When GM food is fed to rats it affected their kidneys and blood counts. So what might it do to humans?
May 22, 2005 2:09 AM Subscribe
Rats fed GM corn develop abnormalities A new study reveals that rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn develop abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.
At least in Europe the food is labelled. In the US that corn, or whatever, you are eating may be GM, or not, but you will never know. Some items like the "Flavor Saver" tomato actually bragged about their Frankenstein heritage, but most slip quietly into the food stream.
posted by caddis at 4:29 AM on May 22, 2005
posted by caddis at 4:29 AM on May 22, 2005
Franken rats will require Franken cats. Franken dogs are frankenfurters. May the majority stockholders and corporate executives of Monsanto etc. be the first to suffer Franken diseases.
posted by nofundy at 4:49 AM on May 22, 2005
posted by nofundy at 4:49 AM on May 22, 2005
See, I've got no objection at all to genetic engineering per se. I've never understood the whole "oooh, its Frankenfood" bit.
My problem is that to a for profit corporation safety testing is just another cost to be cut. Genetic engineering isn't bad in and of itself, but when Monsanto rushes production of an engineered species that is bad. They simply aren't testing enough because proper testing (with today's technology) would take years (if not decades) and cost millions (if not billions).
So now a test that should have been conducted before Monsanto even dreamed of releasing its corn shows that, surprise, a for profit corp chose profit over safety.
Genetic engineering and atomic power, the two biggest potentially wonderful things that we just can't let a for profit corporation touch...
posted by sotonohito at 4:56 AM on May 22, 2005
My problem is that to a for profit corporation safety testing is just another cost to be cut. Genetic engineering isn't bad in and of itself, but when Monsanto rushes production of an engineered species that is bad. They simply aren't testing enough because proper testing (with today's technology) would take years (if not decades) and cost millions (if not billions).
So now a test that should have been conducted before Monsanto even dreamed of releasing its corn shows that, surprise, a for profit corp chose profit over safety.
Genetic engineering and atomic power, the two biggest potentially wonderful things that we just can't let a for profit corporation touch...
posted by sotonohito at 4:56 AM on May 22, 2005
Can someone enlighten me as to the qualitative difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding? All the corn we eat today has been genetically modified by humans, through breeding over centuries.
Is there a rational reason I should be more nervous about a Flavor-saver tomato than a tangelo, or a loganberry?
posted by bashos_frog at 5:46 AM on May 22, 2005
Is there a rational reason I should be more nervous about a Flavor-saver tomato than a tangelo, or a loganberry?
posted by bashos_frog at 5:46 AM on May 22, 2005
difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding - Well the ethics of extreme selective breeding are also troubling, but breeding over multiple generations does allow natural predators time to adapt & evolve.
posted by Lanark at 6:07 AM on May 22, 2005
posted by Lanark at 6:07 AM on May 22, 2005
Not surprised at all that a food that didn't exist is causing problems not seen before , but hell I'm tired of learning something is dangerous because some whisteblower leaked the truth or part of a truth. I don't wanna take risks for Monsanto without compensation and without being asked and being informed !
posted by elpapacito at 6:20 AM on May 22, 2005
posted by elpapacito at 6:20 AM on May 22, 2005
human health could be affected by eating GM food.
my dad worked there 20 years and never once set foot in the cafeteria.
posted by quonsar at 6:35 AM on May 22, 2005
my dad worked there 20 years and never once set foot in the cafeteria.
posted by quonsar at 6:35 AM on May 22, 2005
GM corn gives me wicked headaches. Seriously- I can't eat it. Never had a problem eating it before.
posted by fshgrl at 6:42 AM on May 22, 2005
posted by fshgrl at 6:42 AM on May 22, 2005
Why is the report confidential?
I'm serious. When I read that, I *immediately* wanted to check out the methodology. Were they feeding the rats normally, with a bit of GM corn? A diet exclusively made from it? (IE, malnourishment?) Stuffing them with 10x their body weight?
