Sunday, December 4, 2011

GMO's in my green chilie?????

Right on the heels of the posting from yesterday-

http://news.yahoo.com/green-chile-lovers-fired-over-genetic-research-220534995.html

"It's been 10,000 years for some crops. They don't even remotely resemble their wild species anymore," said Pam Ronald, a plant pathologist from the University of California, Davis, who is known for her work with rice.
Ronald and others say the difference with genetic engineering is it's modern and more precise, and genes from unrelated species can be added to a plant's genome.
"It's a fine line philosophically what people will accept, and there are reasons of course for not wanting a particular type of crop," she said. "But if you think about the great issues of our time — sustainability, can we grow more food using less land and less water as resources diminish, can we reduce insecticides — if genetic engineering can enhance the sustainability, then why not use it?"

Who says any of us want "genes from unrelated species" in our crop plants. Also, it's not only a philosophical fine line, it's an ethical fine line. Just because Pamela Ronald and her cohorts think it's the wave of the future doesn't mean all of us want it.
The pro-GMO pundits >>>> http://www.biofortified.org/

Speaking of rice for example, Vandana Shiva writes "Now industry wants to turn malnutrition into the next market through genetic engineering and industrial fortification of food. An example of high-cost, highrisk ‘fortification’ proposals is Golden Rice, genetically engineered to provide more Vitamin A. In fact, the genetically modified rice provides seventy times less Vitamin A than coriander, fenugreek, curry leaves or drumstick leaves! In addition, since genetic engineering is based on the use of antibiotic – resistant markers and viral promoters, it introduces new and unnecessary health risks. GM rice is a high-cost solution. The Golden Rice is patented, and patents generate royalties. That is the objective of patents.
Governments might pay for these high-cost, high-risk options, but this still uses public money which could instead be used to promote biodiversity-based organic farming as an ecological fortification strategy. Corporate greed and deeper industrialisation of food through artificial fortification are not the answer to malnutrition. Greed robs the poor of food. It is at the root of hunger."

To be continued......

No comments: