- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by AcolyteI reckon there are worse things to worry about - global warming, destruction of ocean life, and the amount of chemicals contaminating the environment spring to mind.
What do people think of GM? I looked on the BBC website and was shocked not by the fact that almost everyone opposed GM foods, but by their reasoning for doing so.
I might not want to eat novel food that has not been adequately tested or is damaging to me or the environment in some way. But I don't see any reason that GM per se is bad.
"Biotechnology is a vital issue that impacts all of us.
Largely between 1997 and 1999, gene-modified (GM) ingredients suddenly appeared in 2/3rds of all US processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization. Since then thousands of applications for experimental GM organisms have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad. Furthermore an economic war broke out to own equity in firms which either have such patent rights or control the food-related organisms to which they apply. This has been the key factor behind the scenes of the largest food/agri-chemical company mergers in history. Few consumers are aware this has been going on and is continuing. Yet if you recently ate soya sauce in a Chinese restaurant, munched popcorn in a movie theatre, or indulged in an occasional candy bar - you've undoubtedly ingested this new type of food. You may have, at the time, known exactly how much salt, fat and carbohydrates were in each of these foods because regulations mandates their labeling for dietary purposes. But you would not know if the bulk of these foods, and literally every cell had been genetically altered!
In just those three years, as much as 1/4th of all American agricultural lands or 70-80 million acres were quickly converted to raise GM crops. Yet in most other countries, the same approach is subject to moratoriums, partially banned, restricted or requires labeling - and with stiff legal penalties for non-compliance. This refers to laws in Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Portugal - or in virtually all European nations. The same trend has further spread to Latin America, the Near East and Asia.
By contrast, an unregulated, quiet, and lightning speed expansion has been spearheaded in the US by a handful of companies in the wake of consolidations. We hear from their sales departments that nothing but positive results will follow - and for everyone from farmers to middlemen and the ultimate consumers. This "breakthrough" technology will aid the environment by reducing toxic chemical use, increase food production to stave off world hunger, and lead to an agricultural boom. In addition it will provide nutritionally heightened and much better storing and tasting foods. Finally, all of this is based on nothing but "good science" - which in the long run will convince the wary public that GM foods are either equivalent or better than the ordinary.
The size of a technology's market penetration - 1/4 of US agriculture - is not necessarily indicative that the majority of these claims are true. Biotechnology attempts a deeper "control" over nature. But a powerful temporary control is illusionary. For example, a farmer in Ottawa planted three different kinds of GM canola seeds that came from the three leading producers (Monsanto's Roundup, Cyanamid's Pursuit, and Aventis' Liberty). At first, he was happy to see he needed to use less of costly herbicides. But within just three years, "superweeds" had taken in the genes of all three types of plants! This ultimately forced him to use not only more herbicides, but far more lethal products."
Originally posted by iamatigerThe very things that you feel are worse to worry about, could in fact be hurried along by GM foods.
I reckon there are worse things to worry about - global warming, destruction of ocean life, and the amount of chemicals contaminating the environment spring to mind.
I might not want to eat novel food that has not been adequately teste ...[text shortened]... nt in some way. But I don't see any reason that GM per se is bad.
Merry Christmas,
Charlie
Originally posted by AcolyteDNA is like a computer program. Run computer code and your machine does something. By changing the basic set of instructions you change the output. If you writing some software, you can borrow code from other applcications - why write a function wheh someone else has done it for you? You might be writing a game and find a mathematical function on a missile targetting program - if you use it, your game is not partly a missile even though it shares the same code.
What do people think of GM? I looked on the BBC website and was shocked not by the fact that almost everyone opposed GM foods, but by their reasoning for doing so.
Pulling DNA code sequences out of other organisms, exactly as you copy functions from other software, is not inherently bad. For example, a pig could produce a human hormone through having a gene from a human. It would not make the pig human. You could probably use yeast - for the PETA people.
What is worrying is the permanence of DNA, now 5 billion years old. DDT will take 50 years to disappear, radioactive waste thousands of years. DNA is almost immortal. There are also other risks - a virus jumping the species barrier for example.