I don't want to sound like a cheerleader, but there is not enough farmland left on earth to provide "natural" food for our ever-growing population. We NEED enhanced food of some sort or another, unless we just want another die-off and Darwin to take his toll. GM food has the potential to feed several times the people using the exact same amount of land as traditional crops. That's not something any ethical person can dismiss lightly with screams of "Frankenfood!"
It's easy to sit back and criticize from our comfy chairs in our technologically-developed countries, secure in the knowledge that at no point in our lives are we likely to be more than 10 minutes away from a McDonalds. World groups say somewhere in the area of *800 MILLION* people (that's roughly 1/8 our population) is unable to obtain enough food to live.
If it is true that this corn ACTUALLY causes health problems, then certainly, it should not be on the market. But we should be absolutely completely sure that it is the GM food and nothing else - otherwise thousands of people a day die while we dither.
We need to look to the facts, and nothing else. Letting your emotions get swayed by scare tactics and hysterical groups screaming "Frankenfood!" does NOTHING except let more people die.
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:00 AM on May 22, 2005
I'm serious. When I read that, I *immediately* wanted to check out the methodology. Were they feeding the rats normally, with a bit of GM corn? A diet exclusively made from it? (IE, malnourishment?) Stuffing them with 10x their body weight?
I don't want to sound like a cheerleader, but there is not enough farmland left on earth to provide "natural" food for our ever-growing population. We NEED enhanced food of some sort or another, unless we just want another die-off and Darwin to take his toll. GM food has the potential to feed several times the people using the exact same amount of land as traditional crops. That's not something any ethical person can dismiss lightly with screams of "Frankenfood!"
It's easy to sit back and criticize from our comfy chairs in our technologically-developed countries, secure in the knowledge that at no point in our lives are we likely to be more than 10 minutes away from a McDonalds. World groups say somewhere in the area of *800 MILLION* people (that's roughly 1/8 our population) is unable to obtain enough food to live.
If it is true that this corn ACTUALLY causes health problems, then certainly, it should not be on the market. But we should be absolutely completely sure that it is the GM food and nothing else - otherwise thousands of people a day die while we dither.
We need to look to the facts, and nothing else. Letting your emotions get swayed by scare tactics and hysterical groups screaming "Frankenfood!" does NOTHING except let more people die.
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:00 AM on May 22, 2005
OK, the significance of MON 863 is that it contains "a variant of the wild-type Cry3Bb1 insecticidal protein from Bacillus thuringiensis." (From this previous Monsanto MON 863 rat study, PDF, super-exclusively available on the Internet). What's Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)? It's "a naturally occurring bacterial disease of insects" which is used as an active ingredient against certain pests, especially caterpillars (from this fact-sheet hosted by Colorado State) which is considered, even outside the GM context, to be safe for people and other non-pest animals. It basically works by upsetting the caterpillars' stomachs and causing them to stop eating.
Note, of course, that this multi-species cross-pollination is significantly different from generation upon generation of selective breeding, a distinction the FPP could have pointed out. Instead, in a rush to condemn "frankenfood", we're lumping all the different kinds of genetic modification together, even though they can have vastly different effects. Insofar as GM is the same thing as selective breeding, it doesn't have any additional health consequences (political ramifications are a different story). The FPP (or the Independent story, for that matter) would have been much clearer had it said "Corn containing pesticides dangerous to rats," but that would've involved less eco-fear pandering.
OK, something's funky with that PDF link... I can save it directly from google but can't reach it by copying the URL for some reason. Anyway, there are tons of studies online if you search for "MON 863 rat."
On preview: props to InnocentBystander.
posted by rkent at 7:01 AM on May 22, 2005
Note, of course, that this multi-species cross-pollination is significantly different from generation upon generation of selective breeding, a distinction the FPP could have pointed out. Instead, in a rush to condemn "frankenfood", we're lumping all the different kinds of genetic modification together, even though they can have vastly different effects. Insofar as GM is the same thing as selective breeding, it doesn't have any additional health consequences (political ramifications are a different story). The FPP (or the Independent story, for that matter) would have been much clearer had it said "Corn containing pesticides dangerous to rats," but that would've involved less eco-fear pandering.
