The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

Bhima

Sun Jul 06 00:38:28 -0700 2008

manage

Years ago when GM plants started to be widely tested in the developing world I thought that there were plenty of non food crops which scientists could try to improve and demonstrate a long term record (over 20 years) of safety, efficacy, and a clear understanding of the various knock on effects. Now a lot of time has passed and I am not really satisfied with the results.  For one the big GM Ag corporations Monsanto are clearly unethical, untrustworthy, and outright hostile to farmers. The long term record of performance and side effects of GM crops is not transparent to the public.   The plants and traits most examined are those that benefit the corporation and not the people.

It is clear to me that GM crops do have a place in the future but it is also clear that the ways of past are a completely unacceptable way forward.  Some sort of equitable balance must be struck between indigent farmers in the developing world and the GM Ag Corporations.  And an honest, open & clear history of existing GM crop trials must be made public.  How can people support the use of GM technology in Agriculture when there is so much subterfuge going on in the business?  There is a steady stream of reports of greater problems that the Ag Corps admit to and reports of legal and physical intimidation by gangs of toughs hired to act on behalf of the Ag Corps.  How can people support the more exotically manipulated upcoming 'products' when the existing 'products' are marketed under such conditions and the results of the long term investigations white washed?

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

Morosoph

Sun Jul 06 03:20:08 -0700 2008

manage

In order to make for a predictable product, taste will surely be stripped out, much as it has been in supermarket foods.

Worse still, we'll lose a major incentive to look after the other animals on this planet, since there is a large quotient of people  and business interests who look at life in an entirely human-centric way^*, and esthetics will only get you so far.

^*Especially economists, who are drilled to think like this.

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

Uncle Entity

Sun Jul 06 17:08:02 -0700 2008

manage

Well, yeah, economics is the study of human action* after all.

When Dr. Moreau has his way and animals can act as rational market actors then they will be included into Free Market Dogma as well. Until that day though they are just means to an end. And yes, seeking to save all the little critters is an economic goal.

*Just had to slip in that link so bhima can get all indignant again.

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

Morosoph

Mon Jul 07 03:21:17 -0700 2008

manage

The economist's perspective isn't the only rational perspective for an actor to have.  The physicist, for example sees humans as nature;  humans (and society) are emergent.

The individual actor need not calculate for the sake of (only) people or society;  that we do is a manifestation of cartelisation, whether fetishished as democracy or capitalism.

Yes, economics is the study of human action;  the point that I am making is that the study of economics changes the natural preferences of the economist as an actor (including his role as an educator).

I am neither criticising the field of study, nor the existence of an economic system;  my intent, rather, is to remind people that they do not need to share their neighbour's values, which, after all, makes for a circular system, whereby something can be held to be true (or good) only because it is generally held to be true (or good).

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

Uncle Entity

Mon Jul 07 13:12:17 -0700 2008

manage

The physicist, for example sees humans as nature...

Yeah, there's a whole bunch of economic theory that treats humans as mindless automatons so they can apply the same theoretical framework that the physicist uses.

But that's not really important.

I would suspect that your issues aren't derived from economics per se but from the lack of involitile property rights that allow most of the environmental destruction to occur. Yes, the basic assumption is that for something to be saved it must have enough subjective value for someone to own it but the current system of State owned commons (or cartelisation of environmental activism if you prefer) doesn't seem to be working out so well, does it?

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

Morosoph

Mon Jul 07 18:02:34 -0700 2008

manage

Regarding your observation of fields of economics where human beings are seen as mindless automatons:  yes they are inspired by physics, but they get everything back to front:  physics is motivated by a desire for truth so as to truely know the universe;  such economics is willfully blind to human complexity, and in particular the complexity of having actors which change their behaviour according to such meta-factors as which economic model is being applied.  The analogy with physics is superficial and translates to ideology, and untilitarianism is inevitably invoked, masking the fact that the judgement of the arbitor is being preferred.

All the same, other economic models are also flawed.  Public choice theory, for example, leads to civil servants who are not motivated by money being sidelined.  Instead of seeking to work with the grain of whatever motivations an individual has, the theory only recognises one motive, and any others are treated as disfunction.  This is close to saying that people are selfish because they should be selfish.  This is as much ideology as if one replaces "selfish" with "unselfish" in the pursuit of communism.  People are diverse.

I agree that property rights are a huge part of the solution, although transaction costs, (vis the Coase theorem) suggest that this isn't the whole solution.

