This is not the time to let GMO crops flourish: Thai editorial

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
This is not the time to let GMO crops flourish

A non-elected government should not be allowing the spread of genetically modified organisms

BANGKOK: -- The row over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has waxed and waned in Thailand since the first pilot plantation two decades ago, but it's back on the front burner again now as legislators mull a law to regulate the type of organisms used in agriculture.

The Cabinet has endorsed the Biological Safety Bill and placed it before the military-installed legislature. The debate comes down to whether the law will bring about agricultural prosperity or ruin much of our food supply.

The GMO bill responds to an acknowledged need for a legal means of managing the biotechnology that is essential if Thailand is to remain competitive in the global export market. But what might appear at first to be a healthy step for all concerned has a devil in the details, in that it might open the way for the widespread use of GMOs.

The bill ascribes no legal responsibility to the manufacturers and distributors of GMO seeds to cover damages to farms or the environment. Approved GMO farms would need neither an Environmental Impact Assessment nor a Health Impact Assessment.

Opponents of the bill, seeing it as de facto acceptance of GMOs, have been forceful in their objections. They point out that it will enable research plantations on this still-contentious innovation in agriculture. Petitions opposing the bill are circulating online and farmers, consumer groups and non-governmental organisations are raising the alarm.

We have already witnessed Japan's rejection of papaya shipments from Thailand because the fruit was "contaminated" by GMOs. Thai farmers naturally fear that their own crops might go unsold if GMO use spreads with the government's blessing. The benefits of using GMOs, like increased yields and cheaper animal feed, amount to little if customers shun the produce when it arrives on shelves. Wider use of GMOs would also affect organic farmers - pioneers in a potentially lucrative export market - due to the possibility of airborne spores infecting their carefully nurtured crops.

In India, where the cotton industry is now dominated by Monsanto's genetically engineered Bt seeds (Bacillus thuringiensis), farmers are showing allergic symptoms and many animals have died. The GMO issue has even been linked - though without proof as yet - to a rise in suicides among Indian farmers, reportedly because they faced bankruptcy when their yield failed to match their investment.

The predominant concern in Thailand is that Monsanto and other corporate modifiers of patented crop seeds will be able to extend their reach and ultimately wipe out the market for locally cultivated seeds, leaving farmers with no choice at planting time. The country's biodiversity would be under threat as local agriculture bows to the economy of scale and the government abdicates control over our food "sovereignty" to foreigners. Any hope of Thailand developing a "sufficiency economy" would vanish as capitalist interests dictate agricultural policy.

There remain too many doubts about GMOs - as documented by the World Health Organisation and other important agencies - for this matter to be resolved anytime soon. For Thailand to sanction the use of modified seeds amid such uncertainties, given the inherent corruption and incompetence within the bureaucracy, only invites trouble.

Acceptance or rejection of GMO farming is a decision that demands full public participation, and since Thailand is under dictatorial rather than democratic rule, this is hardly the time for a military-installed government to be enacting laws of such consequence. Agriculture is Thailand's economic backbone. Everyone's health is at stake.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/This-is-not-the-time-to-let-GMO-crops-flourish-30274519.html


-- The Nation 2015-12-09

[doremifasol]

Stop GMO invasion, we are not guinea pigs!

Or are we?

[BSJ]

Am opposed to the absurd idea of GMO crops and hate with a vengeance the parasite company Monsanto. If the board and senior management of any company needed to be lined up against a wall and shot...it would be this one.

[DeepInTheForest]

A very surprising editorial in its defiance of the GM lobby. Kudos to The Nation.

