Genetically altered foods-What do you think?

considering we've been genetically altering foods for millennia i don't think we should stop here

Darn carbon016 you beat me to it!!

My own personal opinion is that GM foods should be banned, but at the very least it should be compulsory to state on a product if it contains GM food. It makes me mad that in the UK our government refuses to provide consumers with the information to make a choice for themselves about GM food, since ultimately we should be the ones able to decide - if GM food is wanted, we'll buy it. If it's not, we won't. To deliberately refuse to make companies say whether their food has GM food or not suggests the only reason it's being done is due to bribery on the part of the GM food companies - that is, they know people won't want their product, and so want the government to force them to have it against their will by not giving them the choice of whether to have it or not.

Isn't that kind of arbitrary? Couldn't you make a case that under the same circumstances almost anything related to how crops are grown must be on the label? Their humidity conditions, or what pesticides were used, or any number of variables?

In this case, I don't mind any government refusing to label them separately, because if they are treated like some "other" kind of food it's not going to help their acceptance into the marketplace. The only differentiation should be their features, like seedless bananas.

Well, genetically engineered food sounds like a major success story to me. I'm all for allowing genetically engineered food to be sold and eaten. Like Carbon said, man has been genetically engineering plants for minellia, only now we do it in a few months instead of the generations it took even as recently as well, before biotech became big. Our own Algore, the master of idiocy and hypocrisy, said himself: "I'm not worried about genetically engineered crops (insert random catastrophe). Given our record, we're more likely to end up awash in grain." Genetically engineered crops allow for more and better crops to be sold, increasing human living standards. Examples are bigger wheat heads for bigger harvests, pesticides for insect resistance, eventually prescription drugs, so no more getting a shot, just eat something. Flu vaccine is already made from GE chicken eggs, and human insulin is made from bacteria. Next flu vaccine producer is caterpillars who excrete the antigens in their saliva.

Edit: Basically Genetic Engineering allows for more better everything. Oh and as to safety, no-one wants to buy food that will kill you, so its in companies best interests to make the food healthy. Same with prescription drugs, cars, everything. Dead people don't buy products.

The problem with genetic tampering is we dont know what effect it will have on natural mutation. There is a whole host of possible unintended consequences when introducing new strains of plants into an ecosystem. To honestly think that scientists are able to forsee every possibly variable in something so complex is just pure folly.

You know the odds favor that you ate GE food today, right?

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_food.html

"The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimates that between 70 percent and 75 percent of all processed foods available in U.S. grocery stores may contain ingredients from genetically engineered plants. Breads, cereal, frozen pizzas, hot dogs and soda are just a few of them."

The EU, by the way, only has a ban on the development of new GE products. They can still plant the ones that already exist.

There is practically no way that mankind can survive without GE foods. Selective breeding would take much too long to make crops that are even as good, much less better, and we need better crops sometime around yesterday to keep up with the Earth's expanding population.

So, if you're really that scared of GE foods, I suggest that you start eating Vegan.

The FDA will NEVER ban GE foods by the way. They're one of America's chief exports, and we have a tremendous trade defecit as is. That would be like the Japanese govenment banning cars.

There is nothing wrong with genetically engineered foods. They are not going to make you mutate. The one problem with GE foods is diversity. If everyone starts using the same strains of food, one disease could wipe them all out.

Genetically engineered foods can help the environment by needing less pesticides and herbicides. The fear some people have is that super weeds will develop, thus requiring
more herbicide to keep them out. This is very unlikely due to the breeding types that plants use.

You also have that experiment where all the monarch butterflies were dieing due to BT corn i believe. The fact was this occurred in a laboratory and the results were much different out in the field testing.

We have been developing GE food for a long time. Hell, maize has been genetically engineered since the Spanish came over and to the Aztecs. I find nothing wrong with genetically engineered foods. FDA has regulations on GE foods anyways, I'm sure you can look them up.

Yeah... quack news stories strike again...

The natural tomato is close to a Roma tomato, the big ones don't exist in a natural state. Those nice, juicy hothouse slicers you put on your burger are as man-made as a plant gets. Everything down to grass has been enhanced through breeding specific traits since long before genetics were discovered.

We're too far with GM's to stop now. However, they probably should make it mandatory for food companies to label if a food contains GMs or not. Then, those who don't want to eat it can try to find an alternative.

Normally I wouldn't reply to threads like this but I feel compeled to do so in this case because of the potential of this technology. I am simply going to recommend that anyone who is interested in educating themselves on this issue pick up some excellent books on the topic.

Jeffrey Smiths books "seeds of deception" and "genetic roulette" does a thorough review of the science regarding the "safety" of these foods. I believe he addresses some of the political and regulatory issues as well.

William Engdahl's book "seeds of destruction" discusses GM foods more from a geo-political and buisness standpoint but he also addresses issues like the so called benefits to the environment from GM foods as a result of less need for pesticides ect.

In combination these books paint a slightly different picture about GM foods than you may get from GM advocates. Obviously the titles suggest that the potential of GM technology that I mentioned earlier may not end up being a positive one. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to educate himself/herself and these books at least provide another perspective for people to consider.

Let me be the first to say that bananas do not have seeds, never have had seeds, and never will have seeds.

I'm all for GE food as long as the crops are thoroughly tested. With testing, the only problems that could pass by would be fairly mild but the benefits would far outweigh this. Let's refer to Asia from about the 1970'sish. At that time rice could only be grown once a year and produced limited food. There simply wasn't enough rice until genetic enhancement came into play. As a result of the modification huge improvements came into the rice farming field. Rice produced more rice on each stalk, more of the stalks produced rice, and the growth cycle was reduced so rather than one yearly crop farmers could plant three or even four. Within a few years, the production of rice nearly doubled, helped farmers feed themselves and their family, and lowered the global price of rice. There's simply no real argument about GE products that would outweigh all the benefits unless you're that hobo on my street corner screaming about how GE crops will bury us all alive or that bible tossing pastor yelling about how we'll all go to hell if we change our food to stop people from starving.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF9/977.html

There are two big differences between breeding and genetical engineering:

1. Speed of change: With breeding you have usually several generations time to look for side effects. GM companies will always minimize time-to-market, which means, well, no testing at all?

2. Range of change: With the ability to put genes from totally different races together, GM throws the stone further than normal evolution. Prepare to have evolution react with an equal far thrown stone, that might or might not serve humanity.




Wrong.

Sure, if there is not enough food, people will die, but at some point there will be enough food again. To the contrary, I would rather bet mankind's future on the variety of crops around than on a few supercrops.

Delicious!

well, seeing as how eating them turns you into a whale, i would say YES BAN GENETICALLY ALTERED FOOD, the world is unhealthy enough as it is, we don't need the children of our generation eating genetically altered foods and getting diabetes because the food does not fill them up and they need to eat more. it also seems to give people attitude problems, all of the fat people i know are complete $#@*&^s.



thank you for this, if the world is in this deep that people are dropping dead everywhere of starvation, then even the GM crops won't do anything. the world is to crowded as it is, there are far to many idiots in the world who smoke and can only afford GM foods, well, thats their fault because they smoke, but without GM foods, they would die, anyone here disagree that the world is to crowded. hm? hmm?

P.S. BAN MCDONALDS

Gamerking,

I must assume your post is just trying to push peoples buttons.



First, GM food, by in large, does not make a person fat by simple virtue of being genetically modified. Second, you need to understand what causes diabetes apparently because it is NOT caused by food "not filling you up". Third, what do we do with all the skinny people who are all $#@$*&? That seems to be the question with no answer.



So leaving the world to starve is your answer to over population? Have you considered that perhaps you would be on the receiving end of that stick? The following link:



WWW Link

shows an older map that displays where, in general, most of the worlds population is. You will notice that most of the areas that are generally accepted as being poor and suffering from starvation are NOT the areas where the population density is the greatest. To now say, "let the world starve and things will get better after some people die" only translates into the worlds most populated areas to start suffering from starvation...that means you in your nice air conditioned room while you play your video games. Your attempt to tie smoking to this issue is silly.

Your final question of whether or not the world is too crowded requires a subjective reply. Is it too crowded in some areas? Yes. Is the world over populated as a whole, no. If you think it is, what is the "maximum occupancy" number for this planet and the debate will be over?

what i am saying with the smoking is that people who smoke are generally very poor because they spend all their money on smoking, which only leaves a small portion for food, meaning they get cheap food which is always so processed it tastes like, and has the same consistency as cardboard. now, about the fat people thing, most of the people on the streets who are to poor to eat Are FAT. this is due to the high amounts of sugars and various fillers which are put into genetically altered food which is all they can afford, im not saying its wrong to eat GM foods, im just saying eat them in small quantities, like you would candy. as for the part about the world being overcrowded, it is, if a global food shortage is what it takes to depopulate the world to a liveable level, i say go ahead, i happen to live in a house where we grow 75% of all that we eat, so we will not go hungry, more to the point however, another problem with GM foods is that farmers who do not want GM plants are having them in their fields because the seeds from the GM farmers are going into their fields and the organic farmers are being sued, tell me how that is good buddy. as for the Max occupancy for the world, i would say, maybe about 6 billion of good SMART (not the idiots living in the world today) people, with hopefully about 60 percent being farmers(organic) and the rest doing other NECESSARY jobs. the 6 billionth has already come around buddy, so the world is overcrowded to me. also, you know that nasty smelling stuff you put on plants the stuff called pesticides, well, that is what you eat when you eat GM foods. now tell me, does that sound good or gross

I used to do genetic mutations and happen to know a good amount behind the science, including to a lesser extend the GM foods, specicfically Golden rice and BT corn.

The major Probelem with GM foods is public relations. People are scared of Mutated foods. It has a stimga attached to it. MUTATION! RUN! Its the same as the stigma attached to Nuclear from the days of the Cold War (hence you go to the Doctor for an MRI, not an NMR, the name was changed to remove the N - nuclear when the technology was moved to the medical feild).

Several People mentioned that by GM'ing foods, we would risk nature evolving pesitcide/herbicide resistant bug/weeds. Here's a quick quote from earlier:



This is totally Correct. By overusing certian GM variants we do risk developing "superbugs", just like we are experiencing with the over use of anti-biotics.

