Today’s Number

90%

the approximate percentage of soy in the US genetically engineered to resist Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.

Related articles

• How Monsanto Went From Selling Aspirin to Controlling Our Food Supply. (zedie.wordpress.com)
• Governments urged to limit weed killer found in humans (climate-connections.org)

Read Full Post »

Essential Documentaries: A Silent Forest

A Silent Forest – The Growing Threat, Genetically Engineered Trees (2009)

It’s entirely understandable that when we think about genetically modified crops finding their way into the food chain and inevitably into our own genetic makeup the first thing we’re likely to be concerned about is the effect that this technology is going to have on our health and that of our children. It’s a plain fact however that the immediate consequences for our physical integrity could be the least of our worries in this huge profit-driven experiment.

A Silent Forest is a disturbing documentary by filmmaker Ed Schehl about the dangers of genetically modified “toxic” trees. Narrated by geneticist David Suzuki, and with comments and explanation by an array of experts this film makes for uncomfortable but essential viewing.

If awareness is the key element in our rejection of this life-negating and destructive technology then  this documentary needs to be seen by as many people as possible. Pass it on!

Selected Quotes:

“Biotechnologists think: genes are genes, it doesn’t matter where you stick them, and they’ll just function the way they normally do. Any geneticist who thinks about that should know better. Genes don’t function alone. They function within the context of the entire genome… it’s just a mistake to think that genes act as if their traits are expressed regardless of where they exist.”
David Suzuki

“This one gene, one protein, one trait caricature of how genetics works – that’s the whole foundation of the biotechnology industry – is a complete misrepresentation of everything we know about how genetics and complex organisms actually work.”
Brian Tokar, Director, Biotechnology Project
Institute for Social Ecology

“What we’ve found through our research is that genetically engineered trees are truly the greatest threat to the worlds remaining native forest since the invention of the chainsaw.”
Anne Petermann
Co-Director
Global Justice Ecology Project

“This is about the corporate enclosure of life itself.”
Aziz Choudry
Organizer, Gatt Watchdog

 

Related articles

• Geneticist David Suzuki Says GMO Food is Massive Human Experiment (dprogram.net)

Read Full Post »

Dogma, Division, and Downright Lousy Science

“There’s a conflict at the heart of science between science as a method of inquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation, and science as a belief system, or a worldview.”

Rupert Sheldrake

High Noon

There are food and chemical corporations, technological institutes, and certain sections of the media who would have us believe that the current acrimonious debate about genetically modified organisms is a showdown between, on the one hand, scientific pragmatism represented by those who want to save humanity using “cutting-edge” technology, and on the other, a bunch of raggle-taggle Luddites seeking a retreat back to a nostalgic, mythical past when food was still true and honest and the world was pure. But in fact, when looked at closely this simplistic division is little more than a construct and a transparent trivialization of the issues.

Bitter Divide

The truth is that science itself is bitterly divided, not only on the issue of the genetic manipulation of foods, animals, and humans but on many of the other crucial choices that will have to be made in the very near future. Take for example the endless debate about global warming, with science bickering and dithering while the time in which something could feasibly have been done about climate change has come and gone. In fact, if one follows the to-and-fro of the debate on GMOs, and sees the fault lines that are coming to the surface it’s not difficult to conclude that science is currently undergoing an identity crisis the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the time of the Renaissance.

Astrolabe

Belief System

In much the same way that a religious dogma is formulated Western science has, over the centuries been picking and choosing, adding and subtracting to shape and develop its own, now rigid, belief system. See for example how in the time of the Crusades, having plundered all it could from Arabic knowledge in the fields of medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy, Western science then conveniently chose to forget the enormous debt it owed to Islamic scholars and their advanced culture. How much are we told about this now in our great centres of learning, and how much more inconvenient knowledge has been hidden or obscured? Seen in this light it’s clear that Western science, having long sought to position itself as the incorruptible beacon of truth leading mankind into the future is in fact just as capable of deceit, of being mistaken, corrupted, and manipulated as any other body in human affairs, and we don’t have to go back very far in history to see the truth of that.

