Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UK Tries To Bury Devastating GM Crop Report
IOL ^ | 12-30-2002

Posted on 12/31/2002 4:26:11 AM PST by blam

UK tries to bury devastating GM crops report

December 30 2002 at 06:41AM

London - Alarming results from official trials of genetically modified (GM) crops are severely jeopardising plans for growing them commercially.

The findings, in a new government report, show for the first time in Britain that genes from GM crops are being passed on a large scale to conventional crops and weeds.

The finding is so devastating to the government's case for GM crops that ministers sought to bury it by publishing the first information on it on the department of the environment, food and rural affairs website on Christmas Eve - the one day in the year on which no newspapers are being prepared.

The full report, which contains more devastating detail, was withheld from the website.

The GM crop interbred with a weed... raising the prospect of super weeds The report is the result of monitoring GM crops in Britain from 1994 to 2000.

The trials were designed to look at the effects of different uses of pesticides on GM and non-GM plants.

The studies, by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, found that genes from GM rape - a seed grown for oil - contaminated conventional crops. The rape seed had been engineered to be resistant to herbicides.

The report also says that the GM crop interbred with a weed, wild turnip, giving it resistance to herbicides and raising the prospect of super weeds.

Pete Riley, of Friends of the Earth, said the results showed that if GM crops became widespread, almost all similar crops would become contaminated, threatening organic agriculture. - The Independent


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bury; crop; gm; report; uk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 12/31/2002 4:26:11 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
Bunk. GM crops show great promise in actually reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides and also offer the prospect of growing more food on less land. A win-win for the environment right? But to the enviro wackos like Friends Of The Earth, environmentally friendly technology is more menacing than the old slash and burn agriculture ever was. It sticks in their craw and they can't admit they're wrong for then the next wave of the "Green Revolution" would become unstoppable. Fortunately, GM foods will appear on the food shelfs over their misguided Luddite opposition, improving the quality of life for millions.
2 posted on 12/31/2002 4:30:49 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Monday, 30 December, 2002, 13:13 GMT, BBC

GM report 'was not buried'

The UK Government has denied trying to bury a report into genetically modified crop cross-contamination. The study, released on Christmas Eve, found evidence of GM crops contaminating plants in neighbouring fields.

It is another case of cock-up rather than conspiracy

Anti-GM campaigners have seized on the report, claiming it proves there is no commercial future for bio-engineered foods in the UK.

Environment minister Michael Meacher told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he had not known the report - a summary of which was published on the website of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) - would be released on Christmas Eve.

"We weren't trying to bury it," he said. "I entirely agree that the Christmas Eve timing was unfortunate...

"I can assure you there is no wish to conceal. It is another case of cock-up rather than conspiracy."

'Not new'

The research found that the weed wild turnip was affected by gene flow when planted next to GM oilseed rape, prompting fears that it could become resistant to herbicides.

Current isolation requirements for GM crops could be reviewed following the publication of the results.

Environmental group Friends of the Earth has warned the report highlights the potential threat of "super weeds" in the British countryside.

Mr Meacher denied the study, which goes back to 1994 and was finished in 2000, revealed any new information.

"The fact is this information has been known since the early 1990s," he said.

"These findings are not new; they simply confirm what was already known."

Mr Meacher said cross-contamination could not be eliminated but could only be minimised and kept below an acceptable level.

Further research on cross-contamination will be revealed by the Farm Scale Evaluations, commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and carried out by independent researchers.

The final results of the studies will be published in early 2004.

The government has also undertaken a major review of GM foods in an effort to understand the cost involved in producing them and public reaction to them, as well as scientific research into the possible risks involved.

3 posted on 12/31/2002 4:44:26 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Please correct the spelling in the title from devistate to devastate. Thanks
4 posted on 12/31/2002 4:46:04 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Do you have any proof that this is all lies or are you just putting blind faith in some new technology using facts put forth by the people who have a finacial interest in the sucess of GM plants?

