Genetically modified products

[sykosystem]

from http://www.catalyzerjournal.com/cnew...yiiRpeoYw.html :
"The first treaty ever designed to detect biological diversity from contamination by genetically modified products was passed on June 13th, and will enter into force on September 11, 2003. All exporters of genetically modified products designed for release into the environment will be required to take the measures necessary to prevent contamination of other crops;
"The Parties shall ensure that the development, handling, transport, use, transfer and release of any living modified organisms are undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health."

The US declined to sign the treaty, which received the 50 ratifications necessary to pass into law. "

GM products are a confusing issue. They could be disastrous for health in future simply because their safety has not been proven. But then there's the issue of countries that need food aid rejecting it due to it being genetically modified. What does everyone think?

[Lebell]

The oldest GM foods have been grown and eaten in the US for ten years, so you have that much real world experience to see any harmful effects.

[The_Dude]

if the FDA thinks it's safe, i'll eat it.

i have trust in them

[MacGnG]

i was gonna vote for 'Well-funded research', but realized that wasnt gonna happen, so i decided on 'do nothing about it' cause they pose no problem, as long as they taste good

[Sun Tzu]

Right now because of finances I’m stuck going to the common supermarket and stocking up on my weekly dose of “souped up” Frankenfood. If I had my choice I’d be going to Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, or similar where the food is guaranteed to be free of hormones and genetic modification. The thing that pisses me off the most if the lack of regulation that would force foods of any kind to at least state they have been modified. So unless anything bought states its organically grown or hormone/GM free you have to assume it is. I’ve seen mixed studies, but I’d like to know who funded which. In any event here’s a link some may find interesting http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm

What Id really like to know is if any executives of the companies the produce this stuff eat their own product.

[popo]

Just so people realize this, humans have been eating genetically modified foods for centuries if not millenia. Cross-breading of plants is not a new idea, it just hasn't been called "genetic modification" until recently.

When breading plants, farmers have forever tried to select for genes that promoted bigger, tastier, more resistant fruit & vegetables, even though they weren't aware that they were playing with the genes.

[BBtB]

Originally posted by popo
Just so people realize this, humans have been eating genetically modified foods for centuries if not millenia. Cross-breading of plants is not a new idea, it just hasn't been called "genetic modification" until recently.

When breading plants, farmers have forever tried to select for genes that promoted bigger, tastier, more resistant fruit & vegetables, even though they weren't aware that they were playing with the genes.

Riight. BUT untill recently this messing with genes involved take two seperate strains of tomato plants and cross breeding them. Not genetically take genes from fish eggs and adding them to tomatos. I personally voted research. The truth of the matter is we really don't know the effects of GM foods on humans. I am not saying GM food is bad we just don't know right now. Well someone knows I am sure. I am sure del monte (or whoever) has spent millions of dollars on research. Most of which I have not seen. And I am sure anything I see will be biased (even if they are mostly good. There are down sides to everything) I dunno. I just for see in 40 years us having "truth" comercials about GM food and what they didn't tell as in the 1990s about them or whatever.

[smooth]

Yes, but that's quite different than splicing genes that produce insecticides, for example.

I vote for more research and those of us who are skeptical can pay the premium for organic food while we wait for results that convince us of its safety.

[Scipio]

I don't see why the French raise such a fuss about it, but I suppose the potential for harm is there. If all that results is better, longer lasting produce, then I'm all for it.

[popo]

Originally posted by BBtB
Riight. BUT untill recently this messing with genes involved take two seperate strains of tomato plants and cross breeding them. Not genetically take genes from fish eggs and adding them to tomatos.

I understand your fears but it is the exact same thing. With modern gen mod, what you can do is simply much more precise and controlled. You can select for a single gene alone very easily.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on this topic but for reference sake, my Bachelors degree was in Cell & Molecular Bio and I have a Master's in Molecular Pathology. I know the biology.

[George W Bush]

I hear what your saying popo and I'm all for technology in certain areas, especially medicine. Isn't cross breeding a little different than developing something to the point it has a patent?


