Help stop GE contamination of soya in China

Recently I have participated in an action to help protect the biodiversity
of soya in China, and I would like to invite you to join this meaningful
action as well.

China is the homeland and center of diversity for soya. Soya originated in
China and has a cultivation history spanning over 5,000 years. China has
more soya varieties than anywhere else in the world. The genetic diversity
of soya is a global heritage and vital to sustainable development of
agriculture.

However, the homeland of soya is facing the risk of contamination by
genetically engineered (GE) soya. GE soya is banned for growing in China,
but import of GE soya is rising. Last year China imported a record-high 20
million tons of soya and it is estimated that 70% was GE soya. Every grain
of GE soya is a seed, and if it was planted in the farm, it will multiply
and spread. Mexico, the homeland of maize, has already found contamination
of maize by imported GE maize from the U.S. If we do not take actions now,
the homeland of soya will soon face irreversible contamination.

Greenpeace is campaigning globally against GE soya and determined to protect
China, the homeland of soya, from contamination by GE soya.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION! Be part of the global effort to build the Cyber Great
Wall and help keep GE soya away from China,

To protect the homeland of soya, we are demanding that companies stop
importing GE soya, the source of contamination.

Write to Bunge Ltd., the leading supplier of soya products to China, to
commit to a global commitment to supply only non-GE soya, but particular to
supply only non-GE soya to China because of the major risk GE soya poses to
the homeland of soya. As one of the world's leading traders and processors
of soya, Bunge has a responsibility to protect the homeland of soya, a
global heritage for all.

Click here to write to Bunge. It will take only seconds.

http://act.greenpeace.org/ams....690_2YA

THANK YOU! Please pass this on.....

Lizardfish :sunglasse

 

So let me get this straight. China is supposed to only import and grow inferior soy breeds (less yield/acre, more susceptible to disease, insects and weeds), so that there is 0 risk of some genes getting passed along?
As the newer breeds produce more yield with less inputs they are better for the overall environment. Should such advantages be abandoned? What about all the breeding that China has done in the past, has that breeding wiped out soya diversity in China? Why would you expect modern breeds to behave differently?

Your activism is ignoring both the history of crop breeding as well as the ecological advantages of modern agriculture.

 

Thanks for your reply Eurpancreas. :sunglasse However, your argument has many flaws. Please read further into the issues of GMOs.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=7&ItemID=5266

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-03/05sharma.cfm

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-03/23monbiot.cfm

The points which you put forward about the benefits of GMOs are very similar to the propaganda put out by companies like Monsanto.

The biotech companies refuse to accept any negative scientific work as valid. They dismiss it without any follow up work to actually verify that it is crap science. In fact, the food industry has a reputation for paying for research which they then hide if the results are not favourable (eg nutrasweet).

For GM crops to be accepted by the majority, there must be more work to be
done on verifying that there are no (as yet unknown) deleterious mechanisms
that could affect human or environmental health. Tobacco, thalidomide,
etc... have set an unfortunate precedent in peoples minds that businesses
are prepared to put the bottom line before the health of consumers.

Gm crops have no better (and sometimes worse) yields than conventional crops

Gm crops do not necessarily lead to the use of less herbicides/pesticides.

Gm crops spread and 'infect' neighbouring vegetation or even vegetation many
miles away. This could have disastrous results for organic farmers who
would lose their accreditation. However, in the case of soya in China, the major risk is the destruction of agricultural diversity.

Gm varieties so far created have only addressed herbicide/pesticide
problems. Nothing has been done that helps people grow crops in inferior
soils. The next phase seems to be how to add value-add items, such as
vitamins, to crops.

In addition, the process for certifying new crops has been widely criticised
for not being rigorous enough (this also goes for nanotechnology).

In short there is no faith in the entire system. A common perception is
that gm crops are just a huge experiment. Given that research suggests that
gm crops are a genie-in-a-bottle scenario, much must be done to ensure that
this genie is not released until we are certain that it is benign.

The biotech industry needs to publicly tackle these issues head on rather
than trying to marginalise the doubters and bypass concerns by applying
pressure on governments.

I feel that at present gm crops create no significant advantages for the
consumer/society but many possible disadvantages.

I do not deny that if research continues then there is the potential to
provide many benefits but until that time gm crops are not ready.

 

lizardfish:"Thanks for your reply Eurpancreas. However, your argument has many flaws. Please read further into the issues of GMOs."

I am very highly informed on this topic. I've been following it for years and I have some expertise in it.

lizardfish:"The points which you put forward about the benefits of GMOs are very similar to the propaganda put out by companies like Monsanto. "

Sometimes corporations make good statements.

lizardfish:"The biotech companies refuse to accept any negative scientific work as valid. They dismiss it without any follow up work to actually verify that it is crap science. In fact, the food industry has a reputation for paying for research which they then hide if the results are not favourable (eg nutrasweet)."

Thats sometimes true. Do you have any specific examples?

lizardfish:"For GM crops to be accepted by the majority, there must be more work to be done on verifying that there are no (as yet unknown) deleterious mechanisms that could affect human or environmental health. Tobacco, thalidomide, etc... have set an unfortunate precedent in peoples minds that businesses are prepared to put the bottom line before the health of consumers."

Why do you assume that the current testing regimen is inaccurate? GM crops are already more tested compared to "traditional" breeding methods. This is despite the fact that traditional breeding creates more unpredictable genetic changes as well as a larger quantity of genetic changes.

lizardfish:"Gm crops have no better (and sometimes worse) yields than conventional crops"

You've got it backwards. GM crops are well-known to have higher yields in the US and MUCH higher yields when used in developing countries like India. I can quote the studies if you wish.

lizardfish:"Gm crops do not necessarily lead to the use of less herbicides/pesticides."