If society expects us to believe all that Western science tells us about its own past, in the knowledge that great chunks of “Truth” have been erased, hidden, distorted, or discarded, why should we blindly follow the same dogmatic mentality into the future? It seems that orthodox science generally has too high an opinion of its own ability to act with logic, reason, and impartiality.

Bon Appetit!

Jellyfish

Now we’re told that technology has made it possible to grow meat in laboratories, presumably with a side dish of vegetables produced on a 3D printer. They want to splice chicken genes with those of jellyfish to produce eggs that glow in the dark. They want to produce pigs that grow five times faster than the slowpokes we’re currently stuck with. There are even signs that bio-tech science is prepared to jettison a lumbering liability like Monsanto, particularly in Europe, in order to calm the concerned consumer and carry on with the important business of creating “magic meatballs” and programmable colas undisturbed.

Watch out for a subtle shift in terminology in this context. Out goes the term GMO, in comes “cultured meat products”, and “fantasy foods”. Those who reject such unneeded and unwanted fabrications are to be labelled “squeamish”, or even downright ignorant for not facing up to the reality of the times we live in.

Lousy Science

Meanwhile those scientists who genuinely know what they’re talking about are making other noises. They’re telling us that the steady flow of published research shows that there is significant concern about GM technology. They’re telling us that the whole foundation of genetic engineering  is based on a misunderstanding, a mistake, or as geneticist Dr. David Suzuki calls it: “just lousy science.”

Read what former research scientist for the Canadian government and GM food advocate Thierry Vrain now has to say about the dangers of genetically modified organisms and the recklessness with which they are being produced and marketed: Former Pro-GMO Scientist Cites GM Food Safety Concerns

They’re also telling us about what happens when they don’t toe the party line, how they’re harassed, ostracized, ridiculed, and in some cases given to understand that their physical safety could be compromised for speaking out. Again, this is nothing new but rather it follows a distinct and familiar pattern. In the early years of the Green Movement, scientists such as Rachel Carson, for example, were brought to the brink of ruin for daring to contradict the orthodoxy of the scientific establishment and its paymasters.

Guinea Pigs

Not surprisingly those advocating the mass experiment known as GM technology express exasperation and contempt for those they feel are holding them back. They want the debate to “move on” and to drive their own agenda forward unhindered by the recalcitrant guinea pigs that will have to deal with the consequences in perpetuity.

But this is far from being a simplistic story about science and whether or not new technology should be given free rein to solve the world’s problems, or whether one particular school of thought has more of a handle on “The Truth” than another. This is about the right to freedom of choice, about democracy and who runs it, and about the knowledge of the fundamentals of life and who owns it.

Scientific research in the pay of profit-motivated corporations or dependent upon something as transient as a handout from here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians is in no position to be claiming the moral high-ground, telling us what truth is and what it is not, what we should or should not believe, should or should not be feeding our kids, either now or in the future. Those days are gone. So now who are the Luddites?

Related articles

• GMOs and Health: The scientific basis for serious concern and immediate action (sott.net)

Read Full Post »

Today’s Number

10

Good reasons why the world doesn’t need genetically modified crops:

1. GM foods won’t solve the food crisis

2. GM crops do not increase yield potential

3. GM crops increase pesticide use

4. There are better ways to feed the world

5. Other farm technologies are more successful

6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat

7. People don’t want GM foods – so they’re hidden in animal feed

8. GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers

9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist

10. We can’t trust GM companies

Genetically modified (GM) foods are often promoted as a way to feed the world, but this is little short of a confidence trick. Far from needing more GM foods there are urgent reasons why we need to ban them altogether.

Read a fully detailed and referenced version of the above list at the website GM Watch

For a comprehensive evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops see the GMO Myths and Truths Report at the Earth Open Source website.

Read Full Post »

Wasting Away

In recent, occasionally heated discussions with friends and others about genetically modified foods the following argument comes up time and again: “How else are we to feed the world’s exploding population if we don’t utilise GM technology to increase crop yields?”

A number of counter arguments spring quickly to mind. There is, for example absolutely no scientific evidence that GMOs increase crop yields in the long-term. On the contrary the damage and deterioration inflicted on biodiversity and the environment by the methods used to cultivate GM crops are guaranteed to store up massive problems in the very near future, as thousands of American farmers are now discovering.

