EU says science backs its beef ban

[Sir Kenyth]

The plants are toxic to the bugs too? Wouldn't they have checked for that in the initial testing?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: The plants are toxic to the bugs too? Wouldn't they have checked for that in the initial testing?

Riiiight. Only if the agencies they are in bed with required them to.

If you poke around on the site, you will find that herbicide resistant "Roundup-ready" weeds have already developed as a result of using "Roundup-ready" crops -- cross-pollination happens. Now, not only are the weeds more herbicide resistant, Roundup must be replaced by a new chemical -- I bet Monsanto's planned for this, and already has one in the works for ya, how helpful they are.

Or read about the Canadian man who did not use GM crops but who nevertheless got sued by Monsanto when GM crops turned up in his field. Interestingly, they caused him biological pollution and then tried to make him pay for it.

Or, howabout GM fish farms on the east coast and what that lates hurricane did to release GM fish into the population. Let's hope they're harmless, because now they are out there and breeding. But, not likely. When Africans started aquaculturing the Nile Perch in Lake Victoria, how could they have known it would result in the extinction of 14 GENUSES (not species) that live nowhere else on Earth. Some of whom undoubtedly had untapped medical resources in their genetic code.

Or howabout the fact that herbicide-resistant weeds can be coated with a lot more chemicals and live. Now, rather than have the untrained Mexican worker (A loophole in a FIFRA requirement that users must be trained with the chemical -- employees are exempted) who can't read the label carry a can and spray chemicals on the base of all the plants, you can just drive a truck along the field spraying out of a fire hose. Wheeeeee!

Or howabout recent studies linking use of rBGH to cancer. More importantly, and more factually a certainty, increased antibiotic dosages must be given to cows treated with rBGH. I'm no scientist, and I forget the biological links, but I read this makes our fat little fatty kids even fatter. Ompa-looompa on the gum, little girl.

Or, howabout the Starlink corn thing, forcing Taco Bell and all other corn product companies to switch to only white corn for several months. Oh, and this little gem awoke latent nut allergies in some people. How crazy is that? Imagine one day you eat a food that causes a peanut allergy to activate. Now, any of you with this allergy know it's a pain in the arse because peanuts contaminate so many products. Read those labels well!

Sorry, did someone mention examples? I've got more.

[wellard]

Brilliant post Timber [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] If you dont mind I'll cut and paste that one into my usefull info file [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: The plants are toxic to the bugs too? Wouldn't they have checked for that in the initial testing?

Not the plants - but the herbicides and the quantities used in conjunction with GM crops - combined with the lack of cover provided by the diminished weed population.

You see, most GM crops are not just engineered to be disease, frost etc resistant - they are designed to survive extremely strong concentrations of herbicide. The farmer can spray his fields with a highly toxic level of herbicide, safe in the knowledge that it will kill all weeds - unfortunately, at those levels it kills insects too.

Furthermore, not reported in the UK results because they were short term (6 years) is the fact that in Canada, after weeds initially dissappeard from the fields - new varieties began to appear that were resistent even to these highly toxic levels of herbicides. These new 'Super-weeds' are now widespread, giving farmers a new headache to deal with.

[Azred]

I always love scientific research like this.

Food causes people to become fat, therefore we should ban food. [img]graemlins/1drool.gif[/img]

Being born is a direct cause of death, so we should ban being born. [img]graemlins/1drool.gif[/img]

I agree that certain chemicals might lead to an increase is the risk for developing a cancer or that genetically modified organisms might be bad for my health, but I think it is a waste of time to sit in the corner being worried about what things might cause me harm. I could trip when I get out of bed in the morning, fall, hit my head on the nightstand, and die. These people need to quit "what-iffing" themselves to death.

If you don't want to eat food made with genetically modified organisms, then don't buy them. If you don't want to eat meat from animals fed with growth hormones, then don't eat it.

[Davros]

I think that has been the whole point for a while Azred - Europe hasn't wanted to buy it, and hasn't wanted to eat it. That is what Monsanto has been strenuosly objecting to and fighting against for the past months.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Azred: I agree that certain chemicals might lead to an increase is the risk for developing a cancer or that genetically modified organisms might be bad for my health, but I think it is a waste of time to sit in the corner being worried about what things might cause me harm. I could trip when I get out of bed in the morning, fall, hit my head on the nightstand, and die. These people need to quit "what-iffing" themselves to death.

