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:
Your endorsement of GMO technology reads like a Monsanto Commercial. In reality the scientists have very little idea what effects the modifications they make will have on a grand scale. They are simply stabbing in the dark and then rushing these things to market with little oversight.
Biotech foods are the largest uncontrolled experiment in history. With the long term effects unknown they are basically using everyone as guinea pigs.
- sporg0
December 15, 2008 9:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You must admit that when Monsanto is apparently covering up its own studies on GM foods, the results must not have been favorable. Indeed, there seems to be an appalling lack of studies done to reassure the public as to its safety. On the contrary, it seems incredibly suspicious to anyone looking at it objectively. Everyone needs to watch The World According To Monsanto. Great video.
- sonofwill December 17, 2008 4:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In this argument CEI claims that GMO crops reduce pesticides and will help end world hunger.
These are the standard arguments given by biotech companies.
But a I found a new book by Craig Holdrege and Steve Talbott, "Beyond Biotechnology" (University Press of Kentucky, 2008) to have lots of good solid evidence as to why these simplistic alleged solutions are not so simple and don't really solve the problems.
In terms of reducing pesticides, long-term pesticide use in concentrated areas, including GMO crops engineered with pesticides, can lead to the targeted pest building resistance. Already, many weeds have become resistant to some strains of herbicide-fortified GMOs. Increased resistance means that biotech companies will need to come up with new GMOs to combat the problem, leaving farmers ever more dependent on them for seed.
And using genetic engineering to increase agricultural production to address world food shortages lacks foresight.
Holdredge and Talbott address this in their book:
"Feeding the world is not just a question of increasing yields. When we believe it is, we divert our attention from the much broader social, political, economic, and ecological issues influencing food production and hunger. If we continue to live under the illusion that we will find a technological solution to world hunger, and if we set our hopes on such solutions to channel our money and energy into their development, we can be pretty sure that world hunger will only grow."
- Santa Cruz Mom September 24, 2008 1:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You list all these benefits, however, I did not see one mention of any improvement in food taste or nutritional benefit to the consumer. I believe that the USA is on the slippery slope, and it's very steep, heading towards continual food crises. The horror of factory farming, crop farmers being held to ransom by the large agricultural companies and the number of food safety issues that you are subjected to should be very worrying indeed.
My understanding is that there is recent evidence that the nutritional content of fruit and vegetables has significantly decreased in the last 60 years (eg the amount of iron in an apple the 50's was a lot greater than currently) and this is largely due to reduced soil quality. Perhaps this is food for thought with regard to the obesity epidemic -perhaps everyone keeps eating in order to get the "nutrition" that they need but at a caloric overload cost.
- cath7472
October 2, 2008 4:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Look at what the agriculture industry has done with BT (baccilus Thuringenis) in our corn! they take this wonderful thing that God created to kill the bugs in the ground and put it into the cells of the corn! Not only that , but the hard shell aroung the BT that keeps other organisms from injesting the "bug killing" properties of the bt has been removed in the GM proccess.therefore, we are getting the gut injuring "pesticide" everytime we eat a corn chip, tortilla or ear of corn, (not to mention the feed going into the meat that we eat)!
eat organic...refuse this crap from these horrible conglomerates and they will begin to see that we won't stand for this. UNfortunately most of the worlds population are already sheeple.
do yourself a favor and save seeds from your organic corn and other veggies and fruits, before long monsanto dupont and the other mega corps will own every seed in this world and we'll have nothing to choose from other than their poison.
- clsr July 24, 2008 12:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Eureka! GMOs! We own ‘em! Right away the chemical companies, seizing upon the hands-off attitude American consumers have about how their food is grown and packaged, saw profits signs dancing in front of their eyes -- So, GMOs were rushed into the food supply. Slick salesmen working at a fevered pitch continue to 'sell’ farmers and too-busy politicians on a new, bold 'high tech' alternative that has turned out to be as dangerous to our health as snake oil . Because weeds wick away nutrients from the soil, 'patented' weed killer resistant GMO seeds and their ‘patented’ companion weed killer chemicals have a sole purpose -- to reduce weeds . Weeds are the enemy, and we – consumers - are just caught in this Hiroshima of chemicals. FACT: In 2008, we used 30% more chemicals than 30 years ago to achieve the same yield with 10 to 70%LESS nutrient value. We need to wise up and stop buying GMOs.
- IssueTalk July 29, 2008 10:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Their are two different issues here:
1) Failures in our food safety testing.
2) The advent of a new biotechnology.
I fully agree that we (Americans) have a problem at the FDA and USDA. Corporations are having far much success at lobbying these agencies. However, I think the focus on genetic modifications is too narrow and not fully justified.
There is no fundamental reason why an altered plant WOULD be safe to eat. As pointed out in the above post, the results of engineering are unpredictable. You would not go out in the woods, collect random plants and feed them to your family. Just because something looks like a tomato doesn't mean that it has all the properties of a tomato. No, when a new plant is created (or discovered for that matter), it needs to be carefully tested before it can be considered safe to eat.
Likewise, there is no fundamental reason why genetic engineering creates dangerous things. While the process is unpredictable, the end product is just a new plant, it is still made out of all the same basic biological building blocks as any other plant. There is no inherent toxicity that adheres to a plant from the process of engineering it. After a specific GM food is proven to be safe, then it is no less safe than crops created by regular domestication practices.
The organizations that oppose genetically modified foods are helping to expose an important problem, but the problem is not the technology of genetic modification, it is a failure in our food safety system that would still exist, even if GM foods were banned.
- Adam Hammond September 4, 2008 6:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I am not surprised that GMO soy can negatively influence male reproductive systems- because the fact is soy of any kind is estrogenic and is having effects in any diet.
We are seeing advanced puberty in females from soy in the diet. There is no doubt potential to add to declining fertility and other problems in males.
Unfortunately we will not be told the truth by companies as ruthless and conscienceless as Monsanto. They have a nearly unlimited ability to buy the results that they want from any testing agency'
*Except for such facts I do not believe that all usage of biotech breeding are harmful*.
Hal 84
- Hal 84 December 24, 2008 12:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Your hypothesis is pretty far fetched. Your supporting link to an obviously biased activist site does nothing to back up your claims. Nice try. Please supply more reliable information from neutral researchers.
- tbcass December 24, 2008 5:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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
Are Biotech Foods Safe?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Genetic engineering is far from being an exact science
Biochemist, Dr John Fagan, returned his government grant to research genetic science and refused to do any more work in the field when he realized the dangers of current GE scientific practice. He referred to as being about as accurate as throwing a statue through the 2nd floor of an art museum and expecting it to land on a specific pedestal. He now works with a company that does testing for genetic content in food etc. Until thorough testing is done on the long term effects of tinkering with genetic code, GE products should be not allowed into the food chain. It's another case of dubious science being forced through for commercial gain with no proper scientific or moral safeguards.
- elio July 29, 2008 6:05PM
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.