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 are absolutely right. In a lab, under observation, recombinant DNA is absolutely safe and helpful. Unfortunately the science behind GMOs is being rushed from the lab as fast as possible by corporations eager to monopolize the market. The scariest advent to this brave new world thus far is the insertion of pig vaccines into corn. First off, corn is a staple food of the Americas (North, South, all of it.) 25% of the products Americans can buy from the standard market is made from corn. You would think we should be a little bit careful with this food source.
Corn genes are also very difficult to keep from spreading, which is why biologists have found genes from Monsanto's Frankenstein corn intermingling with genes in the wild corn down in Oaxaca, Mexico.
I understand that the whole reason for scientific research into GMOs is entrenched in the quest for the glorious dollar. But companies are affecting not only the entire global population now, but for generations to come, when they cut short their research in an effort to make a quick buck.
- Livvy February 27, 2009 12:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
that this is all to make money . May I point out that food sustains human life? Maybe producing more food will feed people?
- sunshiner424 August 3, 2009 4:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You have a point - but it is a conundrum: Do we rush to put the strongest, hardest, fastest-growing, best-tasting produce on the market to feed more people? Or do we use large amounts of caution requiring us to wait a ridiculously long time period before we mass produce genetically altered food ?
I think we rush too much. And I absolutely attribute this rush to the attainment of money . And I think the consequences of rushing could literally kill us all.
Once a company like Monsanto finds something that works well (a genetic plant modification, for instance) they produce unnaturally large quantities of that particular plant, and do away with most other forms of said plant (because they're weak and therefore, not valuable).
For example, once there were hundreds of different types of corn across America. Now the vast majority of North Americans subsist on four different types, and those four types are very similar to each other. So what happens if our corn suddenly becomes susceptible to a certain disease or parasite? You might think this is no big deal, but this lack of diversity is horrifying to the ecologist and biologist alike. In the words of Michael Pollan in the Omnivore's Dilemma: "Corn is what feeds the steer that becomes the steak. Corn feeds the chicken and the pig, the turkey and the lamb, the catfish and the tilapia and, increasingly, even the salmon, a carnivore by nature that the fish farmers are re-engineering to tolerate corn. The eggs are made of corn. The milk and cheese and yogurt, which once came from dairy cows that grazed on grass, now typically come from Holsteins that spend their working lives indoors tethered to machines, eating corn."
As Americans, we don't really have a food pyramid; we have a singular pillar made almost entirely of corn. So you can see why some people have a problem with bio-engineering corporations reducing our food options out of an attempt to make a lot of money. It's very competitive, it IS a race to get genetically better products on the market, and it is incredibly short sighted in light of the fact that they have little thought towards the future of natural biodiversity.
- Livvy August 4, 2009 12:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Well, I admit that I do not know very much about this topic. I didn't know how dependent America was on corn.
It is scary that diversity may have decreased so substantially. This still does not make engineered food unsafe.
The debate is whether they are safe or not and I assume this means safe to eat. Yes, they are safe to eat. And safe to feed to animals .
What is unsafe is, I agree, lack of diversity in our diets and in the diets of the animals we eat.
- sunshiner424 August 4, 2009 8:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I agree with all the negative coments on GMO but would also like to add this.
The color of the male rats testicals will turn brown not blue.
GM seeds are terminator seeds- Cant grow them again next year
Many many farmers in India commit suicide after GM crop failure because they borrowed much money from the bank and cant pay it back so they have no choice but to go to heaven and ask God to help their families.
A doctor at Sloan Kettering was asked to leave when he linked GM farmers and people who ate they GM crop with Non-Hochkins Limphoma.
There are other things but the world is just not ready to know about the rest, like who owns all the seeds stored under ground way up north, needed in the event of a whidespread crop disaster. Or the fact that now we have GMOs growing in our own intestinal flora and that means we are stealing Monsantos patent, too. Chemtrails.
- Ray-ray June 3, 2009 5:22PM
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
(1)
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
(1)
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
(1)
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
(2)
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
(2)
Side: No
"we used 30% more chemicals than 30 years ago to achieve the same yield with 10 to 70%LESS nutrient value" is not because of GMOs. It is most likely because pests have evolved to be more resistant to our chemicals.
Actually, this is a serious problem and GMOs may actually be the next step to make sure that we are all fed.
IMO we should continue researching and increase testing on GM food sources. As for everyone who is still scared of them, just don't eat them.
- sunshiner424 August 3, 2009 4:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Sunshiner424 as you said in an earlier post you don't know much about this topic on GMOs, you need to go do some research before spouting nonsense.
