About Genetically Engineered foods

Kimmsr

16 years ago

This link will take you to a good article on GE foods.

Here is a link that might be useful: GE Foods

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (32)

tclynx
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
There is the danger of being able to do something really fast that in the era gone by would have taken years if not decades to breed and select the old fashon way.

I can't say I'm against genetic engineering on principal since breeding and selection are essentially the same thing only much slower. The danger is there are so many possible unexpected side effects that can happen with GE and with companies trying to get things out to the market and make money quickly, those problems are only going to show up long after many are affected.

So, though not against Genetic engineering on principal. I am against it in it's current practice for food production because it will never get the amount and time of testing required to find out all the side effects.
Kimmsr
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Genetic Engineering is not the same as what happens in natural pollination even though the people that promote that have convinced many of us that it is. If a gene is inserted into a plant that the plant would never, ever take in by natural pollination that is not natural and to be sure that gene got where it was supposed to they use materials as markers that are causing health problems in consumers of that food. There are GE foods in our diets in large quantities and we have no choice but to consume them since the Food and Drug Administration has banned marking not only foods that contain these genes but you cannot advertise and sell your food products that do not have these genes, legally, either.
Related Discussions
Now, genetic engineering in pesticides to save bees and crops
Q
Comments (26)
"These conversations are interesting, but I would love to see studies more when people try to make a point." Drew, I can appreciate that. I like concrete evidence too. However, for me it just takes too much time to footnote everything. I try to make it clear when I'm speaking opinion vs. fact. That's not to say my facts are always right, but I believe my facts to be correct to the best of my current knowledge. For example, I mentioned Jersey cows have higher butterfat content in their milk than Holsteins. My only source is my wife. She works with milk testing and pricing. Farmer's are paid a premium for milk with higher butterfat, so I think she would be accurate on that fact. I could try to Google all the statements I assert as facts, as a check, but it would take more time than I am willing to give for a causal internet conversation. My statements regarding swine are generally general knowledge known to those who have been in the industry for several years. "The reason dairy cattle are most revealing is because organic restrictions against antibiotics affect every stage in the life cycle of dairy cattle. And, in fact, there's a negative correlation between farms that use antibiotics and the health/longevity of the cows in those herds." Cousin, Assuming this is a conclusive fact, again this is probably related to the system. Organic livestock farmers would probably have a larger percentage of low tech systems (i.e. pasture). I understand you are saying antibiotics enables housing systems/practices which in which there is higher turnover, but my point about the system was in response to your point that cows are bred to be more antibiotic dependent, a conclusion I don't hold. Antibiotics perpetuating a certain system which produces higher turnover is a different issue. Regarding that issue, it is conjecture on your part and mine whether a ban on antibiotics would result in a substantial change in livestock housing systems. Personally, I don't think it would have much impact. Modern facilities are so much more cost efficient and higher turnover a minimal cost, I don't think it would make a difference. Again, my experience is with swine but in this regard the facilities are similar enough to make that reasonable conclusion (concrete, climate controlled buildings, with higher density populations). My old farming partner now raises pigs on contract for a large commodity company (Still a good friend, talked with him yesterday.) He's told me before, the company he now contracts with has gotten onto him for not having a high enough replacement rate. They want higher turnover. I think if the company announced tomorrow they were going antibiotic free, it wouldn't change anything but increase death loss and turnover. It would increase costs, but not enough to change housing paradigms. "The treatment for milk fever isn't an antibiotic, by the way." I didn't know that. As I said, I'm more familiar with pigs. It's been a long time since I've even set foot on a dairy farm. All this time I thought you were trying to claim milk fever was a result of antibiotic selection pressure. An honest mistake really since the word "parallel" is synonymous with likeness, match, duplicate, etc.,which have broad definitions. Since that's the case, I think for the discussion, it's fair to point out you haven't given any examples of animals being bred to be more antibiotic dependent. It's all conjecture at this point. We've spent a lot of time discussing something for which there is no proof. I understand it can happen in theory, but just as you've proposed a theory why it could happen, I've proposed a theory why it's unlikely (i.e. "livestock in confinement operations are exposed to more pathogens (as people are in cities, vs rural sparsely populated people) putting selection pressure the other way.") " In other words, slaughter weight is pretty much constant over the milking life of a dairy cow." When I made the statement, " Dairy cows start out at 800 lbs. and mature to 1500.", it was not from personal experience of dairy cattle. I simply got the information off a seemly respectable Website. I can't find the Website now, but found a couple from which the same conclusion can be drawn. This Website http://www.holsteinusa.com/holstein_breed/breedhistory.html says, "Holstein heifers can be bred at 13 months of age, when they weigh about 800 pounds." This EPA fact sheet http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/printdairy.html#life says, "They usually calve, or give birth, at about 24 months of age. However, they do not reach mature size until at least 4 years of age." According to the EPA, dairy cattle do continue to gain weight once in production, as do pigs. Either way my point is replacement cost isn't that significant in the scheme of things. Higher replacement rates are driven by the model not antibiotics. If anything I think antibiotics reduce turnover (via lower