Transgenic, genetically modified plants near vineyards

A quote from above:

"....few institutions have done more to help the world's poor than the US-based agricultural multinationals"

Yeah, right, just like the war in Iraq is in the name of democracy...

Please, this is absurd. Those people are self-serving and money-grabbing.
We are not talking about "institutions" - we are talking about the likes of Mosanto, the evil multinational if there ever were one.
It's (mostly) legal, but when it comes to ethics, that's another story.

Leaving the polemics aside, I used to think that organic/biodynamic/sustainable viticulture was so much hot air.
But I've come around. There's much to be said for it on any number of counts.

I agree that there is a certification problem. Such labels exist, but they need to become more widespread.
I have conficdnce that those who do, for instance, display an ecocert logo: http://www.ecocert.fr/

Best regards,
Alex R.

[David M. Bueker]

Alex - you are falling back to the same level of argument as Michael. To sum up: all they care about is money, so everything they do is junk. end of argument

Might I ask what your solution to African famine is going to be? I will say that I see virtually zero reason to plant some kind of genetically modified crop near the Pfalz (to address Michael's original point). I seriously doubt that it's the only way to get food to grow there. Now if we are talking about Somalia or parts of Australia we have an entirely different situation. There's real human suffering in Africa due to lack of food (complicated by critical problems with many "governments" in the region - care to try your hands at that one?), and Australia is turning into a dust bowl.

Please (both of you) drop the Iraq comments as it makes your non-contributory arguments look mean-spirited and ridiculous. And please, if you are going to go on about companies only caring about money (and I agree they do care about money, but please tell me where their stock would end up on Wall St or in the British or other European markets if they did not - this is not as simple as Monsanto or BASF becoming a charitable foundation because they feel like it), please point out specific, relevant examples of gouging for necessary seed or other material to grow crops.

What is your solution?

Why does there need to be a solution? Maybe food wasn't meant to be grown in certain parts of the world. Maybe it shouldn't be forced.
I'm just bringing up the question, I'm not trying to be antagonistic. You're the one who's getting heated. The war in Iraq is a fact, the Wall St. meltdown is a fact, where's the problem? Yes they are related to the discussion at hand.
Should we grow the world population until we suck every resource out of mother earth?
What were those people in Africa doing for thousands of years before now, starving? I'm sure they had a system that worked until modernity and its "progress" came in and screwed things up.
Why does there need to be a solution for everything? I don't mean to be callous, I'm just wondering.
And yes I'm not an expert on the subject, so I bow to those with better info.

[David M. Bueker]

Agostino - you are nearly proposing a solution by tearing at the modern world. The fact remains that the population has grown, and unless there is some massive effort at some kind of birth control (even more controversial than GMOs by the way) we are going to have to figure out how to feed all these people. Alternately we can stand by and watch them starve. Do you propose we do so?

And believe me when I say that I am not heated. Ask around - folks know what I get like when I am heated. But bringing up the war in Iraq in a discussion of genetically modified foodstuffs is just mudslinging in my opinion.

Agostino wrote;
What were those people in Africa doing for thousands of years before now, starving? I'm sure they had a system that worked until modernity and its "progress" came in and screwed things up.

Migrate and tribal warfare.

Salute

Mark et al.,

Although I applaud your efforts, the chances there is anybody listening at the other side are nill. Religious fanatics cannot be swayed by rational argument, and the anti-GM movement has the mindset of a religious orthodoxy. The unfortunate consequences of such delusions and propaganda against golden rice and other efforts were recently described in a very readable news article in Science - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5875/468

best,

Mike

Mike,

You would be as mistaken to support GM food unreservedly as anyone is to rule it out on principle.

I agree with you that there is a lot of kneejerk emotional reaction here. What we need here is science.
But NOT science funded or interfered with by agribusiness, which is sadly far too often the case.

No one should give a blanket go-ahead to genetic manipulations in what we eat - least of all governments meant to protect us!

David,

You ask:
"Might I ask what your solution to African famine"

A lot of minds brighter than yours or mine have struggled with this very issue.
Sadly, one has come up with a solution.
If GM food can be proved harmless to people and the environment, perhaps it can help these people.
But that's a big "if". And then there's the whole dependence thing all over again...


Best regards,
Alex R.

Why does there need to be a solution? Maybe food wasn't meant to be grown in certain parts of the world. Maybe it shouldn't be forced.

Indeed food wil not grow in Antarctica. You forget though that Africa was once the greenest part of the planet. It was not progress that screwed it up...it was simply changes in nature, and those long before we even heard about ozone holes.

Should we grow the world population until we suck every resource out of mother earth?

Oddly enough that same argument was put forward in the 3rd century when Romans were concerned about precisely the same issue. Somehow akin to the argument that if god had wanted us to fly he would have given us wings.

What were those people in Africa doing for thousands of years before now, starving?I'm sure they had a system that worked until modernity and its "progress" came in and screwed things up.

