PDA

View Full Version : A Biological Apocalypse Barely Averted


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Tan & Blon
Thu, Jul-10-03, 19:14
A Biological Apocalypse Barely Averted. What About Next Time?

A Biological Apocalypse Averted Book Excerpt: The Food
Revolution by John Robbins

These [genetically engineered] products are absolutely safe.
For the most part you wouldn't know [if you were eating them]
but the point being that you wouldn't need to know.

- Bryan Hurley, Monsanto spokesperson

There is a great deal of controversy about the safety of
genetically engineered foods. Advocates of biotechnology
often say that the risks are overblown. "There have been
25,000 trials of genetically modified crops in the world,
now, and not a single incident, or anything dangerous in
these releases," said a spokesman for Adventa Holdings, a
UK biotech firm.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, then-candidate
George W. Bush said that "study after study has shown no
evidence of danger." And Clinton Administration
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said that "test after
rigorous scientific test" had proven the safety of
genetically engineered products.

Is this the case? Unfortunately not, according to a
senior researcher from the Union of Concerned
Scientists, Dr. Jane Rissler. With a Ph.D. in plant
pathology, four years of shaping biotechnology
regulations at the EPA, she is one of the nation's
leading authorities on the environmental risks of
genetically engineered foods. Dr. Rissler has been
closely monitoring the trials and studies.

"The observations that 'nothing happened' in these...
tests do not say much," she and her colleague Dr.
Margaret Mellon (a member of the USDA Advisory Committee
on Agricultural Biotechnology) write. "The field tests
do not provide a track record of safety, but a case of
'don't look, don't find.'"

When scientists actually look, what they see can be
terrifying. A few years ago, a German biotech company
engineered a common soil bacterium, Klebsiella
planticola, to help break down wood chips, corn stalks,
wastes from lumber businesses and agriculture, and to
produce ethanol in the process. It seemed like a great
achievement. The genetically engineered Klebsiella
bacterium could help break down rotting organic material
and in the process produce a fuel that could be used
instead of gasoline, thus lessening the production of
greenhouse gases.

It was assumed that the post-process waste could be added
to soil as an amendment, like compost. Everybody would
win. With the approval of the EPA, the company field
tested the bacterium at Oregon State University.

As far as the intended goals were concerned - eliminating
rotting organic waste and producing ethanol - the
genetically engineered bacterium was a success. But when
a doctoral student named Michael Holmes decided to add
the post-processed waste to actual living soil, something
happened that no one expected. The seeds that were
planted in soil mixed with the engineered Klebsiella
sprouted, but then every single one of them died.

What killed them? The genetically engineered Klebsiella
turned out to be highly competitive with native soil
micro-organisms. Plants are only able to take nitrogen
and other nourishment from the soil with the help of
fungi called mycorrhizae. These fungi live in the soil
and help make nutrients available to plant roots. But
when the genetically engineered Klebsiella was introduced
into living soils, it greatly reduced the population of
mycorrhizal fungi in the soil. And without healthy
mycorrhizal fungi in soils, no plants can survive.

It is testimony to the amazing powers of science that
researchers were able to track the mechanism by which the
genetically engineered Klebsiella prevented plants from
growing. There are thousands of different species of
microorganisms in every teaspoon of fertile soil, and
they interact in trillions of ways.

But the scientists discovered something else in these
experiments, something that sent chills down their
spines. They found that the genetically modified bacteria
were able to persist in the soil, raising the possibility
that, had it been released, the genetically engineered
Klebsiella could have become established - and virtually
impossible to eradicate.

"When the data first started coming in," says Elaine
Ingham, the soil pathologist at Oregon State University
who directed Michael Holmes' research on Klebsiella,
"the EPA charged that we couldn't have per-formed the
research correctly. They went through everything with a
fine tooth comb, and they couldn't find anything wrong
with the experimental design - but they tried as hard as
they could... If we hadn't done this research, the
Klebsiella would have passed the approval process for
commercial release."

Geneticist David Suzuki understands that what took place
was truly ominous. "The genetically engineered
Klebsiella," he says, "could have ended all plant life on
this continent. The implications of this single case are
nothing short of terrifying."

