|
Are South African's aware that they are a giant experiment? The latest stats are that 44% of our yellow maize has been genetically altered, 10% of our white maize, 70% of soyabeans and 90% of our cotton. Do you realize the dangers of this fact? Not only to our health, but the environment and the economy due to patenting. We are a resource NGO who would be happy to give you more info including DVD's. Please let's start a discussion on food sovereignity because there really is an active long-term plan in place by at least one major chemical company, to own the world's food supply. South Africa, with it's pro-development agenda, is an open-door to big business and the horrendous thing is that these foods have NOT BEEN tested properly. There are NO LABELS and even the ones that are labelled one cannot trust. A Reputed scientist from University of Orange Free State did some random testing and of the foods he tested that were labelled "GM Free" or Non-GM, etc., a stagering 76% actually contained GM. Let's get this discussion going. |
Thank for this interesting note:
While these figures might be alarmingly high and labelling would be a fair
enough demand from consumers, one should caution against the implicit
assumption that all GM foods are bad for you as if they are poisonous - they
are not. Some modifications might have adverse effects in some cases- but
its not like they have dangerous chemicals like pesticides and toxic
fertlizers in their tissues (at least no more than regular crops!). Like all
oppositional debates and issues, the truth lies somewhere in the middle and
even that point is hard to discern. I agree that environmental concerns are
an issue with GM foods and in my view, more so that the health issues.
I look forward to the debate!
________________________________
Dr Neville Sweijd
Director
Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction & Training Programme (BENEFIT)
Tel: +264(064)4101162
Cell: +264(081)1287657
Fax: +264(064)405913
Email: nsweijd@benguela.org
Web: http://www.benefit.org.na
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charmaine Treherne
> Subject: [DLIST Discuss] Genetically modified foods
>
>
> Are South African's aware that they are a giant experiment? The latest
> stats are that 44% of our yellow maize has been genetically altered, 10%
> of our white maize, 70% of soyabeans and 90% of our cotton. Do you realize
> the dangers of this fact? Not only to our health, but the environment and
> the economy due to patenting. We are a resource NGO who would be happy to
> give you more info including DVD's. Please let's start a discussion on
> food sovereignity because there really is an active long-term plan in
> place by at least one major chemical company, to own the world's food
> supply. South Africa, with it's pro-development agenda, is an open-door to
> big business and the horrendous thing is that these foods have NOT BEEN
> tested properly. There are NO LABELS and even the ones that are labelled
> one cannot trust. A Reputed scientist from University of Orange Free State
> did some random testing and of the foods he tested that were labelled "GM
> Free" or Non-GM, etc., a stagering 76% actu
> ally contained GM. Let's get this discussion going.
|
Hi
Perhaps the question is: Can the Poor Man plant the seeds from the Genetically Modified crop?
Andrew Hockly
-----Original Message-----
From: Neville Sweijd [mailto:nsweijd@benguela.org]
Sent: 10 July 2007 12:53
To: General Discussion
Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] Genetically modified foods
Thank for this interesting note:
While these figures might be alarmingly high and labelling would be a fair
enough demand from consumers, one should caution against the implicit
assumption that all GM foods are bad for you as if they are poisonous - they
are not. Some modifications might have adverse effects in some cases- but
its not like they have dangerous chemicals like pesticides and toxic
fertlizers in their tissues (at least no more than regular crops!). Like all
oppositional debates and issues, the truth lies somewhere in the middle and
even that point is hard to discern. I agree that environmental concerns are
an issue with GM foods and in my view, more so that the health issues.
I look forward to the debate!
|
It is interesting to note that in light of Nevilles comment that
Monsanto, responsible for most of SAs GM crops, was recently forced to
withdraw an advert claiming that GM crops were safe because they could
provide no proof of safety. On the other hand several studies have shown
alarming propensity for dangerous side-effects - check out
http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/deadrats101805.cfm
http://www.masternewmedia.org/GM_foods/GM_foods_issues/Russian_research_shows_genetically-modified_foods_to_negatively_affect_biological_descendants_20051101.htm
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmoquote.htm
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm
I agree with Neville about the environmental risks, some of which are
also becoming evident such as results of increased resistance to
chemicals used with GM crops, etc. There are heaps of other
environmental risks associated with GM crops.