GMO crops are being forced down the throats of countries around the world, starting in areas where there is turmoil. Ukraine, for example, received loans from the World Bank and IMF with the stipulation that Monsanto be allowed into the country. http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/12/what-theyre-not-telling-you-about-monsantos-role-ukraine

Africa is squarely in the sights of Bill Gates-- that neoliberal corporatist and destroyer of human societies-- and Monsanto. South Africa has gone deeply into GE crops. Single-trait Bt maize (or corn. intended to produce internal resistance to pests) became such a failure after insects developed resistance that it was withdrawn from the market-- but not before farmers were given discounted insecticides, which they sprayed on their crops in large quantities trying to vanquish the unstoppable. The corporate peddlers have moved on, and Bt maize is now being marketed to other countries. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20058-why-african-farmers-do-not-want-gmos

The industry and its bought-and-paid-for experts are busily creating a huge amount of journal articles, press releases, and other media to blanket the public with the idea that GMO food will bring "food security" to developing nations, and that in fact this is the only way they can advance. (Even certain arms of the UN seem to be involved, although this website seems to be providing the message that an industry front group might be expected to: http://unu.edu/publications/articles/are-transgenic-crops-safe-gm-agriculture-in-africa.html ) That is almost certainly not true-- food insecurity is caused by an unwillingness to distribute food, and economic systems that hold people in poverty. "Meeting the food security challenges is primarily about the empowerment of the poor and their food sovereignty." http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/18/8056163/bill-gates-gmo-farming-world-hunger-africa-poverty

The fight for the future of humanity's food will be a protracted one. The percentage of people in developed countries with a negative view of GMO food is high. And developing countries have pushed back as well-- Bolivia committed to going non-GMO by 2015, and Mexico has banned GM maize. But the forces arrayed against their wishes, including the global corporate capitalist army, are well-funded, in relentless search of profit, and very, very determined to impose their will.

Edited December 9, 2015 by DeepInTheForest

[lujanit]

Africa is squarely in the sights of Bill Gates-- that neoliberal corporatist and destroyer of human societies--

Destroyer of human societies? Care to post some reliable links to back up this slanderous statement?

Love him or hate him there is no denying that his Foundation has had some remarkable success in Africa particularly in health related matters.

[MILT]

Africa is squarely in the sights of Bill Gates-- that neoliberal corporatist and destroyer of human societies--

Destroyer of human societies? Care to post some reliable links to back up this slanderous statement?

Love him or hate him there is no denying that his Foundation has had some remarkable success in Africa particularly in health related matters.

Give a min. or 2 and I will flood your mind with the unthinkable.....!

[MILT]

[MILT]

Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation

www.rationalskepticism.org › ... › Conspiracy Theories

Jul 5, 2010 - 20 posts - ‎12 authors

Here are Bill Gates' verbatim words [square parentheses additions for clarification .... Doubtdispelled wrote: Ooooooh, a new conspiracy theory!

Wikileaks Exposes Unholy Alliance of US Government Bill ...

articles.mercola.com/.../wikileaks-exposes-unholy-alliance-of-us-govern...

Mar 5, 2011 - Wikileaks exposes Bill Gates' support for Monsanto, the giant ... previous Wikileaks documents, the Bush administration conspired to find ways ...

[MILT]

Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation

www.rationalskepticism.org › ... › Conspiracy Theories

Jul 5, 2010 - 20 posts - ‎12 authors

Here are Bill Gates' verbatim words [square parentheses additions for clarification .... Doubtdispelled wrote: Ooooooh, a new conspiracy theory!

Wikileaks Exposes Unholy Alliance of US Government Bill ...

articles.mercola.com/.../wikileaks-exposes-unholy-alliance-of-us-govern...

Mar 5, 2011 - Wikileaks exposes Bill Gates' support for Monsanto, the giant ... previous Wikileaks documents, the Bush administration conspired to find ways ...

[MILT]

Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation

www.rationalskepticism.org › ... › Conspiracy Theories

Jul 5, 2010 - 20 posts - ‎12 authors

Here are Bill Gates' verbatim words [square parentheses additions for clarification .... Doubtdispelled wrote: Ooooooh, a new conspiracy theory!

Wikileaks Exposes Unholy Alliance of US Government Bill ...

articles.mercola.com/.../wikileaks-exposes-unholy-alliance-of-us-govern...

Mar 5, 2011 - Wikileaks exposes Bill Gates' support for Monsanto, the giant ... previous Wikileaks documents, the Bush administration conspired to find ways ...