Meanwhile Monsanto and the other biotech companies are
eagerly developing all kinds of genetically modified
organisms, hoping to bring them to market. How do we know
if they're safe? According to Suzuki: "We don't, and
won't for years after they are being widely used.''

It's not a prospect that helps calm the nerves and
restore confidence in our collective future. Surely,
I've wanted to believe, when the chips are down,
scientists and researchers would never do anything that
would jeopardize life on Earth. Surely, the people who
run these companies - and the government officials who
oversee them - would never allow something that
dangerous to occur.

But then again, this wouldn't be the first time that
corporations like Monsanto have brought us new products
they promised would make life better for everybody and
that turned out to do something very different. This is
the same company, after all, that brought us PCBs and
Agent Orange. Even the product the company was originally
formed to produce, the artificial sweetener saccharin,
was later found to be carcinogenic.

Of course, Monsanto tells us that this time we don't
have to worry.

GE Crops Can't Be Contained A test conducted by the Wall
Street Journal found that 16 of 20 vegetarian foods
labeled as being "free" of genetically engineered products
actually contained GE soybeans. As Arran Stephens,
president of Nature's Path Foods, noted: "You cannot build
a wall high enough" to prevent genetic pollution of wild
and organic crops.

In August, a team of Belgian researchers were surprised
to discover that Monsanto's GE soybeans contained "a DNA
segment... for which no sequence homology could be
detected." "No one knows what this extra gene sequence is
[or]... what its effects will be," said Greenpeace-UK's
Doug Parr. "If Monsanto did not even get this most basic
information right, what should we think about the
validity of all their safety tests?"

John Robbins is the author of Diet for a New America and
founder of EarthSave International. Excerpted with permission
from Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Save your Life and the
World [Conari Press, 2550 Ninth St., Suite 101, Berkeley, CA
94710, (510) 649-7175]. http://www.earthisland.org

Hua Kul
Thu, Jul-10-03, 19:14
"tan & blonde" <RCONTEST@CWNET.COM> wrote in message
news:<vgqsrag51oe224@corp.supernews.com>...
> <snip> Surely, I've wanted to believe, when the chips are
> down, scientists and researchers would never do anything
> that would jeopardize life on Earth. Surely, the people who
> run these companies - and the government officials who
> oversee them - would never allow something that dangerous to
> occur. <snip>

There seem to be three separate reasons for genetic
engineering of food crops-- to improve the food crop in
terms of nutrition, to increase it's yield through things
like self-generated pest control, and to create non-food
chemicals more cheaply than they can currently be
manufactured. Reason one MAY be helpful in the long run,
reason two is very debatable, and reason three is nothing
but the dangerous product of pure greed. The Genie can never
be put back in the bottle.

==================================================================

"Biotech Company Admits StarLink Contamination is Forever
Knight Ridder/Tribune Biotech Firm Executive Says Genetically
Engineered Corn Is Here to Stay Mar. 19

A top Aventis CropScience executive said Sunday that the food
supply will never be rid of the new strain of corn that the
company genetically engineered at Research Triangle Park."

http://www.purefood.org/ge/starlinkforever.cfm
====================================================================

What other genes are currently added to corn? How about
spermicidal antibodies and antibodies to sexually transmitted
diseases? What happens when these get loose? Perhaps the
global end of fatherhood? I don't think that's too farfetched,
based on our current lack of knowledge.

====================================================================

"Antibodies could be grown in fields
19:00 03 October 01 Vast fields of maize could soon be
churning out antibodies for preventing sexually transmitted
diseases. Researchers at Epicyte, a biotech company in San
Diego, say their technology promises to make the mass
production of therapeutic antibodies easier and cheaper."

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991373

Epicyte has now produced anti-sperm antibodies in gel form
from GM corn.
====================================================================

Is the spread of GM DNA controllable? No.

====================================================================

"Genetically Modified Corn Spreading to Protected Wild Corn
Despite Mexico's 3-year-old moratorium on the use of
genetically altered corn, scientists have detected
genetically modified DNA in wild maize in the mountains of
the state of Oaxaca.

Wayward genes from genetically modified corn that is widely
grown in Canada and the United States are spreading in remote
mountainous regions of Mexico.