OK, something's funky with that PDF link... I can save it directly from google but can't reach it by copying the URL for some reason. Anyway, there are tons of studies online if you search for "MON 863 rat."
On preview: props to InnocentBystander.
posted by rkent at 7:01 AM on May 22, 2005
I love GM foods! And I also eat plastic, washed down with a slurp or two of Roundup and a dash of Agent Orange. Mmmm! (runs off to buy some more Monsanto shares)
"Can someone enlighten me as to the qualitative difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding?"
Yes. One is a natural breeding process with selected mates (the same way that nature works, just a little more directed towards specific goals other than the organism's survival).
The other is taking genes from unrelated organisms (tomatos and fish, for example, in the case of Flavr Savr tomatos), which couldn't naturally breed together, and splicing them together to produce something new and exciting. And, er, unpredictable. Something our environment hasn't evolved to deal with, and neither have we.
Personally I don't see a problem with GM, as long as we do long-term tests (over more than two generations of human volunteers) before releasing it to the general population. But somehow I don't think Monsanto wants to wait that long for their quick profits...
Incidentally, the argument that GM foods will feed the world is complete BS. We have enough food to feed the world already; it simply isn't distributed to the poor. We need to change the distribution sysyem (economy) not the crop.
posted by cleardawn at 7:05 AM on May 22, 2005
"Can someone enlighten me as to the qualitative difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding?"
Yes. One is a natural breeding process with selected mates (the same way that nature works, just a little more directed towards specific goals other than the organism's survival).
The other is taking genes from unrelated organisms (tomatos and fish, for example, in the case of Flavr Savr tomatos), which couldn't naturally breed together, and splicing them together to produce something new and exciting. And, er, unpredictable. Something our environment hasn't evolved to deal with, and neither have we.
Personally I don't see a problem with GM, as long as we do long-term tests (over more than two generations of human volunteers) before releasing it to the general population. But somehow I don't think Monsanto wants to wait that long for their quick profits...
Incidentally, the argument that GM foods will feed the world is complete BS. We have enough food to feed the world already; it simply isn't distributed to the poor. We need to change the distribution sysyem (economy) not the crop.
posted by cleardawn at 7:05 AM on May 22, 2005
system, I mean, not sysyem. sorry. Genetically modified spelling. :-))
posted by cleardawn at 7:08 AM on May 22, 2005
posted by cleardawn at 7:08 AM on May 22, 2005
Cleardawn - and how do you intend to do that? Worldwide socialism? Rations and quotas?
I'm not asking as some sort of kneejerk OMG T3H COMMIEISM! idiot. I'm serious. A sad fact of human life is that power - whatever form it might take - tends to migrate into the hands of the few. Saying "Well, there is enough for everyone... if it's shared equally." is a completely unrealistic stance to take, based on the entirety of the human experience.
You have to assume that 10% of the population are going to be greedy pigs, no matter what the situation is.
Therefore, if the options are A)create new and better-growing foods, or B)change the course of human nature... which seems the more realistic an option?
(and that's assuming your assertion is true, which it's really not. At least, if it still is true *right now* it won't be in the near future, at the rate that our population is overtaking our growable lands. More people == less farmland. Period.)
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:12 AM on May 22, 2005
I'm not asking as some sort of kneejerk OMG T3H COMMIEISM! idiot. I'm serious. A sad fact of human life is that power - whatever form it might take - tends to migrate into the hands of the few. Saying "Well, there is enough for everyone... if it's shared equally." is a completely unrealistic stance to take, based on the entirety of the human experience.
You have to assume that 10% of the population are going to be greedy pigs, no matter what the situation is.