That sugests we must proceed very cautiously - and there must be a good reason for it. I don't think pesticide resistance is a good enough reason - particularly as the benefits are looking more doubtful.
Originally posted by richjohnsonpart of the problem with identifying potential health problems is that it may take a while for them to surface even if you could anticipate them. here are some theoretical possibilities (http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/gmfood.htm):
Any comments from the RHP gallery, particularly anyone with knowledge about the health effects of GM foods?
26. The theoretical health implications arising from the use of new technologies to manipulate genetic material are as follows:
i) the inserted gene may itself have adverse effects;
ii) the inserted gene may code for a protein that is toxic to human beings or produces an allergic reaction
iii) the inserted gene may alter the way existing genes in a plant or animal express themselves, which may in turn increase the production of existing toxins or switch on the production of previously silent genes;
iv) the inserted gene may alter the behaviour of a micro-organism, which is carrying it to make it potentially harmful;
v) the inserted gene may be transferred from a micro-organism which is carrying it to other micro-organisms, in the human gut or respiratory tract or to animals or humans;
vi) the consumption of a GM micro-organism may alter the balance of existing micro-organisms in the human gut.
organ transplantation provides sufficient compatibility complications and that is on a macro level. this stuff is happening at a micro level.
what looks good in theory often turns out ok in practice and then proves to be ineffective or even disasterous down the road (eg DDT and also the 'superweeds' in chawray's earlier post). the propaganda for gm foods sounds like a bad scifi movie and the fact that there is so much scientific and political opposition makes one wonder whose interests are really being served. small farmers are already an endangered species and once the monopoly is complete, there isn't anywhere to go.
in friendship,
prada
human controlled genetic engineering / manipulation has happenned, and is happenning, and will happen a lot more in almost every imaginable way.
i do not want it to happen. i think it clear it is very foolish. but it is so easy.
i don't want wars either and we know how that goes.
how do i deal with this inevitability?
I must say, this is very disturbing to me. I know I have heard of GM Foods, but never really KNEW about GM Foods. And I have been eating it for years. Without knowing. Hmmm, disturbing.
I think anything that has to do with genetic alteration is dangerous and I don't like the idea, whether it's animals or plants. We just don't know what could happen and that's a scary thought. Nature is better left to nature, but humans will mess with whatever they can...and can't for that matter...
NC
Originally posted by pradtfHi Prad,
small farmers are already an endangered species and once the monopoly is complete, there isn't anywhere to go.
in friendship,
prada [/b]
The small farm is almost gone, if not nonexistant. Just another of the victims of the food industry. People are just not aware of what has been going on since the 1950's in the food industry,
Is it because there are much more "glamorous causes"?
Regards,
Charlie
Originally posted by chaswrayi don't think people have been lured away to more 'glamourous causes'. what has happened in the food industry is immense propaganda and lobbying (and more subversive ways) to convince people that the way we are going is a wonderful thing.
Hi Prad,
The small farm is almost gone, if not nonexistant. Just another of the victims of the food industry. People are just not aware of what has been going on since the 1950's in the food industry,
Is it because there are much more "glamorous causes"?
Regards,
Charlie
for instance, when the revamped canada food guide came out in the mid 90s, there was an emphasis on eating legumes and vegetables that the meat and dairy industries didn't want. they had it changed through powerful lobby so that it read much like the old one. even though this act was widely reported in the national neewspapers, there was nothing anyone could do.
here's some subversion: the food industry, laces their products with salt to make it more addictive. according to bidwell's book the salt conspiracy the standard american diet results in the intake of 4000-10000 mg of salt daily when the body's natural need for sodium is only 280 mg easily obtainable through natural sources.
you don't have to work very hard to find out about a lot of these things or their real-life consequnces - the information is readily available in most cases, but leisure, apathy and the desire for instant gratification will ensure corporate success for still quite some time.
in friendship,
prad
We shouldn t forget we have around 7 000 000 000 people to feed.
