The reason those tomatoes in your grocery cart are so plump and those apples are so golden is due in part to biotechnology. But while science has improved certain qualities of the foods we eat, some experts are concerned about the possible health risks in these ‘new and improved’ foods. Should you be worried?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Biotech Food: Serious Controversy II
A different POV
I'll be honest with you. I have not researched this topic thoroughly. I hadn't even heard of Monsanto until this forum.
I am a Biomedical Engineering student. I have taken Graduate courses in Molecular Biology although I am not going into that area of research. (I am going into exercise physiology, completely unrelated)
You are right that there are unknowns in genetic engineering. We can't predict every consequence of switching out a gene. However, we have come a very long way in understanding cells and whole genomes, and determining safety is possible.
If a tomato has been engineered to contain more vitamins and be resistant to disease and if this tomato successfully grows, there is very little chance for danger. It will not suddenly become radioactive or develop cancer . Those are absolutely ridiculous. The thing with plants is that if it is unhealthy, it will die.
I am not saying that you must eat GE foods. But you should not stop starving people from eating foods that will probably save their lives with no side affects. If the choice is GE rice or maggots and rats, the rice is guaranteed to be safer. Not safe, but safer. Nothing we eat is truly safe because everybody is different with allergies and reactions and different digestive systems. But let's keep in mind that plants don't eat people, people eat plants.
A simple suggestion: tone down your paranoia and keep it to yourself please? As consumers we have the right to eat what we like whether good or bad.
If we were always this scared and nervous about trying new unknown things, we would have accomplished nothing. Cars, planes, rockets, pasteurizing milk, eating meat , using lightbulbs, everything. Should we freak out about having electricity in our homes? No, but I'm sure some people did. We learned to control electricity enough to make it worthwhile, didn't we?
I find it a little bit absurd that we have a way to produce food cheaper to feed starving countries and you're arguing that there MIGHT be something horrible about that food so they shouldn't eat it.
- sunshiner424
August 3, 2009 4:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dude seriously...
Again and again I find your comments on this subject just lacking any true information at all, just a bunch of bull.
If you would do your research you would learn the problem of world hunger isn't that there isn't enough food , its a distruption problem. Guess what most of these starving countries around the world grew their own food until companies like monsanto fcked all that up.
You know they actually have a gene called the terminator gene. The terminator gene makes sure the seeds from the crop you grow from their seeds won't germinate, means they aren't viable and you have to keep buying their seeds season after season. How exactly does that sound to you? Oh yea Monsanto, the biggest gmo food producer out there, now owns 75% of our worlds seed banks . These are untainted natural seeds and a giant gmo seed company now owns them. Hmmmm sound like reason for concern to you? Cause it sure does concern me. Oh yea a lot of our government officials are part of Monsanto. Secretary of treasuary, secretary of defense, and secretary of argiculture to name a few. Hmmmm sound like a conflict of interest to you? Cause it sure does to me.
Montanso is also going after these farmers who have their gmo plants on their land without knowledge and suing them, because these seeds are paitened. The farmers usually also settle cause they don't have the money to fight a giant company like Montanso. Guess what most of these farmers didn't even know it was in there fields, usually gets blown over from fields futher down by wind or by a seed truck driving by and a few fly off. Seriously how can we let living things be paitened. These raises a bigger issue for concern. Well if montanso owns that gene and an animal eats that plant with that gene, guess what Montanso now owns that animal. So that means if those genes we are eating ever get into our system guess what Montanso actually owns you then. Of course this is in conflict with the Constitution, but eventually we could see Montanso take this to the supreme court , just like they did with the issue of paitening living things and guess what the same supreme court decided to allow it. Now how in your right mind can you try and put a patient on living things.
Like I said before go do some research and become more informed on this subject before rambling on about how great gmos are and how they can save all the starving people. Let me guess you would be the same kind of person to come on here and tell us smoking cannabis should be illegal and will cause all kinds of health problems. Learn to do your own thinking and stop letting the government do it for ya.
- Darklegacy24
August 15, 2009 12:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I may not
know much about the food industry but you clearly don't know much about biotechnology.
Firstly, as this is a forum for intelligent debates, I would like to clear up one thing. When you say "paitened" and "patient" do you mean patented and patent?
Secondly, I am not the kind of person you think I am. I have commented in discussions saying cannabis should be completely legalized. I do not let the government think for me. But thank you for the advice .