Therefore, if the options are A)create new and better-growing foods, or B)change the course of human nature... which seems the more realistic an option?
(and that's assuming your assertion is true, which it's really not. At least, if it still is true *right now* it won't be in the near future, at the rate that our population is overtaking our growable lands. More people == less farmland. Period.)
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:12 AM on May 22, 2005
there is not enough farmland left on earth to provide "natural" food for our ever-growing population.
Not being a smartass, but . . .source?
at the rate that our population is overtaking our growable lands
Thankfully it looks like (according to many trusted observers) world population will begin to decline before long. For example the UN report, World Population Prospects (1996 revision) predicts growth will plateau around 2050, then begin to shrink.
posted by iwearredsocks at 10:25 AM on May 22, 2005
Not being a smartass, but . . .source?
at the rate that our population is overtaking our growable lands
Thankfully it looks like (according to many trusted observers) world population will begin to decline before long. For example the UN report, World Population Prospects (1996 revision) predicts growth will plateau around 2050, then begin to shrink.
posted by iwearredsocks at 10:25 AM on May 22, 2005
I don't see how GM crops are going to help feed the poor considering that they i) cost so much ii) you cannot save your own seed for future years and iii) most of the people in the world who are starving are not in trouble due to a lack of arable land, but rather wars, droughts, disease, social breakdown etc.
posted by fshgrl at 10:27 AM on May 22, 2005
posted by fshgrl at 10:27 AM on May 22, 2005
But we should be absolutely completely sure that it is the GM food and nothing else . . . . [emphasis added]
This is the same attitude that the global warming deniers use. "More studies are needed." I would think with a potentially dangerous food being placed into the food stream, and in such a way that consumers lack choice, we should be absolutely, completely sure that it is safe before we let people eat it. The burden should be on proving it is safe, not on proving that it isn't safe. At the very least, mandate proper labelling so that the consumer can decide for himself.
Question: can franken-corn be grown in such a fashion as to allow it to be sold as organic, or does its GM heritage prevent it from being labelled organic?
posted by caddis at 10:33 AM on May 22, 2005
This is the same attitude that the global warming deniers use. "More studies are needed." I would think with a potentially dangerous food being placed into the food stream, and in such a way that consumers lack choice, we should be absolutely, completely sure that it is safe before we let people eat it. The burden should be on proving it is safe, not on proving that it isn't safe. At the very least, mandate proper labelling so that the consumer can decide for himself.
Question: can franken-corn be grown in such a fashion as to allow it to be sold as organic, or does its GM heritage prevent it from being labelled organic?
posted by caddis at 10:33 AM on May 22, 2005
tomatos and fish, for example, in the case of Flavr Savr tomatos
Woah! Do you know of any other crazy combinations?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:38 AM on May 22, 2005
Woah! Do you know of any other crazy combinations?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:38 AM on May 22, 2005
fshgrl - upthread you said GM corn gives you headaches? Could this be a psychosomatic effect?
As for GM crops feeding the poor, we're not talking about Monsato's craptastic roundup resistant terminator garbgage.
Rice is an important crop in other parts of the world - however, they're susceptible to a host of plant pathogens which cuts down the yield of a crop. There have been engineered strains of rice which are resistant to some of the more damaging pathogens (such as rice blast) and thus the yield of a crop is better, thus feeding more people.
Other crops can be engineered such that they consume less water - water being an increasingly limiting resource in many parts of the world.
So instead of creating an energy-inefficient method of distributing the excess food in one part of the world to another, we can create crops that grow in less-than ideal land.
There are a lot of examples on how GM plants can help feed the currently under-nourished.
/rather have a good-tasting ugly tomato than one of those tasteless watery flaver savers
posted by PurplePorpoise at 10:40 AM on May 22, 2005
As for GM crops feeding the poor, we're not talking about Monsato's craptastic roundup resistant terminator garbgage.