It s easy for us to talk about being cautious while at the other side of the planet people are starving.
I think we should speed up scientific research on genetically engineered food.
Personally i think that some of the objections against GM are rather irrational - especially the health issues. Anyhow, health concerns are
well within scope of scientific research.
However, i do see at least 3 more serious issues
- biodiversity , we should take care we don t replace myriads of variants by just a few supercrops
- ecological effects that are not fully in scope of scientific research ( too complex, 'long-run' )
- property , as i understand it GM's can be patented, there is a huge risk that just a few private companies will dominate the global food market - so let 's make it open source
😉
Originally posted by Nohupthe food is already available and in abundant quantitiies, jan. it will never get to the starving because that is not in the commercial interest - it's cheaper to throw it away. this is how it's been for decades. if you don't believe me, just take a look at how much food doesn't get sold at a supermarket and what happens to it - and we are only talking about the stuff that was bought buy the retailer.
We shouldn t forget we have around 7 000 000 000 people to feed.
It s easy for us to talk about being cautious while at the other side of the planet people are starving.
(granted, one could GM certain strains to grow in less hospitable conditions, but that doesn't mean they will actually be grown for the purpose of feeding the hungry.)
if you want to explore the 'having food' idea further, we can look at the possibilities that a plant-based diet offers. the majority of grains produced goes to feeding animals to continue the meat-based diet. the grain doesn't go to feed the people who could use really use food. i don't want to discuss this here, since it has nothing to do with GMF and will be brought up in another thread in the future. do explore it if you are interested though and you may be surprised at the statistics.
there are plenty of alternative solutions to the food 'crisis' that really doesn't need to exist - GMF doesn't need to be one of them.
and good luck GNU-izing monsanto 😀
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by NohupWhat happens when all 7 000 000 000 people are well fed? In not too long there will be 14 000 000 000 people to feed, and we're back to starvation on a massive scale. I'm generally optimistic about the ability of science to solve the world's problems, but I don't think there's much hope that food production can keep up with exponential population growth without causing serious problems for the rest of the environment.
We shouldn t forget we have around 7 000 000 000 people to feed.
It s easy for us to talk about being cautious while at the other side of the planet people are starving.
I think, but not certain, the United States and Canada alone produce enough meat and grain to feed the world three times over. It will never happen as long as "in dollar we trust".
As Prad said we are a people demanding "instant gratification", We don't want to take the time to prepare a meal. We want "quick and easy" microwaveable" "value-added" (that last one is a favorite of mine😞). And what's left we throw away. Then people wonder why they are obese, take a long look at the ingredient labels of those convenience foods(if you can understand them)😕
Yes they are laced with salt. Slick Willy's administration was in bed with Tyson foods from Arkansas. Now you get to eat poultry products that are legally laced with a salt, water and preservative "cocktail" up to 3 per cent of weight I believe. And guess what?...You get to pay for that also. Now the fish industry can pump scallops with their "cocktail" for up to 25%. Umm, yum yum.
Then when all is said and done you can go to the doctor and be diagnosed with obeisity, high blood pressure or heaven forbid..high chlorestorol!! But don't worry the drug companies will gladly sell you the latest designer drug to combat these conditions at top dollar.
And just think, it all could be avoided with the investment of a little time, buying the simple foods and preparing them yourself, in moderation of course.
Some of you may ask, what makes me an expert, I'm not, but I was raised on a chicken and dairy farm in the 50-60's and have spent the last 35 years in the food industry. Yes I bite the hand that feeds me😲
PS: Please forgive my bad spelling and grammar🙄
Originally posted by richjohnsonReally ?
[b]What happens when all 7 000 000 000 people are well fed? In not too long there will be 14 000 000 000 people to feed,
I know a lot of countries where people are very well fed and where the population is not growing at all...
And i know some other countries ( China ) were they have very strict state regulated birth control.
In other countries still population growth is slowing down as standard of living increases ( India )
I am not sure if i should take your post seriously, i've noticed some freethinkers demonstrating a very strange sense of humour on the forums 🙂