BRISTOL, ENGLAND.

“The British government has strict regulations governing experiments involving genetic modifications of plants. These regulations are in place to ensure that genetically-engineered plants do not “escape” from their test plots and interbreed with neighbouring natural plants. A report recently released by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) makes clear that the regulations are often broken. Monsanto, AgrEvo of Frankfurt, Germany, Plant Genetic Systems of Ghent, Belgium and Nickerson Biocem of Cambridge, England are among the companies who broke the rules by failing to provide the specified buffer zone between the engineered plants and the natural flora surrounding the test plot. At present ACRE has given permission for 139 plant gene experiments, but only 28 of these have actually been checked by inspectors and six have been found to have broken the rules. Asks Sue Mayer of Gene Watch ‘Is it the tip of the iceberg’?”

source: http://www.yourhealthbase.com/database/a80e.htm

source: http://worldofweirdthings.com

I do think it is the tip of the iceberg. There is definitely  a lot more going on under the surface, which won’t know about. I am glad, though, that those regualtions exist (and they have developed even further by now). Without them it would be experimenting without limits. No doubt, this would turn out to be a disaster.

]]> http://quotingit.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/help-plants-are-escaping/feed/ 0 quotingit dna_strand http://quotingit.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/lets-look-at-7-giants/ http://quotingit.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/lets-look-at-7-giants/#comments Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:29:59 +0000 quotingit http://quotingit.wordpress.com/?p=215 ]]>

source: http://www.edinformatics.com

Knowing approximately what Genetic Engineering includes, is good. But among all the debating about its reasons and consequences one shouldn’t forget WHERE the process is happening. WHERE does it come from? WHERE are genetic engineered organisms produced?

For that reason I decided to present the 7 largest companies leading the GE world.

source: http://www.biofortified.org/more-resources/genetic-engineering-companies/

Sanofi-Aventis (France)

source: http://en.sanofi-aventis.com/

“Sanofi-Aventis is headquartered in Paris, France, is a multinational pharmaceutical company, the world’s fourth-largest by prescription sales. It was formed in 1999. Sanofi-Aventis engages in the research and development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products for sale principally in the prescription market, but the firm also develops over-the-counter medication. Sanofi-Aventis covers 7 major therapeutic areas.”

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanofi-Aventis

Sanofi-Aventis:
“Because we are at the forefront of the crucial issues of economic and human development, our development model must be exemplary. Every action taken by sanofi-aventis should match the confidence that people place in medicine and in the tangible results of scientific progress.”

source: http://en.sanofi-aventis.com/ethics_responsibilities/being_sanofi-aventis.asp

Monsanto (USA)

source: http://www.monsanto.com

“The Monsanto Company is a U.S.-based multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world’s leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as “Roundup“. Monsanto is also the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed; it sells 90% of the world’s GE seeds. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.
Agracetus, owned by Monsanto, exclusively produces Roundup Ready soybean seed for the commercial market. In 2005, it finalized purchase of Seminis Inc, making it the world’s largest conventional seed company.
Monsanto’s development and marketing of genetically engineered seed and bovine growth hormone, as well as its aggressive litigation and political lobbying practices, have made the company controversial around the world and a primary target of the alter-globalization movement and environmental activists.”

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

Monsanto:
“We’re constantly looking at ways to maximize the potential of seed — both its yield potential and the technology used to protect it — so farmers can get more out of each seed. Today, farmers use our innovative seed-based products to help them protect their crops and produce healthier foods and better animal feed.”

source: http://www.monsanto.com/who_we_are/default.asp

Dupont (USA)

source: http://www2.dupont.com

“Dupont is an American chemical company that was founded in July 1802 as a gunpowder mill by Eleuthère Irénée du Pont. DuPont is currently the world’s second largest chemical company (behind BASF). (…)
DuPont is often successful in popularizing the brands of its material products such that their trademark names become more commonly used than the generic or chemical word/s for the material itself. One example is “neoprene”, which was intended originally to be a trademark but quickly came into common usage.”

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont

Dupont:
“Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture, nutrition, electronics, communications, safety and protection, home and construction, transportation and apparel.”

source: http://www2.dupont.com/Our_Company/en_US/

Syngenta (Switzerland)

source: http://www.syngenta.com

“Syngenta AG is a large global agribusiness which markets seeds and pesticides. Syngenta is involved in biotechnology and genomic research. The company is a leader in crop protection, and ranks third in total sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market. Sales in 2008 were approximately US$ 11.6 billion. Syngenta employs over 24,000 people in over 90 countries.”

