Re: I wonder who was stupid enough to hack the masmforum server ?

Frank Kotler wrote:
santosh wrote:
...
We have had a case here in India, just a week back, which was reported
even in the leading national papers:

In a Monsanto-Mayhco, (the "Mayhco" is Monsanto's collaborator here),
"test" field growing GM crops, (BT-cotton), goats were reported to have
died in mass after consuming the crop. Some people were also reportedly
taken sick.

Of course, those goats *could* have died from other unrelated causes,
but it does affect the public perceptions of Monsanto.

Ah, ha! Something substantive, instead of vituperitive handwaving.
Excellent. Thank you!

Didn't find anything on the goats, but a bunch of sheep have also died...

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494

Nothing *conclusive* there that the BT cotton did it, but the evidence
sure suggests it! Something about *humans* being sickened and killed(?)
by BT maize, here:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/wanho060208.cfm

Again, nothing really conclusive - in spite of the fact that some of
this stuff has been going on for a while. I'm a *little* reluctant to
blame BT, in spite of the circumstantial evidence, because...

1) BT (the protein), in it's natural form (in BT the bacteria - Bacillus
thuringiensis), has been around a long time. It's had a reputation of
being toxic to only a narrow range of insects, harmless to higher
animals. And...

One thing that scientists have learned is that genes are surprisingly
mobile and mutable. Just a few days back I read on BBC about mice
inheriting characteristics even in the absence of the concerned gene.
It is hypothesised that it may be due to RNA based inheritence.

This kind of shows that in a complex ecosystem, given enough time,
genes could jump from organism to organism, mutate to produce different
effects etc.

Also, these types of occurences need not always be gene based. It could
be that the BT-cotton is producing a chemical substance which is toxic
to sheep. If BT-cotton were blindly planted all over the country and if
we lose the natural varieties of cotton, and if this BT-cotton,
suddenly develops a chemical more toxic, or passes on a dangerous,
mutant gene to someother organism, or induces an imbalance in the food
web of the local ecosystem, it could prove disastrous and very costly
to salvage the situation.

2) Both BT cotton and BT corn/maize are *widely* planted in the US. If
critters and/or people were dropping at the rate these reports suggest,
even Monsanto wouldn't be able to cover it up. (perhaps they would -
they're good!)

The issue is that the "long term" effects that GM organisms have on a
wild community and vice versa have not been adequetly researched by
scientists. Instead, these so called "scientists" are in the pay of
these corporations which, due to the mouth-watering prospect of immense
profit and power, force them to "certify" and "clear" GM crops as soon
as possible.

It's a bit like the ridiculously myopic denial of climate change by the
oil companies and other parties invested in the fossil fuel economy.
Those who make a profit from something can never be fully trusted to be
honest about their processes.

If it turns out that BT *is* toxic to humans after all, we're well and
truely fucked! I don't know about cotton, but corn/maize is wind
pollinated. Producers of hybrid seeds have to keep their fields many
miles apart, to keep the strains isolated. And we've planted a *lot* of
it. It's already pretty much "everywhere", and will be soon, if it isn't.

Personally, I don't like the current trend in genetic research where
genes from phylogenetically disparate organisms are mixed together in
wierd and often pointless "experiments".

I guess the scientists would say that scientific progress implies
always pushing the envelope. This is true. But is there a point at
which research becomes superflous and dangerous. Further, scientists in
the pay of profit making corporations may not always be commited solely
to pure research.

I guess pure research is unavoidable, (though I don't like the
unnecessary cruetly that is inflicted on animals for this purpose), but
society should be vigilant enough and voiceferous enough to not
sanction any and all application of scientific research that profit
making companies will dream up.

Otherwise we let those who hold knowledge, money and millitary power
dictate our lives and fate. Unfortunately, that's precisely what's
happening.

Mostly everyone, except Monsanto employees and other vested interests,
regard the company and it's venture in India as purely profit making.

I hope so. Betov sees a darker plot, and he may be right. As he
suspects, I know who Monsanto is. I'm a hippie, they're a chemical
company. I don't like 'em. DDT, PCB, Agent Orange, Times Beach - if they
weren't directly involved, they're members of the same club. I wanted to
refresh my memory - I haven't been keepin' an eye on 'em lately - and
came across this...

