Frightening article on rice contamination

[scottie]

Here's a link to an article about the contamination of long-grain rice crops over the past five years in the Southeast U.S. by a genetically-engineered experimental strain that was never tested for consumer safety:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_2159.cfm

Rather than imposing a massive (and massively expensive) recall of all food products containing the contaminated rice, the USDA is fast-tracking approval of the mutant rice for market.

The E.U. and Japan are refusing shipments of American long-grain rice. Meanwhile, the American mass media is having a field day with e.coli spinach from an "organic" agribusiness. Where's the Frankenrice coverage?

[Mallet]

Wow, I had no idea the contamination was so widespread (or that it even existed). It's especially disturbing that this strain is experimental, which you would think means strict quarantine protocols at the experimental facilities. The response from the USDA is equally disturbing.

PS: the spinach contamination appears to not be from Natural Selection's organic operations.

[JasonZ]

Incredible ... and very disconcerting. The rice I use is all imported from Thailand and India, but the use of this rice in many other processed foods without prior evidence of safety would be a disaster for the US. Especially worrying is that EU sources have been testing and rejecting US rice for a while, based on this contamination, which seems to have escaped most newspapers' notice. The banning of US rice imports into Japan have been an issue for many years and are more related to the sacred nature of rice in Japan and political protectionism of Japanese rice growers.

Thanks for bringing this to eGullet members' and readers' attention. I plan to write an individual comment to the FDA FR proposal ... I wonder (QUESTION TO eGullet MODERATORS) -- can eGullet organize a more organizational response (e.g., a comment on behalf of eGullet, based on a poll), or would that kind of activity violate the current "foundation" status of eGullet?

[srhcb]

If you ever heard the expression, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true."?

Well, it also follows that "If it sounds too bad to be true, it probably isn't either."

I've seen other coverage of this matter, and I'm not sure it's quite as outrageous as it seems.

First read this, and maybe follow some of the links provided.

Then, I'd suggest you contact your representatives in Congress for information.

SB (just saying ....

Edited September 19, 2006 by srhcb (log)

[ZenKimchi]

Natural Selection. Such an ironic name.

[johnsmith45678]

Potential hazards of the so-called Frankenrice?

[srhcb]

Potential hazards of the so-called Frankenrice?

←

Nothing can be 100% guaranteed safe from potential hazard.

"It should be clearly understood by everyone that LL601 is not only safe for human consumption," .... "The principal issue for the EU is that the LL601 long-grain rice does not yet have EU regulatory approval. However, the LL601 protein has already been approved for use in other crops in some EU countries, and in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Japan, China, Australia, South Africa, South Korea and Russia".

I suppose if you spilled this rice on the floor you could slip on it and fall?

SB (and it's apparently safer than organic spinach!)

[Mallet]

Potential hazards of the so-called Frankenrice?

←

Nothing can be 100% guaranteed safe from potential hazard.

"It should be clearly understood by everyone that LL601 is not only safe for human consumption," .... "The principal issue for the EU is that the LL601 long-grain rice does not yet have EU regulatory approval. However, the LL601 protein has already been approved for use in other crops in some EU countries, and in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Japan, China, Australia, South Africa, South Korea and Russia".

I suppose if you spilled this rice on the floor you could slip on it and fall?

SB (and it's apparently safer than organic spinach!)

←

Just because a protein has been approved for use in one crop, it shouldn't mean blanket approval in every other. I don't know enough about the details of the methods used, but the construct used to ellicit appropriate expression could be different as could the plant's response to the foreign insert, just two reasons why rigorous safety testing should be mandatory.

In this case, in appears as though " only environmental effects" are the regulations being sidestepped. I find this especially ironic given that the reason this crop is getting pushed ahead seems to be because of it's unintended invasion, surely an environmental effect!

PS: as I already mentionned, no organic products have been linked to the E. coli outbreak at this time.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Mallet (log)

[srhcb]

In this case, in appears as though " only environmental effects" are the regulations being sidestepped. I find this especially ironic given that the reason this crop is getting pushed ahead seems to be because of it's unintended invasion, surely an environmental effect! 