Pigs implanted with spinach genes have been created by Japanese scientists, according to unconfirmed local newspaper reports. The team claims it is the first to successfully insert a plant gene into an animal. The pigs reportedly contain a gene called FAD2, which converts saturated fat into an unsaturated fat called linoleic acid. Akira Iritani, at Kinki University in western Japan, who led the research, says the genetically modified pigs contain 20 per cent less saturated fat than normal pigs - and so could be healthier to eat.

Phytase for Animal Feed (Developed by Syngenta and Zymetrics) The phytase enzyme releases phosphorous-based nutrients in animal feed in a form that can be easily digested by single-stomach animals such as pigs, chickens and turkeys. A phytase supplement can enhance the nutritional value of the feed and reduce phosphorus levels in animal manure, which can help improve environmental quality. The new microbial (Zymetrics) and corn phytase (Syngenta) supplements are designed with enhanced thermostability, which provides livestock producers more options in developing feed rations.

Genetically Modified Fruits and Vegetables with Longer Postharvest Shelf Life (Developed by Agritope, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Epitope, Inc.) Using ethylene-control technology, Agritope, Inc., has created delayed-ripening, longer-lasting tomatoes and raspberries.

Messenger® (Developed by EDEN Bioscience) This is the first of a series of products based on naturally occurring harpin protein technology. Approved by the EPA in April 2000, Messenger stimulates growth and defense pathways inherent within each plant without altering the plant's DNA. Messenger treatments promote healthier plants and increased yields, as well as increased disease resistance and deterrence of insects such as nematodes. Messenger is a labeled product, currently being sold in cotton, citrus, apples, strawberries, rice, tomatoes, peppers, cucurbit vegetables, cane berries, grass seed, potatoes and many other crops.

Bt Insect-Protected Apple (Developed with Monsanto technology) These apples will contain built-in insect protection against codling moth.

Rootworm-Resistant Corn (Developed by Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.) These new hybrids will produce a protein that is toxic to the corn rootworm, thus eliminating or reducing the need for soil-applied insecticides. Corn hybrids containing this new trait will have built-in protection against western and northern corn rootworm. This will provide growers another choice in the marketplace other than traditional insecticides. In addition, this trait will be stacked with Herculex® I Insect Protection to provide the broadest spectrum in-plant insect protection option available in the corn market.

Strawberry (Developed by DNA Plant Technology Corporation) The company is adding genes to confer resistance to glyphosate herbicide and fungal diseases.

[The_Dude]

it's the only way.

if we just had the "natural" amount of food, the world would not be able to handle such an increase in population. even more people would be starving.

science all the way

[splck]

I don't have a problem eating the stuff, my only concern is what happens when the GM plants get out into nature. What effect will that have on the age-old product.
I also believe consumers should have a right to know if the food they are buying contains a GM product.

[Liquor Dealer]

Man has been improving all products since the beginning of time. People have always looked at ways to make land more productive and at ways to get better quality product. The idea of eating only "natural" foods is asinine - in the first place, there probably is no such thing in this country - only a label claiming to be so a much higher price can be charged. If one were to take a specific example - meat - have you ever eaten meat that was fed nothing but grass and hay (both of which have probably been GMA'd also) They are not very good - If you like tough beef that's your ticket! Feedlots haved worked with genetics for years, everything in the feedlot industry has been genetically modified in one way or the other - probably in many ways! There is no better beef in the world than American beef - at least at an affordable price (I have heard Kobe beef is better but I have also seen the price attached). When a product, any product can be improved safely, then there is no reason to have qualms about using or consuming it. There are probably no pure grain strains left in the US and probably no where on earth unless you are in the most remore area of the world. Grains have been hybridized and cross bred forever in attempts to make them less susceptible to plant disease and insects. As long as foods are certified to be safe then I don't think one should worry ablout what one eats. What happens to that food after it leaves the producer could be another totally different picture - improperly stored and improperly prepared foods are a far more serious threat to manking that thse that have been genetically altered or modified

[smooth]

The genetically unaltered, grain fed, and organically fed beef I eat undoubtably tastes better than the $.99-$1.99 per pound beef in the store.

Plus, most of the organicly labeled beef is grown on co-ops (which partially accounts for the high price)--which I support.

But, nothing tastes more tender, more sweeter, or more richer than the beef grown in my yard, my grandma's fields, or the lamb she has given us as well.