Up to 70% of wild Mexican maize now carries transgenes that
could only have come from genetically engineered crops. The
transgenes, which scientists borrow from viruses and bacteria,
have been engineered into GM crops."

Nature November 29, 2001;414:541-543

http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/12/gm_corn.htm
=======================================================================

The very frightening reality is that once a GM crop is
released it can't be controlled, and it appears the DNA can be
incorporated by other life forms. No one knows what the end
results will be.

--Hua Kul

Alf Christ
Thu, Jul-10-03, 19:14
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:02:32 -0700, "tan & blonde"
<RCONTEST@CWNET.COM> wrote:

> What killed them? The genetically engineered Klebsiella
> turned out to be highly competitive with native soil
> micro-organisms. Plants are only able to take nitrogen
> and other nourishment from the soil with the help of
> fungi called mycorrhizae. These fungi live in the soil
> and help make nutrients available to plant roots. But
> when the genetically engineered Klebsiella was
> introduced into living soils, it greatly reduced the
> population of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil. And without
> healthy mycorrhizal fungi in soils, no plants can
> survive.

I agree that we should be very careful with both genetic
modified plants and also meristem cloning(!!)

But not all plant are dependent on those bacteria to get
nitrogen fixation. Most plants take nitrates up directly, with
no aid at all.

But pea, beans and other legumes are dependent, so this may be
harmful for those plants, and in next turn, harmful indirectly
for those who don't use inorganic fertilizers in the plant
production, by rely completely of fixing nitrogen with legumes
growing one year, and then the years use other plants that may
benefit on those plant rests.

Al Hephy
Thu, Jul-10-03, 19:14
Gosh. Does this mean we can't really trust Monsanto?