Edited December 9, 2015 by MILT

[sanukjim]

If it wasn't for GMO plants you would not be eating today's corn,carrots,apples,oranges,lettuce,many of the beans,cabbage and over 50 every day food products and produce you enjoy.The anti-GMO people sounds like the hippy wearing $100 Hush Puppies,designer genes in a demonstration in New York wanting more government hand out and substances..

[MILT]

Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation

www.rationalskepticism.org › ... › Conspiracy Theories

Jul 5, 2010 - 20 posts - ‎12 authors

Here are Bill Gates' verbatim words [square parentheses additions for clarification .... Doubtdispelled wrote: Ooooooh, a new conspiracy theory!

Wikileaks Exposes Unholy Alliance of US Government Bill ...

articles.mercola.com/.../wikileaks-exposes-unholy-alliance-of-us-govern...

Mar 5, 2011 - Wikileaks exposes Bill Gates' support for Monsanto, the giant ... previous Wikileaks documents, the Bush administration conspired to find ways ...

[thelonius]

If it wasn't for GMO plants you would not be eating today's corn,carrots,apples,oranges,lettuce,many of the beans,cabbage and over 50 every day food products and produce you enjoy.The anti-GMO people sounds like the hippy wearing $100 Hush Puppies,designer genes in a demonstration in New York wanting more government hand out and substances..

like the hippy wearing $100 Hush Puppies,designer genes in a demonstration in New York

Oh please, please tell me you meant that play on words in a discussion about GMO crops...............

[bangon04]

From the OP

"and since Thailand is under dictatorial rather than democratic rule, this is hardly the time for a military-installed government to be enacting laws of such consequence."

OMG the Nation used the "D" word!!! Are they allowed to do that???

[bazza40]

Am opposed to the absurd idea of GMO crops and hate with a vengeance the parasite company Monsanto. If the board and senior management of any company needed to be lined up against a wall and shot...it would be this one.

I advise you to avoid any product containing canola oil, because there is no such thing as naturally -occurring canola anymore. All canola crops have been genetically engineered.

It doesn't matter whether the end product for human consumption is an oil, a sugar or a complex carbohydrate. Chemically and physically, a GM crop is indistinguishable from the crop it was derived from.

Most humans don't seem to have too many ethical problems with gene therapy for treatment of otherwise crippling diseases, so the vehement opposition to GM crops is somewhat puzzling. How many deaths or illnesses can be linked to consumption of a GM product? The answer is probably zero.

GM opponents would probably do better to question the development of GM proteins, because that's an area with a higher risk level.

[Ceruhe]

Wth is peoples hate with GMOs? It's among the best invention humans started to make use of....obviously I'm not saying "best thing ever, no regulations needed" because regulations and keeping an eye on them is required so there won't be real detrimental effects, but why not just keep the fear mongering alive...it's not like there are still bigger issues to keep a closed eye on, right?

[facthailand]

For whatever good it will do, I'd like to sign the petitions against GMOs in Thailand.

Can someone please direct me to them?

If GMOs infect Thailand's rice, we're ALL doomed!

Oh, BTW, hydridisation is not GM as done in a laboratory.

Edited December 9, 2015 by facthailand

[attrayant]

Wth is peoples hate with GMOs? It's among the best invention humans started to make use of....obviously I'm not saying "best thing ever, no regulations needed" because regulations and keeping an eye on them is required so there won't be real detrimental effects, but why not just keep the fear mongering alive...it's not like there are still bigger issues to keep a closed eye on, right?

This is a classic example of how editorials can be so full of ignorance. The OP is no different, and carries no more weight than any of the paranoid screeds posted below it.

When they've got nothing else, spout fear and paranoia and litter the forum with home made youtube videos featuring "experts" such as computer scientists (Stephanie Seneff), activists like David Suzuki (featured in the scary video above) who accepts one kind of science (global climate change) but somehow reject another kind of science (a highly specific kind of genetic alteration technique), and other people who dress up in white lab coats even though they have no plant genetics credentials to their names. Sure you can probably find a few geneticists who have something bad to say about the tool called genetic modification. This is the Internet, after all, and that means you can even find, for example, physicists who don't buy into the established theories of general relativity. All that means is that YouTube is probably not the best place for the uninformed reader to do research on plant genetics OR general relativity.