PS: as I already mentionned, no organic products have been linked to the E. coli outbreak at this time.

←

So, the USDA under-reacted in once case and over-reacted in the other?

SB

[JohnL]

Potential hazards of the so-called Frankenrice?

←

Nothing can be 100% guaranteed safe from potential hazard.

"It should be clearly understood by everyone that LL601 is not only safe for human consumption," .... "The principal issue for the EU is that the LL601 long-grain rice does not yet have EU regulatory approval. However, the LL601 protein has already been approved for use in other crops in some EU countries, and in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Japan, China, Australia, South Africa, South Korea and Russia".

I suppose if you spilled this rice on the floor you could slip on it and fall?

SB (and it's apparently safer than organic spinach!)

←

Just because a protein has been approved for use in one crop, it shouldn't mean blanket approval in every other. I don't know enough about the details of the methods used, but the construct used to ellicit appropriate expression could be different as could the plant's response to the foreign insert, just two reasons why rigorous safety testing should be mandatory.

In this case, in appears as though " only environmental effects" are the regulations being sidestepped. I find this especially ironic given that the reason this crop is getting pushed ahead seems to be because of it's unintended invasion, surely an environmental effect!

PS: as I already mentionned, no organic products have been linked to the E. coli outbreak at this time.

←

The original analogy was not very good IMOP.

The current spinach problem warrants the coverage because people are getting sick and dying.

Furthermore, Earthbound Farms seem to be producing a very large percentage of the total spinach packaged and sold around the country. The FDA has advised all fresh spinach to be avoided--organic or not.

I am not sure what organic has to do with anything at this point though the use of manure in growing organic spinach is suspect simply because manure is a prime source of e-coli.

As for genetically modified foods, the source piece for the story that is linked is IMOP completely skewed. One would be best served by looking into GM foods more broadly.

There is some hysteria over genetic modification of foods all of which is completely unwarranted. Concerns yes, hysteria no.

Man has been genetically "modifying" foods since Gregor Mendl cross bred pea plants.

Man has, in fact, been genetically modifying humans for a while now.

There is evidence to support the belief that genetically modified foods can provide much needed help in fighting starvation as well as disease throughout the world.

It is sad that proponents of organic and health foods often resort to scare tactics to promote their beliefs (many of these beliefs are good and beneficial and can certainly stand on their own).

Nothing is perfect. There are always pluses and minuses.

[JasonZ]

I had hoped to avoid this, but ... I may have to put on my professional hat ...

DISCLOSURE: I work in the pharmaceutical industy, as an MD with a research background that crosses multiple areas, including the use of genetically modified products investigationally used to treat humans.

DISCLAIMER: I am speaking as an indivual and not on behalf of the company that employs me. Everything here is my personal opinion, not the opinion of my employer.

Now that the corporate lawyers are happy ... or as happy as they'll ever get ...

The analogy to spinach is not a good one, but the analogy to Gregor Mendl and his peas is a very apt one ...

The spinach has been contaminated by a well-known external bacteria. Human fault is responsible for either the contamination itself or for failing to detect it and prevent the contaminated product from getting to market. It is an imminent danger, resulting in death and illness. Long term, however, the safety of the world's spinach supply is not in danger. The spinach has not been altered.

Gregor Mendl was not the first to cross-pollinate plants ... or animals to modify their properties. However, he and his predecessors almost never cross-bred species to obtain something different (and yes, we can talk about mules, nectarines, and other close crosses as creating "new species") ... and didn't have access to genetic techniques to allow them to synthesize their own custom genes.