There have been no long term tests on how these gmos will affect our health , the environment , and the gene pool of these plants. Short term tests done by a few scientists on lab rats given gmos to eat showed a decreased immune system and some even developed legions in their stomachs. Of course the scientists were discredited by the big seed and chemical/fertilazer companies, Montanso seeds being the biggest.
"As for everyone who is still scared of them, just don't eat them." This comment just goes to show how ill informed you are on the subject. GMO's are not required to be labeled on food products and as such are not labeled. This is a major reason for concern. This means if there is a health problem caused by the gmos in the food there is no trace ability because again its no labeled and not required to.
I suggest you watch a movie on hulu called the future of foods and become more informed on the subject. I never understand why people find the need to try and discuss something before doing any research on the subject matter.
- Darklegacy24 August 14, 2009 2:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
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: Yes
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 (2)
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.
Exact Science?
There is no such thing.
Perhaps the scientific practice in this field needs some development but the products should absolutely be allowed into the food chain. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things, how many people will die from GE corn? How many die everyday from starvation? Which is a lesser evil, trying to feed them or preventing them from getting food? Breeding plants is possibly more imprecise than genetically engineering them. Both have the same principles of recombining genes.
Besides, if we disallowed anything dangerous, we would be left with nothing.
- sunshiner424
August 3, 2009 4:52PM
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.
Dangerous games
Dear Sunshiner 24: Actually what you say is a repetition of the biotech industry standard PR points on genetically engineered food products and highly inaccurate. There is no real food shortage in the world. There is a food distribution problem between those who have and those who have not. A lot of that could be sorted out with a compassion approach and sensible politics (I know, it's a scary thought, but not impossible and we do hope). Secondly check out the statistics on the numbers of Indian farmers who have committed suicide because their livelihoods have been taken away by the forced imposition of GM terminator seeds by their government in conjunction with companies such as Monsanto; seeds which they cannot afford nor are they successful replacements for their traditional growing practices. The truth is the the biotech promise of increased crop production through GM seeds has failed to happen. What has happened is they have produced pesticide resistant crops which just happen to require a lot of products such as Roundup which just happen to be made by the same companies that make the GM seeds. Furthermore, the weeds can then become pesticide resistant and so even more pesticides are required, creating an increasing pollution of the crops with chemicals which we already know are not good for us. As to your point about GM engineering being the same as regular breeding of plants, that's also not true. Let's be honest, there is no sex involved here. It is not bringing together different plants to create a healthier hybrid. It is ramming together genetic code from different species: animals , insects, bacteria and plants. The resulting mishmash has the ability to penetrate the normal defense barriers in the human digestive and immune system and cause structural alteration to the human DNA, with consequences that are extremely scary and possibly irreversible.
Sunshine 24, I don't know if you are real in your views or a schill for the biotech industry. But as a human being (potentially with children to care for) I urge you to do some further research into this subject. This is serious stuff and not to be taken lightly. Check out the following web page:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/AboutGMFoods/index.cfm . There's lots more information like this out there.
- elio
August 4, 2009 8:38AM
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.
Is it safe to sleep?
Is it safe to walk? Is it safe to drive? Is it safe to sit and talk with a friend? Yes, there are very many risks involved with biotech foods, but the same could be said of any activity.
Biotech foods are wonderful. Pesticides are not needed (in most cases), food production can reach a peak (bringing down costs), health benefits are very numerous, as nutritional needs can be met with these. They are not only safe, they are very, very beneficial.
- ckidwell7098
March 4, 2009 4:29PM
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.
Re: Is it safe to sleep
Please, please before you post could you do a little research. You sound like you are reading directly from Monsanto's website home page. Would you be their PR friend?
Pesticides are needed. Food production can reach a peak at what cost? Sure in the short term this is attractive to farmers but the payoff is in the negative many times over. They are NOT safe. Your government did not require any REAL scientific studies. They are NOT beneficial but harmful.
I have boycott Kellogs, General Mills and host of other companies. Our family avoids GMO's. I refuse to be a participate in this "study" and also refuse to let a company dictate what I eat.
Monsanto continues to buy up seed companies left and right. Does this not concern you? Patents on seeds? Besides the health costs the environmental concerns are just as great.
YouTube: The World According To Monsanto (10 clips)
YouTube: Bad Seed: The Truth About Our Food (if you do not know the people in this clip then google them. They are not idiots. They are people who we should listen to.)
YouTube: Fox News cancels Milk story
So go ahead and trust your biotech company since it has such a great track record of being trustworthy. Anyways if you choose to believe in the mythology of GMO's then go ahead and feed this to your baby, your grandchildren. Eat it up...yum. So beneficial for you.....
- Light
March 20, 2009 1:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
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.