Papacy sells out to the highest bidder...again

Tao_Equus

Interfaith Forums
Messages
5,826
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
Edinburgh, scotland
Genetically modified crops get the Vatican's blessing - science-in-society - 04 June 2009 - New Scientist

Europe, unlike the US, is sceptical of the international companies who want to sell patented GM crops. Europe is also overwhelmingly Catholic. This papal ruling angers me because it denies the facts and feeds the profits of the companies who actually threaten small scale and subsistence farming the world over. This papal decree is an order to Catholics to consume the products they have till now avoided. It is cynical and as underhand as we have come to expect from the Vatican.
 
The comments on NS are interesting - take the first:

This is an utterly dishonest piece, and should never have appeared in a supposedly reputable science journal. The Pontifical Academy is not the Vatican. This pro-GM meeting was set up by a group of well-known GM zealots with the express object of influencing Vatican policy on GM crops and foods. It was a disgrace -- nobody was invited who might have anything contrary to say, and it was nothing other than a propaganda exercise from the very beginning. So for you to portray it as indicative of the Vatican's blessing is nothing short of grotesque.
 
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is headed by .....guess who? Yes....the pope. Its meeting was typical of its meetings, dissenters and those not in the pocket all banned. Typical of everything papal in fact.
 
:rolleyes:

Even if the Pope OKs the consumption of GM foods, that is hardly a command to do so.

A parallel is the Vatican stance on evolution, that accepting the ToE is not in conflict with Christian belief. That does not mean Catholics have to 'believe' in evolution.

Second, it's a good thing the Papacy supports GM foods...they are here to stay. I am not saying all is good and benign about GM foods (they need to be approached cautiously like any technology, and I agree that the business ethics associated with GM are in an atrocious state), but now that they have entered the environment they are part of the world, not to be put back in the box (or test tube).

Another dam*ed if you do and dam*ed if you don't situation, eh Tao?

I can imagine the post you would have made if the Vatican came out with a statement that GM foods should be banned!
 
Second, it's a good thing the Papacy supports GM foods...they are here to stay. I am not saying all is good and benign about GM foods (they need to be approached cautiously like any technology, and I agree that the business ethics associated with GM are in an atrocious state), but now that they have entered the environment they are part of the world, not to be put back in the box (or test tube).
YIKES....

I am 100% against GM, franken foods and GMOs... yeah we've blown it on what we've already built, pandoras box is open and we can't close it on them... but we can and should create a moratorium on the rest until we determine the results of the havoc we've set in motion and some guidelines for the future.
 
YIKES....

I am 100% against GM, franken foods and GMOs... yeah we've blown it on what we've already built, pandoras box is open and we can't close it on them... but we can and should create a moratorium on the rest until we determine the results of the havoc we've set in motion and some guidelines for the future.

Hi wil,

Can you tell me what your specific concerns are about GM foods? Please do not give me the results of a google search...I know there are tons of things out there on the subject, most of which are unsubstantiated opinion pro and con.

There are legitimate concerns...what are yours?
 
Mine are simple. We've screwed up our environment by simple mistakes. Accidentally transferring animals and organisms from one continent to another or crossing continents with disasterous results. We've intentionally brought various animals and organisms from one ecosystem to another with great intentions and forethought to solve problems and only served to create worse problems.

To think that we have the capacity to mix genes (not by cross polination, but in the test tube between plants, animals and organisms that would not ever naturally occur) and consider the long range consequences is ludicrous. To intentionally develop plants so we can spray MORE pesticides is rediculous.

Man is simply not that smart. We are getting ahead of ourselves. I testified at a hearing on labeling of foods that were irradiated, fertilized with human sludge, GM, etc. And do you know what the finding of the FDA was and the reason for not labeling?? Because if it was labeled we wouldn't buy it!! We have no choice in the US, no free choice of what we put in our body because there is no way for us to know what has been corrupted and what hasn't. Our FDA has gone as far as claiming foods treated as above ORGANIC.
 
transgenic foods are here to stay, and they do need to be rigorously studied before they are unleashed on the public as "safe" or "GRAS".