The situation today is that genes from vastly different species are being spliced and linked to create offspring with properties that could never come about in nature. In the case of this rice, Bayer AgriScience was creating a species of rice that would be tolerant/immune to herbicides used to prevent weed growth in rice fields, which as a side effect, kill the rice plant as well as the weed. Interestingly, Bayer had made a commercial decision not to proceed with this particular strain of rice in the US and hence had not filed with FDA and USDA for marketing authorization. Since they weren't going to file for marketing authorization, they never did the long-term testing of animal and human safety required before such authorization can be granted. The reason for this sudden filing and accelerated review and approval is because the contamination of commercial rice and subsequent banning of this product for export to Japan and the EU may result in significant liability for Bayer ... this is their way of covering their corporate ass ... NOT because they've suddenly discovered this is a wonderful product and they "forgot" to get regulatory approval. This accelerated approval will also minimize the amount of human safety testing the company will have to do in order to gain approval. This will prevent an investigation into how the "contamination" of commercial rice happened and why it was not dealt with immediately. The same issue has come up with GM corn ... and it was not dealt with in this way.

To be fair, this gene has been placed into two other rice strains. If I understand correctly, neither is approved in the US, but these are approved in non-EU countries. I don't know how extensive the review process was for these other strains and whether there was contamination during the field testing of these strains.

This kind of genetic modification is quite different from cross-pollinating natural species and letting natural selection take over. The genes being used in this case never existed in nature and hence their long-term impact on animals or humans is not known.

One fear is that contaminated rice can certainly be used in many other products (baby food, rice wine; rice vinegar; etc.) and the spread into the population could occur even if one chose not to "buy" rice ... likewise there is the ethical concern that this rice could be shipped to a country or countries without the sophistication to ask or test for such contamination -- as the USSR was rumored to have done with the potato crop contaminated by the Chernobyl radioactivity (it was allegedly used to make vodka for export).

Anyway, while it is a small amount of contamination (something like 0.06%), the degree of contamination is not as important as the fact that it occurred without triggering a local alarm to control it immediately and the action being proposed is designed not to give the American public a safer and better food supply, or to protect the American public, but rather to shove the whole issue under the carpet.... it just doesn't pass the public relations "smell test" ...

Edited September 21, 2006 by JasonZ (log)

[Mallet]

[...]

Anyway, while it is a small amount of contamination (something like 0.06%), the degree of contamination is not as important as the fact that it occurred without triggering a local alarm to control it immediately and the action being proposed is designed not to give the American public a safer and better food supply, or to protect the American public, but rather to shove the whole issue under the carpet.... it just doesn't pass the public relations "smell test" ...

←

Thanks for putting it so clearly.

[srhcb]

Pssst! People .... RE: SB (and it's apparently safer than organic spinach!)

This was a joke; hence it was written as a parenthetical expression placed in the closing rather than the body of the message, and followed by a winking Smilie.

I don't intend to make light of a serious issue, but all too often these discussions get bogged down with with charges of corporate greed, government bungling and conspiracy theories.

As evidenced by some of the replies already posted here, there are professionals in both the public and private sectors working on these issues. Thanks in good part to them, and our modern methods of information dessemination, we're able to worry about public health protection systems that are only 99.94% perfect.

SB (being serious)

[JohnL]

I had hoped to avoid this, but ... I may have to put on my professional hat ...

DISCLOSURE: I work in the pharmaceutical industy, as an MD with a research background that crosses multiple areas, including the use of genetically modified products investigationally used to treat humans.

DISCLAIMER: I am speaking as an indivual and not on behalf of the company that employs me. Everything here is my personal opinion, not the opinion of my employer.

Now that the corporate lawyers are happy ... or as happy as they'll ever get ...

The analogy to spinach is not a good one, but the analogy to Gregor Mendl and his peas is a very apt one ...

The spinach has been contaminated by a well-known external bacteria. Human fault is responsible for either the contamination itself or for failing to detect it and prevent the contaminated product from getting to market. It is an imminent danger, resulting in death and illness. Long term, however, the safety of the world's spinach supply is not in danger. The spinach has not been altered.

Gregor Mendl was not the first to cross-pollinate plants ... or animals to modify their properties. However, he and his predecessors almost never cross-bred species to obtain something different (and yes, we can talk about mules, nectarines, and other close crosses as creating "new species") ... and didn't have access to genetic techniques to allow them to synthesize their own custom genes.

