I wrote an
article on bt brinjal some years ago http://www.heraldofindia.com/article.php?id=441 I guess there's so much I didn't know
back then. On the one hand
there are life saving drugs being developed, while on the other hand, here's how
businesses corrupt science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTGatLDwF_8#aid=P81WmWenEpg
This is downright scary. They're slowly making roads into India.
This is downright scary. They're slowly making roads into India.
The following link was shared by a
pro-GM friend.
Author builds his
credibility in the beginning of the article. If he's gonna talk about hardcore
objective science, he needn't build his credibility. But ok, never mind, let's
go on to read on.
Says he was wrong about GM
being harmful…(oh he already sets the mood for the article, now I know what to
expect. But anyway, let’s move on)
Ehrlich Vs Borlaug à btw he
conveniently omitted M S Swamynathan from the Indian Green Revolution). Borlaug’s ideology differed
from Monsanto’s his aim was to feed the poor, not mint millions by obliterating
the natural crops. It is Monsanto’s biggest agenda to wipe out naturally
occurring seeds in the near future. This in itself is a challenge to
biodiversity. Then farmers will be forced to buy seeds from such company's
every season. You think this is intended to help the poor?
Studies like these, effects
of drugs, take years/decades to complete. The once commonly used medicines were
found to be toxic after 10s of years. They all meant well. America is not suffering
from famines, so why push GM there with such force?
CropLife suggest it costs
$139 million à What is Croplife's turnover? Let’s compare. How much do they aim
to earn from this technology. How will it help the farmer to be independent and progressive? No info on that
Because we have enough to eat, we can afford to indulge our
aesthetic illusions.à So? Why’re they hell bent
to cure a problem that doesn’t exist in the first place? Because Europe is
rich!! Population is not Europe’s
problem so why obfuscate the argument?
The idea that it is healthier has been repeatedly disproved in the
scientific literature….organic is much less productive, with up to 40-50% lower
yieldsà Why’s he comparing yield with “healthier”. Surely those in
surfeit need worry only about health, not yield. Poor countries aren't touting
“organic”, rich ones are because they can. So why does it itch GM companies.
They can just go about their well-meaning work in poor countries.
Instead they talk about an ideal world where people in the west eat
less meat and fewer calories overall so that people in developing countries can
have more.à I don't think that’s the idea, these things
are being promoted for health reasons, not to accommodate the poor.
horse and cart in 1850,à We
don't eat horse and cart, they don't go into our bodies and don't affect our
health directly. This seems like deliberate obfuscation.
benign herbicides like glyphosateà please
watch the youtube documentary (link given in the beginning) about how benign it is. Monsanto’s already infamous for
projecting dangerous things as harmless; history is witness to this. There are
doctors and scientists vouching against this statement, based on real research
and real patient records. This guys is not a scientist, if he so believes in
peer-review then he should get this article peer reviewed by the scientific
community. I assure you that if I can find such big caveats, more experienced
scientists will rubbish this article in a jiffy.
Recent research by Jesse Ausubel and colleagues at Rockefeller
UniversityàSure go ahead, sell GM in India, Africa and
poor countries, why do you want to penetrate Europe and America so desperately?
Money?
That is why I don’t know why so many of those opposing the use of
technology in agriculture call themselves environmentalists.àSure forests and animals should be protected but at the same
time, you can’t eat something that’s gonna gradually lead to genocide right?
This was a public health catastrophe, with the same number of deaths
and injuries as were caused by Chernobyl, because E.-coli probably from animal
manure infected organic beansprout seeds imported from Egypt.àSure that’s a good eg. so that doesn’t make GM any better…you
can’t ignore patient records. We base our research on that, so it cannot be
ignored.
In total 53 people died and 3,500 suffered serious kidney failureà Please watch the youtube documentary to get stats on the rise in number
of cases of various disease due to GM over the past decades since it was
introduced.
trivial risks from highly-regulated chemical pesticides and
fertilisers” à He’s trying to trivialize this. Risks from Chemical pesticides and fertilizers have not been trivial.
analogous to burning books in a library before anyone has been able
to read them” à Books won't directly kill/maim your children.
immoral and inhumane, depriving the needyà Again—go and give it to the needy. These people are using the needy as their poster boys, while their main aim is to pocket big money from the developed world.
help reduce overfishingà This is
a proposal; in science we first propose, then show that it works and then it is
accepted. What GM companies are doing is not semi-science projected as the
hardcore scientific method, which implies that it is indeed pseudoscience.