Alas, you have not been following history. Indeed for thousands of years starvation was periodically the major cause of death in parts of Africa and China.

Why does there need to be a solution for everything?

I do not mean to be callous either but have you ever run across the adage to the effect of "Love they brother as thyself"?

Best
Rogov





[

[David M. Bueker]

have you ever run across the adage to the effect of "Love they brother as thyself"?

A most appropriate thought today.

Expanding upon what David B. said, few institutions have done more to help the world's poor than the US-based agricultural multinationals.

ROFL, that was a good one.

What we need here is science.
But NOT science funded or interfered with by agribusiness, which is sadly far too often the case.

Seems like genetically modified sweet corn has been forbidden in germany today.

Monsanto 810 maize has been forbidden due to the fact that Monsanto, who just wants to feed the world and has no money in mind , had, what is the political correct term for that....kinda.... extended some facts, excluded and dropped out other facts, so it seems like there are no transgenic mutants beside vineyards in germany (no more) - if there are no loopholes.

[David M. Bueker]

Richard - may I ask wehre you got the data to support your assessment of the reasons for the ban? The 6 articles I was able to just scan are all essentially regurgitations of the Reuters report which offers no concrete reasoning. I saw words like "suspicion" and "expectations" in the aritcles but no cold, hard facts. Unless you have more detailed information it sure looks like you are stretching the truth to make your point.

What were those people in Africa doing for thousands of years before now, starving?

Dying in early childhood of (now) preventable diseases, with many of their mothers dying in childbirth.

-Paul W.

Richard -

You seem keen on dismissing any science done by agribusiness firms as useless due to their pursuit of profits. While I don't think anyone is suggesting that we accept anything they state as gospel without confirmation, the fact is that such companies do perform a lot of legitimate scientific work.

Let's put it this way: Would you deny that millions of lives are saved each year by drugs developed by large pharmaceutical companies? These companies are certainly every bit as profit-driven as Monsanto is, but I'm personally quite happy that a quick course of their antibiotics prevented the possible loss of my arm last year. Yes, there's a price to be paid for the use of antibiotics but IMO, the benefits far outweigh the costs. And that's the question regarding GMO's. Not "are they evil" or "is Monsanto a greedy profit-driven organization", but "do the benefits outweigh the costs?" There's more than enough evidence at this point to indicate that in at least some cases, they very well may. Perhaps not in the Pfalz, but elsewhere.

Echoing what others have said, it's not easy to be dispassionate about this subject, but we must rationally judge the costs/benefits (as well as trying to factor in the famous 'law of unintended consequences', or what some military/politicos blithely refer to as 'collateral damage') when we discuss this.

I think it is also important to point out that what passes for journalism and investigative reporting today is anything but, and we can't realy on polemical articles from one side or the other to convince us of the right and wrong of things. Not what I would call reliable sources.

As a former Boss once told me when he was making a decision that might positively or adversely impact my job, "You have to remember, everyone that comes to me has a firmly held opinion and a firmly held direction he wants me to go in. It's my job to consider all those, weigh them carefully, and then make the best decision I can. But everyone....everyone...has an angle."

And Mike: I hope it wasn't your drinking arm you were in danger of losing. All the physical therapy involved in makes me shudder.

Richard - may I ask wehre you got the data to support your assessment of the reasons for the ban? The 6 articles I was able to just scan are all essentially regurgitations of the Reuters report which offers no concrete reasoning. I saw words like "suspicion" and "expectations" in the aritcles but no cold, hard facts. Unless you have more detailed information it sure looks like you are stretching the truth to make your point.

From the praiseworthy, laudably German ministry for agricultures (`n stuff). Also got one from Greenpeace. BTW, some other (european) countries forbid genetically modified mutants, too.

So, the german minister for agriculture said the following:

"Ich komme zu dem Schluss, dass es berechtigten Grund zu der Annahme gibt, dass der genetisch veränderte Mais der Linie Mon810 eine Gefahr für die Umwelt darstellt", sagte Aigner. Diese Auffassung wurde auch vom Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit bestätigt.</span><br>
<br>

"I came to the conclusion that there is qualified reason for the assumption that genetically modified maize (corn) of the line MON810 is a hazard for the environment.", said Aigner (=minister). This opinion was confirmed by the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.

Unless you have more detailed information it sure looks like you are stretching the truth to make your point

It looks like the one who has pretty much no information and the one who should valify his sources is not me.

Richard -

You seem keen on dismissing any science done by agribusiness firms as useless due to their pursuit of profits.

No. I say that "their" science and studies is pretty much bullshit and in no way worth more than the pieces of paper it was written on. So does the german federal mistry of agriculture. And the french, and the greek, and the one from luxembourg and austria. But I´ll guess folks that are in bondage of some industrial propaganda might get to the conclusion to proclaim that these ministries are just dumb ass communists who want to end up sitting in trees again.

[David M. Bueker]

Richard - you are being insulting & combative.

