[Corporations] UK Study of GM Crops

[George Mokray]

Exoneration for Dr Arpad Pusztai?

from http://www.thismodernworld.com/

UK study on GM crops -- it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature

(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris )

Here's why I subscribe to the print newsletter published by 
Counterpunch , which usually contains stuff you don't necessarily see 
on the site (although I just found the article I'm referencing 
published online here. ).

Turns out that about a month ago, some bigshots in Great Britain 
released the results of a major study of the standard agribusiness 
claim that Genetically Modified crops are just like the real thing 
(this is called the "null hypothesis").  The result:
"The null hypothesis was rejected in each case."

Turns out that the genuine versions of the crops, whose complex 
genetic code is the result of millions of years of natural selection 
within ecological niches not yet fully understood by humans -- gee, 
here comes the surprise -- were usually "better for many groups of 
wildlife" than the pre-fab test-tube BizarroWorld LIFE! I CREATED 
LIFE! versions cooked up with a George Foreman Grill and a turkey 
baster.

More diverse plant systems tended to grow near the real thing -- 
leading to more diverse insect life, a kegger in the gene pool, and 
party all night.  Fake-o plastiform DNA-on-a-stick crops, on the 
other hand, usually led to less genetic diversity, flat beer, and bed 
head.

Not in every case, of course.  Turns out GM maize (my people called 
it corn...) seems to cause fizzier niches than the real thing.  Why? 
I got no freakin' clue, people, I just work here.  And scientists 
don't seem to know, either.

So the point stands: mankind's version of even the simplest crops is 
not the same as nature's, and pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.

What that means in the long run is debateable, of course.  Maybe we 
should all rush out and plant and eat as much 
who-knows-what-the-long-term-effects-are food as humanly possible, 
just to see what happens.  Or not.

Thing is, I try to keep up on this stuff -- and I never heard word 
one about this report in the U.S. media.

Which, returning to my point, is why I subscribe to Counterpunch...