True enough. However, they USUALLY use reduced levels of pesticides and they usually use safer herbicides and pesticides.

lizardfish:"Gm crops spread and 'infect' neighbouring vegetation or even vegetation many miles away. This could have disastrous results for organic farmers who would lose their accreditation. However, in the case of soya in China, the major risk is the destruction of agricultural diversity."

Infect is not the right word., since any spreading is likely to have little effect on the health of anything. No American farmer has EVER lost accredidation due to neighboring GE fields.

lizardfish:"Gm varieties so far created have only addressed herbicide/pesticide
problems. Nothing has been done that helps people grow crops in inferior
soils. The next phase seems to be how to add value-add items, such as
vitamins, to crops."

Right. And what is the reason for that? Perhaps its because regualtory approval costs upwards of 20 million/crop? Perhaps its due to the fact that non-profit funding agencies are afraid to fund research that will be demonized by misguided environmentalists? The technology is already here. Drought resistant GE crops exist. Vitamin A and high iron crops do as well (can ease malnutrition), but excessive public fear is hampering its chances of adoption anytime soon.

lizardfish:"In addition, the process for certifying new crops has been widely criticised for not being rigorous enough (this also goes for nanotechnology)."

Generally by people who dont understand the very messy history of crop breeding.

lizardfish:"In short there is no faith in the entire system. A common perception is that gm crops are just a huge experiment. Given that research suggests that gm crops are a genie-in-a-bottle scenario, much must be done to ensure that this genie is not released until we are certain that it is benign.

What research suggests that? How much safety research was conducted before mutagenic X-rays were used in crop breeding in the 50's and 60's? How much safety research was done before colchicine was used to dobule chromosome numbers in plants during the last century? How much safety research was done before two different species were crossed to make modern wheat? If we waited to be certain that technology was 100% safe before adopting it, we'd all still be living in caves.

lizardfish:"The biotech industry needs to publicly tackle these issues head on rather than trying to marginalise the doubters and bypass concerns by applying pressure on governments."

They've tried many approaches.

lizardfish:"I feel that at present gm crops create no significant advantages for the consumer/society but many possible disadvantages."

Even though I know that you and like-minded people mean well, such attitudes are keeping the technology from helping people and the environment. Pesticide poisoning kills thousands annually in India alone. Nearly a million children suffer from blindness or death because they dont get enough vitamin C. Billions of pounds of food (an millions of acres) are wasted due to pests. All of these (and many more) could be greatly reduced if people would get out of the way and let this technology help people. The scientific community is solidly behind GE technology because its aware of the history of crop breeding and the possible benefits of the technology. I hope the public will someday see the light as well.

 

I'm no expert on GE crops, but the thing with China is that it's population multiplying faster than rodents on crack. If newer crops can be used to feed the growing population, then making sure that people don't starve should be a higher priority than trying to maintain "crop diversity." Let the Chinese decide what gets grown in China.

 

You're probably thinking of India. China's population is starting to decline due to its state-enforced, one-child policy. China still has about a billion people to feed, and its therefore quite interested in agricultural biotechnology. Resistance doesnt seem to be as strong there, so they may eventually turn out to be the world leader in agricultural biotechnology.

And I agree qith you, Maxpower, that human welfare should be the #1 concern.

 

I think this lack of genetic diversity is one of the biggest potential drawbacks of GM crops, not an advantage.

 

Exactly how do you envision GM technology threatening crop diversity?

 

Just keeping you all up to date with this campaign.

I notice some of you have made some interesting points about GE crops and problems in China - please go here: http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2188

or here: http://www.p45rant.net/boards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60812

to read my responses to similar points. Without wishing to seem inpolite is seems like a few of you could do with educating yourselves about GE crops and the various threats, which they pose not only to the environment but to global food security. You would also do good to read up on China's problems regarding agricultural self sufficiency and how threats to agrculture such as GE crops could send the Chinese economy into a serious downspin.

Greenpeace got over 7,000 people to write a letter to Bunge Ltd.. I personally managed to convince 93 people and as a result was given the chance to be selected from 10 other top recruiters - through submitting essay questions.

End result - I am going to China in October to encourage agricultural sustainability. - http://act.greenpeace.org (go here to read to read my answers to the essay questions (discussion about environmental problems in China regarding agricultural self sufficiency and about how GE crops and imported GE products like soya pose great risks - and also to find out more about what I will be doing in China).

Thanks to all of you who took the action!

I hope we can all join together to raise awareness about GE crops and ensure that everyone has a chance to know the truth.

Cheers.
L.

 

''GM crops are well-known to have higher yields in the US and MUCH higher yields when used in developing countries like India.'' Eupracious.

In India last years GM crop was slightly larger than the suceeding year non GM crop, this could be due to weather changes ect, but the cost of the designer seed was so massive that farmers could not make a profit like they would have with a non GM crop, this lead to houndreads of farmers taking their lives.
The idea to put vitimens in a crop is ridiculous because for many examples conventional selective breeding of traditional viriaties of crop are proved to create better sources of these vitimens, also in ones diet you need certain foods such as green vegtables to access other vitimens and this is not always the case in the diets of people in poor regions.

we do not inherit this world, the earth, form our patrents but borrow it from our children lets keep it as safe and envoromentally clean as possible....Yes?!!

 

In the end, I don't think that GM crops offer all that much more; there is only so much that a plant can be modified, I guess; these people can only create small "improvements" at best, but they make it sound like these new plants are miracles. Why? Because it means big money. If they told the truth and said, well, we developed a plant that increases yields only slightly, but we're still not so certain that GM won't have neg. consequences in the long-term for humans, nobody would want anything to do with it. GM is not about making life better for starving people in Africa, it has everything to do with making lots of money.

 

yes. I'm afraid for my health because of genetic engineering.