death loss) not increase it. "And if they exercise more and eat healthier because they don't want to rely on antibiotics (and doctors, etc., etc.) isn't that the point?" An important distinction is that's it's not an "either/or". Your arguments imply it is. I think the best of both worlds is to exercise more, eat healthier and use antibiotics when you're sick. Applying this to dairy cows, if the goal is to reduce turnover (which I suspect isn't a primary concern for most dairy herds, but this is simply conjecture on my part based on my experience in the swine industry) then you use low density pasture systems and antibiotics. Even setting aside the valid concerns that H'man expressed, if antibiotics enable unhealthy lifestyles, in either case the result of real world antibiotic use is poorer health, right?" You will never get me to agree to that. Real world antibiotic use has not only significantly added to our lifespans and reduced suffering, but also increased health, if only based on the few diseases I listed above. Leprosy causes fairly poor health until it kills you. Severe bacterial infections, even if they are cured, can cause long term health consequences (brain damage, hearing loss, paralysis, organ damage, loss of limbs). Antibiotics have practically eradicated some of the more terrible diseases, as a collective people it's easy to forget what life was like before penicillin. I think it's also easy for Americans to miss because we have enough wealth to pay for antibiotic treatment when we get sick. In poor countries, like Bangladesh, which can't afford antibiotics, I strongly suspect, not only are infant and general mortality rates higher (in part due to antibiotics) but even poorer health could be attributed in part due to lack of antibiotic medicine. I have no studies to demonstrate this at my fingertips, so this is conjecture on my part. Regarding animals, I think your real beef (pun intended) is with modern livestock systems. You say antibiotics facilitate the use of these systems. I maintain from my arguments mentioned above, there would be little difference in the systems if antibiotics were completely banned. People using pasture systems would continue to do so, as would people using confinement. I don't think the antibiotic issue would create enough economic pressure to drive it one way or another, but I do think there would be more death and sickness without antibiotics in both systems. Personally, I've seen some pretty sick/suffering animals and can't imagine not treating them, and simply waiting to see if they come out of it on their own.
...See More
P.T.M . about the genetics of the genus Rosa.
Q
Comments (6)
Quick answer: Most of what's out there isn't free. If it's free, it's from generalized papers and/or it's old. What you need is a library that has access to the scientific publications so you can read them and if they are what you're looking for, download them to a memory stick. In California, I would expect any libraries within the UC system to allow citizens (aka taxpayers) to use the libraries' computers. But call first. You would like to have access to the Springer pubs, to (I'm not remembering this correctly) something like Klewer..., to the American Phytopathological Society, to Agricola (Major ag and hort search engine) and to CAB (separate search engine that covers pubs from countries in the olde British Empire.) You can use Google-Scholar at home, but it will give you an idea of what's out there. But, surprise, surprise, when you do the same search at a library with paid links to the databases, the links appear on the searched finds. Perhaps the one article to start with is David Zlesak's excellent summary (out last year, so it's very, very timely) titled Rosa.x hybrida which is chapter 26 in the book "Blower Breeding and Genetics" edited by N.O. Anderson. It's pages 695-738. The bibliography is huge. To find the library closest to you with that book, enter the title and you zipcode on the search engine below. Here is a link that might be useful: world cat search page
...See More
genetically engineered basil seeds? generations of bitter!
Q
Comments (17)
Hi, Sorry I did not reply back. I held my annual tomato party yesterday so between that and other things, I never stopped back. About the legitimate sources, I find that often some people I know post from a fringe what I like to call hippy dippy trippy websites as opposed to say CBS or the New York Times. The bigger sources may still make mistakes, but smaller overly gung-ho ones do not have the resources to check a story and may jump the gun and publish something to be debunked later. Like there was a recent super weed study. A friend published from a site I've never heard of. So I did a quick search and found the info on a few well known places. So I picked a well written one with quotes from farmers and posted that. I did google "GMO Basil" to see what came up, and you are right all that all these places come up "Non-GMO" Basil! But it isn't Monsanto, many companies unfortunately like to make money off people's fears. I go to many a site where I'll see in bold letters NON_GMO SEED!!, and that drives me nuts. It is like the Patriot Seed site. That one plays off of people's GMO fears, doomsday fears, seems USA proud, etc. Or there are some seed companies that throw religious stuff on their pages to make themselves look Christian and make more money. Sometimes people spend the money and never receive seeds. There's even a place that sell tomato seeds that advertises most everything as RARE! They are known to change seed names/description to sell more seed. Oh and even advertise them as organic, but they have no certifications. I just thought of another place with an organic sounding name, but none of their stuff is actually certified organic, and they charge way way too much for seed. Unfortunately there are people with shady business practices and scammers everywhere. About buying GMO free processed products, I often forget that other areas of the country do not have excellent stores like Wegmans that have designated non GMO areas where you can buy products and not worry about that. Shopping in good places like that does help. You can find lists on the internet of companies and products. I'm attaching Green Peace's list because it also includes non GMO stuff as well. All of this reminds me of the time I saw a lady in Wegmans flipping out over the very large radishes that were on display. She was screaming about GMO radishes being for sale and how could Wegmans do that. Since she had never seen such big radishes, she assumed they were GMO, and no one could convince her otherwise. They were just a large variety like German Giant. So I guess my point is it is good to have a healthy dose of skepticism, but not hysteria. : ) I have not seen the movie in its entirely so thank you for the link! Remy Here is a link that might be useful: GMO Shopping Guide