So my conclusion here today is very clear: the GM debate is overà Sure, you’re the jury and the executioner. A scientist would never
ever ever say such a horrible thing.
never been a single substantiated case of harmà So the doctors, patients and scientists crying foul with lucid
records of the harm are lying?
more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM foodà Such comparisons are drawn by airline companies as well. Guess
what…not many survive aircrashes. And here’s the thing, GM can be good, some of
it must be good but to tout it as awesome, much-needed and the only way, is not
scientific. Science accounts for everything, even results that have come to
light just once, everything has to be explained (like why did it happen once in
a particular case).
more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM foodà That’s a blatant lie. Please watch the Youtube documentary I mentioned in the beginning of the article to see what
exactly I mean.
blight-resistant potato would save farmers from doing 15 fungicide
sprays per seasonàDeliberate obfuscation.
The author deliberately omits the reason for such apparent reduced fungicide
use. The reason is that the fungicide is being produced inside the potato
itself! This is not rocket science! The life cycle of a potato production
may just be one year BUT the effects on humans can/will/do linger for years.
Please watch the documentary on how this happens. Please see animal test trial
that unequivocally prove the dangers. If there’s an ideological issue, it’s
with the author, who is hell-bent to skew facts and project them as reality.
potato famine in the mid 19th century…But thanks to
the Irish Green Party, this is not to beàand
“medieval superstition as a strategic imperative” again he’s
rousing emotions to prove his point.
India has rejected Bt brinjal, even though it would reduce
insecticide applications in the field, and residues on the fruità Bt brinjal has Bacillus thuringiensis (a
bacteria) toxin genes, produced the toxin inside the brinjal, therefore
external application is reduced. Bro with some normalization, it is equivalent
to having a toxin in each and every cell of the brinjal from its core to its
skin…you think that’s not dangerous? A good scientific test would be to
calculate how much toxin does each brinjal produce and check the lethal dosing
of this in mice or other animals. Why doesn't the billion dollar strong
industry carry out such a test? They go the distance to suppress the results of
such research (please watch the documentary to see how a senior scientist lost
his job of 35 years, when he did so).
supposed “health risksà the health risks aren't “supposed”, there are
patient records and scientific evidence that GM companies suppress.
suffocating avalanche of
regulations à by saying this, GM companies are
behaving worse than the greedy pharma industry. So they're saying this
shouldn't be regulated? That’s a dead giveaway about their intentions.
integrate nitrogen fixing capabilities into major food crops,
starting with maizeàSure this is a good thing
but don't deliberately mislead us that this is should be considered the same as
crops like BT brinjal, BT maize etc. that produce toxins in every cell of their
bodies. Not all GM are the same. They need to be thoroughly studied by third
party researchers, they need to be understood and definitely regulated, so that
we can know which ones are good and risk free.
international myth-bustingà This is
hypocrisy. They suppress independent research into GM with full force.
Norman Borlaug is dead now, but I think we honour his memory and his
visionà There you go, another emotional support. I’m sure Borlaug though
only about poor in a well-meaning way. Not to capture and enslave farmers
around the world.
farmers should be free to choose what kind of technologies they want
to adoptà Sure they should but they should be equally well-informed of
both the choices; all the pros and cons. So should the public.
you don't have the right to do is to stand in the way of
others....Farmers who understand the pressures of a growing population and
a warming world...àThis is downright amusing
and silly.
…celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of Indiaà thanks for your respect for the Indians sire. By now
you've gone completely subjective, irrational and the bigotry is well reflected
in your words.
But you must know by now that they are not supported by scienceà Neither are you sire.
get on with feeding the world sustainablyà I wish that was the primary aim of the present-day GM companies.
I wish Norman Borlaug was alive and objectively listened to both sides of the
story.
No comments:
Post a Comment