The situation today is that genes from vastly different species are being spliced and linked to create offspring with properties that could never come about in nature. In the case of this rice, Bayer AgriScience was creating a species of rice that would be tolerant/immune to herbicides used to prevent weed growth in rice fields, which as a side effect, kill the rice plant as well as the weed. Interestingly, Bayer had made a commercial decision not to proceed with this particular strain of rice in the US and hence had not filed with FDA and USDA for marketing authorization. Since they weren't going to file for marketing authorization, they never did the long-term testing of animal and human safety required before such authorization can be granted. The reason for this sudden filing and accelerated review and approval is because the contamination of commercial rice and subsequent banning of this product for export to Japan and the EU may result in significant liability for Bayer ... this is their way of covering their corporate ass ... NOT because they've suddenly discovered this is a wonderful product and they "forgot" to get regulatory approval. This accelerated approval will also minimize the amount of human safety testing the company will have to do in order to gain approval. This will prevent an investigation into how the "contamination" of commercial rice happened and why it was not dealt with immediately. The same issue has come up with GM corn ... and it was not dealt with in this way.

To be fair, this gene has been placed into two other rice strains. If I understand correctly, neither is approved in the US, but these are approved in non-EU countries. I don't know how extensive the review process was for these other strains and whether there was contamination during the field testing of these strains.

This kind of genetic modification is quite different from cross-pollinating natural species and letting natural selection take over. The genes being used in this case never existed in nature and hence their long-term impact on animals or humans is not known.

One fear is that contaminated rice can certainly be used in many other products (baby food, rice wine; rice vinegar; etc.) and the spread into the population could occur even if one chose not to "buy" rice ... likewise there is the ethical concern that this rice could be shipped to a country or countries without the sophistication to ask or test for such contamination  -- as the USSR was rumored to have done with the potato crop contaminated by the Chernobyl radioactivity (it was allegedly used to make vodka for export).

Anyway, while it is a small amount of contamination (something like 0.06%), the degree of contamination is not as important as the fact that it occurred without triggering a local alarm to control it immediately and the action being proposed is designed not to give the American public a safer and better food supply, or to protect the American public, but rather to shove the whole issue under the carpet.... it just doesn't pass the public relations "smell test" ...

←

I am not an expert--but I did stay at a holiday Inn...

First--this story is all over the internet. It has appeared in most major news outlets across the country.

It is amusing to see among thousands of internet pieces on this topic a headline like :"Media Coverup! US Rice Supply Contaminated."

Yes, Gregor Mendl is an apt analogy. The issue of Genetically Modified foods is a case of the Horse being out of the barn at this point!

Approximately 70% of all processed foods available today contain some genetically modified element or elements.

GM foods are a fact of life. One can accept this or attempt to go totally organic or macrobiotic or whatever the current terminology is. Ya know--live "off the grid" so to speak.

It is also a fact that GM may provide answers to starvation and disease in the world. It may allow for bio fuels to be developed efficiently.

(there is an interesting and important debate over how the emergence of bio fuels will impact food production and prices).

Are there valid concerns--sure.

Can we do a better job.....? Absolutely.

One salient fact about this specific rice situation is that the contaminated rice in question contains a gene that is identical to one found in another strain that has been formally approved for human consumption.

Maybe this "contamination" has every indication of being totally benign --hence the lack of hysteria on the part of the FDA etc.

It is also quite possible--no probable--that the FDA can't fine or "punish" Bayer in this instance because they have not yet determined how culpable Bayer is or isn't.

Interestingly--Bayer is being sued by rice farmers for loss of income due to the various bans on US rice around the world.

Maybe there is a reason they(FDA) have not issued a ban on consumption as they have with spinach that is not motivated by some sort of "coverup" or other conspiracy theory.

I love these conspiracy theory guys---convinced that a network of greedy corporate super criminals are controlling every aspect of our lives.--sheeesh!

Everybody has an ox to gore.

It is also very interesting to note that the rest of the world--though resistant to "resistent strains..." is in the process of slowly coming around. China is actually closer now than ever to accepting GM rice and French winemakers are looking at US attempts to produce GM modified wines that will eliminate the problem of allergies in some wine drinkers.