We've been through all this before. There's nothing new here except more fear and paranoia of the unknown. The same people who demand more research admit they'll never change their minds no matter what kind of research consensus is reached by the scientific community.

Anyone who cares to present a salient, distilled objection please do so and I'll address it. But if all you have to say is how much you hate Monsanto and OH MY GOD agent orange and how evil those "terminator" seeds are, you've got some work to do to get yourself up to speed before you fully understand the many issues at hand here.

Edited December 9, 2015 by attrayant

[plachon]

If it wasn't for GMO plants you would not be eating today's corn,carrots,apples,oranges,lettuce,many of the beans,cabbage and over 50 every day food products and produce you enjoy.The anti-GMO people sounds like the hippy wearing $100 Hush Puppies,designer genes in a demonstration in New York wanting more government hand out and substances..

OMG, how on earth do Europeans survive and thrive without their daily fix of GMO products, like the lucky Americans consume? We must be virtually starving through lack of our daily GMO-fix of "50 every day food products and produce you enjoy". Woe are the rest of the world, who just don't appreciate the benefits of GMOs and wearing designer genes.

Mind you, I reckon that self-professed "smart guy" Donald Trump may have overdone it a bit on the GMO Florida oranges, which would explain his bizarre skin colour and even weirder utterances.

[DeepInTheForest]

Wth is peoples hate with GMOs? It's among the best invention humans started to make use of....obviously I'm not saying "best thing ever, no regulations needed" because regulations and keeping an eye on them is required so there won't be real detrimental effects, but why not just keep the fear mongering alive...it's not like there are still bigger issues to keep a closed eye on, right?

This is a classic example of how editorials can be so full of ignorance. The OP is no different, and carries no more weight than any of the paranoid screeds posted below it.

When they've got nothing else, spout fear and paranoia and litter the forum with home made youtube videos featuring "experts" such as computer scientists (Stephanie Seneff), activists like David Suzuki (featured in the scary video above) who accepts one kind of science (global climate change) but somehow reject another kind of science (a highly specific kind of genetic alteration technique), and other people who dress up in white lab coats even though they have no plant genetics credentials to their names. Sure you can probably find a few geneticists who have something bad to say about the tool called genetic modification. This is the Internet, after all, and that means you can even find, for example, physicists who don't buy into the established theories of general relativity. All that means is that YouTube is probably not the best place for the uninformed reader to do research on plant genetics OR general relativity.

We've been through all this before. There's nothing new here except more fear and paranoia of the unknown. The same people who demand more research admit they'll never change their minds no matter what kind of research consensus is reached by the scientific community.

Anyone who cares to present a salient, distilled objection please do so and I'll address it. But if all you have to say is how much you hate Monsanto and OH MY GOD agent orange and how evil those "terminator" seeds are, you've got some work to do to get yourself up to speed before you fully understand the many issues at hand here.

You want scientists to speak, here they are: testimony of several who have reservations about GMO foods. They are the real deal-- biochemists, geneticists. (One was the guy who voiced concern over feeding sheep to cattle years ago. We know about the eventual consequences, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, etc. In my view, we would be demented not to pay attention to him and the others collected in the link below.)

http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm

We also need to acknowledge that David Suzuki is not only an "activist" (and nothing wrong with that), but also received a Ph.D, in zoology from University of Chicago in 1961 and was a professor of genetics at University of British Columbia from 1963 until 2001 when he retired. That in no way confirms his point of view, but his reservations about GMOs are not the product of ignorance as you suggest.

The bit about "similar to physicists who reject the general theory of relativity" is a straw man argument.

There are many reasons to question the use of GMOs. Not all of them have to do with the introduction of Bt genes. (Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces proteins that are poisonous for some insects, but are supposedly harmless to humans.)