Take liberty corn for example which has been modified to be compatible with certain biocides.
Once consumed by animal or human, the material then has been shown, in laboratory analysis, to have the ability to reconfigure the environment of the intestinal tract.
Some varieties of the mammals intestinal flora are killed off by eating this "food" as it has a toxin component.
This can lead to many problems such as food not digesting leading to fermentation and candida problems and eventually colon cancer, plus the eater does not then have the ability to absorb a percentage of their food intake (which is already mineral deficient).

This being said, I do think that there is some good that can come from such research, but all I see now are companies who place making a buck as being more important than consumer safety.
Such a situation causes me to avoid these foods as much as possible as I have no confidence in those who commercialize these things.
 
Mine are simple. We've screwed up our environment by simple mistakes. Accidentally transferring animals and organisms from one continent to another or crossing continents with disasterous results. We've intentionally brought various animals and organisms from one ecosystem to another with great intentions and forethought to solve problems and only served to create worse problems.

To think that we have the capacity to mix genes (not by cross polination, but in the test tube between plants, animals and organisms that would not ever naturally occur) and consider the long range consequences is ludicrous. To intentionally develop plants so we can spray MORE pesticides is rediculous.

Man is simply not that smart. We are getting ahead of ourselves. I testified at a hearing on labeling of foods that were irradiated, fertilized with human sludge, GM, etc. And do you know what the finding of the FDA was and the reason for not labeling?? Because if it was labeled we wouldn't buy it!! We have no choice in the US, no free choice of what we put in our body because there is no way for us to know what has been corrupted and what hasn't. Our FDA has gone as far as claiming foods treated as above ORGANIC.

I hear you wil, but these are still just opinons, not substantiated facts nor rigorous hypotheses.

As a scientist and educator I would like people to understand the science behind the issues to make informed decisions about biotechnology, not just a gut reaction or fear (OMG! They are mixing human and animal genes! It just ain't natural!). The kind of rhetoric you share above feeds polemics, not rational discourse.

The arguments you use above can apply to all technological advances. TVs cause us to get get lazy and fat, computers to lose our human connections, medicines to undesired side effects. We know that cars cause pollution: should we have outlawed the automobile when we had the chance?
 
transgenic foods are here to stay, and they do need to be rigorously studied before they are unleashed on the public as "safe" or "GRAS".

Take liberty corn for example which has been modified to be compatible with certain biocides.
Once consumed by animal or human, the material then has been shown, in laboratory analysis, to have the ability to reconfigure the environment of the intestinal tract.
Some varieties of the mammals intestinal flora are killed off by eating this "food" as it has a toxin component.
This can lead to many problems such as food not digesting leading to fermentation and candida problems and eventually colon cancer, plus the eater does not then have the ability to absorb a percentage of their food intake (which is already mineral deficient).

This being said, I do think that there is some good that can come from such research, but all I see now are companies who place making a buck as being more important than consumer safety.
Such a situation causes me to avoid these foods as much as possible as I have no confidence in those who commercialize these things.


Exactly what I was hoping for...thank you! Do you have a reference for the above information?
 
This is a good article.

Genetically Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestine

and another one:
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html



http://www.grist.org/article/would-you-like-some-gmos-in-your-coffee/
Since it was approved a year ago, more than 90 percent of the nation’s sugarbeet crop has been converted to Roundup Ready, according to a Boulder County staff report.
“Roundup Ready,” of course, refers to Monsanto’s group of genetically engineered corn, soy, canola, cotton and now sugarbeet seeds that can withstand the direct application of the potent pesticide glyphosate (aka Roundup). In the course of a year, Monsanto’s Frankensugar has taken over the national sugarbeet crop.
 

Hi nativeastral,

That is a helpful article and it references many highly respected scientific journals. It also hits pretty much all the pros and cons I am familiar with. There are some serious cons to GM foods. What do you think of the risks of GM foods in comparison to things like the use of plastics and automobiles that pollute?