If you think such meat is not as good of quality than mass produced meat I suggest you try a different organic label before making a final judgement.

When my wife and I first made the switch we were reminded of what meat used to taste like when we were kids--oh, yeah, meat has taste? It doesn't have to be seasoned, drowned in sauce, or otherwise fucked with to actually have a taste?

My grandmother raises her livestock by hand, feeds them with hay and grass that grows in her field, which is watered with water from her spring and the snow melt from the mountain in their back yard--I think that's about as good as it gets.

(btw, Painted Hills is a very good tasting meat if you want to buy some)

edit: I forgot to add that the beef we buy (when we purchase it) is between $3.89 and 5.00 per pound. Not too expensive, once you think about it. Everything I've read or heard about on the subject claims US cits eat too much beef to begin with. Reduced consumption + higher prices + higher quality == equal expenditure + better taste + healthier choice.

[Liquor Dealer]

Damn! meat must be cheap in Oregon! We are paying about the price you quoted for organic meat for feedlot beef - and the largest feedlot in the world is only about 35 miles from my house. You are probably right in saying that it is better under the circumstance you are describing - The prices I have seen for organic meat in this area is much higher. The point I was attempting to make is that the majority of the meat consumed in the US comes out of commercial cattle feeding operations and this meat has enjoyed (?) the benefits of science form conception to T-Bone steak. Most of the cows that produce the bulk of comercial meat have never even met a bull. I see nothing wrong with using whatever is available to provide an adequate food supply as long as it is safe. I've eaten organically grown meat - and heavy aged beef from the feedlots - I'll take the heavy aged beef.

[MacGnG]

there are NO known effects of GMO because they haven't been around long enough for any side effects to occur. we will find out in 20/30 years, so when we do it wont matter because we'll have all been affected by all thge other chemicals in all the other foods we've eaten.

it doesn't matter, eat whatever tastes good.

farmers have been breeding cows and crops how they want so they get a better haul, the only difference now is that a scientist is doing it!

[smooth]

LD, I know things up here are cheaper and that's one of the problems I anticipate once I move back down there next month.

I also agree that technology should be used to meet the demands of our population.

The issue I have read is that (and this relates to trade) WTO rules prohibit an embargo based on unproven doubt of a product's safety.

This operates differently than the normal scientific standard--food is unsafe unless proven otherwise.

Domestically, I am unsure how the FDA and various government food entities authorize the use of things like genetically altered foods--in some instances I have heard certain commodities have achieved success at being classified as neither a food nor drug (tobacco).

But I agree that one should be able to eat it if they want--I don't want to until more extensive testing is concluded. I think people should have that choice and I disagree with the methods we use to force other nations to accept our genetically modified food.

[hobo]

This is something I learned from a University professor working with genetically modified canola. The modifications they make don't hurt you. That is what the supporters say too. The thing is, many crops are engineered to resist pesticide so that they can be heavily sprayed to be rid of pests and survive. The thing is, the plants then absorb a bunch of the chemicals, and when we eat it, we receive small amounts. This builds up over time and can cause serious side-effects. A lot of modifications themselves will not cause harm, but a result of them may.

As for the question about whether the CEO or something of a GM food company eats his product, the answer is no. If you noticed, the highly priced, high quality foods out nowadays are all labelled organic. Rich people like CEOs eat the best stuff. They eat organic.

Another thing you guys should know, our bread used to have vitamin E in it. That prevents heart disease. When people discovered how to bleach the grains and make the bread white, they removed the vitamin E too. The average person's diet today is heavily lacking vitamin E. The vitamin E suppliments have been shown in large scale studies to actually cause more health problems. That means we all need more natural vitamin E. How do we get it when our bread, has had nutrients sucked out of it to make it look better?

I'm not sure, but I think a similar thing happened to rice. It used to be more nutritious, but processes and strains were changed over time and now it is less nutritious. Our foods haven't all gotten better since the pre-industrial era.

If you understand margarine, you will also realise that a lot of brands of margarine are worse than butter. A lot of things being sold on the basis of being better than something else aren't really better, just different.

[Ace_of_Lobster]

couldnt you just eat brown bread?

