Frankenfoods - Ban the GMO's?

[Prometheus]

I just watched the Nova documentary Harvest of Fear (2001). It was a very even handed investigation of the debate surrounding the Genetically Modified Food industry.

I am somewhat of an expert on this topic, as I have interned for Monsanto in the past. I have always admired the science of genetic engineering, and have studied it's application to plants in great detail. I am currently majoring in sciences that are preparing me to work in the biotech industry.

While watching this documentary, I was totally appalled at the resistance that exists to GMO foods. The opposition is militant and radical. Burning buildings and slashing fields. The greatest opposition comes from the ELF, Greenpeace, and guru Jeremy Rifkin.

These groups have stirred up many people through the use of scare tactics and pseudoscience. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the opponants of GMO's are using this fact. The opposition to good science is mind-boggling, these groups have successfully lobbied for anti-GMO legislation in many countries. This craziness must stop.

Let me give a distillation of my basis for these assertions:

(1) There has been no documented case of a person being harmed from a GMO food. There is no theorhetical way GMO technology *could* hurt people if done correctly.

(2) GMO foods can and have been made more nutritious.

(3) GMO foods require much fewer pesticides and herbicides. This benifits the environment.

(4) They give higher yeild and are easier to grow, so the farmer makes more money and can grow more crops.

(5) Use of GMO crops increases the amount of arable land because they can be grown in soils with less water/nutrients and more salt/contaminants.

(6) GMO crops can and have been made resistant to many plant diseases that have no cure.

(7) We as a species can use GMO's to grow more food. Over our history, scientitsts have always made predictions that by a certain year, population will outstrip food production capacity. This has never happened because we keep coming up with advances to make more food. The current prediction for us running out of food is somewhere out in 2020. GMO's are the next advance to keep us ahead of that figure.

To be fair, lets look at the cons:

(1) The seed costs more, because they are propriatary and patented. (Though the farmer still makes more money in the end)

(2) People don't understand it so it scares them.

[tinybear]

Here's my question: If GMO is this good, why are these so-called green groups doing so much to discourage it?

[Pooeypants]

People are afraid of what they don't understand. It's natural but at the same time, illogical.

[tinybear]

I don't understand Algebra, but I won't try to kill it. :)

[G. Adams]

As you've got a good grasp of the area, you should be able to answer me on these questions. a) how do we stop cross pollination between GM and none Gm products, b) why is the GM industry so resistant to having all GM foods or products containing GM ingrediants being clearly labeled as such, and what is wrong with such clear labeling, c) in the long term, how will farmers make more money if they keep having to buy new seeds, since they are designed not to seed? A farmer can use one crop of normal seeds to keep going indefinately, while he is reliant on new supplies of GM seeds.

How will the farmers make more money? If all farmers output increase then the market will be flooded with product and the value will fall.

[Pooeypants]

I don't have time to answer all your questions but with regards to (b), with the public already brainwashed with the idea that all GM food will cause horrendous health problems, what other choice does the food industry have?

[G. Adams]

Consumers should always have a choice, just because we don't want their product should they be allowed to sneak it onto our plates? That would be like nut industry objecting to warnings on nut related items.

[tinybear]

I usually don't buy GM foods. Not 'cos I object to them, but they're usually more expensive.

[tinybear]

Oh, has anyone visited this website?

http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html

[Prometheus]

Quote by: tinybear I usually don't buy GM foods. Not 'cos I object to them, but they're usually more expensive.

Whaaa? How would you know - they are not labled? Most of the corn, soybean and canola is GM. And it is the organic (ie non GMO) foods that are more expensive.

GMO foods are cheaper, and it's normally pretty hard to figure out if it's GM or not.

[tinybear]

I have to admit I don't know for sure. But they look kinda bigger. And they are described as 'seedless'.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: G. Adams Consumers should always have a choice, just because we don't want their product should they be allowed to sneak it onto our plates? That would be like nut industry objecting to warnings on nut related items.

That is completely different. It is well known and characterised that nuts can cause hypersensitivity type 1 in a significant portion of the population.
We have no evidence of problems amongst humans from GM food consumption, the fear is illogical.

[Prometheus]

G. Adams:

Good questions, let me answer them.

how do we stop cross pollination between GM and none Gm products.

The newer generation of GMO's are totally infertile. Either they have no pollon/seeds, or they are made such that fertilization would fail.

why is the GM industry so resistant to having all GM foods or products containing GM ingrediants being clearly labeled as such, and what is wrong with such clear labeling

Because it violates the truth in labling law. This seems counterintuitive - let me explain. Let's say that I marketed a new soda, and right on the from of the bottle I wrote, "Potassium Sorbate Free!". That would be illegal, becasue the average buyer does not kow that potassium sorbate is not harmfull at all. Since it has no affect on the product, it is deceptive and illegal. The same would be true if I wanted to make everyone lable their soda if it had potassium sorbate. It would be stupid because the scientists know that it has no affect on health. The law states that if a change causes no difference in a product, then it can't be used as a selling feature or be forced to have that trait labled. Since every scientist knows that GMO's do not harm anyone, there is no reason to lable it. Especially with the lies that everyone beleives about GMO's.

in the long term, how will farmers make more money if they keep having to buy new seeds, since they are designed not to seed? A farmer can use one crop of normal seeds to keep going indefinately, while he is reliant on new supplies of GM seeds.