Blind faith in new technologies is just as bad as being a luddite...I for one hope a lot more independent research is done before these GM plants are unleashed on an unsuspecting public only to find out 20-30-40 years down the road that a huge health/environmental catastrophe was created and we cannot get the genie back into the bottle.

Any research paid for by the people whom would beenefit from the results should be suspect...as should any research done by environmental wackos. Beleiving either one over the other is just as bad.

5 posted on 12/31/2002 4:48:37 AM PST by freeper12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Here in Virginia, we have Kudzuz, Thistle, and Gypsy Moths! All were imported for good reasons, at the time! ;-) Some, the Thistle, imported so long ago that people think it is a native weed.
6 posted on 12/31/2002 4:48:53 AM PST by SubMareener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam
raising the prospect of super weeds

Could be a good B Movie...'Killer Weeds'.

Less Pesticides is the way to go.....but is this stuff going to be digestible?

7 posted on 12/31/2002 4:50:13 AM PST by Sungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Bunk. GM crops show great promise in actually reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides and also offer the prospect of growing more food on less land. A win-win for the environment right?

Science and technology are like free market - they are infallible gods. We can blindly trust them.

8 posted on 12/31/2002 4:57:28 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freeper12
Any research paid for by the people whom would beenefit from the results should be suspect.

No, no. Love of money is the purest of motives. Free market is the source of all good. Get on your knees and worship it!

9 posted on 12/31/2002 4:59:27 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freeper12
Check out http://www.agbioworld.com to obtain a factual and balanced look at the benefits and risks of biotechnology. In particular, the following comments of Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug are illustrative of the promise of biotechology and the exaggerated alarums of the critics who have yet to demonstrated in the alternative that its possible to produce more food without it:

Responding to questions on why he was advocating for an open adventure into genetically engineering at a time when most countries are preaching zero risk in respect to bio-safety, Borlaug dismissed the zero-risk idea, saying it was a non issue where only plant genes are concerned, and not chemicals. He said zero-risk is something that does not exist and not tenable in a biological world where things kept on changing.

Asked who is going to be concerned with the bio-safety once a floodgate has been opened for genetic engineering, he described people who have been championing a GMO-free world as "utopian thinkers" who do not understand the complexities of food production. "Dosage makes the poison. But vitamins, which are vital, are taken in smaller quantities. If we could get a gene from rice - because rice does not suffer from rust - and then use it to protect other crops that suffer from rust like wheat, that would be a big revolution, and that will not be dangerous to human health in any way," he added.

Borlaug's point is that even beneficial nutrients like vitamins can be dangerous if you take them in too large an amount. And its also true there is no such thing as zero risk in nature or for that matter in the course of human affairs. But its hard to see how modifying food plants in small ways would harm any one. What would be wrong for instance as he argued in taking a gene from a rice plant that protects it from rust and adding it to a plant that is prone to it like wheat? Think of how much more bread could be added to the tables of the world from such a small step alone. To date none of the critics have shown a single instance where biotechnology in agriculture has made a human being ill or killed even one. Genetically modified foods offer the great promise of wiping out malnutrition and hunger that still afflicts millions and it would be a crime not to take advantage of all that it offers to make life safer and healthier for every one.

10 posted on 12/31/2002 5:04:34 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Bunk. GM crops show great promise in actually reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides and also offer the prospect of growing more food on less land. A win-win for the environment right?

WRONG!

What leading scientists and public figures have said about the dangers of genetically modified foods

11 posted on 12/31/2002 5:05:30 AM PST by ActionNewsBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sungirl
Already been done
12 posted on 12/31/2002 5:12:41 AM PST by Fzob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blam
"These findings are not new; they simply confirm what was already known."

Yes, I'd read about this years ago either in Science or Nature. There's always lots of stuff that becomes available before the final reports do.
13 posted on 12/31/2002 5:13:20 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
What would be wrong for instance as he argued in taking a gene from a rice plant that protects it from rust and adding it to a plant that is prone to it like wheat?

