Too Much Controversy over Genetically Modified Foods? - Stewart Brand

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/09/Stewart_Brand_Rethinking_Green

Genetically engineered foods are "only unnatural if you don't know the biology," says author and futurist Stewart Brand. "There is no good reason for genetically engineered food crops to be controversial."

-----

Environmentalist pioneer Stewart Brand talks about his book, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto, in a discussion at the Long Now Foundation. This program was recorded in San Francisco, CA, on October 9, 2009.

Stewart Brand is a co-founder and managing director of Global Business Network, founded and runs the GBN Book Club, and is the president of The Long Now Foundation.

Brand is well known for founding, editing and publishing the Whole Earth Catalog (01968-85), which received a National Book Award for the 01972 issue. In 01984, he founded The WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link), a computer teleconference system for the San Francisco Bay Area. It now has 11,000 active users worldwide and is considered a bellwether of the genre.

Brand has been a member of the Board of Trustees of the Santa Fe Institute, an interdisciplinary center studying the sciences of complexity, since 01989. He received the Golden Gadfly Lifetime Achievement Award from the Media Alliance, San Francisco in the same year.

He was a founding member of the Board of Directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization which supports civil rights and responsibilities in electronic media, and is an acting adviser to Ecotrust, Portland-based preservers of temperate rain forest from Alaska to San Francisco.

Brand is the author of many pioneering books including The Clock Of The Long Now in 01999, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built in 01994, The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT in 01987, and Two Cybernetic Frontiers on Gregory Bateson and cutting-edge computer science in 01974. It had the first use of the term "personal computer" in print and was the first book to report on computer hackers.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• gmos
• genetic
• engineering
• biology
• foods
• food
• eating
• health
• healthy
• science
• controversial
• organic
• farming
• farms
• tested
• testing
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[eaterofclams]

..too much controversy over the safety of GM foods...just take

Monsanto's word that it's perfectly safe. They wouldn't lie to you...

...

..well, except for Agent Orange and PCB's....cat's out of the bag on those two.

but GMO? perfectly safe and natural..

nothing even remotely dangerous about moving genes between plants, animals, fungus,

bacteria and viruses.

[..stupid sheep, STFU and do as you are told by the elites!]

[Zareste]

I always figured those guys belonged to a criminal group.

[OhmgrownCron]

Fucking Greenpeace

[WarsWench]

@aiver1989 You may not like the studies I offered and that is your perogative - but in the face of the actual FACTS regarding Mr Schmeiser (and the stated findings of the Supreme Court, I think that you need to rethink your own sources - because mine are on this matter, beyond reproach. Monsanto's propaganda does NOT trump the Supreme Court in my world - how bout yours? As for your ridiculous comments about terminator seeds ..will have to save that for another day :)

[WarsWench]

Monsanto’s monopoly rights over a gene and cell gave Monsanto control over Mr. Schmeiser’s canola seeds and plants - really think about that carefully, and then consider the huge propoganda machine unleashed to demonize one farmer ..Remember too that Plants and seeds were not intended to be included in the definition of “invention”under the patent Act. Monsanto’s patent, because it purports to patent a higher life form, is actually INVALID under the current act FYI. Read it yourself,i'm tired

[WarsWench]

Monsanto has repeatedly alleged that Mr. Schmeiser deliberately grew a “Roundup Ready canola crop” in 1998. This is not what the Court found. Mr. Justice MacKay did NOT find that Mr. Schmeiser had actual knowledge that he was planting canola containing the patented gene.. In summation - Mr. Schmeiser was found to be a patent infringer simply because he planted canola seeds,

grew canola plants and harvested a canola crop containing the patented gene and cell..

[WarsWench]

There were NO findings in the Federal Court decisions that Mr. Schmeiser segregated seed that he knew contained the gene to grow a pure RR crop. Nor was there any general finding that Mr. Schmeiser intended eventually to spray Roundup on a growing crop. In fact, there were findings that spraying Roundup on a growing crop was contrary to Mr. Schmeiser’s farming practices and would interfere with his practice of growing canola back-to-back.

[WarsWench]

need to actually read the entire ruling: Monsanto initially alleged in its Statement of Claim that Mr. Schmeiser “obtained” RRcanola seed from one or more of its licensed users to plant his 1997 crop, which then furnished seed for the 1998 crop. Before trial, Monsanto withdrew its claims regarding both “obtainment”and the 1997 crop.The appearance of the RR gene inthe 1997 canola crop, however caused, did NOT result from any illicit activities on the part of Mr.Schmeiser.

[WarsWench]

I wonder just how much you really know or understand about the Percy Schmeiser case - because that one I DO know and understand having written my thesis paper upon it - argueing with strangers online is both frustrating and pointless in this venue - please consider actually reading the Supreme court case in its entirety, making special note of the 3 certainities the court found: Mr. Schmeiser did not obtain, did not segregate, and did not spray. In order to fully understand this case - you

[aiyer1989]

@thebehtbeht First of all, the people sued are criminals like Percy Schmeiser. (No, you cannot have an 98% contamination due to coincidential crossbreeding. Sorry Percy, biology doesn't work that way.) Also, yields aren't supposed to be higher. (RR or Bt are modifications towards pesticides and herbicides, not towards yield.) Profits are supposed to be higher and they are. Literature study about economical assessment:'The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops Matin Qaim'