...See More
Monsanto research raises health concerns about genetically modifi
Q
Comments (2)
The pro-GMO health agency, WHO, has had an apparent change in heart as indicated by the following item. Be aware that Brazil and New Zealand basically submarined adoption of international standards on biosafety during a critical state in establishing the Cartegena Protocols on Biosafety. In effect, that leaves each country to establish their own rules and labeling systems: ---------------------------------------------------- Health effects of GM foods need further study, WHO says Food Navigator USA, 24 June 2005 http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=60866-health-effects-of A call by the World Health Organisation for further safety assessments on using genetically modified (GM) foods should give governments pause for thought before giving their approval for their wider use of the technology. The sale of GM foods has put nations at loggerheads with each other. The EU and Japan have enacted labelling and traceability requirements for GM food products, while the US and Canada believe the technology is safe and that such standards are not necessary. The US, Canada and Argentina have filed cases with the World Trade Organisation against the EU's requirements. The dispute leaves multinational food companies with having to deal with different sets of regulations to contend with depending on the countries in which they operate. In a report issued yesterday, the UN body finds that GM foods can increase crop yield, food quality and the diversity of foods [that's pure speculation] that can be grown in a given area but warns against rushing to introduce novel types of genes into the food chain. "However, some of the genes used to manufacture GM foods have not been in the food chain before and the introduction of new genes may cause changes in the existing genetic make-up of the crop," the WHO stated in its assessment. "Therefore, the potential human health effects of new GM foods should always be assessed before they are grown and marketed, and long-term monitoring must be carried out to catch any possible adverse effects early." The organisation calls for a case-by-case risk assessment of each new GM food on its effects on human health, on the food chain and on the environment rather than a general endorsement by governments on the use of the technology to create new types of crops or animals. WHO notes that pre-market risk assessments have been performed on all GM food products that are currently marketed [purely on the basis of the company's "data", and such assessments are voluntary in the US]. To date, the consumption of GM foods has not caused any known [how could they know without the most acute toxicity?] negative health effects. Currently, evaluations of GM primarily focus on the ecological and agricultural ramifications and on possible health effects. The organisation recommends such evaluations should be widened to include social, cultural and ethical considerations, to help prevent what WHO calls a "genetic divide" between groups of countries which do and do not allow the growth, cultivation and marketing of GM products. "Each country has different prevailing social and economic conditions, and the people have different histories of what they eat and what food means in their society," WHO stated. "All of these factors can affect how GM foods will be regarded, and taking proper account of these concerns will affect the long-term acceptance or rejection of GM foods and their possible health benefits and potential risks." There are now 15 international legally-binding instruments and nonbinding codes of practice addressing aspects of GM organisms. Many developed countries have established specific pre-market regulatory systems requiring the rigorous case-by-case risk assessment of GM foods prior to their release. Many developing countries lack the capacity to implement a similar system, WHO stated. In 2004 about 81m hectares of land was being used to grow GM crops by seven million farmers in 18 countries, mainly the US, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, China, Paraguay and South Africa. The first major GM food was introduced on the market in the mid-1990s and paved the way for the growing of strains of maize, soybeans, rapeseed and cotton. GM varieties of papaya, potato, rice, squash, sugar beet and tomato have been released in certain countries. WHO estimates that at the end of 2004 GM crops covered about four per cent of the total global arable land. Most of the GMOs commercialised so far in developing countries have been acquired from developed countries and focus on a limited number of traits, mainly herbicide tolerance and insect pest resistance, and crops such as cotton, soybean and maize. Research is also underway on GM seafood and animals. Many food-processing aids, such as enzymes, produced through the use of GM microorganisms have been on the market for over a decade and are used in a wide variety of processed foods. No live GM food microorganisms have been introduced onto the market yet, WHO stated. Current EU requires that all food be tracked and labelled if it contains 0.9 per cent or more traceable GM content, along with derivatives such as paste and ketchup from a GM tomato. Products derived from GM processing aids, such as GM enzymes or yeast, are not affected. Inciting strong criticism from environmental groups, this year a panel of scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) cleared a variety of genetic maize known as 1507 for cultivation. Maize 1507 is made jointly by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont, and Mycogen seeds, a Dow AgroSciences unit. Biotechnology, in its technical sense, refers to plant and animal farming techniques that alter living organisms to make or modify food products. There are many possible products from transgenic plants, plant parts, and processed foodstuffs, including highly refined substances such as vegetable oil containing little or no detectable transgene-derived protein or DNA. Under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, governments will signal whether or not they are willing to accept imports of agricultural commodities that include GMOs by communicating their decision via an Internet-based - http://bch.biodiv.org - Biosafety Clearing House. Here's one of the more accurate accounts of the newly-published report from the WHO: ----- Here is a link that might be useful: WHO report
...See More
trubbadubbadoo
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I am not really against genetic engineering of food. We have been doing it for a lot of years. That's where we got corn and wheat.