Rather, many are concerned with the wholesale takeover of countries' agriculture by international agribusiness. The only reason Monsanto and others produce GM foods is because they own the patent on it. That is a danger in a social and political sense, because it inevitably leads to a corporate monopoly/stranglehold on the world's agriculture.

Most of all, we don't need the risk. We have enough food, as the UN FAO has stated. The issue is one of distribution. The selling of GMO food is a propaganda project designed to enhance the profits of a few corporations.

That should make us extremely wary.

Edited December 10, 2015 by DeepInTheForest

[attrayant]

The bit about "similar to physicists who reject the general theory of relativity" is a straw man argument.

It's not any sort of argument at all - I'm merely pointing out that, if you look hard enough, one can find a handful of "experts" to support almost any position. These experts usually appeal to boogeymen (corporations will own the world's food supply! The sky is falling!) and stretch the precautionary principle to a ridiculous breaking point (okay the sky isn't falling now but it could in the future!).

There are many reasons to question the use of GMOs. Not all of them have to do with the introduction of Bt genes.

None of them, actually. So why even bring it up?

Rather, many are concerned with the wholesale takeover of countries' agriculture by international agribusiness.

This is where the discussion always goes - off in several different directions at the same time. The issue above is unrelated to the safety of genetically modified produce.

But since you brought it up, let's discuss it. One of the major sticking points of the anti-GMO lobby is that more extensive, long-term research trials and testing must be done on GM food. Enough is never enough - more research, more testing, lengthier studies! There's also a big push for more regulatory hurdles that GM companies would need to deal with. All of this makes the time-to-market cost for GM produce fabulously expensive, and therefore accessible to only large agro-corporations like Monsanto, Dow and Syngenta that have the deep pockets to invest. In short, the very things the anti crowd is insisting on are the same things that are putting GM tech out of reach of small companies, and setting the stage for your feared "wholesale takeover". It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. GM is an "elite" technology only because the opposition has insisted it be so. You don't want the process controlled by a small number of powerful corporations? Fine - then make regulatory, research and testing trial requirements less arduous and expensive, not more so.

[continued in the next post due to limitation on quote tags in a single reply]

[attrayant]

[continued from previous post]

The only reason Monsanto and others produce GM foods is because they own the patent on it. That is a danger in a social and political sense, because it inevitably leads to a corporate monopoly/stranglehold on the world's agriculture.

Then it sounds like you have an issue with patent laws. Innovation needs to be encouraged and protected. Can you explain why this hasn't been a problem thus far? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of patented "conventional" plants. And that link is just the top-level list. Click on, say, asparagus and you'll get a sub-listing of 32 different asparagus cultivars, all of which are patented and none of which are GM. Why hasn't this caused a corporate monopoly/stranglehold on the world's asparagus markets?

Have you ever tried Cotton Candy Grapes? They're an absolutely delicious, melt-in-your-mouth treat. They're "all natural" (i.e. not genetically modified), but if you're thinking about buying some seeds or clippings to grow your own, I've got some bad news. From the company's FAQ:

Q: Do you sell plants or cuttings?

A: It's always great to know that our efforts are appreciated, and we thank you for your interest. However, our unique vines are patented and unavailable for sale or licensing.

I guess we can expect a corporate takeover of the grape industry soon.

(By the way, what "political danger" arises from patents? Can you describe a scenario where patenting something - say a flower or a carrot - might become politically dangerous? I'm just not seeing it.)

Most of all, we don't need the risk. We have enough food, as the UN FAO has stated. The issue is one of distribution. The selling of GMO food is a propaganda project designed to enhance the profits of a few corporations.

Tangent #3. Many of the same crunchy granola types who are afraid of GM technology are also very much against a global economy. Yes, some countries make more food than they consume, and somewhere between 30-40% of it is lost to waste and inefficiencies. Let's hear your solution. And while you're working on bringing all the world's governments together (now we can talk about politically dangerous - good luck with that), the rest of us will be pushing ahead with GM tech as part of the solution.