A third major risk is economic, something that the SA govt has tried to
ignore. All the same the Namibian and Botswanan governments have
rejected SA gm maize as the purchasers of thier beef demand meat that
has not been fed GM feed. Huge areas of SA are evolving into
economically stimulated GM free areas as farmers are recieving a premium
for their grain which is exported.
It seems crazy that SA is feeding GM maize to its people - the first
nation in the world feed GM staple to its people - in the epicenter of
the HIV and AIDS epidemic. But given the slow response to this epidemic
this is not too surprising. De nial is not only a river........
There are far more questions than answers in the GM debate and we cannot
rely on the lies of the multinational chemical companies that now own
the worlds seed supply to ensure our safety. Besides the lies that
Monsanto was forced to withdraw as above, they have also been forced to
withdraw other adverts in France, UK, US. They have been found guilty of
bribery and corruption in at least one case and this has been alleged in
several other cases. Now we must trust the corporation responsible for
agent orange, PCBs, dioxins etc with our food safety? Hello, do they
think we are stupid?
I will stick to safely grown natural food thanks! No wonder the organic
market in SA has grown by over 100% per year over the past 2 years!
Glenn
|
Even in a place as dry as Namaqualand, I remember as a child people growing watermelons, sweet melons, pumpkins, sweet potatoes and more. Those who loved gardening were well known and one of the things you noticed when you visited them was the glass bottles with seeds they saved from the previous crop. A particularly sweet watermelon's seeds were spread out on a newspaper, left to dry and stored for the next planting season. The modern term for these are "heritage seeds" and they are virtually impossible to come by. So are organic seeds.
I have made a simple experiment myself, buying a packet of (commercial) marigold seeds. I plant marigolds in my veg garden to ward of pests and my garden is fully organic - I make my own compost, use no pesticides, etc. Apart from the fact that most commercial seeds have already been doctored with insecticide, there is another interesting phenomenon. If you harvest the seed from the first crop of marigolds and plant those, the next generation is smaller. If you harvest the seeds of those and plant them, the next generation is even smaller, until you end up with minute marigolds.
I have done this experiment for at least the past 10 years in various gardens where I lived and the result is always the same.
I am no scientist, but this has led me to be of the opinion that since seeds were produced on a large scale for the commercial market, our crops have been pretty much genetically modified anyway. The commercial seed producers do not want you to harvest seed, they want you to buy a new package. For some desired traits one can select, but a plant growing smaller and smaller surely must have been modified to have that trait.
So, even if you try to grow some of your own food organically, you are forced to use commercial seeds, since organic seeds are so scarce and virtually no-one has heritage seeds to share any longer.
The problem with genetically modified foods is that there is not enough information on what is being done to it - what did the modification entailed? And, as was pointed out, that we do not know yet what the long term effects will be.
In the meantime GM seeds are attractive to developing nations, because they have a better chance of producing a good crop. If your own heritage seeds' crops keep failing because of drought and pests and you can now plant a seed that's more resistant to this, you will.
Our modern consumerism ways demand bigger, better and shinier vegetables and fruit. A pepper grown in my garden has hardly any resemblance to one bought in a store. The ones in my garden is small, thin skinned, very tasty and seasonal. The one in the shop is huge by comparison, thickly fleshed and mostly water and available right through the year. Guess which one most people will choose? The growing population demands more food, more convenience, yearlong availability and better looking food. The guy fiddling with the genetics of food crop seeds is not doing it as a hobby, but because there is a demand for it.
Its going to be hard to change things because of this. And even if we do, where will get the unmodified seeds from? Are there any left? Even if we have all the information readily available on GM foods, will it make any difference? Do we have the option of an alternative?
|
All
The truth does not necessarily lie in the middle. There are very big
problems with GM products for reasons other than whether they are bad for
your body. Here are a few:
1. GM technology can put ownership of the basis of agiculture in the hands
of corporations as opposed to people on the land.
2. GM encourages buying into a suite of other agro-chemicals for which the
GM products are custom designed.
3. There is evidence that GM crops can "pollute" other non-GM plants that
may be genetically related.