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta

Syngenta:
“(…) our purpose: Bringing plant potential to life.Through world-class science, global reach and commitment to our customers we help to increase crop productivity, protect the environment and improve health and quality of life.”

source: http://www.syngenta.com/en/about_syngenta/

Dow Chemical (USA)

source: http://www.dow.com/

“The Dow Chemical Company (NYSE: DOW TYO: 4850) is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Midland, Michigan. (…) Dow Chemical is a provider of plastics, chemicals, and agricultural products with presence in more than 175 countries and employing 46,000 people worldwide. (…)
Dow has been called the “Chemical companies’ Chemical company” in that most of their product is sold to other manufacturers rather than to end users. At varying points in time Dow has sold directly to customers, primarily in the Human and Animal Health markets as well as Consumer Products.”

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Company

Dow Chemical:
“Dow is a diversified chemical company that combines the power of science and technology with the “Human Element” to constantly improve what is essential to human progress. The Company delivers a broad range of products and services to customers in approximately 160 countries, connecting chemistry and innovation with the principles of sustainability to help provide everything from fresh water, food and pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging and personal care products.”

source: http://www.dow.com/about/

BASF (Germany)

source: http://www.basf.com

“BASF SE is a German chemical company and the largest chemical company in the world. BASF originally stood for Badische Anilin- und Soda-Fabrik (Baden Aniline and Soda Factory). Today, the four letters are a registered trademark. (…)
The BASF Group comprises more than 160 subsidiaries and joint ventures and operates more than 150 production sites in Europe, Asia, Australia, Americas and Africa. Its headquarters are located in Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany). BASF has customers in over 200 countries and supplies products to a wide variety of industries. Despite its size and global presence BASF receives little public attention as it abandoned consumer product lines in the 90s.
At the end of 2008, the company employed more than 96,000 people, with over 47,000 in Germany alone. In 2008, BASF posted sales of €62 billion and income from operations before special items of over €6.8 billion. The company is currently expanding its international activities with a particular focus on Asia. Between 1990 and 2005, the company invested €5.6 billion in Asia, for example in sites near Nanjing and Shanghai, China and Katipalla in India.”

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASF

BASF:
“We help our customers to be more successful through intelligent system solutions and high-quality products. Through new technologies we can tap into additional market opportunities. We conduct our business in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.”

source: http://www.basf.com/group/about-basf/index

source: http://www.marxist.com

“Genetic engineering has come upon the world with a rush, accompanied by the usual claims of being a way of feeding the earth’s poor and removing want. However these claims need to examined in the light of what has actually been done to date, and what is planned for the future. In fact the impetus for the development of genetic engineering, namely the rapid pursuit of maximum profits and futher control of world agriculture runs counter to the stated aims as well as encouraging unsafe science.

(…)

The change is already here with no public consultation. In 1997, 15% of the U.S. soybean crop was grown from genetically modified (GM) seed. By this year if the Monsanto Corporation’s timetable unfolds on schedule, 100% of the U.S. soybean crop (60 million acres) will be genetically engineered. Other food crops such as cotton, corn, potatoes, tomatoes and other food crops are lagging only slightly behind. This poses a real threat to food supplies and health.

It is often argued by proponents of GM that it is only a continuation of what has been historically been done. Although a form of genetic engineering of food crops and animals has long been practised, through the process of selective breeding, now we have taken a leap “forward” by incorporating genetic material from one species into another to give new traits to the recipient. Scientists have altered foods by inserting into them genes from bacteria and viruses. Many more such products containing DNA from insects, fish and even humans are being researched and soon will be headed for our dinner plates. Foods altered through genetic engineering often contain proteins and other components that have never before been part of the human diet. The process of putting alien genes into plants and animals to favour certain traits or to confer resistance is at best an inexact science with unpredictable results. Genes don’t necessarily control a single trait. A gene may control several different traits in a plant. Without careful study, plants with undesirable characteristics may be released into the global ecosystem.

(…)

Why are such risks being taken? They are being taken in the name of short term profits and market domination. Much genetic engineering is linked to producing crops resistant to specific brands of herbicide e.g. Monsanto’s Roundup, which has been implicated in claims of raised hormone levels in people.”