Yes, severe chemical contamination is far more damaging in the short
run that proliferation of untested GM organisms. But while most
chemicals can be cleaned up, (in many cases, eventually and at great
cost), once the collective gene pool of the biosphere is polluted by
unnatural genes, we can never restore the former state. The ecosystem,
simply has to adapt and find it's own equilibrium over time - which it
will. But at what cost to the health of wildlife and humans is the real
question.

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Monsanto-Checkered-HistoryOct98.htm

It's much worse than I imagined! I said they're primarily a chemical
company, and not seedsmen? Not any more. Worse, they're a major pusher
of prescription drugs in the US!

That's surprising! Why would they push for prescription drugs? Do they
manufacture prescription drugs?

Part of the reason I'm a little blase about this is that the mutilation
of genes is only the latest in a long string of Bad Ideas that
agriculture - "agribusiness" - has engaged in. Agriculture itself may
have been a bad idea - we should have stuck with huntin' and gatherin'.
Monoculture, herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, erosion... we
depend *entirely* on a thin skin of topsoil only a few inches thick. The
world's food supply really *is* imperiled. Doom! I'm tired of worrying
about it.

Strictly speaking, yes, agriculture is a Bad Idea from the point of
view of the ecosystem. However, for a long time in human history it had
minimal impact on the overall biosphere because of the _small_ human
population. In the last two centuries though, literally the face of the
planet has been "scarred" by pervasive and invasive agriculture.

But we have no other option. Otherwise, most of humanity will starve to
death. Hunter-Gatherer lifestyle has totally and forever become
unfeasible, (unless we drastically bring down the global population).

Of the different types of agriculture, organic ones are the best. Slash
and burn farming, heavily chemical dependant farming and GM farming the
most destructive and dangerous. Of these GM farming has not been
*proved* dangerous, but has not been *proved* friendly either.

Perhaps Monsanto believes people in under-developed countries can be
easily fooled.

Can't be any easier to fool than people in developed countries. I'm
pretty sure if you asked Joe Sixpack "Would you eat a burger that had
been fed genetically modified grain?", he'd say "Hell no, you think I'm
crazy?". But it's been going on for years. No escaping it, at this point.

Yes many many businesses and goverments rely on the inertia and
unquestioning attitude of the masses.

That's certainly true as far as the Goverment is
concerned.

Which one? :)

I'm afraid that this list will soon get too long to be read in a
newspost.
;)

though
nowhere near the level required to ensure the best agricultural
interests on this country.

Thorny issue. There are practices that will increase yields in the short
run, but are not "sustainable". But we need to feed people *now*!

Yes. But atleast for this country I can say that gross production has
not been the issue for three decades now. Rather, the bottom sediment
of the society simply don't have enough money to buy the food, often
even through fair price shops.

In many cases, families of farmers are ruined when they borrow money to
buy seeds and chemicals and implements but there is a monsoon failure
or two and they fail to produce any significant harvest. The debtors
hound the farmer, who shortly makes use of his unused pesticide and
commits suicide leaving behind another broken family.

I suppose this can only be solved when there is percolation of more
money into the poorest strata. But their very position keeps them from
getting this money.

The classic global phenomenon:
The poor get poorer, the rich get richer.

Problem is, we develop a way to produce enough food to keep people from
starving, we'll only breed ourselves back up to a population where
people are starving again...

You've hit the nail on the head here. Population growth is the
fundamental cause of the problems on most under-developed countries.

Their poverty and educational ignorance keep them at an animal level,
where breeding assumes excessive importance. Generally, when people are
given good education they tend to improve in this reagard, (an
exception is the baby-boomers of the US). Improvement though seems to
come painfully slowly.

Yeah, the problem isn't really that we don't have enough, but that it's
not in the right place at the right time. *Enormous* waste of food in
this country, but how does not wasting it get it to where it'll do any
good? Human psychology may be part of the reason we don't distribute
food more effectively - physics and biology come into it, too. Spoilage,
rot, mold... if that doesn't do it, the bugs get into it. Maybe
Monsanto's got something for that... :)

Well all these issues have been analysed by economists, politicians,
businessmen, psychologists, biologists, saints and sinners. Each
emphasises the causes which come under his domain of knowledge. The
real problem is an amalgamation of manifold causes, (large and small),
which all reduce down to a single cause: Ego/Agression.

Since it's apparently unfeasible to attack the primary cause, the
secondary causes and symptoms are fought against in hundreds of ways by
hundreds of institutions and individuals. Unfortunately given the
immense size of human population and essentially stubborn human nature
progress is slow.

.