That is a very valid point, and I don't dispute the logic of it.

Having said that, new drugs for humans have to go through rigourous testing that often delays their release for 5 or more years - I doubt if anyone would argue against this process. However the rules for animal drugs are much looser and it is rare for the research to extend to the effects that these drugs will have when ingested by humans.

To me this appears to be a loophole - if a drug is to be administered to an animal that is destined for human consumption, shouldn't the drug meet the same exacting standards as those imposed upon drugs designated for direct usage by humans? Afterall, the end destination is the same.

I agree with you that one may indeed have an accident today and that one should not worry about the possibilty.
However, if you know it is icy on the roads outside, you will reduce your speed - because you know that to maintain the normal speed would increase (but by no means guarantee) the risk of an accident. And reducing your speed does not prevent you from arriving at your destination.

Looking at the hormone-drug issue in the same manner, if one does not inject these drugs into the animal, it will not prevent the animal from growing - but it will reduce the risks involved.

And if one looks at the issue from a purely financial perspective? While it is true that the removal of the hormone-drug from cattle rearing will increase production costs, the burden of caring for the increased number of cancer patients is more than likely to off-set the pecuniary gain.
Cancer is a very expensive illness to treat.

[ 10-23-2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Azred: If you don't want to eat food made with genetically modified organisms, then don't buy them. If you don't want to eat meat from animals fed with growth hormones, then don't eat it.

All well and good in theory. This supposes :

- that for all the food products I can buy, I am informed about all the products that have participated in the growing/raising of all the ingredients - even in tiny doses

- that can be proven to me that none of the ingredients may have been in any way contaminated from the proximity of differently grown/raised foodstuff

Suddenly your advice doesn't seem all that simple to follow, does it ?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Azred: If you don't want to eat food made with genetically modified organisms, then don't buy them. If you don't want to eat meat from animals fed with growth hormones, then don't eat it.

Therein lies the problem -- NO LABELS. If you don't like mentos in Europe, you can simply choose not to buy Mentos. But, when you walk up to the corn bin, it just says "corn" without telling you who made it or if it contains GMOs. GM food makers know this and exploit it.

If Monsanto corn had to be labeled "Monsanto" do you think they'd be fighting for a place in the market? No -- they know EU consumers won't knowingly buy their product. But, if they can get the labeling laws the way they want them, they can flood the market with their products, which will be unlabeled, and will be purchased unawares.

As for the growth hormones, there is actually an anti-labeling law in the US. Pick up a tub of Ben & Jerry's and you will find that if you want to put a "no rBGH" statement on your label, you also have to say "the FDA has determined there is no difference yadda yadda." Do you think the FDA dreamed that up on its own, or do you think Monsanto and ADM helped? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

So, if we could get the right labeling law to allow us real choice, it would be fine to open up all markets to GM foods. But the makers of Frankenfoods know that they have to dupe us with anti-labeling measures in order to hock their wares.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Davros: I think that has been the whole point for a while Azred - Europe hasn't wanted to buy it, and hasn't wanted to eat it. That is what Monsanto has been strenuosly objecting to and fighting against for the past months.

Although I am personally in favor of genetically modified foodstuffs because I think there are ways to use them positively to improve health (not a topic of conversation at this time), I am not so draconian as to want to force them on anyone else. I hope Europe continues to make up their own minds about what they will and will not eat.

Originally posted by Skunk: And if one looks at the issue from a purely financial perspective? While it is true that the removal of the hormone-drug from cattle rearing will increase production costs, the burden of caring for the increased number of cancer patients is more than likely to off-set the pecuniary gain. Cancer is a very expensive illness to treat.

That is one thing that definitely irks me about my own country--I live in a nation of short-sighted people who insist upon seeing only as far as next quarter's bottom line.

Originally posted by Moiraine: Suddenly your advice doesn't seem all that simple to follow, does it ?

I never promised to make things easy, only to try and make the future better. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So, if we could get the right labeling law to allow us real choice, it would be fine to open up all markets to GM foods. But the makers of Frankenfoods know that they have to dupe us with anti-labeling measures in order to hock their wares.

It appears we need to modify our legislative system to make politicians immune to lobbyists (oh, isnt' that a simple wish [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) or perhaps more people need to wake up to the fact that Congress doesn't always have our best inerests at heart ( [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] say it isn't so! [img]tongue.gif[/img] )