What would be wrong in taking a cockroach gene, or a spider gene. This stuff is EVIL!

Not to mention the fact that the big food and seed companies (monsanto, ADM) are eliminating any competition from heirloom seed companies.

Ever heard of "terminator seeds"?

14 posted on 12/31/2002 5:13:27 AM PST by ActionNewsBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
I'd trust the source if these weren't the same folks so wrong about anti-missle defense. The fact remains that in all the years since biotechnology took off, not one person has fall ill or died from eating a GM food. Sure there are risks but there are also benefits and when we have a planet on which people go with empty bellies to bed every night we have a duty to make sure they have adequate and nutritious diets. Right now in the 21st century we have the means for the first time in human history to deal with the age old scourge of hunger with science. Domestication itself is a product of human action and biotechnology is exactly in this vein albeit on a more sophisticated level. We're improving both the quantity and the quality of the world's foodstuffs and not one of the critics can give a sound reason why that ought not to be done.
15 posted on 12/31/2002 5:13:49 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam
Drivel, absolute drivel written by a scienceless english major who failed and had to take up journalism.
16 posted on 12/31/2002 5:14:44 AM PST by bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
Really? And now different is that from breeding plants or domesticated animals? The difference is we're improving plants on the cellular level by endowing certain crops with properties that make more nutritious, hardy, and pest-resistant. One can't say that isn't a positive use of biotechnology. What about modifying crops so they can be planted in areas low on available water or in salty soil? Think of crops with immunity to human diseases built-in. No more painful vaccine injections. The possibilities inherent in biotechnology are boundless and this truly the final frontier of modern science.
17 posted on 12/31/2002 5:18:45 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
1) Will someone who understands the Queen's English please explain what 'cock up' means. I am 57 years old, raised 3 sons, and I'm old enough to know the truth.

2) 60% of the Cheese consumed in the U.S. today is produced from transgenic substance.

3) Any report that uses Friends of the Earth as a reliable source of background information is suspect to me.
18 posted on 12/31/2002 5:27:42 AM PST by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
We've all eaten it and neither you nor I or any one else has reported an ill effects. Granted some transgenic crops may have side effects no one knows about but the burden of proof is on the critics to show the risks of the life-saving promise of biotechnology in our lives would outweigh the benefits.
19 posted on 12/31/2002 5:30:53 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
My only concern is that non-modified plants' genetic code be preserved in some way, so that the originals aren't lost forever.
20 posted on 12/31/2002 5:34:08 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
This stuff is EVIL!.............Ever heard of "terminator seeds"?

Oh for ...^%$@#%$%

Ever heard of George Washington Carver?

"Organic"----------->implies presence of the carbon atom----------->rotting dinosaurs
--------->crude oil--------->petrochemicals..............

RAID!!!


21 posted on 12/31/2002 5:36:26 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Back up copies can be made and stored in the vaults of a lab. That way we won't lose the originals if we ever need them. Although I can't imagine why we would really miss them if modified crops really give people immunity to disease, add missing nutrients to their diet without need for additives, and just plain taste good.
22 posted on 12/31/2002 5:37:47 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
There's no proof organic foods are safer and more nutritious than the mainstream version. Basically its more about perception and clever marketing than what's actually in the food itself.
23 posted on 12/31/2002 5:39:22 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"The report also says that the GM crop interbred with a weed, wild turnip, giving it resistance to herbicides and raising the prospect of super weeds."


Any idea how different species can interbreed? I can't plant corn next to limas and grow succotash. I am apparently missing something here.

24 posted on 12/31/2002 5:40:05 AM PST by Adder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
This probably isn't the appropriate time to mention the development of Golden Rice. Rice that has been modified to contain healthy doses of Vitamin A.

A lack of Vitamin A is known to cause blindness in Children. This new Golden Rice is very promising for those in 3rd World countries, where rice is the staple of the diet.