Now. Yes the food industry is messed up. However, the food these companies produce is not nearly so bad as you think. I am a Biotechnology graduate student with a bachelor's in human anatomy and physiology and I have actually cloned and expressed genes myself. I know the process and I know the biology. I believe you are mistaken in you beliefs primarily that you think eating a gene may somehow cause you to imbibe and express the gene. This is not true. Eating food means you break it down and absorb the nutrients for energy but in no way does your genetic code change from the food you eat. In other words, Monsanto would have no claim over you. The genetic code that they patented would be broken down by the animals that ate their plants. This is not in conflict with the constitution .
In response to your other response to me, I would have to read the research article myself to believe anything about gmo 's causing physical harm by ingestion. Also, people can research themselves which foods have been altered or they can shop in the organic aisle at the grocery store. They don't need the information handed to them on a silver platter (or sticky label) to pick what to eat. Forcing them to be labeled is just another way of increasing costs for businesses and making it easier for people to stop thinking.
I have the right and intelligence to discuss this matter just as much as you do. You are lacking in the science aspect and I am lacking in the logistics aspect. Perhaps we can share information and both gain from it.
As for the terminator gene (which I am sure has a scientific name that neither of us knows) I absolutely believe in its likely existence because it would be logical for the company to be a business and try to make money . To me, that sounds like they are being a business, which I have no problem with. The part that members of government are affiliated with Monsanto does not surprise me but also reduces my faith in the US government even more. It definitely sounds like a conflict of interest.
To address the comments I expect to receive from this post, the reason I have no problem with Monsanto being and acting like a business is because businesses give people jobs . Bigger businesses give people more jobs. The more money they make, the more they can spend in salaries. This whole anti-business idea is ruining our economy and the fact that most people don't understand the simple concept of the more money a company makes the more it has to dish out is frankly, shocking. It makes me want to club baby seals.
- sunshiner424
August 16, 2009 5:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I dont want fishgenes in my strawberry's
I am for promoting free choice in what we eat and drink ( food , medicine etc) and therefore for promoting mandatory labelling of GMO food/drink and medicine:
My opinion on gentech foods? I am really not sure. But as long as I am not sure, and uninformed by companies producing and selling GMO foods and medicine by lack of labelling, I am solely eating organic foods.
- Saxiony
August 19, 2009 12:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
With all due respect sir,
You have your free choices and can choose to buy whatever food you like.
You are promoting forceful spending on food labels for companies simply because you don't want to have to research it yourself. You preach free choice and then fight for taking it away. Think about all the affects that would occur by creating laws forcing companies to make food labels. The information you want is already available to you; why do you wish increased spending and increased cost?
- sunshiner424
August 19, 2009 1:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is my strawberry a fish (II) ?
Hi sunshine,
There are neglectable costs involved with mandatory labelling GMO foods.
Simply because labelling other ingredients is already mandatory (at least it is in Europe), and companies are already changing their labels every other term in order to charm their consumers to keep with their product (simple and obvious marketing technique that any selfrespecting company uses). So that would be a nice opportunity to type these two words into their list of ingredients already on the label: contains GMO's. No extra costs involved for companies.
It is simply a civil right to be able to choose what or what not to put into your body. It is a civil and fundamental (UN protected) human right. The choice can only be made if the choice is informed.
Or do you and biotech companies think the people are too dumb to decide?
If any burden is involved it should lie with producers of GMO foods since they are the ones gaining from them (which I think is great because I am all for Free trade and lots of jobs ).
Please read article 3 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (can be found on UN website).
- Saxiony
August 20, 2009 9:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your strawberry is a fish the same as you are a strawberry
True, packaging costs are relatively small. Perhaps they could afford it with just a cent price increase for their products. *shrug
As a libertarian, I am against creating useless laws. This law would be useless because I actually consider people smart enough to research what they are eating if they care. Like you. I think they are smart enough not only to decide what to eat but smart enough to find out for themselves.
The burden should be on the consumer because the consumer is responsible for their own body and what goes in it. The burden of thought and research is more a benefit than a burden anyway...
I have read the entire declaration and not only does article 3 have nothing to do with this debate, but the UN is wayyyy too socialist anyway. I do not accept all of those rights as rights but as I know there is nothing I can do about it... I will debate if asked.
As for your strawberry being a fish... taking one gene from one organism and placing it into another does not change the species of that organism. Also, many of your genes align with a strawberry's. So no, your strawberry is not a fish.
- sunshiner424
August 20, 2009 12:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.