Al

tan & blonde <RCONTEST@CWNET.COM> wrote in message =
news:vgqsrag51oe224@corp.supernews.com...
> A Biological Apocalypse Barely Averted. What About
> Next Time?
>=20
> A Biological Apocalypse Averted Book Excerpt: The Food
> Revolution by John Robbins
>=20
> These [genetically engineered] products are absolutely safe.
> For the =
most
> part you wouldn't know [if you were eating them] but the
> point being =
that
> you wouldn't need to know.
>=20 20
> - Bryan Hurley, Monsanto spokesperson
>=20
> There is a great deal of controversy about the safety
> of =
genetically
> engineered foods. Advocates of biotechnology often say that
> the risks =
are
> overblown. "There have been 25,000 trials of genetically
> modified =
crops in
> the world, now, and not a single incident, or anything
> dangerous in =
these
> releases," said a spokesman for Adventa Holdings, a UK
> biotech firm.
>=20
> During the 2000 presidential campaign, then-candidate
> George W. =
Bush
> said that "study after study has shown no evidence of
> danger." And =
Clinton
> Administration Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said
> that "test =
after
> rigorous scientific test" had proven the safety of
> genetically =
engineered
> products.
>=20
> Is this the case? Unfortunately not, according to a
> senior =
researcher
> from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. Jane Rissler.
> With a Ph.D. =
in
> plant pathology, four years of shaping biotechnology
> regulations at =
the EPA,
> she is one of the nation's leading authorities on the
> environmental =
risks of
> genetically engineered foods. Dr. Rissler has been closely
> monitoring =
the
> trials and studies.
>=20
> "The observations that 'nothing happened' in these...
> tests do =
not say
> much," she and her colleague Dr. Margaret Mellon (a member
> of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural
> Biotechnology) write. "The field =
tests do
> not provide a track record of safety, but a case of 'don't
> look, don't find.'"
>=20
> When scientists actually look, what they see can be
> terrifying. A =
few
> years ago, a German biotech company engineered a
> common soil =
bacterium,
> Klebsiella planticola, to help break down wood chips, corn
> stalks, =
wastes
> from lumber businesses and agriculture, and to produce
> ethanol in the process. It seemed like a great achievement.
> The genetically =
engineered
> Klebsiella bacterium could help break down rotting organic
> material =
and in
> the process produce a fuel that could be used instead of
> gasoline, =
thus
> lessening the production of greenhouse gases.
>=20
> It was assumed that the post-process waste could be
> added to soil =
as an
> amendment, like compost. Everybody would win. With the
> approval of the =
EPA,
> the company field tested the bacterium at Oregon State
> University.
>=20
> As far as the intended goals were concerned -
> eliminating rotting organic waste and producing ethanol
> - the genetically engineered =
bacterium
> was a success. But when a doctoral student named Michael
> Holmes =
decided to
> add the post-processed waste to actual living soil,
> something happened =
that
> no one expected. The seeds that were planted in soil mixed
> with the engineered Klebsiella sprouted, but then every
> single one of them =
died.
>=20
> What killed them? The genetically engineered Klebsiella
> turned =
out to
> be highly competitive with native soil micro-organisms.
> Plants are =
only able
> to take nitrogen and other nourishment from the soil with
> the help of =
fungi
> called mycorrhizae. These fungi live in the soil and
> help make =
nutrients
> available to plant roots. But when the genetically
> engineered =
Klebsiella was
> introduced into living soils, it greatly reduced the
> population of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil. And without
> healthy mycorrhizal fungi =
in
> soils, no plants can survive.
>=20
> It is testimony to the amazing powers of science that
> researchers =
were
> able to track the mechanism by which the genetically
> engineered =
Klebsiella
> prevented plants from growing. There are thousands of
> different =
species of
> microorganisms in every teaspoon of fertile soil, and they
> interact in trillions of ways.
>=20
> But the scientists discovered something else in these =
experiments,
> something that sent chills down their spines. They found
> that the genetically modified bacteria were able to persist
> in the soil, =
raising the
> possibility that, had it been released, the genetically
> engineered Klebsiella could have become established - and
> virtually impossible to eradicate.
>=20
> "When the data first started coming in," says Elaine
> Ingham, the =
soil
> pathologist at Oregon State University who directed Michael
> Holmes' =
research
> on Klebsiella, "the EPA charged that we couldn't have
> per-formed the research correctly. They went through
> everything with a fine tooth =
comb, and
> they couldn't find anything wrong with the experimental
> design - but =
they
> tried as hard as they could... If we hadn't done this
> research, the Klebsiella would have passed the approval
> process for commercial =
release."
>=20
> Geneticist David Suzuki understands that what took
> place was =
truly
> ominous. "The genetically engineered Klebsiella," he says,
> "could have =
ended
> all plant life on this continent. The implications of this
> single case =
are
> nothing short of terrifying."
>=20
> Meanwhile Monsanto and the other biotech companies are
> eagerly developing all kinds of genetically modified
> organisms, hoping to =
bring them
> to market. How do we know if they're safe? According to
> Suzuki: "We =
don't,
> and won't for years after they are being widely used.''
>=20
> It's not a prospect that helps calm the nerves and
> restore =
confidence
> in our collective future. Surely, I've wanted to believe,
> when the =
chips are
> down, scientists and researchers would never do anything
> that would jeopardize life on Earth. Surely, the people who
> run these companies - =
and
> the government officials who oversee them - would
> never allow =
something that
> dangerous to occur.
>=20
> But then again, this wouldn't be the first time that
> corporations =
like
> Monsanto have brought us new products they promised would
> make life =
better
> for everybody and that turned out to do something very
> different. This =
is
> the same company, after all, that brought us PCBs and Agent
> Orange. =
Even the
> product the company was originally formed to produce, the
> artificial sweetener saccharin, was later found to be
> carcinogenic.
>=20
> Of course, Monsanto tells us that this time we don't
> have to =
worry.
>=20
> GE Crops Can't Be Contained A test conducted by the Wall
> Street Journal found that 16 of 20 =
vegetarian
> foods labeled as being "free" of genetically engineered
> products =
actually
> contained GE soybeans. As Arran Stephens, president of
> Nature's Path =
Foods,
> noted: "You cannot build a wall high enough" to prevent
> genetic =
pollution of
> wild and organic crops.
>=20
> In August, a team of Belgian researchers were surprised
> to =
discover
> that Monsanto's GE soybeans contained "a DNA segment... for
> which no sequence homology could be detected." "No one knows
> what this extra =
gene
> sequence is [or]... what its effects will be," said
> Greenpeace-UK's =
Doug
> Parr. "If Monsanto did not even get this most basic
> information right, =
what
> should we think about the validity of all their safety
> tests?"
>=20
> John Robbins is the author of Diet for a New America and
> founder of EarthSave International. Excerpted with
> permission from Food =
Revolution: How
> Your Diet Can Save your Life and the World [Conari Press,
> 2550 Ninth =
St.,
> Suite 101, Berkeley, CA 94710, (510) 649-7175]. =
http://www.earthisland.org
>=20 20