[guthmund]

I eat anything.

Because, in my opinion, I can't possibly ingest anything worse than what I breathe in the city during the day; the stuff I come in contact with when I interact with other people; the stuff that comes from the fast food joints I frequent; or my beloved microwave.

Cross-breeding; genetic mutation it's all the same in the end. When you modify the product, it doesn't matter how it was modified.....it's different from original.

As for rich folks who eat organic....they eat organic because it makes them "individual" and "unique" from the rest of society. They eat organic because it's trendy and in most cases the label "organically grown" means it's gonna cost more money to take home, which makes them food elitists. My food costs more than your food therefore I'm much more important than you.

You want organic? tend a garden. You can build a hermetically sealed greenhouse with giant air filters to keep all the "bad wind" from infecting your garden.Then you can be sure there are no pesticides, insecticides or any other -sides on your food. You can water it with distilled water trucked in by some local bottling company. Then when your done we can compare carrots; you can tell the mutant carrot from your organic because the mutant one will be eating the organic one

[lafemmefatale]

-the world is not suffering from a shortage of food just yet, it will be eventually but currently the problem lies in transportation and distribution of food.
-organic is much to expensive for a slight improvement of taste. Sometimes it doesnt even taste better.

While there are environmental concerns, those are the only valid ones [to me] against GM foods.

Meanwhile there is a diff between GM foods and processed foods. Processed food is horrible. It's the reason for so many health problems, and while it tastes good and it's convenient, it's hardly the best choice a person can make. GM foods is NOT the same. It's exactly the same as organic food but bigger! juicier! grows faster! etc etc.

How a cow is fed is not GM, treating veggies with chemicals is not GM. How bland food tastes is the fault of processing, not GM. So. Personally, I don't think GM is needed yet, distribution is what the gov should look at first. Nonetheless, it's not a bad thing. Processing is.

[MacGnG]

more research and mark the foods as GMO. i have no problem with them as long as they are considered safe and they taste good, which they are now.

the only difference between "GMO" and controlled breeding/pollinating is more scientists. for thousands of years farmers have breed this cow with this bull to make better stock. they have always cross polinated this plant with that polant to make better tomatoes, the only real difference is that GMO are more procise.

[smooth]

The problem with your assertion, MacGnG, is that the difference between breeding and cross-pollination and GM foods is that natural forces control whether a naturally crossed product is viable or not. Two entities that aren't "supposed" to be together (that is, two things that wouldn't normally be able to reproduce) will not produce viable offspring through a variety of mechanisms.

Splicing genes onto another organism bypasses such natural checks (whether you believe in natural selection or a deity or plain luck) and results in offspring that might not have been viable and, as a result, might have health consequences or adverse effects on the rest of the world progressing by the natural order in the long run.

I agree with you that we need more research and thank you for acknowledging my desire to not eat GM foods (by your acceptance that such foods be clearly labeled).

[giblfiz]

Nothing that is not viable makes it thru natural selection smooth. There is no great cosmic "supposed to" if there is a problem with the plant it dies. Its also worth pointing out that eating sickly plants doesn't make you sick. GM food is not going to go away, but the more its accepted the better it will get.
Now what I do disapprove of is the patent system and how it applies to GM food. The concept that you can't harvest 1% of your crop and use it for seeds for the next generation is *really* repulsive to me. Our patent system is out of whack

[MacGnG]

Smooth: talked about this a while ago in class. realized that is the only conclusion that works for everyone, more research and labeling. i really doubt that they pose any threat but without research we wont know; but if they are harmfull then they will be banned and i have no problem with that.

[Zeld2.0]

def agrree with more research and labeling

i think the general concern of it is the long term effects

these days with weirder and weirder diseases running around, who knows what might happen if a disease takes advantage of our bodies having a certain chemical in it we normally wouldn't or what not

i know some of this stuff sounds like sci-fi but tampering with things at times can lead to the negative, and with all the mass transport we have these days... arr

[Phaenx]

What's the problem? Afraid of getting cancer from a fruit?

[Zeld2.0]

Well of course 30 years down the line we could be laughing at this - then again 30 years down the line we could be dead.

I'd rather be the former.