Rice is an important crop in other parts of the world - however, they're susceptible to a host of plant pathogens which cuts down the yield of a crop. There have been engineered strains of rice which are resistant to some of the more damaging pathogens (such as rice blast) and thus the yield of a crop is better, thus feeding more people.
Other crops can be engineered such that they consume less water - water being an increasingly limiting resource in many parts of the world.
So instead of creating an energy-inefficient method of distributing the excess food in one part of the world to another, we can create crops that grow in less-than ideal land.
There are a lot of examples on how GM plants can help feed the currently under-nourished.
/rather have a good-tasting ugly tomato than one of those tasteless watery flaver savers
posted by PurplePorpoise at 10:40 AM on May 22, 2005
upthread you said GM corn gives you headaches? Could this be a psychosomatic effect?
Nope, I was getting these terrible headaches last month. I get migraines a lot- so I did my usual write-everything-down-process-of-elimination routine and it was definetely the baby corn I'd been eating all week. I thought that was odd so I asked at the store where it came from and the vegetable guy told me it was "almost certainly" GM. I ate some corn from the farmers market last week and was fine. Weird but true.
posted by fshgrl at 10:49 AM on May 22, 2005
Nope, I was getting these terrible headaches last month. I get migraines a lot- so I did my usual write-everything-down-process-of-elimination routine and it was definetely the baby corn I'd been eating all week. I thought that was odd so I asked at the store where it came from and the vegetable guy told me it was "almost certainly" GM. I ate some corn from the farmers market last week and was fine. Weird but true.
posted by fshgrl at 10:49 AM on May 22, 2005
From the Christian Aid site "There is no shortage of food in the world. Hunger is the result of poverty - not having the land on which to grow food or not being able to afford to buy food.
It is also the result of the fact that markets serve those who can pay, not those who cannot."
While I'm completely open to the possibility of benefits from biotechnology, the Seeds of Change report (Soil Association) summarises the north american experience as an economic disaster - if farmers in developed countries can't turn a profit with this technology, what hope for the 3rd world?
posted by Lanark at 10:52 AM on May 22, 2005
It is also the result of the fact that markets serve those who can pay, not those who cannot."
While I'm completely open to the possibility of benefits from biotechnology, the Seeds of Change report (Soil Association) summarises the north american experience as an economic disaster - if farmers in developed countries can't turn a profit with this technology, what hope for the 3rd world?
posted by Lanark at 10:52 AM on May 22, 2005
we can create crops that grow in less-than ideal land.
That is pretty much a recipe for disaster. Marginal land is usually termed "marginal" because it is geographically on the edge of an arable area and cannot reliably support farming. Get a bunch of people totally dependant on it for food and when rain fall patterns shift slightly you have a famine on your hands. And ultimately decertification, aquifer problems or salt contamination (About one-third of the world's irrigated land is unsuitable for growing crops because of contamination with high levels of salt).
We should stop encouraging people to settle marginal land, not make it easier. Besides I've not heard of GM crops that actually used less water.
Ironically restoring salt contaminated land might be one of the most justifiable uses of GM crops.
posted by fshgrl at 10:59 AM on May 22, 2005
That is pretty much a recipe for disaster. Marginal land is usually termed "marginal" because it is geographically on the edge of an arable area and cannot reliably support farming. Get a bunch of people totally dependant on it for food and when rain fall patterns shift slightly you have a famine on your hands. And ultimately decertification, aquifer problems or salt contamination (About one-third of the world's irrigated land is unsuitable for growing crops because of contamination with high levels of salt).
We should stop encouraging people to settle marginal land, not make it easier. Besides I've not heard of GM crops that actually used less water.
Ironically restoring salt contaminated land might be one of the most justifiable uses of GM crops.
posted by fshgrl at 10:59 AM on May 22, 2005
Can someone enlighten me as to the qualitative difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding? All the corn we eat today has been genetically modified by humans, through breeding over centuries.
Very simply put, the difference is that genetic engineering takes machinery from one organism and puts it into another. The machinery can be varied: from making one particular vitamin, or allowing the plant to create a compound that makes it resistant to pests.