Brian Sand
Thu, Jul-10-03, 21:01
Brian Sandle <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:

> "tan & blonde" <RCONTEST@CWNET.COM> wrote in message
> news:<vgqsrag51oe224@corp.supernews.com>...
>> <snip> Surely, I've wanted to believe, when the chips are
>> down, scientists and researchers would never do anything
>> that would jeopardize life on Earth. Surely, the people who
>> run these companies - and the government officials who
>> oversee them - would never allow something that dangerous
>> to occur. <snip>

> There seem to be three separate reasons for genetic
> engineering of food crops-- to improve the food crop in
> terms of nutrition, to increase it's yield through things
> like self-generated pest control, and to create non-food
> chemicals more cheaply than they can currently be
> manufactured. Reason one MAY be helpful in the long run,

Yes manufacturing stuff is very complex.

The beta-carotene put in vitamin supplements is
trans-beta-carotene, associated with more lung cancer and knee
arthritis (see my knee article sci.med.nutrition).

reason
> two is very debatable,

Indeed yields are down, and new cocktails of herbicides are
being sold to make up.

and reason three is nothing but the dangerous
> product of pure greed. The Genie can never be put back in
> the bottle.

> ==================================================================

> "Biotech Company Admits StarLink Contamination is Forever
> Knight Ridder/Tribune Biotech Firm Executive Says
> Genetically Engineered Corn Is Here to Stay Mar. 19

> A top Aventis CropScience executive said Sunday that the
> food supply will never be rid of the new strain of corn
> that the company genetically engineered at Research
> Triangle Park."

> http://www.purefood.org/ge/starlinkforever.cfm
> ====================================================================

> What other genes are currently added to corn? How about
> spermicidal antibodies and antibodies to sexually
> transmitted diseases? What happens when these get loose?
> Perhaps the global end of fatherhood? I don't think that's
> too farfetched, based on our current lack of knowledge.

Maybe that is the intention. Then you have to pay for an
antidote, if it is possible to make one without adverse
effects for some people. All sorts of issues arise.

> ====================================================================

> "Antibodies could be grown in fields
> 19:00 03 October 01 Vast fields of maize could soon be
> churning out antibodies for preventing sexually
> transmitted diseases. Researchers at Epicyte, a biotech
> company in San Diego, say their technology promises to
> make the mass production of therapeutic antibodies easier
> and cheaper."

> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991373

> Epicyte has now produced anti-sperm antibodies in gel form
> from GM corn.
> ====================================================================

> Is the spread of GM DNA controllable? No.

> ====================================================================

> "Genetically Modified Corn Spreading to Protected Wild Corn
> Despite Mexico's 3-year-old moratorium on the use of
> genetically altered corn, scientists have detected
> genetically modified DNA in wild maize in the mountains of
> the state of Oaxaca.

> Wayward genes from genetically modified corn that is widely
> grown in Canada and the United States are spreading in
> remote mountainous regions of Mexico.

> Up to 70% of wild Mexican maize now carries transgenes that
> could only have come from genetically engineered crops. The
> transgenes, which scientists borrow from viruses and
> bacteria, have been engineered into GM crops."

> Nature November 29, 2001;414:541-543

> http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/12/gm_corn.htm
> =======================================================================

> The very frightening reality is that once a GM crop is
> released it can't be controlled, and it appears the DNA can
> be incorporated by other life forms. No one knows what the
> end results will be.

> --Hua Kul

Bacteria have always shared genes, it has now been found. Some
people will try to use that to get a licence to engineer the
thing. But really it means that all of them share the same
pool and what you do to one has to be accounted for when it
gets to every other one.