See the entire article: http://www.marxist.com/genetic-engineering150300.htm

Genetic Engineering by OMD (1983)

Efficiant, logical, effective, and practical.
Using all resorces to the best of our ability.
Changing, designing, adapting our mentalities.
Improving our abilities for a better way of life.

Chorus:
Babies. mother. hospital. scissors.
Creature. judgement. butcher. engineer.

These are the little children, the future in our hands.
When all god’s children on this earth inherit all our plans.
These are the lies they tell us. but this is the only way.
When all god’s children on the earth will evermore be saved.

Repeat chorus (2)

These are the little children, the future in our hands.
When all god’s children on this earth inherit all our plans.
These are the lies they tell us. the future’s good as sold.
In all the things we do and know, we really must be told.

OMD stands for Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and is a synthpop group whose founding members are originally from the Wirral Peninsula, United Kingdom. The group was founded in 1978 by Andy McCluskey and Paul Humphreys. Later drummer Malcolm Holmes and saxophonist Martin Cooper joined. McCluskey and Humphreys formed the core of the outfit until 1989, when the group split. McCluskey then retained the name and continued to record and tour as OMD with a new line-up.
(source: http://www.poprockbands.com/omd/biography/pro.html)

I am not presenting you this song because I think it’s incredible and totally worth to be listened to. Obviously not. I am posting it here for two reasons: First of all I think it’s funny that there acutally exists a pop song about Genetic Engineering. How weird, isn’t it?
And secondly, I’d like to make you aware of the year the song was published: 1983. That is almost 30 years ago. 30 years. That scares me because it means that GE was actually a topic back then. Probably not totally unbelievable but still, I just didn’t think I was already possible 30 years ago.
Consequently, I am not able to imagine how far technoloy has come nowadays. And what does it mean for the future?

Just recently, I came across another blog post with the headline:

“If you could have a baby genetically engineered with all the properties you choose.. first would you, second why or why not and if you would what traits would you choose?”

source: http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com

One of the replies said the following:

“I am a bit of a naturalist. The idea of genetically engineering food is unacceptable to me, so needless to say the idea of genetically engineering my child would be pretty horrific.

But…. It does seem possible that the technology will be available over the next couple of generations and I’ve wondered:  If you are the one couple that chooses to have an ’all natural baby’ — will they have a freakish nose in a sea of perfectly shaped noses? Or be the only one that will ever have body fat?  Or the only one that continues to grow armpit hair in a society that no longer even has a need to produce razors??   Or the only one who ever has to take a day off from work because they get a headache or contract a cold…..
And so what if they are the “only one that…” …maybe that will make them even more unique and they will do better in the world?
Either way, it is a lot of responsibility for a human to decide the fate of another human in this way.  It seems much better left to nature in all regards.”
(by melissa_orange on Jun 19 2008)

Her way of seeing it from a ‘genetic-engineering-is-daily-business world’ is a very good idea. What if that would be the case? If being a natural child would be the exception? It might sound weird now but in the far future?
I totally agree with her conclusion. “It does seem much better left to nature in all regards.”

Another post is from a rather religious point of view. It is probably not surprising to you that people who have a religious background regret that kind of interference in God given’s nature.

“My philosophy is that God gives you what God gives you.

Isn’t it always more exciting to get a present that you didn’t expect, than to tell someone what to get you?
When I was expecting, I didn’t want to know the sex of my baby.  The doctors told me about the tests to check for downs syndrome, etc.  I told them that it didn’t matter – I will get what God wants me to have.

I don’t think I could determine what is the best for each trait category . . . tall or short?  skinny or fat?  green eyes or blue eyes?  Being unique is what is great!  I wouldn’t even wish for the absence of health issues (to an extent) . . . many times in life you have to deal with ‘the bad’ in order to appreciate ‘the good’.
Just my thoughts . . . they may sound silly.”
(by MeAndSawx on Jun 19 20089

And see this one:

“I would want it to have wings. We’d save tons on shoes.”

(by EmpressCandyBaby on Jun 23 2008)

That one might just be a joke but using humour points also out how ridiculous such an idea is.

See the blog: http://askville.amazon.com/baby-genetically-engineered-properties/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=10531751

In time for the new year I found the following video on youtube.com, which is acutally more timeless than only for 2010. Nevertheless, I thought it’s a good time to present it to you here:

(source: http://www.youtube.com)

If you have followed my blog, you have probably noticed that this is a really well-done summary of some aspects I have mentioned so far. An additional very present fact is also presented here: The problem of monopoly. A problem that comes along with genetic modified crops and results in a huge problem in the agricultural industry. As you can see the economic affect is significant. Monsanto is probably a company that you haven’t heard of before although they are one of the the leading mutinational agricultural biotechnology corporations.
Thinking about Genetic Engineering should therefore not just lead us to the immediate affect that might cause “headaches”, it’s also the long-term consequences that should be worried about since they are probably worse because we cannot erase them easily.