I am against huge corporations trying to control the food.

In other words, the 'suicide seeds'.

Control the food and you control everything.

Even more so than you do with oil. (which kimmsr burns in her car everyday, and even has *gasp* petroleum products in the PC she is writing this on).

It's the principle of the thing.

And yes, I plant trap crops. This is one of them. Gotta catch the bad bugs don't ya know! ;-)
Kimmsr
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
trubbadubbadoo, What you are talking about is totally different, that is natural plant breeding. what this article talks about is the injection of a gene inot the plants DNA that would not get there in any way naturally. Read the article before commenting on it.
byron
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
No where near the same.

Consider RUR crops, there is a gene that rejects roundup, Never proven to be human acceptable, But allowed by the FDA, This gene is in every cell of the plant,
weirdtrev
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
kimmsr,

Why are you against genetic engineering? You seem to be very passionate about it. I personally don't mind and think it is wonderful if it can lead to stronger, healthier, more productive plants. Do you think that maybe that article is making mountains out of molehills and even misleading people?

If people are allergic to the GM soy is that really a big deal? I am allergic to certain things so I avoid them. You might say, but these people aren't given a choice about being exposed to the allergen. I am allergic to fresh cut grass but I can't stop my neighbors from mowing their lawns.

The article is misleading in that it leaves out information. For example the article says, "Sheep that grazed on Bt-cotton plants in India, for example, exhibited nasal discharge, reddish and erosive mouth lesions, cough, bloat, diarrhea, and occasional red-colored urine. Shepherds report that 25% of their herds died within 57 days. Post mortems on some of the estimated 10,000 dead sheep in the region indicated toxic reactions." But the article fails to mention that India is notorious for over spraying pesticides on the cotton. The toxic reaction is most likely due to the pesticides on the cotton. Sheep shouldn't be grazing on cotton fields. Here is an article about India's cotton problems

And bacteria can actually insert their genome into non-bacterial organisms. The gene for round-up resistance was inserted by humans I don't deny that, but it certainly was possible for it to happen naturally. This is how the gene for round-up resistance was first found and then used.

Also Bt is not dangerous to humans it only works in the alkaline conditions of certain organisms guts. It creates ion channels so that the organism can't feed and dies. The article also fails to mention that cow and sheep are ruminant animals and don't have a digestive system anything like a humans. The pH of a humans gut is far too acidic for the Bt toxin to have any effect.

Finally I would like to say that GM produce is everywhere and if it really did do the things that the article suggests it can do a countless number of people would have severe medical conditions. And that just isn't the case. So you can relax GM produce is not a cause for concern.
dicot
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
This is one of my favorite articles ever, in that bleak "can people really be that crazy" sort of cynical way. I especially enjoy the last sentence
+++++++++++
Trees with rabbit genes accelerate cleaning of soil

· GM poplars break down pollutants
· Scientists acknowledge environmental concerns

Alok Jha, science correspondent
The Guardian (UK)
Tuesday October 16 2007

Genetically modified plants that can break down pollutants may be an effective way to clean soil contaminated by industrial chemicals and explosives used by the military, according to scientists.