It's not a matter of long term verses short term. The extra cost of the seeds each year is more that paid for by the increased yeild and decreas in growing cost. Many farmers buy new normal seeds every year anyway, because they are buying special hybrids. Of course the seeds from Monsanto (biggest and basically only producer of GM seed) are more expensive then the hybrid counterparts. But again, the extra cost is more that worth it. How do I know? The farmers keep buying them for one, secondly, I live in a farming community, and my dad is a farmer. I know from personal experiance that the farmers take home more money at the end of the season. This point is not disputable. No one denys this.

How will the farmers make more money? If all farmers output increase then the market will be flooded with product and the value will fall.

The damand for food is growing. Also a great amount of the extra money they make is not on yeilds, but on saving tremendous amounts of money on water and pesticides.

[tinybear]

I come back to the question I posed earlier: why do these 'green' groups try to discourage GM foods? What's their agenda?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: tinybear I have to admit I don't know for sure. But they look kinda bigger. And they are described as 'seedless'.

There is no genetically engineered seedless watermelon (I keep track of what's out there). All seedless watermelons right now are merely hybrids. You are paying a premius for the patent on the cultuvar.

[FIFI]

Yes, but I don't care how much cheaper they are: unless shippped to areas desperate for food, and they need large yields NOW (i. e. Africa) then we can use that technology. But why would I want to put chemicals, which have UNKNOWN results, into my body? look at what manufactured foods have done to us already: rise in diabetes, ADD/ADHD, obesity and much more.
Ug, keep that crap (excuse my french!) away from me!

[Prometheus]

Quote by: tinybear I come back to the question I posed earlier: why do these 'green' groups try to discourage GM foods? What's their agenda?

Several reasons. Not all people for all of these reason. The reason depends on the person.

(1) They don't understand it and are scared by what they hear. They have been told a little bit of science that scares them. Example: "Did you know that your strawberries have flounder fish DNA in them?". It's technically true, but it motivates people to act on false assumptions.

(2) It's messing with mother earth. Doing things that are "unnatural". Many call it "playing god". There are many who think it is immoral.

(3) It's just another cause that can get them attention. You how how phanatics are - they don't care about facts, they just want to protest.

(4) Power. It's simple - if you can get people to beleive in your cause they will give you money and power.

(5) Just plain stupid. Many beleive the "precautionary principal" which states that if a science cannot be proven safe, then we shouldn;t use it. Of course this is rediculous. Can we prove that the car is safe? Of course not - in fact it kills millions a year.

Look at the beginning of this century when people started putting electric power lines in the city. There was a *huge* protest nationwide. People claimed it would kill them, make them infertile, bring devils across from hell - you name it. Of course now we look back an laugh at them. It will be the same with GMO's.

[FIFI]

Quote by: Prometheus (2) It's messing with mother earth. Doing things that are "unnatural". Many call it "playing god". There are many who think it is immoral. (3) It's just another cause that can get them attention. You how how phanatics are - they don't care about facts, they just want to protest.

(2.) It is playing "God", strawberries weren't made to be as big as a house or yield 800 per plant (just hypothetical, not fact!) and pumping nutrients into them or slpicing genes wasnt to be had either. Its just smart, bored humans wanting to change things.

(3.) Not true. Just because I don't believe in something, and I choose not to eat it, doesnt mean I am going to become a phanatic...it just means I won't support or purchase it.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: FIFI Yes, but I don't care how much cheaper they are: unless shippped to areas desperate for food, and they need large yields NOW (i. e. Africa) then we can use that technology.

Already GM crops have been shipped to Africa (and other third world contries) that can grow in their poor soild better. They have also added vitimins to help with the poor diets they have.

But why would I want to put chemicals, which have UNKNOWN results, into my body? look at what manufactured foods have done to us already: rise in diabetes, ADD/ADHD, obesity and much more.

These chemicals are not unknown - they are very carefully studied, and proven safe in doses *many* times higher then they are found in the foods. Unlike the chemicals in most modern foods, the chemicals added to GMO's are natural. They are chemicals that biological systems are used to dealing with. Adding a chemical with genetic engineering is "much" safer than adding it in the processing procedure.

BTW, diabetes, ADD/ADHD and obesity have nothing to do with the chemicals, artificial or natural. Diabeties and obesity have to do with eathing too much food/sugar. ADD/ADHD have absolutly nothing to do with diet. They are neurological disorders (or my personal opinion that they are usually problems with our school system)

Ug, keep that crap (excuse my french!) away from me!

Too late, you eat vast amounts of them already and don't know it. Scientists know they are absolutely safe. If you want to spend extra money on organics go right ahead, but not being GM does not make them better for you.

[dotcoma]

Does the sensitivity, particularly in the EU have more to do with trying to prevent the large US agriculture sector from dominating Europe's?

This seems like how the EU banned certain cosmetics that supposedly had small amounts of cancer-causing components within. Conveniently enough this put a huge damper on the largest cosmetic exporter...the US.