Evidence Based

Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence that traditional and contemporary organic methods and basic good husbandry virtually guarantee healthy soil, robust and abundant crops, and therefore good, plentiful food that not only fills the stomach but lays the foundation for good health.

Read the following article to see just one example of what can be done without GMOs, chemical fertilizers or pesticides: Miracle Grow-Indian-farmers smash crop yield records without gmos 

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But if even that argument doesn’t convince then there’s little that’s debatable about the following statistic as outlined in this recent Guardian article: Almost half of the world’s food thrown away. This article is based on a report by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers: Global Food – Waste Not, Want Not. 

Blindingly Obvious

Since when did it become ok to waste vast quantities of anything let alone a fundamental resource such as food?

If governments and corporations mean what they say when they bare to us their bleeding, altruistic hearts then why not do the blindingly obvious and start by vigorously encouraging an environment in which the wholesale waste of food is unacceptable?

The “starving millions” argument so often introduced into any discussion about GMOs is the result of a combination of a lack of knowledge and the subtle propaganda of those who stand to profit on an unimaginable scale from pursuing their agenda against a background of our ignorance or indifference.

“Waste not, want not” may sound like a trite homily to “consumers” used to having every desire fulfilled at the touch of a button, but think about those words for a moment. This culture of waste is something that’s come about in the space of two generations and it’s neither an inevitable consequence of “progress” nor simply the way of the world.  Things don’t have to be like this. We decide, and our individual decisions, however small they might seem at the time make a difference.

Read Full Post »

Time for a Change

“I do not seek, I find.”

Pablo Picasso

Focus

For various reasons, but mostly because it takes up time that I feel could more usefully be spent in other ways I’ve been very close to closing down this blog.  However, not having been able to bring myself to the point of actually pushing the button I’ve decided to change course a little bit in the hope that the project will once again begin to make sense to me.

More focus is what’s needed, and so starting with this post I’ll be concentrating on what I feel is the single most important and pressing issue of the times we live in, namely the wholesale appropriation and corruption of our genetic heritage by a cartel of privately owned corporations, aided and abetted by national governments, private armies, and fraudulent or misguided science.

Not Done

Climate change and deterioration is a battle lost it seems and we’ll have to deal with the consequences as best we can. The argument for and against the use of genetic engineering in order to facilitate the centralization of the source, cultivation, and distribution of the world’s food supplies into the hands of a select few is however a battle that’s still being fought,  and it’s far from done and dusted.

It’s not my intention to waste anyone’s time (including my own) broadcasting my personal opinions about the subject at hand. Anybody who’s ever taken the trouble to read this blog will pretty much know where I stand. Rather I’d like to spend the time available helping to point readers in the direction of those who know and understand with more precision than I exactly where the dangers lie.

Scare Stories

It’s not difficult to find scare stories about GM technology and the profit motivated manipulation of every link in the food chain. Take for example the recent case of the Indiana farmer dragged through the courts by Monsanto and brought to the brink of bankruptcy by the GM giant. But rather than filling page after page with alarms, horror stories, and negativity I’ll make an effort to keep in the foreground the knowledge that not only do scientifically proven alternatives to GM technology exist, (and have always existed), there is also a huge and growing movement against this dangerous and irreversible folly.

In order to do so I’ll highlight and share every instance of resistance that I can find, from organizations and individuals that work to establish and maintain seed banks free of F1 hybrids and GMOs, to movements committed to slow food, localization, and life after Peak Oil. Along the way (and at the risk of preaching to the converted) I’ll share everything I know or can find about the ways and means to work with and alongside Nature for our mutual benefit.

Think Twice

I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of people simply haven’t yet realized the scope and importance of this issue. Many people I know scarcely ever think twice about what they eat or where it comes from as long as it’s easily and cheaply available. This is exactly the state of mind that corporations like Monsanto depend and thrive on. A passive populace in thrall to consumerism can’t or won’t understand the arguments for and against until the decisions have been made for them, by which time they’ll have other things to worry about.

Taking personal responsibility for the fundamentals of life while sticking up as many fingers as you can spare to the corporations is a way out of this mess. I decide, you decide, we decide – that’s the way forward.

