.

So now transgenic organisms are unsafe because sometimes it doesn't work out? That's like saying you fear the monster Dr. Frankenstein has in the basement because sometimes the lighning doesn't take. Geez, who thinks this stuff up?

Quoting the letter:

18. The potential hazards of horizontal transfer of GM genes include the spread of antibiotic resistance genes to pathogens, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause disease and mutations due to the random insertion of foreign DNA, some of which may lead to cancer in mammalian cells(47). The ability of the CaMV promoter to function in all species including human beings is particularly relevant to the potential hazards of horizontal gene transfer.

My answer to 12, 13 & 14 is applicable here. There's no good reason to believe it is any less safe than the various assorted mutagenic mechanisms which occur naturally.

Quoting the letter:

19. The possibility for naked or free DNA to be taken up by mammalian cells is explicitly mentioned in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance to industry on antibiotic resistance marker genes(48). In commenting on the FDA's document, the UK MAFF pointed out that transgenic DNA may be transferred not just by ingestion, but by contact with plant dust and air-borne pollen during farm work and food processing(49). This warning is all the more significant with the recent report from Jena University in Germany that field experiments indicated GM genes may have transferred via GM pollen to the bacteria and yeasts in the gut of bee larvae(50).

I see two issues here, the naked D.N.A. thing (which is probably not even relevant) and the horizontal gene transfer issue to gut bacteria and yeasts of bees. I get the impression they're putting the two things together in one point to make it seem like you could breath in some pollen and start glowing in the dark or something which is simply not the case (and somewhat deceitful, if you ask me). While transformation of gut bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance from plasmid vectors from GMO's should be a concern (assuming the report they mention is replicated) it is probably of very little consequence (considering how low transformation rates are when you are actually trying to make it happen, I wouldn't be surprised if it where easily overwhelmed by background mutations for antibiotic resistance --which would be, all in all, an insignificant contribution).


Quoting the letter:

20. Plant DNA is not readily degraded during most commercial food processing(51). Procedures such as grinding and milling left grain DNA largely intact, as did heat-treatment at 90deg.C. Plants placed in silage showed little degradation of DNA, and a special UK MAFF report advises against using GM plants or plant waste in animal feed.

<SARCASM>Geez, D.N.A. free food is the answer, don't you know anything?</SARCASM>


Quoting the letter:

21. The human mouth contains bacteria that have been shown to take up and express naked DNA containing antibiotic resistance genes, and similar transformable bacteria are present in the respiratory tracts(52).

22. Antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM plants have been found to transfer horizontally to soil bacteria and fungi in the laboratory(53). Field monitoring revealed that GM sugar beet DNA persisted in the soil for up to two years after the GM crop was planted. And there is evidence suggesting that parts of the transgenic DNA have transferred horizontally to bacteria in the soil(54).

See my previous comments. If it happens, it will be extremely rare and the population dynamics of antibiotic resistance being what they are, antibiotic resistance will not be maintained without proper selective pressure (and if proper selective pressure exists, you'll be in trouble anyway due to the natural occurrence of antibiotic resistance).

Quoting the letter:

23. Recent research in gene therapy and nucleic acid (both DNA and RNA) vaccines leaves little doubt that naked/free nucleic acids can be taken up, and in some cases, incorporated into the genome of all mammalian cells including those of human beings. Adverse effects already observed include acute toxic shock, delayed immunological reactions and autoimmune reactions(55).

Translation: Attempts at genetic engineering human therapy worked therefore.... Actually what they're referring to is research were the various oligonucleotides are designed to be delivered into cells. They're still not explaining why I should be more afraid of this happening with, for instance, a GM tomato than with the old fashioned kind. This is not clear at all.

Quoting the letter:

24. The British Medical Association, in their interim report (published May, 1999), called for an indefinite moratorium on the releases of GMOs pending further research on new allergies, the spread of antibiotic resistance genes and the effects of transgenic DNA.

No reason why this sort of thing could naot happen with normal hybridization programs if you stray outside the species line into exotic close relatives. <SARCASM>Hey I know, let's ban it all! Too bad that fucker, Burbank, is already dead 'cause he should be made to pay for his crimes against nature (and that Gregor Mendel sonofabitch --harmless monk, my ass!!).</SARCASM>

Quoting the letter:

25. In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol successfully negotiated in Montreal in January, 2000, more than 130 governments have agreed to implement the precautionary principle, and to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the WTO. Similarly, delegates to the Codex Alimentarius Commission Conference in Chiba Japan, March 2000, have agreed to prepare stringent regulatory procedures for GM foods that include pre-market evaluation, long-term monitoring for health impacts, tests for genetic stability, toxins, allergens and other unintended effects(56). The Cartegena Biosafety Protocol has now been signed by 68 Governments in Nairobi in May, 2000.