Wine makers all over the world are already using bio science engineering techniques to produce yeast strains.

Finally, I would point out that certainly technology brings many problems into play but overall we currently live in a pretty amazing world thanks to it.

For all the cries of contamination and conspiracy our lives are much better (and longer).

Those who want to return to the "simpler" times fail look at the big picture--and the facts of life in those earlier days. They ignore the bad things of yesteryear and see only the good. As for modern times they only see the bad and ignore the good.

So--yes, I believe that we need to tighten up and improve our safeguards. Of course, anyone convicted of criminal activity should be punished. The farmers suing Bayer would seem to have a good case and may be compensated (I am sure they will ask for punitive damages).

"Catastrophy?"

"Cover up?"

"Conspiracy?"

Naaah!

[rancho_gordo]

It is also a fact that GM may provide answers to starvation and disease in the world. It may allow for bio fuels to be developed efficiently.

(there is an interesting and important debate over how the emergence of bio fuels will impact food production and prices).

I know I'm going to regret this, but it's also a fact that you may cure starvation and disease through education, funding and charity. But Monsanto and ADM won't be making a profit on that. You could give a third world farmer an eduaction and some real seed that can continue through seed saving and really make a difference. Or you can give him seed that is going to cross with his pure corn and make the new seed sterile and the farmer dependent on Monsanto.

Just my 2 cents.

[JasonZ]

My last comment on this topic ... because I think we've clearly aired the issues and the various responses to it ...

Technology is wonderful and can make the world a far better place ... today we make insulin and growth hormone using human genes put into yeast or bacteria and use the little plants or microbes as factories to make what our bodies no longer produce. There is a tremendous amount of care that goes into ensuring that nothing is introduced into those "master cell lines", in the nutrients added for fermentation and also that the cells don't mutate from generation to generation into a genetically different yeast or bacterium. Would we want to use the same yeast to make our bread or beer? I don't think so -- it would probably be safe, but it wouldn't taste very good.

I don't think Bayer was inherently evil or conspired to turn loose its GM rice ... but when the mistake happened, neither Bayer nor the USDA jumped on the problem and tried to solve or contain it. I don't think that's either being a good corporate citizen or an efficient governmental agency. I don't think you'd be very happy if I, as a drug manufacturer, said to you "well ... I have a little manufacturing problem, so 6 out of every 10,000 pills I label as xxxx are, in fact, something a little different ... but don't hold me responsible and I'm not going to do anything to fix the problem".

Food and medicine (and in traditional Chinese medicine, food IS medicine) are remarkable products -- while we know a great deal, we also really know very little ... want to guess how much of a genetic difference there is between the yeast that ferments fabulous wine and the agent that causes botulism? Not very much.

I suspect the GM rice will be shown to have no discernable effect on humans ... but I'd have liked to know that before it got into the food supply, not after ... and God help Bayer and the USDA if there ARE human adverse effects. There will be no place for them to hide ... and we will have to live with the consequences ...

That's my last comment ... and thank you all for being profesional and sincere in expressing your comments, whether we agreed or not ... this is what makes eGullet such a wonderful site.

[JohnL]

It is also a fact that GM may provide answers to starvation and disease in the world. It may allow for bio fuels to be developed efficiently.

(there is an interesting and important debate over how the emergence of bio fuels will impact food production and prices).

I know I'm going to regret this, but it's also a fact that you may cure starvation and disease through education, funding and charity. But Monsanto and ADM won't be making a profit on that. You could give a third world farmer an eduaction and some real seed that can continue through seed saving and really make a difference. Or you can give him seed that is going to cross with his pure corn and make the new seed sterile and the farmer dependent on Monsanto.

Just my 2 cents.

←

I am always amazed and perplexed by how we seem so ready to question and even attack anyone or any entity that makes money.

Conversely, we seem to give a pass to anyone or any entity that professes any altruistic motive.

You may not realize it, but, most altruistic endeavors are "big business." They too are sometimes corrupted by bad behavior. My guess is no more or less than for profit corporations.