By the way,  music – because it’s life-affirming and a joy will always have a place on this blog.

Related articles

• Dem Senator Takes Aim At ‘Outrageous Special Interest Provision’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• Genetically modified democracy: Monsanto moves to obliterate states’ rights to label GMOs (naturalnews.com)
• March Against Monsanto (unplugyourlife.wordpress.com)

Read Full Post »

The Great GM Failure

A fast growing body of evidence suggests that the great GM experiment is not only a failure, but that the consequences of this misguided (some would say malign) technology are threatening to spiral out of control. The following is a selection of articles collected over the past few months, but representing no more than just the tip of a very large iceberg. 

Monsanto’s “Superweeds” Gallop Through Midwest

By Tom Philpott

Tue Jul. 19, 2011 10:30 AM PDT

Back in the mid-’90s, Monsanto rolled out seeds genetically engineered to withstand its Roundup herbicide. To ensure huge growth potential, the company shrewdly chose the most widely planted, highly subsidized US crops to grace with its new “Roundup Ready” technology: corn, soy, and cotton.

The pitch was simple and powerful: No longer would large-scale farmers need to worry about weeds. All they would have to do was douse their fields with Roundup, which would wipe out all plant life except the desired crop. Farmers leapt at the technology. It represented a fantastic labor-saving opportunity, allowing them to manage ever-larger swaths of land without having to pay more workers.

Today, Roundup Ready crops blanket US farmland. According to USDA figures, 94 percent of soybeans and more than 70 percent of corn and cotton planted in the US contain the Roundup-resistant gene. Back-of-the envelope calculations tell me that nearly 200,000 square miles of prime farmland—a land mass about two-thirds the size of Texas—now grow crops rigged to flourish amid an annual monsoon of Roundup.

Well, in what is surely the least surprising, most-anticipated major development in the history of US agriculture, farmers are discovering that when you spend years dousing land with a single herbicide, ecosystems adapt. Roundup Ready crops, meet Roundup-defying weeds.

Read the full article here:  http://motherjones.com

Monsanto GM Corn in Peril: Beetle develops Bt-resistance

Posted on August 24, 2011
By Rady Ananda

Nature herself may be the best opponent of genetically modified crops and pesticides. Not only plants, but insects are also developing resistance. The Western rootworm beetle – one of the most serious threats to corn – has developed resistance to Monsanto’s Bt-corn, and entire crops are being lost.

Farmers from several Midwest states began reporting root damage to corn that was specifically engineered with a toxin to kill the rootworm. Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann recently confirmed that the beetle, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, has developed resistance to the Bt protein, Cry3Bb1.

Read the full article here: http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com

Armed response

Knowing what we know about Monsanto and its brothers in arms their response to such developments, e.g. more of the same, is surprising only in the sense of its mind-boggling stupidity. In what has been described as a  “Roundup monsoon” American farmers trapped on the GM treadmill are left with little choice other than to dump increasing quantities of Roundup on their crops, while many are resorting to supplementing Roundup with other, more powerful chemicals in an effort to regain control. All this is good news for Monsanto who have seen profits from their toxic products go through the roof. Meanwhile work is ongoing on a new generation of crops resistant to the chemical Dicamba. Please read this report if you want to become more aware of exactly what bringing this deeply unpleasant poison into the mainstream (and onto your dinner table) will mean.

Roundup Ready

Roundup is a chemical herbicide so common that it has become more or less a mainstay in the arsenal of many ordinary gardeners and can be found on the shelf at any DIY store or garden centre. Routinely used in public spaces, schools, and playing fields Roundup is the world’s best-selling herbicide. In fact things have come so far that many local authorities, growers, and householders would be hard pressed to manage without it. It seems logical to conclude that Roundup would not have conquered the market if it wasn’t safe, or that it is safe as long  as the manufacturer’s instructions are followed. However, recent, and not so recent evidence suggests that neither assumption is correct.

Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?

The pesticide industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world’s best-selling herbicide, causes birth defects – but they failed to inform the public. This report, co-authored by international scientists and researchers, reveals that the industry’s own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals.

