 |
 |
Oh, well, if Richard Lewontin says it's a sham, it must be a sham. After all, appeals to authority always trump evidence, right? For those interested in a balanced treatment of the issues involved, based on an actual investigation, you can try the attached article. MB On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:48 PM, mart <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > an obscure biologist at an obscure university named lewontin and harvard > wrote an entire book on gm rice and vit. a, he said its a sham. > > --- On *Thu, 8/5/10, Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]>* wrote: > > > From: Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Regulation must be revolutionized > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, August 5, 2010, 12:31 PM > > > Yeah, we should simplify matters by banning it completely. The idea that GE > crops will save millions from starvation is straight out of the agribusiness > propaganda handbook. What we need is to stop financial speculation in > agriculture (http://harpers.org/archive/2010/07/0083022), but—oops—that > will require more regulation. --PG > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]<http:[log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > The writer argues that genetic engineering is subject to too much > regulation, with examples. Could he be right in some cases? > > MB > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html > > <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html> > > NATURE | OPINION > Regulation must be revolutionized > > - Ingo Potrykus<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html> > > Nature 466, 561 (29 July 2010) doi:10.1038/466561a Published online 28 > July 2010 > > Unjustified and impractical legal requirements are stopping genetically > engineered crops from saving millions from starvation and malnutrition, says > Ingo Potrykus. > > Article tools > > - print<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html> > - email<http://www.nature.com/nature/foxtrot/svc/mailform?doi=10.1038/466561a&file=/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html> > - download pdf<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/pdf/466561a.pdf> > - download citation<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/ris/466561a.ris> > - order reprints<https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?author=Ingo+Potrykus&orderBeanReset=true&title=Regulation+must+be+revolutionized&pageNumbers=pp561&publisherName=NPGR&volumeNum=466&issueNum=7306&numPages=1&contentID=10.1038%2F466561a&publicationDate=2010-07-28&publication=Nature> > - rights and permissions<https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?author=Ingo+Potrykus&title=Regulation+must+be+revolutionized&pageNumbers=pp561&publisherName=NPG&volumeNum=466&issueNum=7306&numPages=1&contentID=10.1038%2F466561a&publicationDate=2010-07-28&publication=Nature> > - share/bookmark<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html> > > See online collection.<http://www.nature.com/news/specials/food/index.html> > > Genetically engineered crops could save many millions from starvation and > malnutrition — if they can be freed from excessive regulation. That is the > conclusion I've reached from my experience over the past 11 years chairing > the Golden Rice Humanitarian project (http://www.goldenrice.org), and > after a meeting at the Vatican last year on transgenic plants for food > security in the context of development1<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html#ref1> > . > > Golden rice will probably reach the market in 2012. It was ready in the lab > by 1999. This lag is because of the regulatory differentiation of genetic > engineering from other, traditional methods of crop improvement. The > discrimination is scientifically unjustified. It is wasting resources and > stopping many potentially transformative crops such as golden rice making > the leap from lab to plate. > > More defensible — on scientific and humanitarian grounds — and more > practical would be for new genetically modified crops to be regulated, not > according to how they are bred, but according to their novelty, as are new > drugs. All traits, however introduced, should be classified by their > putative risk or benefit to the consumer and to the environment. Researchers > and regulators could then focus on cases in which risks are real and > fast-track crops urgently needed in the developing world. > > Golden rice is a series of varieties modified with two genes (phytoene > synthase and phytoene double-desaturase) to produce up to 35 micrograms of > vitamin A precursor per gram of edible rice. Within the normal diet of > rice-dependent poor populations, it could provide sufficient vitamin A to > reduce substantially the 6,000 deaths a day due to vitamin A deficiency, and > to save the sight of several hundred thousand people per year1<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html#ref1>. > None of the existing varieties of rice has even low levels of the vitamin A > precursor in the part that is eaten, so conventional breeding cannot > increase it. Golden rice was possible only with genetic engineering. > > The crop was stalled for more than ten years by the working conditions and > requirements demanded by regulations (see 'From bench to belly'). For > example, we lost more than two years for the permission to test golden rice > in the field and more than four years in collecting data for a regulatory > dossier that would satisfy any national biosafety authority. I therefore > hold the regulation of genetic engineering responsible for the death and > blindness of thousands of children and young mothers. > > Our experience is far from unique. It generally takes about ten times more > money and ten years longer to bring a genetically modified crop to market > than a non-genetically modified one. This keeps public research institutions > out of the game and has given a handful of companies a de facto monopoly on > the technology. Private ventures justifiably focus on the most profitable > opportunities — industrial crops such as corn, cotton and soya beans. > Genetic engineering, however, has massive potential to also address > food-security problems — to increase yield by protecting subsistence food > crops from pests and diseases, to strengthen crops' competition with weeds > and to improve plants' nutritional value. > Running the gauntlet > > Existing regulation demands many years' worth of molecular and biochemical > safety tests. Yet multiple international agencies have found > genetic-engineering crop technology to be benign. There have not been any > substantiated cases of harm to the environment or to humans, even in the > litigious United States where the adoption of genetic engineering is > widespread. > > Meanwhile, a new plant created by traditional breeding methods — which also > modify the genome — requires no safety data, only the demonstration that it > performs at least as well as others. It is a quick and cheap process. This > imbalance allows non-scientific opponents of genetic engineering to raise > unfounded concerns, which a nervous public cannot properly evaluate, > especially in Europe. > > All of this means that engineering varieties for the public good depends — > ironically — on the private sector. > > Golden rice is a prime example1<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html#ref1>. > Only within the framework of a public–private partnership with Syngenta was > our team able to navigate the product-development morass. Without Syngenta > we could not, for example, have reduced the number of patents involved, > secured free licences, established managerial and marketing structures or > developed plants that are optimized to meet regulatory requirements and to > express high levels of desired traits1<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html#ref1>. > > > Yet it is the responsibility of the public sector to address the crop needs > of poor people. And it is wiser to spend public funds on feeding the world's > growing population than on jumping through regulatory hoops, or worse on > spurious, politically expedient research into hypothetical risks for the > environment or the consumer, which have already been studied carefully over > the past 25 years. > > A good next step would be for a country with political and economic > independence to recognize the arguments in favour of reducing the current > regulatory burden for genetically engineered crops. Such a country would > gain enormously by freeing funds, time and energy for research, development > and deployment of many more genetically engineered crops for poor people; > its public sector and small enterprises would be able to compete with the > larger industries. Without compromising safety, that nation would easily > progress faster than those continuing to focus on hypothetical risks, and it > would provide some much needed leadership. Perhaps then, lab-ready varieties > from the public domain such as golden cassava, golden banana, iron-, zinc- > and protein-rich rice might get from bench to belly in 5 years, rather than > 15, if at all. > -- > ****************************************** > Michael Balter > Contributing Correspondent, Science > Adjunct Professor of Journalism, > New York University > > Email: [log in to unmask]<http:[log in to unmask]> > Web: michaelbalter.com > NYU: journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/balter.html > ****************************************** > > "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the > poor have no food, they call me a Communist." -- Hélder Pessoa Câmara > > > > -- ****************************************** Michael Balter Contributing Correspondent, Science Adjunct Professor of Journalism, New York University Email: [log in to unmask] Web: michaelbalter.com NYU: journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/balter.html ****************************************** "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." -- Hélder Pessoa Câmara