Tests on six-inch tall GM poplar cuttings which had a gene from a rabbit inserted into them showed that they could remove up to 91% of a chemical called trichloroethylene from the water used in their feed. This chemical, used as an industrial degreaser and one of the most common contaminants of ground water, was broken down by the plants into harmless byproducts more than 100 times faster than by unaltered plants.

"In view of their large size and extensive root systems, these transgenic poplars may provide the means to effectively clean sites contaminated with a variety of pollutants at much faster rates and at lower costs than can be achieved with current conventional techniques," wrote Sharon Doty, of the University of Washington, Seattle, yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The GM poplars also broke down other common environmental pollutants such as chloroform, a byproduct of the disinfection of drinking water, the solvent carbon tetrachloride, and vinyl chloride, used to make plastics.

Poplars use an enzyme called cytochrome P450 to break down contaminants. Trichloroethylene is turned into a harmless salt, water and carbon dioxide.

After Dr Doty's team inserted the gene into the tree from a rabbit they also produced P450, but at a much faster rate. Ultimately, the scientists would like to manipulate the plant's own genes to achieve the same goal.

Mammalian cytochrome P450 has been used in the past to create GM plants that can detoxify herbicide-treated fields. In 2005, Japanese scientists used a human gene to produce rice plants capable of degrading a number of herbicides.
Kimmsr
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I am against Genetic Engineering because there has never been any testing to see if this is something safe for us to consume, never. The companies that are promoting this, mostly because what they are doing is making it easier to seel other products they sell, convinced that great consumer protection agency, the USFDA, that Genetic Engineering is substantually the same thing as that has been going on for eons with plant pollenation, but inserting into a plants genes something that would never get there in the first place is not "substantially" the same.
weirdtrev
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
kimmsr,

I would like for you to watch this video and also the article on the same page is full of good information. The video explains how extensively the plants actually are tested and at 3 minutes into the video they say, "if the plant will be used for food all test for allergies and toxicities are done." So it has in fact been tested many times. I don't know why articles like the one you posted exist. All they ever seem to do is spread misinformation to scare people. I hope that you can now go into a food store worry free, it is not right for people to make you concerned about food that you consume every day.
althea_gw
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I like the last line on Weirdtrev's link:

"© 2007 Monsanto Company. All rights reserved. The copyright holder consents to the use of this material and the images in the published context only and solely for the purpose of promoting the benefits of agricultural biotechnology."

:~D
hamiltongardener
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I want science to create a bunch of GM vegetables that crosses my favourites (like tomatoes, peppers etc) with dandelions. I want a vegetable garden that will go from seed to flower in 8 days, grow all winter, survive the worst droughts, require no maintenance and self seed every year.

Yeah baby!
weirdtrev
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
althea,

Why do you like that line?
robin_maine
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
weirdtrev, think about this. Is Monsanto going to tell you about all of the damage they do?

India Bt Cotton Fails But Monsanto PR Propaganda Campaign Continues

Spilling the Beans, June 2005

Monsanto Hid Decades of Pollution

There's a start. Monsanto isn't going to tell you what they're doing wrongl
weirdtrev
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
robin_maine,

You have a good point that Monsanto wouldn't tell us about damage they do. However, I am not here to defend a company.

Here is something for you to think about though. How many big companies do you know of that don't do research and development. It wouldn't be financially responsible to put out a product without testing it because if it fails they are out a lot of money. My point was that I am sure that Monsanto does do a lot of testing I have no reason to not believe them. If people in third world countries don't get the exact results that the seed company had then why can't it just be because the farmers weren't properly educated on how to grow the seed properly. I really feel the science behind GM crops is amazing and as with any technology it will get better with time.

The bottom line is that GM crops have been out for years and there are no serious health concerns. If there was they would be all over the news and the crops would be banned.

To those of you that are against genetic engineering is it seriously because you think it is hazardous or is it just because you don't feel humans should be messing with DNA?
althea_gw
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Thank you Robin. :~)

"The bottom line is that GM crops have been out for years and there are no serious health concerns. If there was they would be all over the news and the crops would be banned."

Weirdtrev, what planet are you from?
Heathen1
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
See VIOXX!!!!!! tons of research! Yet, it was taken off the market. I don't think any genetic research in this field really has human beings as a concern, just the almighty dollar.
I wouldn't tell people what they do or don't want to believe, but I think that pigs that glow in black light to be disgusting... plants that do freaky things are just as freaky.
When I was younger, I thought that we needed to be on the cutting edge, now with more experience under my belt, I've changed and feel more like Kimmsr. Not that anyone else has to feel this way, but I'd sure like an option NOT to have genetically modified plants, let other people be the guinea pigs. :o) I don't trust any company any more.
weirdtrev
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
althea, I don't appreciate the what planet are you from comment. If you have something contradictory to my statement then just tell me what it is, there is no need for comments like that. Tell me all these health concerns that you feel exist. I don't think anyone is wrong with their point of view I am just explaining mine and giving references to back up my points.

I really feel like the people that fear GM crops just don't understand them and their technology well enough. I am trying to explain that we aren't guinea pigs and that there has been extensive testing to ensure the safety of the plants. I really would love to hear of some actual reports of health issues because of GM crops. I am a consumer too I wouldn't want to eat food that I thought was unsafe.

Some people have expressed a concern that the company doesn't care about health the just want to make money, I have yet to see anything to convince me of that. And why do you believe the articles out there that are against GM crops over the word of the company. After all the main article that started this discussion was to promote a book. You don't think they could have embellished the truth to sell a book, fear is a powerful motivator.
Heathen1
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
unfortunately, you can find references that agree with anything. I don't fear GM plants, I think it's a big mistake. I am not old, just 'middling' but I've just noticed than when an easy solution is found then usually there is a price to pay that people don't want to pay. That's just my OPINION. I have nothing to back it up, cept what I've noticed. AND you will NEVER convince me that people do things without the almighty dollar as a goal, and if you truly think this, I hope you don't learn otherwise, it's very disappointing so don't look too hard at Big Pharm.
I am not into fear mongering, but in my mind, fooling with mother nature will cause a lot of fear mongering, maybe because people have learned to fear it for a reason.
Kimmsr
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
weirdtrev, There has been no testing of what affect this stuff would have on humans. The statement in the article about the USFDAs test protocols is nonsense since for food products none really exist, only drugs are reqquired to be tested and the USFDA walked around that by accepting the contention that inserting material into plants that would never, ever, get there otherwise was substantialy equivilant to what nature has done for eons.
No testing of affects of these organisms on humans has ever been done.
david52 Zone 6
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
google up "super weeds"
david52 Zone 6
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I know it is highly annoying to just link elsewhere to some article and then expect the forum reader head over there, I'm guilty of that as well, now, twice. In the previous post I suggested googling something, but that seemed to be the best way to demonstrate the available evidence that GM crops are having unforeseen effects.

However, that isn't what the thread is about, its about the effects of GM food on humans. So, again I'm going to post a link and not copy and paste, because it is just too large. Interesting guy, this Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Heathen1
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think we could study short term effects on humans and we'd also need to study LONG term effects on the environment when the super weeds shared their new genes with wild plants... like Africanized bees...:o)
Like the people all excited about Miracle grow, without realizing that the liquid is easily leached out of the soil to feed the water plants which cause so much damage like killer starfish in Australia. Who would have seen it? You just have to understand that using a short term quickie solution always has long term consequences.
weirdtrev
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
You have all brought up some interesting points.

heathen1, I absolutely agree with you that the dollar is the goal for most, if not all, people. However that doesn't mean that GM food is bad. I truly believe that the people that make GM food test it and make sure it is safe before they release it. They make money by selling the seed. I also agree with you that people absolutely should respect the environment.

kimmsr, when you mention affect on humans do you mean health concerns or or something else. Also I am not sure where you get your information but the USFDA does have protocols for food products. Take a look at Evaluation and Definition of Potentially Hazardous Foods and the FDA also has an excellent article on Genetic Engineering. The article also mentions that the GM food must meet the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. If you read the section on food you will see there are provisions for unsafe food. I hope you now see that there are guidelines and regulations and that you abandon the notion that no testing has been done. Also if you somehow aren't satisfied with all that I will go back to my point that they have been out for years and not one person can present me with anything indicating that these foods hurt people.

david52, weeds that are related to the crops hybridizing could be a concern. However I would like to point out that I would think most of you are against pesticides/herbicides since this is the organic forum. And if the weeds do pick up the gene to be immune to some chemical wouldn't that be considered good to you since it would force people to stop using that chemical because it no longer works? The super weeds wouldn't affect any methods of organic weed control.

Also on a side note I read in one article about super weeds that not all GM crops are a concern just the ones with native weedy relatives. One of the crops they considered a concern was squash. I am not familiar with any native squash plants and I would love to see a pumpkin or something in the wild. Does anyone know of any wild squash plants in MD (or other regions)?

Also david52, what is wrong with posting links as evidence. I always mention why I posted the link no one has to read it but it is there if you doubt why I posted it. If I didn't post links it would be my word against yours and nothing could ever be resolved. Links are essential if you are defending a point.

And lastly back to heathen1, I once again agree with you. I also feel that long term effects should be studied. Leaching occurs with any nutrient. All of your organic fertilizers and composts leach nutrients to feed those killer starfish too. Honestly I think there are too many people in the world and that is a big concern but that is another discussion all together.
diggerdee zone 6 CT
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
At the very least, there should be regulations requiring labeling. Then we could at least choose to eat them or not. It's amazing how many GM foods the average person eats without even knowing it.
Heathen1
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Right. Irregardless of your feelings on the subject, which probably won't change because of a discussion here, or mine won't unless I hear a darn good argument why it should, irregardless of this, we should be allowed a choice. Specially since many European countries have banned GM produce... which indicates that more than a few people care about this subject. Unfortunately, since I hold the government in extremely low esteem, especially in the department of acting on the behalf of REAL PEOPLE, I highly doubt we'll have too many people listening to our concerns, specially if large farming combines spend a lot of money on swaying the lawmakers. At least unless it becomes a movement of people willing to speak loudly about the subject.
led_zep_rules
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"I really feel like the people that fear GM crops just don't understand them and their technology well enough." As if those who disagree with you are too stupid to understand what is actually going on, hmm? I am a smart, well educated individual. I have a BS and an MS in computer science, plus plenty of extra credits both grad and undergrad. I studied biology and used to teach science. I fear GM crops. I understand them and their technology just fine, that is WHY I fear them. Environmentally concerned practically since birth, I have seen how so many things humans do to mess with Mother Nature screw us in the long run.

Possibly Monstanto had a few people eat some GM corn and soybeans and they didn't keel over. That doesn't mean there was any large scale testing to see the long term effects of millions of people eating the stuff all the time. But basically they are saying this food isn't different and they don't really have to test it. How long did it take to figure out that cyclamate was bad for us? Seems like every new 'fake' food invented turns out to be bad in some way, it always takes a while to figure it out. Meanwhile, the GM corn has combined with ordinary types of corn such that farmers in the middle of Mexico are getting the modified genes in their corn. Once these modified plants are over the place, there is no way to get them out of the environment. Shouldn't we be more certain they AREN'T harmful before we use them all over?

Think of the growth hormones pumped into so many cows in the U.S. They say that doesn't have any effect on the end product, but if you observe the youth in western Europe, where growth hormones are not allowed in food animals, vs. the youth in the U.S., you will note a strange difference. Puberty is 2 years earlier in the U.S. on average. Extra growth hormones cause earlier sexual development and earlier puberty. Does our government admit to this, or just let farmers use growth hormones to make some extra bucks, who cares what it does to people? I don't trust our government very much, in many cases I have a lot more faith in the EU.

Marcia
weirdtrev
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Oh come on Marcia that just isn't fair. I was never implying that anyone was stupid and I worded that very carefully so no one would think that I did. If anyone else feels that I was calling them stupid I am sorry and that was not my intention. I do however feel that the subject of genetic engineering is getting an unjustified bad reputation.

Since you have brought up education I will reveal mine. I have a BS in bioinformatics and computational biology with minors in computer science, statistics and chemistry. I am currently working on my MS in biotechnology.

There is more than a few people eating GM crops currently and they aren't dying. Many people mention that the long term effects of GM produce should be studied and I agree with that and if they find a reason to remove the products they will. But at this current time I see no reason to have a concern. Tests are performed on the plants to look for toxic substances and allergens what more do you need.

If anyone doesn't want to eat GM crops I am sure they can greatly reduce their intake of them by shopping at local farm stands. I have read a lot of the remarks against genetic engineering and they are all full of unsubstantiated claims and misleading experiments.

Marcia, since you have studied biology I am sure you are familiar with the ames test. The ames test wasn't around in the time of cyclamate, our technology has come a very long way since then. Before the ames test scientists had to feed mice a lot of the compound and then dissect the mice and examine every inch of tissue for cancer. Now with the ames test all you need to do put the compound on a special agar plate and incubate for less than 2 days. And there are other countless advances to ensure safety.

Even if the genes were able to somehow get into every organism within a species knocking out genes is not even as hard as putting them in. If you are interested here is one article about RNA interference . Also if you have taken genetics you know that you would never see the gene taking over a population it would reach Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium within the population.

Also here is the FDA position on labeling genetically engineered food:

Labeling Issues

FDA has received many inquiries asking about the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Congress has provided FDA a limited basis on which to require labeling. Generally, for FDA to require labeling there must be something tangibly different about the food.

In general, this means most genetically engineered foods will not need special labeling because they will be similar to traditionally bred varieties. But there are exceptions, such as when a gene from a food that could cause an allergic reaction--peanuts, for example--is transferred into another food. In that case, FDA policy places the burden on the developer. "The food will have to be labeled so everyone will know it contains an allergen, unless the developer can show scientifically that the allergenicity has not been transferred," says Laura Tarantino, Ph.D., deputy director of FDA's Office of Premarket Approval. Fortunately, the products in front of us right now don't raise those issues."

FDA also will require labeling if a company uses genetic engineering techniques to change a food's composition significantly. For example, when one manufacturer modified canola to produce increased levels of lauric and myristic acids in the seed oil, FDA agreed that the common or usual name for this oil would be "laurate canola oil" in order to distinguish it from traditional canola oil.
david52 Zone 6
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
For all intents and purposes, this horse left the barn. Linked is a site giving world wide figures in GM crops, kick around a bit, and you'll see that 90% of the the maize and soy grown in the US is now GM. So the livestock feed industry uses it, your corn chips have it, and so does most of the cooking oil.

In other words, if it turns out that GM maize and soy have nasty repercussions, we'll be sure to find out.
Heathen1
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Okay, I am a little lightheaded over that one... where's a paper bag? SEE? This has all been done WITHOUT giving people a choice! BIG BROTHER! Oh no... there's no reason for my paranoia about the government, none whatsoever!
This gets to me... the government tries to ban stem cell research, but not GM crops! ??? ???
I just must not be seing the big picture here.
Kimmsr
Original Author
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Anyone that thinks the USFDA is a consumer protection agency is living in lala land. The USFDA has not been doing the job it is supposed to since the Reagon administration, at least, when the prevailing thought was if "we" get government off the backs of industry they will do what is right and proper. Did not happen and won't happen.
led_zep_rules
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Let's talk about bisphenol A, an estrogen like endocrine-disruptor. Somehow our government has decided it is safe to put this hormone-like substance in baby bottles and soft plastic toys and gazillions of other products. Hmm, most studies by industry say it isn't harmful, most studies by academics or our government show that it is harmful. But the government does a study of all the studies and mysteriously throws out most of the studies showing it is harmful and takes the studies from industry saying it isn't. Including a study that said DES wasn't harmful either. I have very little faith in some aspects of the government, its labeling, or how it decides what crap large companies can pump into our food and other products.

What the FDA is saying is, if you mess with something, but you don't think you messed with it completely, you don't need to tell anybody you messed with it at all. How reassuring. I live in WI, where at least the small dairy farmers still have enough power that in our state they are allowed to label milk as NOT having rBGH in it. In Illinois it is illegal to even tell people on the milk product container that you haven't pumped your cows full of growth hormones. Regardless of how people make their decisions, what would be wrong with letting them make the CHOICE to avoid products they don't want?

Marcia
david52 Zone 6
16 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Here in ranching country, the issue is labeling 'country of origin' for beef. All the ranchers want it because they know that folks would rather buy American beef. However, the meatpacking and processing companies continue to swear that it would be just too burdensome to have to identify which country a steer came from.

Contrasted with the new laws about mandatory registering / tagging all your stock animals, so they can trace 'em individually if, somewhere down the chain, one gets sick or something.

About Genetically Engineered foods

Comments (32)

tclynx

Kimmsr
Original Author

Related Discussions

trubbadubbadoo

Kimmsr
Original Author

byron

weirdtrev

dicot

Kimmsr
Original Author

weirdtrev

althea_gw

hamiltongardener

weirdtrev

robin_maine

weirdtrev

althea_gw

Heathen1

weirdtrev

Heathen1

Kimmsr
Original Author

david52 Zone 6

david52 Zone 6

Heathen1

weirdtrev

diggerdee zone 6 CT

Heathen1

led_zep_rules

weirdtrev

david52 Zone 6

Heathen1

Kimmsr
Original Author

led_zep_rules

david52 Zone 6

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

About Genetically Engineered foods

Comments (32)

KimmsrOriginal Author

Related Discussions

KimmsrOriginal Author

KimmsrOriginal Author

KimmsrOriginal Author

KimmsrOriginal Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

Kimmsr
Original Author

Kimmsr
Original Author

Kimmsr
Original Author

Kimmsr
Original Author

Kimmsr
Original Author