Read the full article and download the report here: http://earthopensource.org

Behind the Label: Roundup Weedkiller

A weedkiller that kills a lot more than simply weeds? If it’s worse than the poison it’s no cure at all, says Pat Thomas

A weed, as an insightful gardener once said, is just a plant growing in the wrong place. But to deal with the simple problem of plants growing in the wrong places, globally we spend millions each year on chemicals designed to kill them – chemicals such as Monsanto’s Roundup. The name will be familiar to GM watchers – all over the world food crops are being genetically modified (also by Monsanto) to be ‘Roundup resistant’, which allows farmers to spray this pesticide with impunity around their crops.

This irresponsible type of agriculture has led to increased resistance to the herbicide and the emergence of ‘superweeds’ – and thus increased sales of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, which farmers have to use more and more of in order to get the same effect.

Read the full article here:  http://www.theecologist.org

The Final Solution

For a science that sells itself as the solution to the world’s food supply problems GM technology certainly has a knack for turning everything it touches into a crock of toxic shit. In fact, the more one studies the evidence the more the genetic manipulation of organisms, both plant and animal, looks like a failed conceit based upon old scientific assumptions about how the world works. In the new and emerging  paradigm, with science finally acknowledging the validity of the knowledge long-held by the world’s wisdom traditions, mankind and nature are seen not as separate entities permanently at each other’s throats, but as inextricably entwined expressions of the same life force. It’s surely becoming blindingly obvious to all that continuing to wage chemical and technological war against nature represents the absolute apex of mankind’s suicidal folly. 

Related articles

• ‘Super weed’ spreads to Western Canada (calgaryherald.com)
• Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility (truthsupport.wordpress.com)
• From beekeepers in France to the sweet corn at Walmart – GMO news roundup (thebovine.wordpress.com)

Read Full Post »

Farmer to Farmer: The Truth about GM Crops

This short documentary is all the more chilling because of its grounded approach and total lack of drama or theatre.

With European governments under fierce pressure to relax restrictions on the development and propagation of GM crops British farmer Michael Hart travels to the US and talks to a number of farmers who have experienced at first hand exactly what it means to be trapped in The World According to Monsanto. As you’d expect from such men there’s little or no philosophising or pontification, just the straight facts from direct experience.

Those interviewed are not rebels or idealists, or even organic farmers. In most cases they are simply farmers who bought into the Monsanto system because they thought that it was the right thing to do. Several years down the line they find themselves disappointed, worried, or downright appalled at the consequences, but powerless to find a way back.

This is a cool, pragmatic look at a potentially disastrous future for growers and consumers in Europe and around the world should the GM lobbyists be allowed to get away with what they’ve seemingly already accomplished in the US – the grand theft of our food.

Farmer to Farmer: The Truth About GM Crops from Pete Speller on Vimeo.

Read Full Post »

If Only We’d Shut Up and Do as We’re Told

Choose Organic

In the debate between those for and against the wholesale introduction of GM technology into the European foodchain the GM industry and its propagators are keen to portray themselves as the voice of the reasonable, sensible majority, using “common sense” and scientifically justified principles to further their argument. When that doesn’t work they waste no time in their deployment of tabloidesque headline grabbers of the “World on Edge of Starvation” variety in order to sway the disinterested or undecided. Like a boxer fighting to dominate the centre of the ring and keep his opponent dancing at arms length around the margins they are anxious to take and hold the middle ground of public opinion.

The Method 

One way they do this is by portraying those who oppose GM technology as “unscientific” and therefore essentially ignorant of the complex issues involved. Ideally those in opposition should be seen by the silent majority as irrational extremists whose reaction to “progress” is to avoid reasoned debate and resort to Greenpeace-like tactics of disruptive protest and scaremongering. Opinions such as those of Professor Jonathan Jones who recently published an article in The Guardian in support of GM crops are highly representative of the voice of the scientific mainstream. In fact his article is almost textbook in its approach:

• Establish scientific credentials
• Disparage opposing organizations (in this case the British organization Stop GM) as unreasonable and unwilling to enter into debate
• Cram the article with narrow but simplistic detail justifying genetic research into basic, essential foods
• Wag the finger of warning at European foot-draggers for being so far behind the US, China, Canada, etc in the development and acceptance of GM technology
• Finalize with dire warnings of the consequences of the lack of such acceptance to a rapidly growing world population threatened by climate change