That doesn't sound all bad. This sort of caution is a lot different from the sort of moratorium this letter seems to be advocating, however.

Quoting the letter:

26. We urge all Governments to take proper account of the now substantial scientific evidence of actual and suspected hazards arising from GM technology and many of its products, and to impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental releases, including open field trials, in accordance with the precautionary principle as well as sound science.

As I write, they're advocating giving up on a very useful scientific tool. That's what I strongly object to.

Quoting the letter:

27. Successive studies have documented the productivity and sustainability of family farming in the Third World as well as in the North(57). Evidence from both North and South indicates that small farms are more productive, more efficient and contribute more to economic development than large farms. Small farmers also tend to make better stewards of natural resources, conserving biodiversity and safeguarding the sustainability of agricultural production(58). Cuba responded to the economic crisis precipitated by the break up of the Soviet Bloc in 1989 by converting from conventional large scale, high input monoculture to small organic and semi-organic farming, thereby doubling food production with half the previous input(59).

O.K., this, I fear, is completely and utter, unadulterated bullshit! I don't know where they get research to support the implied proposition that small organic farms in temperate regions outproduce the current system in the U.S.. The current system in the U.S. is the most productive agriculture in the world and it hasn't gotten this way by going back to small organic farms (it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise).

Of course, it is possible that if you take energy input into account, less industrialized chemical intensive agriculture might actually come out ahead but it would do so at the cost of lowered food production which pretty much would demolish the contention the letter is trying to make here and in points 4 and 28. And, of course, if we get to a point of insufficient food production (what would a single massive crop failure in North America do to the global food supply, I wonder?), throwing away one of our tools to help remedy the situation would be unconscionable.

As for the Cuba thing, I have a suspicion that, given the dates involved, they are describing a transition from a cash crop economy (sugar cane from when the sugar industry had heavy support from the Soviet Union --remember those guys?) to agricultural self sufficiency. Thus the doubling in food production has nothing to do with the transition from a monoculture (which indeed has its own problems --though what this has to do with banning GMO's is beyond me) to small organic farms; but, rather, with planting more bloody food crops (imagine that, you plant more food and you get more food).

Quoting the letter:

28. Agroecological approaches hold great promise for sustainable agriculture in developing countries, in combining local farming knowledge and techniques adjusted to local conditions with contemporary western scientific knowledge(60). The yields have doubled and tripled and are still increasing. An estimated 12.5 million hectares worldwide are already successfully farmed in this way(61). It is environmentally sound and affordable for small farmers. It recovers farming land marginalized by conventional intensive agriculture. It offers the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices. Most of all, it empowers small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.

This may be true. There's no reason why, genetically modified food crops might not be, under some circumstances, another tool in the arsenal of these small farmers. No reason at all. I'll go as far as saying that to deny them this tool is immoral.

Quoting the letter:

29. We urge all Governments to reject GM crops on grounds that they are both hazardous and contrary to ecologically sustainable use of resources. Instead they should support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers the world over.

No comment on this other than to state that I disagree which is something the astute reader should have figured out by now.

On Edit: Minor syntax issue

[moof]

7. Species that change the ecosystem go extinct.

n/t

[cosmicaug]

12. Species are the ecosystem.

moof wrote:

Species that change the ecosystem go extinct.

You write as if the ecosystem was sacred, static entity or place which only modern humans have the capability to affect (as defilers). The ecosystem is everything, the species are the ecosystem. All species (and I don't mean just beavers and people) affect the ecosystem. The trick lies in the balance.

On the other hand, your statement is still correct since all species eventually go extinct.

[anarchy1999]

8. Check out The Sacred Balance

http://www.sacredbalance.com/web/portal/

http://www.sacredbalance.com/web/drilldown.html?sku=49

[hatrack]

9. "Easter's End" by Jared Diamond

A fascinating essay on paleobotany and anthropology.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/lost_tribes/eastersend.html

Also worth a look is "Guns, Germs & Steel", also by Diamond. Very interesting book.

[Snivi Yllom]

11. they Earth could shrug us off like fleas

Even after the worst nuclear holocaust wiped out humans and most animal life on the planet, in 100 million years the Earth would be back to normal as if the Earth shrugged it's shoulders.

To quote George Carlin, The planet is fine, we are the ones who are fucked.