4. Proponents of GM are eyeing the drive for agrofuel opportunistically as
there is resistance to GM food products. This shift suggests the combining
of two potentially very destructive forces both of which hold short-term
market gains as more important than long-term environmental and human
impacts.
If only it were just a debate.
Suggested reading: Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
|
Short answer;
If hybridised no, similar to other hybrids - they are not true to type -
a reason to promote open pollinated varieties as opposed to F1 and F2
hybrids. If not hybridised then no either, as these seeds are patented
and it is forbidden to replant these seed lines as part of a contractual
seed purchasing agreement. Numerous farmers in North America have been
sued for doing just this.
glenn
Andrew Hockly wrote:
> Hi
>
> Perhaps the question is: Can the Poor Man plant the seeds from the Genetically Modified crop?
>
> Andrew Hockly
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neville Sweijd [mailto:nsweijd@benguela.org]
> Sent: 10 July 2007 12:53
> To: General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] Genetically modified foods
>
>
>
> Thank for this interesting note:
>
> While these figures might be alarmingly high and labelling would be a fair
> enough demand from consumers, one should caution against the implicit
> assumption that all GM foods are bad for you as if they are poisonous - they
> are not. Some modifications might have adverse effects in some cases- but
> its not like they have dangerous chemicals like pesticides and toxic
> fertlizers in their tissues (at least no more than regular crops!). Like all
> oppositional debates and issues, the truth lies somewhere in the middle and
> even that point is hard to discern. I agree that environmental concerns are
> an issue with GM foods and in my view, more so that the health issues.
>
> I look forward to the debate!
>
>
>
>
> [ Disclaimer: Discussion forums are open to everyone. Opinions and assertions in discussions do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the DLIST administrators, staff or associated moderators. Any party that does not agree with the contents of messages are encouraged to make their views known on the open forum. Messages are moderated only to remove language that may be offensive to a general audience. ]
>
> |
Dear Charmaine,
Sorry for the previous e-mail - pushed the wrong button.
Could you give me some more information about how and where to get hold of
the DVDs and other info you mention?
Thanks,
Douwe van der Zee
-----Original Message-----
From: Charmaine Treherne [mailto:safeage@mweb.co.za]
Sent: 10 July 2007 12:27 PM
To: General Discussion
Subject: [DLIST Discuss] Genetically modified foods
Are South African's aware that they are a giant experiment? The latest
stats are that 44% of our yellow maize has been genetically altered, 10%
of our white maize, 70% of soyabeans and 90% of our cotton. Do you realize
the dangers of this fact? Not only to our health, but the environment and
the economy due to patenting. We are a resource NGO who would be happy to
give you more info including DVD's. Please let's start a discussion on
food sovereignity because there really is an active long-term plan in
place by at least one major chemical company, to own the world's food
supply. South Africa, with it's pro-development agenda, is an open-door to
big business and the horrendous thing is that these foods have NOT BEEN
tested properly. There are NO LABELS and even the ones that are labelled
one cannot trust. A Reputed scientist from University of Orange Free State
did some random testing and of the foods he tested that were labelled "GM
Free" or Non-GM, etc., a stagering 76% actu
ally contained GM. Let's get this discussion going.
[ Disclaimer: Discussion forums are open to everyone. Opinions and
assertions in discussions do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
DLIST administrators, staff or associated moderators. Any party that does
not agree with the contents of messages are encouraged to make their views
known on the open forum. Messages are moderated only to remove language
that may be offensive to a general audience. ] |
All
This is an interesting subject to debate about.I used to think that GM food will be the answer to Africas starving masses.It is a well known fact that a number of sub-Saharan African nations are periodically threatened by famine. The immediate cause of this amongst a complex interplay of natural and human conditions,being drought.But through genetically modifying crops we can come up with strains which can grow well in harsh conditions,less water, which can resist pests and diseases.Therefore ensuring food security.