Thanks for the link!
 
l got led on thru the original NS link [in the comments section last page] to another which mentioned amaranth as an extremely good food source which l hadn't heard before.

l wouldn't be surprised if the papal authority endorsed this so as to secure their own interests in catholic countries in the so called 'developing' world which l have always thought have been a dumping ground or a 'guinea pig' [apt thats where they're from s.america] centre for experimenting with chemicals or selling 'unsure' drugs.

l'm against multinationals as l think exploitation is greater; countries should grow what is naturally in accord with the earth ie macrobiotic [ideally].

of course we have the problem of places like africa and their lack of good earth, and l suppose even america has desolate infertile places [apart from the deserts]. but there are [butter] mountains of food in storage elsewhere so its all crazy; cash crops have f## up a lot of countries under the maya of success for them but it was for the consumerism of others miles away, such is the global economy.

yes modern living eg plastics and insatiable need for fuel is just as bad so recycling should be stepped up hundredfold by 'intelligent' societies like using old cooking oil and reusing glass, its not rocket science its all about profit and supply and demand.

l am totally against herbicides etc as lt is known to cause harm and the difference between that and biodynamic is palpably palatable; its a question of labour costs and fat cats not giving a s### so long as they get their totally organic caviar ugh:rolleyes:
 
its a question of labour costs and fat cats not giving a s### so long as they get their totally organic caviar ugh:rolleyes:
Well, you can take some small solace in the fact that totally organic (as in, untainted by chemical residues) caviar is utterly impossible to get.
Even the lakes in the NorthWest Territories in Canada which are pristine and not anywhere near manufacturing centres have measurable amounts of ddt and other strange chemicals in them.
 
Namaste Luna,

But I respectfully disagree there is a difference between creating a life which you cannot take back and a TV. Especially when this life can mutate, procreate, merge with other life all of which you have not control of.
 
Namaste Luna,

But I respectfully disagree there is a difference between creating a life which you cannot take back and a TV. Especially when this life can mutate, procreate, merge with other life all of which you have not control of.

Are your concerns primarily aesthetic (we should not mess with mother nature), ethical (it is wrong for us to interfer in biological and ecological systems) or practical (afraid of bad outcomes)?

We tamper with living systems and altar life-forms all the time. Through conventional breeding we create life that can mutate, procreate, and merge with all other life. Biotech is just a more complicated way of doing it, and brings together genes that could not get together otherwise. We use stem-cells and cloning with the intent of putting those things into our bodies for medical cures. We inject attentuated viruses to keep us from getting deadly diseases.

The way to address practical concerns, health and environmental-wise, is to conduct scientific research.

The way to address things like having a monopoly on high-yielding seed stock is public policy and business ethics.

A way that I don't think is helpful is to call it all Frankenfoods and say you are against it all in a blanket manner.


The world population is booming and while we could currently address world food shortages, we fail to do so. And if things continue the way they are, food shortages are going to become an issue for the majority of us. Farmable land is decreasing. Pollution, salinity, and drought are increasing. Population is increasing.

While I may not have much interest in a tomato with a long shelf-life, I am interested in using every means possible to get good yields out of marginal lands.

I am interested in creating disease-resistant plants that don't require as much pesticide use.

I am interested in plants with higher levels of essential amino acids to help feed starving people.

I am interested in having crops that have higher yields without the application of petroleum-derived fertilizers.

I think there is too much potential for great benefit to just chuck the whole thing out the window because of fear.
 
Strangely enough, with all the talk about how our bioengineering will create more food by making better producing plants, this goal has not been attained.
The so-called super-foods are not making bumper crops any more than conventional hybridization does.
The only thing that I can see is that certain biocide manufacturers are making windfall profits by foisting their manipulated/patented seeds on us.

I am all for progress, but I see scams abounding in this area.

But the lawyers are happy due to all the lawsuits.
 
Back
Top