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:
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?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 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
Re: Is it safe to sleep
No doctorate, but several months of unbiased research.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml
Let's start with a government sponsored site, shall we (I try to stray away from "YouTube"s or ".com"s, though they never show bias in any shape or form).
Now, it seems that there are very many beneficial things to what GMOs can provide (I'm assuming you've read it, and did not just scroll past it). In case you haven't read it, I'll point out a small chunk of the story.
"In 2006, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were planted in 22 countries by 10.3 million farmers. The majority of these crops were herbicide- and insect-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. Other crops grown commercially or field-tested are a sweet potato resistant to a virus that could decimate most of the African harvest, rice with increased iron and vitamins that may alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asian countries, and a variety of plants able to survive weather extremes."
But, who knows, this could very much hurt the balance of things. Who are we to play with nature? We need just to let evolution take its course. You know, rid ourselves of things like vaccines , conservation efforts, even building on nature.
Not only will I feel safe feeding GMOs to my loved ones, I will feel safer. Tell me, do your loved ones use vaccines? Medicine? Houses? Cars? Electricity? Soap? Detergent? Anything that is not "natural"?
- ckidwell7098
March 22, 2009 11:20AM
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.
Biotech Foods: Serious Controversy I
I really did not want to respond to your comment, however I will just in case your dumbing down of GMO's might persuade a reader to dismiss the seriousness of this issue. You write casually as if a genetically modified organism is somehow equal to "soap"?
Referring to the government website you posted, did you not read the part:
"Controversies
Safety
Potential human health impacts, including allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
Potential environmental impacts, including: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Access and Intellectual Property
Domination of world food production by a few companies
Increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural resources
Ethics
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Stress for animal
Labeling
Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
Mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts
Society
New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries "
You say you have researched these issues? None of the above concern you? I am curious how you have come to the conclusion that you "feel safer" in feeding this to your "loved ones". Do you somehow think the controversy is based on misunderstanding of recombinant GMO's? Let me directly quote from an individual learned in this topic, Richard Strohman,PHD. Professor Emeritus, Dept of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley:
"When you insert a single gene into a plant or an animal, the technology will work. You will be able to move that gene from organism A to organism B. You will be able to know that the transfer was successful. You will be able to know that the gene is being expressed, and even that the function of the gene is being expressed. So you'll get the desired characteristic. But you will also get other effects that you couldn't have predicted from your original assumptions. You will have also produced changes in the cell or the organism as a whole that are unpredictable. And that's what the science is having to deal with.
"The reason why Monsanto can claim scientific soundness is that they are only answering the technical question, 'Can I move this gene and this characteristic from A to B?' They are not asking the questions that the current understanding of cell biology demands. You can ask the technical question and get the answer you are looking for. You can take a gene from A and put it into B. We know that. But that's the only question we can answer with certainty. We now realize that there are a whole host of other questions.
"Genes exist in networks, interactive networks which have a logic of their own. The technology point of view does not deal with these networks. It simply addresses genes in isolation. But genes do not exist in isolation. And the fact that the industry folks don't deal with these networks is what makes their science incomplete and dangerous. If you send these new genetic structures out into the world, into hundreds of thousands of acres, you're going into the world with a premature application of a scientific principle.
"We're in a crisis position where we know the weakness of the genetic concept, but we don't know how to incorporate it into a new, more complete understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don't want to look at it because it's too complicated and it's going to cost too much to figure out. The number of questions, the number of possibilities for what happens to a cell, to the whole organism when you insert a foreign gene, are almost incalculable. And the time it would take to assess the infinite possibilities that arise is beyond the capabilities of computers. But that's what you get when you're dealing with living systems."
- Light
March 31, 2009 2:29AM
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.
Biotech Food: Serious Controversy II
There are scientific limitations in this new frontier of biotechnology . There is so much excitement in this field, but the unavoidable issue raised by scientific authorities is the fact of the unknowns. Greedy companies are disregarding the "unknown" and forging ahead for no other purpose but to create profit and this has now diminished the excitement.
Let's say that the existing biotechnology to this point will have no future negative consequences. Would this still excuse the fact that these companies put yours, mine, all of our health at risk? Who wants to trust or support a company like this? It is time consumers stood up to a company like Monsanto. Who will? I have.
Once again these "benefits" that you claim are only for the seed and biotech companies. The risks, they are all ours. Bioengineered foods are a "benefit" (the oft-repeated ad-exec GMO power punch adjective used by Monsanto (as well as "beneficial")) that I neither want nor need.
Recently it has been pointed out that Monsanto falsified their reports of the number of acres of transgenic crops grown in the EU, where in fact only 0.21% of agricultural land is GM crops, and this has actually been declining since 2005. I will again refer you to view the documentary "THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO" to learn the truth on how these crops are allegedly "helping" the world. However you do not wish to utilize YouTube in any of your "research" so you would need to rent or buy it if you wish to watch it. Many farmers in developing countries have no idea about the science of bioengineering and only know what they are told by the biotech company pushing their product. Another evident evil of these companies: preying on those who are not truly educated. Monsanto, for example, has a legal counsel that puts them on a unequal playing field that no one can touch, as well as a well-orchestrated marketing team. Responsibility for this misinformation lies solely on the head of Monsanto, et al; especially when these innocent farmers sign their rights away on the required contract for such things as cross pollination, health issues etc. when they occur. The uneducated farmer takes the fall.
You may have more vested in the biotech field than I. You may have some association with a biotech company. Or, maybe you are simply an unenlightened shareholder. Maybe there is a lot more at stake for you and you want to believe that all is right with the GMO's you now consume. It is a very ugly realization that we are guinea pigs in an unstudied "study" and that there are NO predictable outcomes. I can understand why many do not want to believe the unknown risks, as it is just too frightening. After all, the government wouldn't really let this happen...
You must have chuckled to yourself when you wrote that you feel even "safer" feeding GMO's to your loved ones. How clever of you to have "one upped" Monsanto's PR script. Monsanto insults the intelligence of its shareholders and misleads them (such as why they are pulling out of rBGH). All is not rosy on the home front. Monsanto's transgenic contamination cannot be recalled from the environment and Monsanto cannot recall "The World According To Monsanto". The truth cannot be recalled. Bioengineered foods on our dinner plates are not a trival and simplistic matter and you do not give the topic the depth it warrants.
What could be more safe than consuming a perfectly ripened beautiful golden red heirloom tomato as "nature" intended it? You say a GM tomato is "safer" to consume because a company has "improved" nature? We can only hope to understand nature.
- Light
March 31, 2009 2:31AM
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.
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.