Most of the flaws attributed to capitalism would be better attributed to hierarchical politics, which are common to industry and government.  I would look to common law, and initiatives that start on the small scale, including technological fixes, more than I would to either type of hierarchy for answers.

You seem to think that I am coming from an easily classifiable politics.  Certainly I have a touch of the anarchist about me, but I am not a normal green, nor a socialist.

My comment upon the prevalence of certain ideologies, and how they are often disguised, should not be taken for a demand for government intervention.  Rather, my comment should be seen in its context in a forum, aimed at the individuals who frequent that forum, with the hope of influencing them as individual actors.

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

Uncle Entity

Tue Jul 08 03:30:46 -0700 2008

manage

What Coase fails to account for is there is more than pure economic rent at work.

I was listening to the radio earlier where they were talking about a movement in Europe to boycott McDonalds 'Amazon soy'. The transaction costs for McDs to switch to another source for their soy is minimal compared to the lost sales and the hit against their good name.

Not that it will make much of a difference since the soy farmers are the secondary users of the land behind the loggers who are the real culprits behind the deforestation but that doesn't matter.

So if some group started up an information campaign where they let it be known that a certain company was threatening an endangered species and their sales fell drastically then they would have a lot of incentive to do something about this because it's almost certain that their competitors will also take advantage of the situation to grow their market share as well. Anything could happen like they donate the affected habitat to a land conservatory or come up with a new plan that takes into account the needs of the little critter.

The only other option is to stop their activities through coercion and violence.

I haven't yet been able to get a satisfying answer out of the anarchists over this issue because a bunch of them don't believe that owning land to keep it fallow establishes a sufficient property right since you haven't mixed your labor with the land and it is still available for homesteading by someone who will. Not only would someone have to come up with the capital to buy the land but will have to pay to defend it against the squatters who will claim it as abandoned. Admittedly most of the people defending this position were anarco-commies or left leaning, whatever they call themselves, and so isn't indicative of the general libertarian position.

Still don't think this is sufficient justification for the State but it is an issue that needs to get worked out.

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

President4242

Mon Jul 07 11:17:41 -0700 2008

manage

Well, yeah, economics is the study of human action* after all.

I'd limit that to THEORETICAL economics.  As in, the stuff that is always wrong because there are too many variables for any single human being.

EXPERIMENTAL economics is the study of markets and engineering of markets, and while those markets are made up of human beings doing individual actions, the motivations are MUCH different (and far more stupid, mobs have decreasing intelligence the more individuals are involved in them).

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

Uncle Entity

Mon Jul 07 12:45:12 -0700 2008

manage

Huh?

Does this mean that you've given up on the possibility of centrally planning an economy?

I hope you're not suggesting that the more people that are added to a system that the less able it is to allocate resources efficiently because that would be just plain wrong. You do seem to confuse positive right and efficiency though...or at least intentionally conflate the two.

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

President4242

Mon Jul 07 13:41:32 -0700 2008

manage

Does this mean that you've given up on the possibility of centrally planning an economy?

I gave up on THAT one a LONG time ago.  What do you think all of this "Buy Locally" stuff is coming from?  DECENTRALIZATION at least gives the mob a reason to think about something other than price when buying; CENTRALIZATION and ANONYMOUS TRADE results in single-data-point buying.  Which will ALWAYS result in short-term thinking rather than long-term thinking- what do you care if the factory worker who made your TV set can't feed his family if you get a good price for it?  But if the system is decentralized, you have to face that factory worker in the park or at church or wherever in a social setting, suddenly you have a reason to care.

And that is always a good thing.

I hope you're not suggesting that the more people that are added to a system that the less able it is to allocate resources efficiently because that would be just plain wrong.

No, I'm saying that efficiency almost always sacrifices long term common good for short term individual profit- and that efficiency in and of itself is a socially negative goal.  I'm a social conservative and a fiscal liberal, so from my standpoint, efficiency sacrifices order for freedom.  Centralized Capitalism does that very efficiently- if you'll excuse the pun.  Centralized socialism is slightly less efficient at it, but ends in the same place, with resources wasted in the engine drag of the government instead of the market.

The more people that are added to a system makes resource allocation more efficient, yes, but it also makes resource allocation more inhumane, reducing the individual to a free actor who is either a consumer or a producer.  Civilization and order, if decentralized, turns that individual into *both* a consumer and a producer, but also a father, a mother, a child, a brother, a cousin.  In other words, a producer that the consumer *cares about* enough to create a local economy that is sustainable long term, instead of looking at only the short term profitability over a single human lifetime.