Everything we do in this world has a certain amount of risk to it. There is nothing that doesn't carry some risk with it.

One of the most deadly objects ever invented continues to kill,, yet none of us is willing to consider discontinuing it's use. (the wheel)
25 posted on 12/31/2002 5:43:44 AM PST by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: freeper12
I for one hope a lot more independent research is done before these GM plants are unleashed on an unsuspecting public only to find out 20-30-40 years down the road that a huge health/environmental catastrophe was created and we cannot get the genie back into the bottle.

Man has been genetically modifying plants and animals since he started farming, historically it has been called domestication.

Domestication can be defined as the human modification of a plant/animal – one that is identifiably different from its wild ancestors and its extant wild relatives. In short, domestication involves genetic change through conscious or unconscious human selection.

We're about 12,000 years into it. Are you sure you want to go back and doom over 90% of the human population to starvation?

26 posted on 12/31/2002 5:48:15 AM PST by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
Exactly. The real question is do the risks outweight the benefits? Every legitimate technology can be abused I grant but that's no reason to deny the benefits it offers in the vast majority of cases. The same is true here in the emerging field of biotechnology.
27 posted on 12/31/2002 5:52:10 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Miss Marple
As a gardener, I am interested in the preservation of Heirloom Seeds, too.

We must acknowledge the ability of all plants to cross polinate, regardless of whether the pollen is transgenic or not. This is a naturally occuring situation, like it or not.

I suspect many seeds that are sold as Heirloom are not truely pure.
28 posted on 12/31/2002 5:53:09 AM PST by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
Excellent. Its technology that made have our lives more productive, healthier, safer, and easier. 90% of us would not want to trade the tremendous benefits from it to go back to a bucolic state of nature that never existed in the first place. We're coming closer to the mythical Garden Of Eden than we have ever been before in human history.
29 posted on 12/31/2002 5:54:50 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
Yup. Breeders select the best features to make a plant or animal useful to man. The thing about the ruckus over GM foods is that we're been manipulating genes for tens of thousands of years without even realizing it. What disturbs people now is not that we're doing it but with this power to modify across spiecies at a whim comes with it the risk we're playing God. By all means it alright to ask questions as we should and make sure science is not perverted to narrow and unethical ends. We have to make sure the advances and discoveries of our best and brightest don't increase human suffering but help to alleviate and relieve it.
30 posted on 12/31/2002 5:59:25 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Yep, the article is deliberately alarmist instead of just news. I'll bet IOL is some goofy "Earth First" envirowacko group.
31 posted on 12/31/2002 6:09:36 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny; blam
1) Will someone who understands the Queen's English please explain what 'cock up' means. I am 57 years old, raised 3 sons, and I'm old enough to know the truth.

Yes Granny, I'd also like to know what this phrase means. Since I believe it was blam who introduced the expression(post #3), perhaps he could provide us mature FReepers with some enlightenment.

32 posted on 12/31/2002 6:12:13 AM PST by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
Waiting with baited breath,,,,, (Oh, never mind)
33 posted on 12/31/2002 6:19:59 AM PST by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: blam
That's what happens when they hire Greenies to conduct scientific experiments.
34 posted on 12/31/2002 6:29:57 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

35 posted on 12/31/2002 6:36:22 AM PST by jimkress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
a "cock-up" is English slang for a messed up situation, a mistake, a job gone wrong, a broken play......okay?
36 posted on 12/31/2002 6:54:24 AM PST by docneaves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
There's no proof organic foods are safer and more nutritious than the mainstream version. Basically its more about perception and clever marketing than what's actually in the food itself.

I'm not too sure about that, organics use more pesticides(natural ones) and the crop yields are considerably less than non-organics.

Michael Fumento clarified the organic vs. non-organic debate after John Stossel caught some heat for a minor goof on his expose "The Food You Eat; Organic Foods May Not Be as Healthy as Consumers Think."

