Subject: GMO stuff for Guy

From: Toby Hemenway <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:05:52 -0700

Guy: Here are a few bits on GMO's, though I haven't the time to find
references for you-this is just off the top of my head.

GE plants require more fertilizer and other inputs to grow; this has been
established and the reason is simple physics. They are producing extra
proteins (Bt protein, or an anti-glyphosate enzyme for Roundup-Ready) and
it takes more energy to do this, hence more fertilizer. This is why yields
of GE plants are lower. And obviously a Roundup-ready plant will not lower,
but raise, the use of pesticides: that's the whole point of Monsanto's
marketing it. Glyphosate (Roundup) does not break down in the soil as
quickly as Monsanto says (3 weeks in ideal lab conditions); field tests
show that it remains in soil for at least a year, in river sediments for up
to 4 years. One study showed that when a field was sprayed with Roundup in
fall and planted with lettuce in spring, the lettuce contained significant
amounts of Roundup. It's also toxic to soil organisms, fish, and birds. It
is the largest cause of pesticide-related illness among farm workers in
California. The Journal of Pesticide Reform, circa 1996, is my source for
the Roundup data.

Bt-containing potatoes and other plants will, as Monsanto researchers have
stated, eliminate the usefulness of Bt within 5-10 years as insects develop
resistance to such a widespread toxin. 5-10 years profit is enough
justification for Monsanto to wipe out a primary tool for organic farmers.

Bacteria and viruses readily pick up useful DNA from other organisms (we
found viruses with human immune-suppressing genes in them-an awesome
adaptation!), so spreading the antibiotic resistance genes via Bt- and
other GE-crops will surely breed antibiotic-resistant microbes. I believe
it's already been documented (by the way, this weakens the argument that GE
crops are significantly different from hybrids or natural ones, since
nature swaps genes between species all the time. But I think the ethical
and economic arguments against GE are far more potent than the technical
ones).

The revolving door is real. My old employer's head of Regulatory Affairs
was a former FDA official (he had lots of buddies on the drug approval
panel; the other panel members were scientists that many of our researchers
had worked with; that's not a conspiracy, though, it's just how the world
works since everyone knows others in their field, like we do. I will admit
that the scientist-panelists were very tough and fair).

I'm not sure if you mentioned that we don't need more food, just better
distribution of what we have. The whole  bovine growth hormone thing is
nonsense, since we generate vastly more milk than we use already: we don't
need more productive cows. It just puts small farmers, who can't afford the
extra expense, out of business. Cows with BGH have far greater instances of
bovine mastitis and other disease, and die at a much younger age.

A recent issue of "The Ecologist" printed a letter that Monsanto sent to
30,000 farmers, informing them that they had sued the crap out of two
farmers who had dared to save seed from Bt-engineered soybeans. The letter
began "we thoght you'd like to know how this case is going" or something
like that; a simple threat. So farmers can no longer save seed, something
they've always done, because a company took a plant from the public domain
that thousands of breeders had worked on for centuries, made a very simple
change in the genome, and then removed it from the public domain.

Enough for now; if I run across references I'll send them.
Toby

---
You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

---

From: "Sal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:31:57 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Toby Hemenway <[email-masked]>
To: permaculture <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 8:05 AM
Subject: GMO stuff for Guy

> You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[email-masked]

---

---

From: "Thibaut d'ARGOEUVES" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 18:59:25 +0200

At 14:31 04/08/99 -0700, you wrote:
>[email-masked]
>>
>
>
>
**************************************
*  Thibaut d'ARGOEUVES               *
*                                    *
*  IT Consultant                     *
*                                    *
*  93, rue du Hocquet 80 000 AMIENS  *
*  FRANCE                            *
*  +33 (0)3 22 92 31 44 Tel/Fax      *
*  +33 (0)6 11 01 47 16 Mob          *
*  <mailto:[email-masked]>           *
*                                    *
* "New rules, new tools..."          *
*     \o/                            *
* ^^^^^^^^^^            ,_ /\o \o/   *
*                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*
**************************************

---

From: "John Abdon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 05:32:59 PDT

http://www.holisticmed.com/ge/roundup.html "According to a 1993 report 
published by the School of Public Health at the University of California, 
Berkeley, glyphosate was the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide 
illness among agricultural workers. Another study from the School of Public 
Health found that glyphosate was the most commonly reported cause of 
pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers. (Both studies were 
based on data collected between 1984 and 1990.)" Plus other indicators that 
it is far more toxic than generally believed...

http://www.panna.org/panna/ Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) 
for current information.

>From: Greg E <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: "permaculture" <[email-masked]>
>To: "permaculture" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: GMO stuff for Guy
>Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 17:17:50 -0400
>
>Toby Hemenway wrote:
>
>Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment...
>
>How does this glyphosphate compare to other toxic pesticides? I mean in 
>terms of
>residue in the soil, and detrimental effects to "helpful" insects. Though 
>certainly not
>perfect, does not glyphosphate have some less toxic qualities than other 
>pesticides?
>
>Is it a lesser of two evils, perhaps.
>
>Sure I'd love to have a magic answer and banish all pest problems from 
>crops with a
>wave of the wand, and not use Roundup Ready soybeans, or any other 
>pesticides, or
>further aid extending Monsanto's monopoly on the food supply.
>
>But in comparison to other pesticide uses necessary without RR plants, is 
>the end
>result better or worse? I don't know the answer, but I think it needs 
>asking.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Greg
>
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

---

---

From: georg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:41:03 +0200

>Folks:
>Please don't reply to this idiot's effort to divert your attention
>away from worthwhile PC matters. This is a typical tactic to waste
>the energy of a cohesive forum like this.

praise to my intuition.... i have followed the whole thread, but upon
reading the 'devil's advocate' line i deleted right away... :-)

*

georg

********
follow your heart -
it is the only way to heaven on earth.. .  .
******************* * * *  *   *    *      *         *

---