Your suspicion that Monsanto and ADM are engaged in a massive plot to make money at the expense of poor people is way to jaded (and patently absurd) to deal with. What's wrong with educating people and providing economical food items that provide nutrition and help fight disease? You overlook the fact that Americans give more money to charities than any other peoples anywhere in the world. Where does this money come from? Think about it. it is generated in large part by the jobs and salaries provided by --you guessed it--companies like ADM and Monsanto.

IMOP this rice contamination issue is being used by various groups to leverage their positions.

Thus, it is being blown way out of proportion.

People are making assumptions--the fact is, as reported by the more reasonable media, this is not a dire crisis, the FDA and other government agencies are concerned--as is Bayer--in finding out how this happened.

Bayer will be punished--they are already facing a lawsuit that could cost them a lot of money.

There will be reviews of current procedures and processes some changes may be made.

Life will go on.

If our economic system and technology were so bad (or evil) how is it we are (by most assessments) far better off (and longer living) than at anytime before?

The future looks good--at least to me!

Let's enjoy the present!

[Darcie B]

I am always amazed and perplexed by how we seem so ready to question and even attack anyone or any entity that makes money.

Conversely, we seem to give a pass to anyone or any entity that professes any altruistic motive.

You may not realize it, but, most altruistic endeavors are "big business." They too are sometimes corrupted by bad behavior. My guess is no more or less than for profit corporations.

Your suspicion that Monsanto and ADM are engaged in a massive plot to make money at the expense of poor people is way to jaded (and patently absurd) to deal with.

←

I don't think Rancho Gordo thinks Monsanto or ADM is engaged in any kind of "plot" to make money. I believe he is saying that major problems are often only addressed when it will make money for someone even though the problems should be addressed for the sake of the people who need help, and even though there may be other ways to achieve the same goals, ways in which the people could become even more self-sufficient. That is far from believing in "plots." Monsanto giving third world nations Round-up ReadyTM seeds so they can grow crops is certainly better than having them starve, but maybe, just maybe, it would be even better if the people could be given open-pollinated seeds that they could then collect and re-use, instead of having to purchase them every year. Call me crazy.

As to your quote that "most altruistic endeavors are 'big business.' They too are sometimes corrupted by bad behavior. My guess is no more or less than for profit corporations," I have to disagree. I don't think most altruistic endeavors are big business. Most altruistic efforts are local and small (i.e. church soup kitchens). Most nonprofits also have quite a bit of oversight in the form of intense audits, so I feel there is less chance that they will be corrupt.

You say that you are amazed that we are so ready to attack any entity that makes money. I am amazed that anyone needs to jump to the defense of large corporations armed with a bevy of lawyers and spin doctors. Poor widdle Monsanto, sniff.

Personally I don't think corporations are good or evil; they are there to make a profit. Sometimes in so doing corporations do things that are not necessarily good for everyone else (pollution being a prime example). They shouldn't be strangled with regulations, but cannot be left to guard the henhouse. That's why I think that it is wrong to fast track the approval in this case. It sets a bad example.

[JohnL]

I am always amazed and perplexed by how we seem so ready to question and even attack anyone or any entity that makes money.

Conversely, we seem to give a pass to anyone or any entity that professes any altruistic motive.

You may not realize it, but, most altruistic endeavors are "big business." They too are sometimes corrupted by bad behavior. My guess is no more or less than for profit corporations.

Your suspicion that Monsanto and ADM are engaged in a massive plot to make money at the expense of poor people is way to jaded (and patently absurd) to deal with.

←

I don't think Rancho Gordo thinks Monsanto or ADM is engaged in any kind of "plot" to make money. I believe he is saying that major problems are often only addressed when it will make money for someone even though the problems should be addressed for the sake of the people who need help, and even though there may be other ways to achieve the same goals, ways in which the people could become even more self-sufficient. That is far from believing in "plots." Monsanto giving third world nations Round-up ReadyTM seeds so they can grow crops is certainly better than having them starve, but maybe, just maybe, it would be even better if the people could be given open-pollinated seeds that they could then collect and re-use, instead of having to purchase them every year. Call me crazy.