Here is an excerpt from that article- Give Him A Break: Stossel Sent To Scaffold For His Taboo Targets

While many people think organic means "no pesticide," nothing could be more wrong. Bugs, fungi, and weeds don't contract with organic farmers to leave their crops alone.

So these farmers rely on "natural" pesticides, such as one made using a bug-killing bacterium called Bt. When Bt is inserted genetically into the plant, the organic farmers scream: "Frankenfood"! But as a spray, it's their most popular insecticide.

Other organic pesticides include such goodies as acid-treated trace minerals(including zinc, boron, copper, manganese), sulfites, sodium nitrate, chlorine washes, sulfur, pyrethrum, pryania, sabadilla, colloidal phosphate, and a 500-year-old rat poison called rotenone.

Do these ever leave residues? How could they not?

"An organic grower, on average, sprays 100 times more natural pesticide per acre than a conventional grower who uses a synthetic pesticide," according to Leonard P. Gianessi of National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy in Washington, D.C.

And no less respected an authority than nutrition expert Jane Brody notes that in "a number of studies in different parts of the country, some so-called organically grown fruits and vegetables had higher pesticide residues than the same foods purchased in a nearby supermarket."

Not to mention that organics cost considerably more, so you can afford less of them, will go bad sooner, and may be infested with bugs or bacteria that the non-organic methods solved decades ago.
37 posted on 12/31/2002 6:57:16 AM PST by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
George Washington Carver. Invented the peanut at Iowa State, didn't he ?
38 posted on 12/31/2002 7:15:13 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
>>Other organic pesticides include such goodies as acid-treated trace minerals(including zinc, boron, copper, manganese), sulfites, sodium nitrate, chlorine washes, sulfur, pyrethrum, pryania, sabadilla, colloidal phosphate, and a 500-year-old rat poison called rotenone.

If someone is spraying that stuff on their vegetables, then they, by defintion, are not growing Organic vegetables.

Its bordering on ludicrous to suggest that truly organic foods have more harmful pesticides than non-organic...sounds like a press release that Archers Daniel Midland would put out, with no basis in fact, and then repeated enough times so that people will beleive it.

39 posted on 12/31/2002 7:30:44 AM PST by freeper12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Fzob
I remember that movie.
40 posted on 12/31/2002 7:40:33 AM PST by Mikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
George Washington Carver. Invented the peanut at Iowa State, didn't he?

Not even close.

What is a Peanut?

The peanut is not a nut at all but a member of the legume family. The majority of peanuts are currently grown in the United States, South America, Africa, India, and China. Peanuts do not grow on trees. The peanut seeds must be planted every year after the frost and harvested 4 -5 months later. The peanut plant produces yellow flowers above the ground that fall away, leaving a ´peg´ in their place. Each ´peg´ grows away from the plant like a new stem and extends underground where the clusters of peanuts then develop.

Peanut History in a Nutshell

The peanut is believed to have been originally cultivated in Bolivia and Peru around 3,500 years ago. One can just imagine the Inca priests making their sacrificial offerings while the watching crowd happily munched on peanuts. The Spanish explorers were the first Europeans to bring the peanut back to the Old World in the 16th century. The peanut was taken by the Spanish to Africa and Asia on their ships since it proved to be tasty, highly nutritional and not subject to spoil like other food supplies. Indonesians have made sauces from natural peanut butter since the 17th century ! The peanut is still it an important element in Chinese and other Asian cooking and provides the main source of protein in their diet. The peanut made its way to North America on the slave ships that came from Africa. In 1860 with the start of the American Civil War, the peanut was incorporated into the American diet. Peanut butter was first ´invented´ in America by a doctor from St. Louis, Missouri in 1890 as a way to complement the diet of his patients who needed more nutrition and energy. George Washington Carver is known as the father of the peanut industry since he improved crop production and discovered 300 ways to use peanuts including shoe polish and shaving cream.