Shoot the messenger?

GuyFawkes

Sun Jul 06 04:53:13 -0700 2008

manage

Genetic Modification isn't bad, per se, it is a natural process, so man made genetic modification isn't bad, per se...

What is bad is the specific types of man made genetic modifications that are actually made, for example deliberately making crops infertile and unable to propogate themselves, deliberately making crops monocultures with no shred of varigation in a field, deliberately making crops that sell by weight bulk up more water, so we have beautiful big shiny red tomatoes that have all the flavour and goodness of ditchwater.

You cannot in all fairness blame this on genetic modification, man made or natural.

You can blame it all on those responsible for these classes of GM, and that means following the money, and that means Mr Monsanto and Mr Tesco.

The artcile says At Rothamsted Research, in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, Professor Johnathan Napier has modified rapeseed plants to produce fish oils, said to be good for the heart and nervous system

Ironically my mad railway station inhabiting mate rang me last night, someone he knows who had a thriving ebay business which is now tanking is moving in to raising and selling proper free range out in the open chicks, cos guess what, proper free range out in the open chickens lay eggs with omega 3 (your "fish oils" whereas commercial chickens don't.

Ironically enough, cows that eat grass in the pastures produce it too, whereas grain fed commercial cows don't.

Follow the money, these issues always come back to the mega vendors like tesco, the industrialised mega ag business, and the monsantos.

As ye sow, (literally) shall ye reap.

Shoot the messenger?

Scott Drake

Sun Jul 06 13:14:39 -0700 2008

manage

You might be interested in the writings of Michael Pollan [wikipedia], if you're not already familiar. Mr. Napier's little project seems to be an example of what Pollan calls "nutritionism". YMMV, of course, but he seems to have a pretty good read on large agribusiness.

If "generation two" gm had been around the 1970s, we'd have beta-carotene spliced into everything, despite the fact that it was later shown to be useless without the carrot it was attached to.

Btw, in the Puritanical U.S., rapeseed is called "canola". ;)

Which is not to say you can't improve nutrition - e.g. iodized salt preventing cretinism, or vitamin D in milk for the aforementioned puritans. But to genetically modify a plant for something that is "said to be good" for you... useless is the best case scenario.

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

joroghe

Wed Jul 09 15:40:11 -0700 2008

manage

I can't wait to see what the reaction would be if biotech companies, such as Monsanto and Dupont, come up with genetically modified crops capable of treating cancer, malaria and HIV/AIDS. These disease kill millions every day, and it'd be interesting to see if people will choose wasting away or eat genetically modified foods that activists claim pose a threat to human health.

As technology continues to change the way we related with each other, agriculture will not be spared its marvels. Innovations in the agricultural sector are very much welcome to solve the ballooning food crisis. Since the commercialization of genetically modified crops a decade ago, more and more farmers are practising agricultural biotechnology. According to the latest report of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) a record 22 countries are currently growing genetically modified crops. With all due respect to critics of genetically modified crops, 22 countries can't be wrong on GM crops! There must be something that attracts them to these crops.

And I've always insisted that genetically modified crops are not the only solution to the current food crisis. There is organic farming. Farmers who want to do organic farming must be allowed to do so. After all, we have one goal: to ensure there is enough food for all to eat.

The Next Wave of Genetically Modified Foods

joroghe

Wed Jul 09 17:45:59 -0700 2008

manage

I can't wait to see what the reaction would be if biotech companies, such as Monsanto and Dupont, come up with genetically modified crops capable of treating cancer, malaria and HIV/AIDS. These disease kill millions every day, and it'd be interesting to see if people will choose wasting away or eat genetically modified foods that activists claim pose a threat to human health.

As technology continues to change the way we related with each other, agriculture will not be spared its marvels. Innovations in the agricultural sector are very much welcome to solve the ballooning food crisis. Since the commercialization of genetically modified crops a decade ago, more and more farmers are practising agricultural biotechnology. According to the latest report of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) a record 22 countries are currently growing genetically modified crops. With all due respect to critics of genetically modified crops, 22 countries can't be wrong on GM crops! There must be something that attracts them to these crops.

And I've always insisted that genetically modified crops are not the only solution to the current food crisis. There is organic farming. Farmers who want to do organic farming must be allowed to do so. After all, we have one goal: to ensure there is enough food for all to eat.