A quote saying "I came to the conclusion that there is qualified reason for the assumption that genetically modified maize (corn) of the line MON810 is a hazard for the environment" is not data, it is a summary (and it was in the Reuters article). Was there any data? Greenpeace does indeed have an agenda, as I am sure Monsanto does as well.

What is the basis for your assessment that their science is "bullshit?" Let me know when you have decided to discuss the issue with more than the fire in your gut.

No. I say that "their" science and studies is pretty much bullshit and in no way worth more than the pieces of paper it was written on. So does the german federal mistry of agriculture. And the french, and the greek, and the one from luxembourg and austria. But I´ll guess folks that are in bondage of some industrial propaganda might get to the conclusion to proclaim that these ministries are just dumb ass communists who want to end up sitting in trees again.

Totally uncalled for, Richard. Totally.

You certainly have a right to your opinions, but there's no need to disparage and insult other people in this way.

"in bondage" to the agribusinesses? C'mon.

To you people not bothered by Frankenfood:

The onus of proving this shit is not unhealthy is on the people who want to make billions off it.

It is poor logic to say "we'll eat this artificial food until such time as we find out it's bad".
It is much more intelligent and socially reponsible to say "we won't use it until it is
proved to be healthy". The difference is important!

People have every right to come down on the side of saftey rather than profits for (expletive deleted) multinationals.

The parallel drawn above with the pharmaceutical industry is not a good one.
Food and drugs are different products.

I've had people from politically controversial countries tell me their opinion counts infinitely more than mine because they live there.
I am, by definition, ignorant, and my opinion cannot be of any value... Of course, when the people in question calmly justify murder, this is a little rich...
By the same token, I cannot accept the brush-off by people who say that opponents to GM foods need to have a medical degree to have an opinion.
No, it's not like that. We want our governments to protect us, to do the necessary research on our behalf, and kick Mosanto in the balls if need be.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[David M. Bueker]

Alex - if we are going to have a discussion on this issue we need to use facts. You and Michael use inflamatory language as if that makes your point more valid.

You might have enjoyed my meal last night. I had organic asparagus & an organic steak. Too bad the French wine I had was probably doused with copper in the vineyard.

David,

You feel strongly about something, you speak your mind...
As I said, it doesn't take a doctorate to know when you're being led down the garden path...

Copper in your French wine?
Can you produce an analysis sheet? ??

Seriously, I used to think that all this talk about organic or biodynamic or sustainable viticulture was a gimmick.
But it is becoming a major concern, and I've been won over.

There are common winemaking practices in the New World that would send people to jail in Europe.
It may be the other way around as well, I don't know (other than chapatalization).

As we saw on Wall Street (yes, David, the comparison is justified!), a lack of government regulation creates a very bad scene.
Let the people who govern us and international organizations try to work out what isn't going to poison or harm us.
And pray that, not only do they have our interests at hear, but that they don't make any major mistakes!

Best regards,
Alex R.

[David M. Bueker]

Way back on page one (was it really post #2) I predicted that this thread would get to this point.

I would be more than happy to have a discussion. What I will not do is banter with idealogues who wish to find ways to bash the USA (references to Iraq, Wall St., etc) rather than use facts to support their arguments. The copper (remember "Bordeaux mixture" Alex?) was pretty much an attempt at humor, but I can see that there is no room for a laugh in your vaunted ideaology.

Have fun tilting at windmills Alex & Michael. I'm done with this discussion (which it never was as I predicted).

There are common winemaking practices in the New World that would send people to jail in Europe.

Heck, Alex, there are commong winemaking practices in Europe that would send people to jail. And have. Like Bordeaux, Burgundy, Germany, Austria, Italy. So what?

So some New World areas----because they are different from the Old World areas---do some things differently? So what? Since when did non-Europeans have to follow the practice of Europeans in everything they do?

No. I say that "their" science and studies is pretty much bullshit and in no way worth more than the pieces of paper it was written on. So does the german federal mistry of agriculture. And the french, and the greek, and the one from luxembourg and austria. But I´ll guess folks that are in bondage of some industrial propaganda might get to the conclusion to proclaim that these ministries are just dumb ass communists who want to end up sitting in trees again.

What is "their" science? Is it still "their" science after the work has been peer reviewed and published in a legitimate journal? Is it still "their" science when "their" experiments are repeated by others and the same results are obtained? Is it "their" science when "they" contribute to a university's fuinding? When "they" put out grants for others to do the work? Just where does it stop being "their" science and start being just plain science? And what about the example of the pharmaceutical industry? "They" do a lot of research that has a lot of money riding on it. Should we disregard all of it because "they" used "their" science?

Laudable, Mike, but you're tilting when you use reason and judgement adressing Richard and Alex. They don't discuss or consider: they just want to fulminate and engage in tirades

Like David, I believe it's best to walk away. They'll still be bloviating, but I won't have to listen to them.

(Sorry, Steve. We tried. Didn't take long to fall apart, did it?)