There is a solution to this problem. The U.S. has fairly specific regulations dictating how to plant GM foods on a farm. An entire crop cannot be GM. In addition there must be specificaly sized non-GM buffer zones adjacent to GM feilds. By giving pests a place they can "survive", you remove some of the natural selection pressure that a GM plant would produce, while still increasing Yeild (genetic drift - YaY). In addition to prevent accidental release of the GM food into the wild, the plants usually sterile when applicable. (like a peppermint plant)

This will not remove all NS pressure, but will slow it significantly to the point where if a "super pest" does develope, we can simply switch to a different BT variation or combination. The first BT corns usually contianed on gene, like CRY A, Current corns use a mutipronged approach containing CRY and a chitinase. By attacking the target in 2 fundamentally different fashions, the organism is going to have to evolve in two different (and drastic - totally new digestive trac and exoskeleton!) ways at the same time to survive.

The other misconception over GM foods is the extent to which they are modified. People see movies/fiction and think we can create super plants with death rays that will dominate the universe!!

In reality, we can only take a gene from Organism A and place it in Organism B. We are giving the plants abilities that already exist in nature. In fact, humanity has been using things found in nature since, well, always.

In the corn example. Bt is the #1 organic pesticide used in America. Its been in use since the 1960's. Unlike chemical pesticides (like DDT), it doesn't have toxic effects on the non target ecology. In fact its produced naturaly by another organism, Bacillus Thuringiensis, a soil microbe.

BT Corn, is corn that has had an insertion of the CRY gene into is genome. The CRY gene (there are several different types - with differnt targets and effects) is the gene that codes for the pesticide (a pH based enotoxin).



Incorrect. First you can't insert Artificial sugars into a GM crop. Its not natural, so there's no gene to insert, obviously. That's something that is done at the factory, not the feild, and would occur irregarless of genetic heritage of the food.



Again, unless the seeds are directly being planted by a rival farmer, there's no way for a seed to get there. Also that would be a criminal matter (tresspassing).

I think you may be referring to pollen? Pollen is produced by BT corn and will blow. However, the concern is that the Pollen contains the pesticide not that it will pollenate another plant. In addition, the BT-pollen will blow into the adjacent Buffer/refuge feilds of the same farmer, where it tappers off with distance. With a large enough refuge/buffer feild, it won't make it out of the farm reducing the chance it will hit an organic feild.

Even if it does, the farmer won't get sued. In the US, Organic food must be 95% Organic or organic derived. This allows some variation or contamination or the use of some artifical methods that are required for preservation of safety, but keeps them at a minimum.

hope that helps clear up some misconeptions.

This is an assumption on your part. You are correct that, in general, the majority of smokers have a lower income than those who do not smoke. Does this translate into an increase of "genetically" altered food? It is a stretch. Does it mean they eat high carb, "empty" caloric foods? Yes and that has been proven.



This is, again, your opinion and is not based on fact. First, you must ask where these fat, poor people are living. If in the states or another western nation, your assumption has merit but again your issue seems to be with poor quality food and not necessarily GM food. If, however, you are talking about poor fat people in the Sudan, you are more than likely referring to starving children and that stomach bloat is not fat.



I am sorry but I have tried to read past this logic and can not. Anyone who suggests this is a person who has never seen a child die of starvation (the majority of individuals starving on this planet are children) and have elected to pursue an intellectually lazy argument.



Actually we are over 6.5 billion and the problem is not with starvation anyway...it is water shortage. I do not know of anyone looking to create GM water as of yet. My point is that the world populations max number will vary depending on the technology available. If we existed only as hunter/gatherers the max number is much lower than a farming society, etc. We are over populated in certain areas of the planet but in other area we are not. What makes the difference? Technology - The one thing that has elevated the max number of population on this planet has been technology...whether you think Mendel's square was the start of our GM downfall or not, the fact is, our technology has been, by in large, beneficial to mankind. Sure bad things have happened with some variants, etc. but this is life and there is no utopian society devoid of human error and poor judgment. There is a limit to what technology (science) can do but we have not reached it yet. BTW, many areas of the world are actually seeing decreases in population...not because of food or water but because of social policies/practices.



I do not see the correlation between increased pesticides and GM foods. In fact, some GM foods have built in resistance to disease and pests.

Gamerking, please don't post anymore about food. Processed food, aside from being an asinine, subjective labeling with little factual reasoning, has dick to do with genetic manipulation.

If you grate cheese, you're creating processed food. It's a label given to the instant meals, but processed food is simply any food not in its natural state. Anything prepared in advance is processed. Genetics have absolutely no relation.

I just enjoyed my genetically altered fried chicken that was fried in my genetically altered canola oil and washed down with a glass of genetically altered cranberry juice.

The Chicken was genetically altered over one hundred years ago.

The Canola oil was genetically altered about fifty years ago
The Cranberry was genetically altered about seventy five years ago

Genetically altered foods have been around for a very, very, long time.
Neither of my stomachs objected and I did give it a good look over with my third eye first.

whatever, just trying to get my point across