The Unmentionables

It’s difficult to see exactly what purpose such an article has other than contributing to the drip, drip, drip of highly selective information into the public domain. In fact, if you take the trouble to look, its main interest was in what it didn’t say, rather than what it did. It didn’t mention Prof. Jones’ own possibly less than scientific interest in the business of GM technology; it didn’t say anything about the tried and tested business practice of selling patented seed to farmers worldwide who then become entirely (and legally) dependent on the few giant corporations that supply them; it said nothing about the dangers of inevitable cross-pollination and genetic mutation about which mainstream science remains wilfully ignorant. And crucially no mention was made (or is ever made by GM’s proponents) of the success of the research and development of pest and blight free crops by organizations using organic, environmentally responsible methods.

The Weakest Link 

Portraying those who dispute the inevitability, even the need for GM technology as unrealistic Luddites is, at best, mischief making, designed to stir up the emotions of those who see any form of disagreement with authority as a threat to their own wobbly belief system. At worst it can be seen as another element in the co-ordinated propaganda used by government and industry to coerce us into accepting this dangerous, unnecessary and generally unwanted technology. From this viewpoint Britain- England to be more precise – looks to be the weakest link in the European chain of resistance, with the government apparently determined to bring about a wider public acceptance of the technology.

Stay Informed 

It’s important to keep in mind that those advocating GM technology more often than not have something to sell. In fact it is elementary to conclude, even after only a little basic research, that financial gain on an almost unimaginable scale is at the very core of the drive to flood the world’s food supply with genetically modified crops. Those who control and supply the technology will truly have the world in the palm of their hand.

Knowing what we know about how science, agribusiness, and politics walk hand in hand toward their own vision of a bright, shiny future why should we believe that the politicians and the professors are doing anything other than jockeying to be at the head of the queue when the spoils are divided? We need to ask questions, stay informed, and pass on the knowledge we’ve gained to those who care enough to hear. This is an issue that’s simply too important for us to shut up and leave to the “experts” to decide for us.

Photo by Kumasawa

There’s a wealth of excellent information available out there if you’re willing to track it down. Below are some suggestions to get started:

www.powerbase.info   Includes an A-Z list of articles on people and organizations behind the push for GM crops

www.stopgm.org.uk    Activist British organization

www.gmwatch.org       Independent British organization of info gatherers

www.genet-info.org     European NGO on genetic engineering

www.greenpeace.org  Their Food and Agriculture pages

www.ucsusa.org          The Union of Concerned Scientists; a US based organization

Read Full Post »

Unpredictability, Gene Transfer, and Corrupted Alfalfa

Here are a couple of passages concerning GM crops and genetic manipulation in general. Both extracts are from books I’ve recently read, neither of which are specifically about genetic manipulation, but both offer insights not otherwise widely available. I’ve also included a link to a recent article on the website Truthout, offering more evidence about how particular interest groups are determined to ram genetically modified foods down our throats, whether we want them or not.

 

 

Unpredictability in Genetic Engineering

It is remarkable that the majority of plants and vegetables found on tables all over the world had their birth in Central and South America. Were they the results of random mutations or were they given as gifts by the spirits of the plants to their two-legged relations? Today Western science can repeat such processes in the laboratory, adapting, for example, tomatoes for ease of harvesting and packing. Genetic engineering enables us to create designer plants and animals, even to modify our own bodies. The technology is impressive and its implications awesome. The problem, however, is that scientists don’t really understand the implications of what they are doing. The relationship of a plant or animal to the general ecology of its region is incredibly complicated. It may be possible to make a computer model of, say, the introduction of a new bean hybrid upon a particular environment. But, as mathematicians would say, models are highly nonlinear, containing many feedback loops. Predictable behaviour can suddenly change in abrupt ways, from gradual trends to wild oscillations or even chaos. It is beyond Western science to fully understand the impact that various aspects of genetic engineering could have upon the environment and our future. Indigenous science, if we are to believe its metaphysics and its claims, moves in a slower way. It is based upon generations of painstaking observations and upon a perception that looks into the heart of things, upon knowledge that is given by the plants and animals to the two-legged. Thus, when changes take place they do so from within an acknowledged web of relationship. Moreover, the power of the trickster is always acknowledged, for the People know that all human plans are subject to the forces of chance and transformation.