Besides the environmental concerns, gene pollution and health effects associated with GMOs. Should we allow one company to have a monopoly on this industry,such that even the poor man,is forced to buy agrochemicals for which the GM products are "custom designed".
|
Dear Melusile, David and others
I have just written a book called "From Intellect to Intelligence: A Radical
Natural Human Alternative." Malidoma Patrice Somé, author of "The Healing
Wisdom of Africa," was kind enough to write a foreword. In the foreword he
writes:
The encroachment of modernity into the most remote parts of the earth has
resulted in a most intriguing dilemma. On the one hand, the
“underdeveloped” cultures have become hypnotized by the glitter and promise
of modernity’s technology, grasping whatever might ease, for the moment, the
hunger and suffering often caused by the very technology that has created
such scarcity through greed, politics, and basic disregard for human life
and disrespect for the natural world. At the same time modernity, never
feeling satisfied with its relentless conquest of the world’s resources and
marginalization of many of its peoples, feels the pangs of the soul’s deep
hunger for something so basic, so elemental, that it is no longer
recognizable to the psyche of the modern person. Each wants, on some deep
level, what the other has, and neither knows how to cull the best from its
own gifts to offer for the reconciliation of all life on this planet.
In 1957 a "miracle drug" was put on the market that was going to ease
pregnant mothers'discomfort of morning sickness. The result was thousands of
malformed babies, and the thalidomide drug was withdrawn from the market.
About the same time many scientists "proved" that bottle feeding was better
than breastfeeding. Today scientists have gone as far as to ascribe violence
directly to the lack of affection infants receive.
And so there are thousands of cases where science makes new "discoveries"
without any idea what the consequences are going to be. These technologies
are grasped by large corporations for the sole purpose of making money,
working on the principle of "present the new 'discovery' as a miracle,
suppress all evidence of negative effects as long as possible and draw out
any legal opposition as long as possible." I'm sorry, but the GM companies
are not interested in providing solutions to Africa. They are interested in
money.
If they were truly concerned about Africa, why are they so secretive? How
many people know of all the financing Monsanto give to the South African
Department of Agriculture? When a friend organised a protest action at a
local supermarket to demand labelling of food products, she received a call
from a very sweet lady to find out the details, because she wanted to
attend. It turned out theat the lady was working for Monsanto. The protest
action was hugely disrupted by Monsanto employees, although it eventually
backfired because the press exposed the whole farce.
It is Monsanto's express policy to aim at domination of the world's seed
markets. In the process they rely on Africans to believe that GM foods will
provide magic cures to the ills that, as Malidoma writes, were caused by
(the misuse of) technology in the first place.
As Malina Gardiner wrote some time ago, Africa and other indigenous
communities had all the resources they needed. I'm afraid that, unless
Africans stop expecting help to come from "them", which is exactly what
"they" need to extend their monopolies, no real change will come.
Regards,
Douwe
-----Original Message-----
From: Melusile Ndlovu [mailto:megabula@yahoo.com]
Sent: 12 July 2007 08:19 AM
To: General Discussion
Subject: Re: [DLIST Discuss] Genetically modified foods
All
This is an interesting subject to debate about.I used to think that GM
food will be the answer to Africas starving masses.It is a well known fact
that a number of sub-Saharan African nations are periodically threatened
by famine. The immediate cause of this amongst a complex interplay of
natural and human conditions,being drought.But through genetically
modifying crops we can come up with strains which can grow well in harsh
conditions,less water, which can resist pests and diseases.Therefore
ensuring food security.
Besides the environmental concerns, gene pollution and health effects
associated with GMOs. Should we allow one company to have a monopoly on
this industry,such that even the poor man,is forced to buy agrochemicals
for which the GM products are "custom designed".
[ Disclaimer: Discussion forums are open to everyone. Opinions and
assertions in discussions do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
DLIST administrators, staff or associated moderators. Any party that does
not agree with the contents of messages are encouraged to make their views
known on the open forum. Messages are moderated only to remove language
that may be offensive to a general audience. ] |
> Sure we need to discuss GMO issue
In fact this discussion should have started along time back. However, to
single out only SA as being affected by this giant experiment is not
right, simply because most of retail and food distributions on the
African continent have their roots and get most of their daily supplies
from South Africa.
This means that we as a continent are affected by what passes through SA
and crosses its borders into other countries in Africa.
The dangers are there as far GMOs are concerned but the problem is
compounded by some really serious issues that are not easy to address. The
problems that come to mind when one considers a complex topic like this
one are lack of knowledge among locals, the poverty, the poor labelling or
nonexistent proper labels etc.
Let the discussion continue...
|
|
|
|