“What do you think about Genetic Engineering? – Yea, it’s good.”

Jim, 41, American,  a Photographer from Detroit:

“That’s a good thing. I am always for good new stuff. I mean, of course, if it’s used for the right purpose, why should not have it? If it makes things better why rejecting it?” When I asked him whether or not he does mind eating Genetic Modified food, he goes: “It depends, are they ribs?”
My last question concerned his personal experience with Genetic Engineering: “Nah, I don’t think so.”  – Probably right if you put the emphasis on think…

“Don’t mess with nature.”

Melissa, 28, American, an Event Producer from Los Angeles:

“No, I am totally against it. For sure. No, really, I try to avoid GM in any ways. I try to only have healthy, organic food. Why should I eat anything else if it’s bad for me? Since you don’t know what’s actually containing it.”
So I wondered if she doesn’t think that GE has any advantages at all: “Well, yea, you’re right, if you could help curing diseases with modified transplant organs or something, I mean from an animal, that’s a good thing. Yea, I’d probably say for medicial purpose it’s ok.”
What about its purpose in the Third World, modified plants and crops for example: “No. You just don’t want to mess with nature. Neither for us nor for them. There are other ways to help those poor people. You just don’t know what reaction those kind of plants would cause.”
Coming back to its purpose in medicine, we discussed the issue of cloning pets and even humans: “The borderline for me is clearly between using GE for modified organs to help someone and using it for creating new human beings. No way that I could tolerate that.”

“Any medical reasons are good.”

Ian, 41, American, a Photography Assistant from San Fransisco:

He overheard my conversation with Melissa and totally agreed with her: “Especially concering the Third World, there is no difference. Genetic Modified food is as bad for us as it is for them. No matter what they’re suffering from, GM could cause something worse, especially in the long-term.”
Another aspect supporting Melissa’s opinion referred to GE’s adoption in medicine: “Yea, you know what, even for cosmetic reasons, its application is totally justified. Why not?” How about stopping the aging process: “Sure, if it’s possible.”

“What we don’t know won’t hurt us.”

Steve, 48, Canadian, a Truckdriver from Toronto:

“Ugh, that food is disgusting. Genetic modified food does really not taste any good. I had some last year, I mean as far as I know, and that tasted so artificial. I love cooking and totally prefer natural food. It’s just sooo much better.”
When I mentioned the possibility of using animal organs to help humans replacing their affected organs, he said: “See, that is the good part of it! Of course, I’d take one of those organs if I had to. I wouldn’t hesitate a second.” So I wondered if he doesn’t have any problems with using animals for experiements which definitely come along with such a process: “Yea, you know, as long as it doesn’t hurt the animal, it’s ok. You have to do it, right? And I mean sometimes you can really say what you don’t know won’t hurt us.”

I hope I could give you a little insight in some other opinions. Which one would you agree with? Or is there one you totally do not understand? Let me know which one caught your interest most.

Stop aging means enjoying more time with your children, spending more time with loved ones and having more time to develop new technology and curing diseases. It sounds like a lot possiblities for the future.

But the question is, where does it end?

Or not even thinking of th end, where is the ethical border to start such a prolonging process?

Who are we that life becomes a toy?

Ask yourself, is that what you want?

Source: http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com

How much animal tissue must be transplanted into a human being before they can no longer be regarded as human?
And conversely, how many human genes can be transferred, to say, a pig before the pig is eligible for human rights?

As I described last week, GM is not only about preventing diseases (esp. in the Third World), if you think a little further than the information the film has given you, there are also possibilities to replace diseased organs:

Animals can be created in a way that their organs can be transplanted into human beings. Their cells in those organs are modified to ‘look like’ human cells (without being rejected by the human immune system). That has actually become necessary because while the number of affected organs rises there are less and less donor organs.
So ask yourself: If you are faced with death, what would you choose: a heart failure or the offer of a pig heart transplant?

But considering the dangers: There is a big risk of animal diseases when transplanting animal organs into humans. Once activated they could cause uncontrollable epidemics for which medical science has no remedy.

What you do?