By: F.David Peat

From: Blackfoot Physics published 1994

 

 

On Gene Transfer

Recent advances in genome science have revealed an additional mechanism of cooperation between species. Living organisms, it turns out, actually integrate their cellular communities by sharing their genes. It had been thought that genes are passed on only to the progeny of an individual organism through reproduction. Now scientists realize that genes are shared not only among the individual members of a species but also among members of different species. The sharing of genetic information via gene transfer speeds up evolution since organisms can acquire “learned” experiences from other organisms. (References: Nitz, et al, 2004; Pennisi 2004; Boucher, et al, 2003; Dutta and Pan 2002; Gogarten 2003). Given this sharing of genes, organisms can no longer be seen as disconnected entities; there is no wall between species. Daniel Drell, manager of the Department of Energy’s microbial genome program told Science (200l 294:1634) “we can no longer comfortably say what is a species anymore.” (Pennisi 200l).

This sharing of information is not an accident. It is nature’s method of enhancing the survival of the biosphere. As discussed earlier, genes are physical memories of an organism’s learned experiences. The recently recognized exchange of genes among individuals disperses those memories, thereby influencing the survival of all organisms that make up the community of life. Now that we are aware of this inter- and intra-species gene transfer mechanism, the dangers of genetic engineering become apparent. For example, tinkering with the genes of a tomato may not stop at that tomato but could alter the entire biosphere in ways that we cannot foresee. Already there is a study that shows that when humans digest genetically modified foods, the artificially created genes transfer into and alter the character of the beneficial bacteria in the intestine. (Heritage 2004; Netherwood, et al, 2004). Similarly, gene transfer among genetically engineered agricultural crops and surrounding native species has given rise to highly resistant species deemed superweeds. (Milius 2003; Haygood, et al, 2003; Desplanque, et al, 2002; Spencer and Snow 200l). Genetic engineers have never taken the reality of gene transfer into consideration when they have introduced genetically modified organisms into the environment. We are now beginning to experience the dire consequences of this oversight as their engineered genes are spreading among and altering other organisms in the environment. (Watrud, et al, 2004).

Genetic evolutionists warn that if we fail to apply the lessons of our shared genetic destiny, which should be teaching us the importance of cooperation among all species, we threaten human existence. We need to move beyond Darwinian Theory, which stresses the importance of individuals, to one that stresses the importance of he community. British scientist Timothy Lenton provides evidence that evolution is more dependent on the interaction among species than it is on the interaction of individuals within a species. Evolution becomes a matter of the survival of the fittest groups rather than the survival of the fittest individuals. In a 1998 article in Nature, Lenton wrote that rather than focusing on individuals and their role in evolution “we must consider the totality of organisms and their material environment to fully understand which traits come to persist and dominate.” (Lenton 1998).

Lenton subscribes to James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis that holds that the Earth and all of its species constitute one interactive, living organism. Those who endorse this hypothesis argue that tampering with the balance of the superorganism called Gaia, whether it be by destroying the rainforest, depleting the ozone layer, or altering organisms through genetic engineering, can threaten its survival and consequently ours.

By: Bruce H. Lipton

From: The Biology of Belief published 2008

 

 

Why Monsanto Always Wins

Tuesday 22 February 2011

by: Mike Ludwig, Truthout

The recent approval of  Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa is one of most divisive controversies in American agriculture, but in 2003, it was simply the topic at hand in a string of emails between the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Monsanto. In the emails, federal regulators and Monsanto officials shared edits to a list of the USDA’s questions about Monsanto’s original petition to fully legalize the alfalfa. Later emails show a USDA regulator accepted Monsanto’s help with drafting the initial environmental assessment (EA) of the alfalfa and planned to “cut and paste” parts of Monsanto’s revised petition right into the government’s assessment.

Read the full article here…

Read Full Post »