Dr. Vandana Shiva: A plate full of toxins
source: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11492-swaminathans-plate-full-of-toxins
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
Dr Swaminathan's first scientific manipulation was the argument that conventional plant "breeding methods are very time consuming and often not very accurate. However, with the recombinant DNA technology, plants with the desired traits can be produced very rapidly and with greater accuracy". This is scientifically false. Genetic engineering is a crude and blind technology of shooting genes into an organism through a "gene gun". It’s like infecting the organism with a "cancer". It is not known if the transgene is introduced, and that is why antibiotic resistance markers have to be used. Nor is it known where in the genome the transgene gets introduced. This is not "accuracy", it is literally shooting in the dark.
Further, the genetically engineered construct is introduced into existing crops that are bred by conventional breeding methods. Thus Bt Cotton (Bt stands for Bacillus Thuringenesis) is the introduction of Bt genes into existing hybrids in the case of Mahyco (a company that produces and markets a broad range of seeds developed with biotechnology), and into a selection in the case of the Central Cotton Research Institute. GM technology does not substitute conventional breeding, it is dependent on it. Thus the arguments of "speed" as well as "accuracy" are false.
The second scientific inaccuracy in Dr Swaminathan’s article is the claim that through GM technology "we can isolate a gene responsible for conferring drought tolerance, introduce that gene into a plant, and make it drought tolerant".
Drought tolerance is a polygenetic trait. It is, therefore, scientifically flawed to talk of "isolating a gene for drought tolerance". Genetic engineering tools are so far only able to transfer single gene traits. That is why in 20 years only two single gene traits have been commercialised through genetic engineering. One is herbicide resistance and the second is the Bt toxin trait.
Navdanya Trust’s recent report (Biopiracy of Climate Resilient Crops: Gene giants are stealing farmers innovation of drought resistant, flood resistant and salt resistant varieties) shows that farmers have bred corps that are resistant to climate extremes. And it is these traits, a result of a millennia of farmers breeding, that are now being patented and pirated by the genetic engineering industry. Using farmers’ varieties as "genetic material", the biotechnology industry is playing genetic roulette to gamble on which gene complexes are responsible for which trait. This is not done through genetic engineering; it is done through software programs like "Athlete" that uses "vast amounts of available genomic data (mostly public) to rapidly reach a reliable limited list of candidate key genes with high relevance to a target trait of choice. Allegorically, the Athlete platform could be viewed as a "machine" that is able to choose 50-100 lottery tickets from amongst hundreds of thousands
of tickets, with the high likelihood that the winning ticket will be included among them".
Breeding is being replaced by gambling, innovation is giving way to biopiracy, and science is being substituted by propaganda.
more at the link.
-
- tags:
- Environment, Biodiversity, GMOs, Pesticides, 10 more
-
-
bombastinator
-
I was drawn to this article by the use of the word toxin in the title. It seems almost any time I find the word "toxin" is used when talking about food, bad science and/or BS is sure to follow. As far as I can tell it's used by the crunchy community the same way that the right wing swings about terms like "socialist" and "big government" The only thing they really know about them is that they are somehow bad.
I was not left disappointed.
As is shown here, Ms. Shiva's original education has been in Philosophy, rather than science. The arguments here are about problems she has with phrasing which she then attempts to parlay into an implication that the entire concept is flawed. An effective tactic in philosophy but not in science.
In her attack on recombinant DNA she attacks the term 'accuracy' by carefully misconstruing it to apply to the entire process, rather than merely the ability to choose which genes to add, then chooses the parts of the process that are effectively identical (and in most though not areas still far far faster) than natural mutation. and chooses only them to discuss. She then states that the entire claim is scientifically false, rather than merely somewhat vague.
Her second claim is an attack on the term "drought tolerance" her claim is that it cannot be done because drought tolerance is a system rather than a specific component trait. Had he said "traits that promote drought tolerance" a concept that would be assumed by any scientist, her claims would have no weight.
Her third claim about effective theft does seem to be correct, though here she is not attacking anyone but merely stating facts.
P.S. this got edited a few times. long posts like this are hard to read in the little posting window and there is no preview button. This should be final here.
- 2 years ago
-
bombastinator
-
-
JanforGore
-
I am so grateful that Dr. Shiva is dispelling all of the propaganda being put out about this uncertain, dangerous, false, irresponsible technology. Some things cannot be fixed with technology. It takes nature and our ability to work with instead of against her. Agriculture is one of those things.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