41 posted on 12/31/2002 7:42:53 AM PST by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: docneaves
a "cock-up" is English slang for a messed up situation, a mistake, a job gone wrong, a broken play......okay?

Okay. It reminds me of a phrase my Grandfather used to use, which hasn't really survived to our day. He'd talk of "...pulling an awful dumb boner."
And please...don't ask me to explain that!

42 posted on 12/31/2002 8:06:55 AM PST by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
George Washington Carver is an alunus of Iowa State. He did tons of research while there. I'm not certain exactly which uses for the peanut he is credited with while studying there.
43 posted on 12/31/2002 8:22:14 AM PST by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
Generations managed to survive without "healthy doses of Vitamin A", why the change now?

Just to see if they can control more of the world?

44 posted on 12/31/2002 8:28:38 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freeper12
If someone is spraying that stuff on their vegetables, then they, by defintion, are not growing Organic vegetables.

You would assume that, but then assumption is the "Mother of all Screwups".

WHAT MAKES PRODUCE "ORGANIC"?

Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.

So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.

Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical and cultural tools to help control pests. These include insect traps, careful crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).

ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH

When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.

Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.

This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.

ORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES

Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.

Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?

A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.

When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.

WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?

For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure. Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter. To them, "synthetic pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".

As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical. It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide use.

WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?

The purpose in writing this article is not to discourage you from buying organic produce. It is only meant to let you know what you are or aren't getting when you make such a purchase. Unless you know your grower personally, there is no guarantee that your produce has been grown without pesticides or other chemicals. It's a point to consider, given the substantially higher cost of organic foods.

There are many choices and decisions that we, as consumers, are asked to make. Hopefully, this has provided some new information that you will find helpful.

* * * * * * *

Hard copies of this article in formatted leaflet form are available (on recycled paper, of course).

The data describing the carcinogenicity of natural and synthetic compounds are referenced in Gold, L.S., et al. (1992) _Science_ Vol. 258, pp. 261-265.

Many thanks go to the Organic Crop Improvement Association for their cooperation in this study. The OCIA has chapters in AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NM, NC, ND, OH, PA, SD, UT, and WI. Thanks are also extended to the California Certified Organic Farmers, the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, and Oregon Tilth Certified Organic. (The appropriate information has not yet been obtained from the Natural Organic Farmers Association (NOFA), but it is almost certain that all facts stated here apply to their products as well.) The following state Departments of Agriculture have also been very helpful: AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, HI, IA, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, ND, OK, SC, TN, VA, and WA. States with no laws governing organic products include Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

The above was written by a green Berkeley Grad as a gripe about pesticides used in organic farming. I didn't see Archers Daniel Midland in his source list, just Organic/Natural Farmer's Organizations and the Department of Agriculture of several States.

45 posted on 12/31/2002 8:33:52 AM PST by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
We're coming closer to the mythical Garden Of Eden than we have ever been before in human history.

Once we reach that stage, God is going to step in and say, "OK everybody, out of the pool."

46 posted on 12/31/2002 8:34:01 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Just to see if they can control more of the world?

NO,,,, so they can SEE. Vitamin A deficiencies are the primary cause of blindness in children in 3rd world countries.

47 posted on 12/31/2002 8:36:36 AM PST by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
I have a hunch that this wasn't a problem 60 years ago. Any idea why the change.
48 posted on 12/31/2002 10:45:26 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
My wife and son both graduated from ISU.
49 posted on 12/31/2002 1:25:26 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
I have a hunch that this wasn't a problem 60 years ago. Any idea why the change.

I'm only guessing, but I'd say it's probably due to an increase of population, which would naturally decrease their food supply. Malnutrition is a huge problem in many countries.

I understand that some of the folks in these Countries grow up to be our enemies,, but I'm talking about children. To sentence a child to blindness when it can be prevented seems to me to be beyond cruel.

50 posted on 12/31/2002 1:52:16 PM PST by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson