Genetically Modified food... opinions?

[krusty the klown]

I'm posting this because I am intersted to hear opinions of people from different countries - I'm not intending to start a flame war, but if that happens.... c'est la vie!

In the UK, there is strong public opposition to GM food. Personally, I think a lot of the 'anti' vibe stemmed from the fact that GM food was sold on the shelves and incorporated into processed foods without any labelling being present on the food. If people think they've been decieved, they tend to react angrily. There is also an increasing demand in the UK from consumers for better overall labelling - people are starting to want to know what they're eating and how food has been prepared e.g. 'free range' vs. 'battery farming'.

I'd just like to clarify what I'm referring to as GM: we have effectively been genetically manipulating species for thousands of years through 'cross breeding'. For the purposes of this thread, shall we define GM as 'a process of changing an organism's genetic makeup using a mechanism other than cross breeding between male and female sex of that organism'? Kewl.

As I understand it, the use of GM crops is far more widespread in the St8s than in the UK. GM food promises increased yield, resistance to pests and disease, possible resistance to adverse weather conditions, to name some advantages. However, it appears to be a dual-edged sword, as there is also the possibility of creating 'super weeds' from natural cross breeding between GM crops to create herbicide resistant weeds and there are health concerns. The health concerns are probably unconfirmed (rather like the health concerns of mobile phones) at the moment, but there seems to be a public concern to the tune of 'they just don't know and can't predict whether there may adverse health effects and I don't want to be the guinea pig'.

So, what is your opinion of GM food? Do you want food labelled so that you can avoid GM crops, or do you think there is nothing to worry about? Do you think GM food is a marvel of modern science that will benefit mankind, or some looney scientists playing God with the backing of large multi-national companies that are only interested in making profits??? (Grrrrr.... Monsanto selling sterile seeds to the third world.... I guess that's another thread!)

[chipbgt]

im all for being able to feed millions upon millions of people that go to bed hungry everynight if it means genetically altering my plants to make them grow bigger or what not. But of course labeling of plants that us americans eat will be necessary so those organic people can feel secure.

[krusty the klown]

That's a good point, but I think that there may be a lot of people who want to know whether food is GM, but do not eat an organic diet.

I don't know about the availability / popularity of organic food in the St8s, but in the UK, almost all mainstream supermarkets have an organic range - it is no longer a few half-rotten vegetables sold in a grubby store run by a couple of hippies!!! We currently import organic food, as we are not producing enough to meet the demand. If the trend in organic food continues in the UK, I can see there being increased resistance to GM crops over here, as people become more concerned about the production methods used to provide our food.

[tonym]

Krusty, IMHO...


I think we eat GM food every day! There's not a single species of anything that we cram down our cake holes that hasn't mutated from it's initial form when it hatched/plopped/emerged from the primordial soup!
And in my view, most of its real tasty!

Seriously though, I think that people have an irrational conservatism when it comes to changing what they eat. We've been bombarded with so many theories and facts and studies that say that this is good for you and that is bad for you. Couple this with ingnorance (not a knock -- just a general lack of information on the topic to the general public!) then you get apprehension and fear.

The GM controversy is sort of like the irradiated meat thing. I personally would chose the irradiated product every time. I've had food poisoning and its not my idea of a party! If irradiation kills all the little nasties: E Coli, tricconosi, Salmonella, etc., then bring it on! I haven't seen a single defamatory study that in any way challenges the safety of the product after its been nuked. But the rub is that the irradiation process is linked to Hiroshima, a-bombs, Three Mile Island, etc.
*It can kill you!*
The minor detail missed by everyone is that you need to be laying on the conveyor with the meat as it passes through the irradiating chamber to be PERSONALLY harmed doesn't matter or deter those that fear the process.

The same goes for GM products.

And I think that there is no such bird as "organic food". Food grown in in organic manner tries like hell to eliminate all the man-mades from the food chain. But each rainfall brings pollution and stray isotopes and the genrally yucky stuff that are unfortunately a vestige of our modern life. Try to find a patch of land in the world except for very dense rain forest that hasn't been bombed or fought on/over -- contaminated with historical remnants of human contact. And I can't believe that there were very many truly organic products available (for at least 9mos to 1yr) in Europe after Chernobyl!

I will eat any GM food so long as it doesn't belong to the veal, pomegranite or beet categories. They may be perfectly safe, but I don't/won't eat them in their unaltered state!!! So, that leaves pretty much anything else. Good lord, the preparation and cooking process essentially genetically alters the food we eat. Is it possible to get a viable DNA sample from cooked meat? I don't think so!

And krusty, "it is no longer a few half-rotten vegetables sold in a grubby store run by a couple of hippies!!!". That's a hoot! Here in the US, the organic stuff has gone 'mainstream', but now you have sections of supermarket shelves filled with half-rotten veggies, etc.! The hippies have mutated into white-collar store managers!!

Just my 2 pence ramblings (love my GB parlance, eh?)...


Tony

[MadMatt]

My problem is that we will not have a choice. Plants cross polinate so GMO's will worm their way into ALL crops. Already, there is NO SUCH THING as non GMO corn in North America. All corn crops have been genetically contaminated by GMO pollen.

[skai]

Krusty I think it is inevitable that we have gm food, the developed worlds food production is in the hands of fewer and fewer companies they will produce as productively as they can and say if you don't like it starve!The third world will get it [gm] through cross pollination .I don't know if it is harmful because the two sides of the coin are argued by on one side the front men for global consortiums and on the other by the same old greenie fanatics and tree huggers that oppose any thing not designed to get you stoned lol skai

[BFlurie]

Tonym, you hit the nail. GM is another none-issue that gets grabbed & milked because people don't understand or have other agenda. It has been occurring since day one. The original wheat, corn, rice, tomatoes, etc., are unrecognizable compared to what's grown now. How? By genetic manipulation, whether natural or selected. Even forcing genetic changes internally is no different than selecting a natural change that suits certain needs, other than it's a change that we choose instead of being random. Natural changes are initially random -- the ones that help or don't hurt allow a species to continue or even do better, or if not, that line will perish.

[krusty the klown]

I agree, MadMatt, that's fairly fundamental - people do like to have a choice and don't like it when someone says "by the way, that GM food that you're opposed to.... well we've been feeding it to you anyway"!!

Tony, I'm with you on veal - won't touch the stuff! But what is it with pomegranates... LOL, other than they're full of seeds, a pain in the @$$ to eat and don't taste so good.... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Have you tried irradiated food? I saw a program on TV where someone tried a piece of irradiated beef and said it tasted disgusting - I was wandering whether there was any discernible difference in the taste?

Sure, whilst we can't stop pollutants in rain falling on an organic crop, I think the whole idea of organic farming is fundamentally a good one - it encourages recycling, sustainable produces and has knock on effects for the local ecology: no chemical run-off and the encouragement of local natural predators (birds, frogs, etc.) which are in decline since so many hedgerows have been grubbed up. An organic farmer has to be a gardener, a non-organic farmer can get away with being a chemical applicator and machine operator.

[krusty the klown]

Hmmmm... it always gets difficult when there is also ethics to consider - ethics playing a major part of the descision to eat free range or battery farmed eggs, for example.

I believe that the choice 'GM' or 'not GM' should be more than simply considering whether there are any health risks.

I also believe that there is a difference between cross-pollinating, say two strains of wheat to produce a strain that is better yielding/hardier/etc. and genetically engineering a species to be resistant to a certain brand of herbicide that the same GM company happens to sell.....

[bdunn]

The only reason I'm a lil leery about GM foods is my allergies. I really like fresh fruit but am allergic to peanuts if somene starts putting peanut genes into apples and oranges, etc it would be awful. especially if I didn't know. I could easily end up in the hospital.

[tonym]

krusty,

The pomegranite thing is a VERY LONG story!

I HAVE tasted irradiated beef. Tasted just like regular beef. I was pleasantly suprised. And you can keep a steak, properly wrapped, for 10 times the duration that you can with the non-irradiated equivalent.

So I say, GIVE IT TO ME NOW! I'M A CARNIVORE, DAMMIT!!!


Tony

[Szech]

I agree with chipbgt, if it would be able to feed the millions that go hungry every day, then it should be done. I can't remember what magazine I was reading... Newsweek or Time, but they had an article on genetically modified plants. A genetically modified rice plant can produce SEVEN times the amount of rice that a normal one can.

Anyway, as for eating it myself, I don't really care so long as it doesn't make me sick and it tastes good. Hey, I'm sure the milk I drank as a kid came from cows high on BHT.

[jeana]

y'knowwhat? I bet if they had called "irradiation" something like "ultrapasteurization" nobody would have problems with it... with good enough marketing they could get me to eat anything-- even kohlrabi! But the cat's out of the bag now.

Tony pretty much said it all...A danger with bioengineered crops _is_ the cross-pollination problem. I don't care about whether the source of the new variants is manmade or natural...what's happening is that you're introducing a new organism into the ecosystem, just as would happen if you introduced strange new plants from anywhere. We can't get careless.

Sure, what's the problem with putting the info on a label if it makes some people happy? I might decide to avoid a product because I didn't like the business practices of the food developer (squeezing out the small farmer), even if the food was fine to eat.

[Gomer]

just hit the news stands--rice crossed with 2 bacteria and daffodils. Provides beta-carotene to those suffering from malnurishment. Read up =)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,50576,00.html

[bkehoe]

I don't care much about all the upsets over GM food products. At least if it does kill us all, we won't die hungry. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Brendan

[Richard_Cranium72]

I won't re-hash all that's been said, but in the US we use steroids, and antiobiotics en-masse on all farm animals. This has given rise to antiobiotic resistant strains of bacteria. GM is a great idea, we just tend to push a little too fast sometimes in our haste to raise the bottom line.. irradiation, now that's a term I love. Imagine putting a gallon of milk on the shelf, not in the fridge. A rack of ribs in the closet... KEWL. DrVette

[chuckiechan]

The next time you are at a salad bar and you see those cute little corn cobs about three inches long... That is about the size of natural, prehistoric corn.

Is is a tribute to biological sciences that people even have the choice to turn away food that wasn't grown "right". Civilizations that escaped the grips of starvation (read: subsistance farming) found time to create the great civilizations we have today.

The most screwed up countries in the world today have starvation as the most common denominitor.

[BFlurie]

Here's an example of "GM"; there are countless more:
http://www.sciencenews.org/20000729/bob1.asp

Do you think the GM-bashing pundits have our best interest at heart?

[Tube]

I try to avoid GM/factory bred foods, mainly because I have taste buds and like them to be tantalised. Organic food tastes so much better, and am glad to see the majority of UK supermarkets stocking their shelves with the like.

...Now where did I put that T-bone steak...

[This message has been edited by Tube (edited 07-31-2000).]

[narayan]

If it tastes good, I will eat it.

[Warthog]

I haven't bothered to read anything but Narayan's last statement. Sounds good to me.

Warthog

[daveleau]

The only threat that stems form geneticlly engineering crops and livestock is that a they are less resistent to disease. As you create less genetically diverse crops/ livestock, they are more likely to be wiped out by a single disease. Take Jews in some parts of Europe that do not marry outide fo their religeon (Azchenasi Jew- spelling is all wrong but it sounds like I spelled it). they have a 21% chance of being born with Tay-Sach's disease which is fatal after a prolonged illness if born live at all.

Don't get me wrong though. I am all for genetically enhancing God's creations. I believe he intended us to do just that. I do not believe though that he intended us to do some of the things that could occur (Gattacca for instance is genetic engineering gone way wrong). As long as we keep our heads, this could be a saving grace for the human race. Remember, God helps those that help themselves. I believe we are only helping ourselves.
Dave

[krusty the klown]

It's been interesting to see different opinions, which was the intention of the thread!

Ah, I'm glad to see someone saying that organic food tastes good, I agree! It's a shame that there is a significant price difference, but that is narrowing all the time - in the UK, we eat more organic food than we currently produce: a situation conducive to high prices, unfortunately! I don't buy as much organic food as I'd like, but I say 100% that it does taste better - I was amazed when I cooked some organically farmed corn-fed chicken: it actually tasted of something! I couldn't believe that plain ol' roast chicken could have flavour!! Tomatoes are another example - I had only tasted the bland watery chemically farmed hydroponic variety and for most of my life - I h8ed raw tomatoes..... but there is a difference! It seems that heavily intensive methods result in less and less flavour! So, why not try it just to see what you're missing http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif (Or just try it to prove me wrong http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif )

I believe GM has its place. GM has its place if it's managed responsibly. This technology could be of genuine benefit to mankind. Unfortunately, I do not believe it will be managed responsibly - profit margins will play too much role and ultimately, the GM companies will not have the greater good of mankind at heart, but they will have the greater good of their bank balance at heart. Some of the practises of Monsanto seem to indicate this. I hope that farmers will not allow themselves to become 'addicted' to GM crops and the chemicals that the GM companies want them to use on the crops - this has happened with modern intensive agriculture: grubbing up hedgerows, uprooting copses, etc. has meant that there are very few natural predators. This ultimately results in the higher use of chemicals.

I'm all for reducing the amount of chemicals that are used on our food - we are, after all, at the top of the food chain and whenever there has been a pollution incident, the animals at the top of the food chain always come off worse - it's a cumulative thing.

I have no comprehension of what it it must be like to live in a country where starvation is part of everyday life. But it really does anger me to see food mountains in Europe when there are people starving. Naturally, there's the "give a man a fish and he will feed himself for a day, give him a net and he will feed himself for the rest of his life" (assuming he doesn't get fed up with eating fish, or do what the spoof advert said and that's "give him a net and he'll sit in his boat and drink beer all day" http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif ) Many of these countries are further crippled by corruption, politics, war and enourmous debt to the West - their problems go deeper than a failed crop. During the severe Ethiopian famine, did anyone see a skinny, starving Ethiopian soldier?

[Tube]

Here Here! (Side Show Bob)

http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Gazebo/5150/marclip/topo.gif

[krusty the klown]

When the GM companies do things like this, does anyone really want anything to do with them?

Oddly enough, one reason cows are eating more of each other these days has to do with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a synthetic form of the controversial hormone the dairy industry is employing to stimulate milk production. Marketed under the name "Posilac," Monsanto's rBGH is the first genetically engineered food product to win FDA approval. Injected into a cow's pituitary gland every two weeks, rBGH (also known as BST, or bovine somatotropin) can increase milk output by up to 25 percent.

But in order for rBGH to be optimally effective, cows need larger quantities of protein. And because corn prices are high, factory farms buy the cheapest form of protein they can get: rendered animal carcasses....

....rBGH is also popular with the industry because it increases the lean meat content of the dairy cows that end up on meat counters after their lactating days are over. But it is known to cause severe cases of mastitis (infections of the udder), which need to be treated with heavy doses of antibiotics. According to Alexander Cockburn, writing in New Statesman, "The antibiotic injected into the cow passes on to the human consumer, where it can attack the immune system."

Cockburn says that rBGH works by stimulating production of an insulin-like growth factor known as IGF-1, which is also found--with the same molecular structure--in humans. And that, reports Inter Press Service, increases the likelihood of IGF-1 transmission through milk and meat consumption. High IGF-1 levels are believed to be a cause in humans of acromegaly, a disease that causes an abnormal enlargement of nose, hands, feet and chin. It's also been linked to colon, prostate, ovarian and breast cancer. Inter Press adds that use of hormones in cow production has also led to earlier onset of puberty, "and girls who menstruate before the age of 12 have a higher risk of contracting breast cancer later."

...The possible connection between rBGH and mad cow disease was first made in 1993 by Michael Hansen, a research associate at the Consumer Policy Institute. Hansen points out that the American form of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has an important difference from its more dramatic British variant: The infected cows here just collapse and die; they don't exhibit drooling and staggering symptoms. Hansen makes a link to a well-known sight at American feedlots: the "downer" cow, which falls, unable to get up, on its way to the slaughterhouse. These rBGH-fed downer cows are invariably rendered and fed back to other cows. If "downers" do have BSE, it would be difficult to devise a better way to spread the disease throughout the U.S. cattle population.

The scary thing is that it is illegal to inform the public of what they're eating:

Monsanto, which invested $1 billion in Posilac, obtained FDA approval for rBGH in 1993, and since then has waged an all-out war to keep smaller dairy farmers from labeling their products "rBGH-free." In fact, it's currently illegal for farmers to ship products with "rBGH-free" labels across state lines, because of the potential impact on milk sales.

taken from:
http://www.emagazine.com/july-august_1996/0796feat2.html#brave

Just in case anyone's not sure, the pituitary is a gland in the base of the brain - this is where the chemical has to be injected.

When the Hell will we learn?

[KAknight]

I always needed a 2 headed cow, and this looks like I'm gonna get one.

[krusty the klown]

Hehehe... two-headed cows, eh?

Well, that's either twice the amount of brain matter that can be 'recycled' into meat and bone meal to feed back to the cows, or two pituitary glands per cow to inject the growth hormones into. I'm sure Monsanto would love the idea of two-headed cows http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

Somewhere in the World, a group of people sat down at a table and someone said "I've got a really good idea - we'll develop a chemical that needs to be injected into the brains of cows. It will increase the milk yield" And everyone else at the table must have said "You know, that sounds like a really good idea".

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but had I been sat at that table, I would have likely picked up the nearest heavy object and clubbed that person.

Sure, somewhere else, someone said "shall we grind these cow and sheep carcases up and feed them back to the live ones?" "Buy that man a drink - he's a genius". The irony is that many of these things are done to save money, but when it all hits the fan (e.g. BSE), that's far from what actually happens.

We just don't think.