As to your quote that "most altruistic endeavors are 'big business.' They too are sometimes corrupted by bad behavior. My guess is no more or less than for profit corporations," I have to disagree. I don't think most altruistic endeavors are big business. Most altruistic efforts are local and small (i.e. church soup kitchens). Most nonprofits also have quite a bit of oversight in the form of intense audits, so I feel there is less chance that they will be corrupt.

You say that you are amazed that we are so ready to attack any entity that makes money. I am amazed that anyone needs to jump to the defense of large corporations armed with a bevy of lawyers and spin doctors. Poor widdle Monsanto, sniff.

Personally I don't think corporations are good or evil; they are there to make a profit. Sometimes in so doing corporations do things that are not necessarily good for everyone else (pollution being a prime example). They shouldn't be strangled with regulations, but cannot be left to guard the henhouse. That's why I think that it is wrong to fast track the approval in this case. It sets a bad example.

←

I agree with your last paragraph. You make a lot of sense here.

As for my statement about "altruistic" efforts -- yes many are small but there are many many large operations who generate huge amounts of money and pay salaries--altruism is big business! Non Profit does not mean no money. Their lawyers and political connections are no less extensive and powerful than those of many major corporations--in fact many of these non profits are basically lobbying firms. Their leadership are often paid handsomely.

There is waste, mismanagement and fraud etc. Oversight? Sorry, there is less government oversight of charities. (not necc a bad situation)

Let's not be nieve about this.

And yes--I believe most charities are good people doing good things, I also believe most corporations are also good people doing good things. Call me a cockeyed optimist!

Monsanto is a very large operation perhaps those who are quick to dismiss them (or any company) as a money grubbing profits at all cost operation should learn a bit about them. I visited their web site (as a result of this thread) and while I have plenty of skepticism about PR efforts, I was impressed.

It is not a simple world--most major corporations are in the business of providing a beneficial product or service for which they make money. They often are active in charities and they often work with academia and charitable entities in finding solutions to problems contrary to what rancho Gordo posits in his post. (Gordo check out the Monsanto web site). I suggest you read the details on what they are actually doing re South Africa and hunger and better products. If you want to quibble over their actual or perceived motivations fine but the results are hard to fault.

To dismiss corporations out of hand because they are "in business" is wrong.

It is Bayer I believe, not Monsanto that is involved in the rice thing here. You may disagree but the FDA has determined there is no reason to recall the tainted rice (it may be impossible).

The press did cover the story--there is no coverup.

If you believe the situation could have been handled better--I will agree with that.

Do we need tighter controls etc? Yes I am all for that too.

But if you are accusing Bayer, the FDA or anyone else of malfeasance or criminal activity then let's see the case.

In the end, all I am saying is this problem is being blown out of proportion and some are implying things that are simply not supportable by the evidence.

Our press has plenty of problems but really--do you think for a minute if this contamination could even remotely have a chance of being a serious threat to our health that the media would be screaming. Maybe the rice farmers would be doing a bit more than suing for economic damages?

There are a number of class action suits being filed against bayer.

By the way--it is being reported that experimental genetically engineered rice from CHINA has been found in European rice supplies on a far greater scale than the US case we are discussing here.

I found some very good info via Greenpeace (yes one of those non profits) that--given their agenda--is remarkably well documented and non hysterical.

I also suggest you check out Monsanto's website (also Bayer's) and the FDA and USDA.

GE Rice Greenpeace

[Darcie B]

A few quick things, then I am done with this thread. It's getting too he said/she said, as these threads often do.

First, I am not accusing any company of criminal activity. You keep saying things like that but I don't get where you are drawing it from, especially from my post. I never said anything about a recall...and where did "money grubbing profits at all costs" come from? Perhaps I am having difficulty seeing where you are responding to my post and where you are just making sweeping generalizations that look like you are responding to my post since you begin by quoting me. I just don't want things attributed to me that are hyperbole and conjecture.

I do agree that publicly traded companies are subject to a lot of oversight, more than many charities. I have mostly worked for small private companies that have little oversight so therein lies my skewed perspective.