This is a very dramatic change when organisms and ecosystems are non-linear.
Adding genetic machinery can have untold effects on the rest of the mechanisms within the organism. Adding vitamin machinery can cause the plant to make a toxic byproduct, for example. Or adding pesticide capabilities can have similar effect, and would give rise to resistant pests, a separate and equally serious problem.
Selective breeding only chooses among plants that underwent mutation or recombination on their own genetic information. This is a much more gradual change, with less of a shock on the plant's system and the surrounding ecosystem.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:16 AM on May 22, 2005
Very simply put, the difference is that genetic engineering takes machinery from one organism and puts it into another. The machinery can be varied: from making one particular vitamin, or allowing the plant to create a compound that makes it resistant to pests.
This is a very dramatic change when organisms and ecosystems are non-linear.
Adding genetic machinery can have untold effects on the rest of the mechanisms within the organism. Adding vitamin machinery can cause the plant to make a toxic byproduct, for example. Or adding pesticide capabilities can have similar effect, and would give rise to resistant pests, a separate and equally serious problem.
Selective breeding only chooses among plants that underwent mutation or recombination on their own genetic information. This is a much more gradual change, with less of a shock on the plant's system and the surrounding ecosystem.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:16 AM on May 22, 2005
Boy, some people love the Malthus, don't they?
GM foods are like globalization and development and copyrights and money: Good and bad. GM foods can aid in everything from water use and erosion control to aiding in delivering nutrients. But they can also be created to get higher quantity yeilds at the expense of quality and safety, or they can also be created in order to choke off an emerging field of research, or any number of assorted evils.
It's interesting, when looking at debates over GMOs that the positions taken are a lot like those in a lot of stem cell debates: motivated by a personal sense of what's icky and what's not. And that tends to add to a false dichotomy: to hold all GMOs together is either hold them as bad because they tamper with nature at all or to hold them as good because some of them might help people stave off jaundice.
At least they provide a decent reason to fund public research institutions well: they at least provide the pretense of working in our best interests, as opposed to Monsanto, which has no truly vested interest in expending more in research than they expect to pay out on legal fees proving that you probably got cancer somewhere else anyway.
posted by klangklangston at 11:18 AM on May 22, 2005
GM foods are like globalization and development and copyrights and money: Good and bad. GM foods can aid in everything from water use and erosion control to aiding in delivering nutrients. But they can also be created to get higher quantity yeilds at the expense of quality and safety, or they can also be created in order to choke off an emerging field of research, or any number of assorted evils.
It's interesting, when looking at debates over GMOs that the positions taken are a lot like those in a lot of stem cell debates: motivated by a personal sense of what's icky and what's not. And that tends to add to a false dichotomy: to hold all GMOs together is either hold them as bad because they tamper with nature at all or to hold them as good because some of them might help people stave off jaundice.
At least they provide a decent reason to fund public research institutions well: they at least provide the pretense of working in our best interests, as opposed to Monsanto, which has no truly vested interest in expending more in research than they expect to pay out on legal fees proving that you probably got cancer somewhere else anyway.
posted by klangklangston at 11:18 AM on May 22, 2005
Which is to say, GM crops are not a bad thing in themselves, but that we know so little about systemic biology that creating GM organisms at this point is really playing with fire. Leaving it as a for-profit adventure is even more dangerous: corporations aim to make short-term profits, and we live under a regime which actively discourages litigation against said agricorporations. All of which discourages careful research into making safe products.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:20 AM on May 22, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:20 AM on May 22, 2005
innocentbystander said: You have to assume that 10% of the population are going to be greedy pigs, no matter what the situation is.
Right. That is why there is poverty and starvation. GM crops aren't being engineered to solve the problems of poverty, but to create new markets. Monsanto et all are interested in selling a product for money. Period.
In their search for profits they've thrown social and safety concerns aside. If they are going to release experimental food into the ecosystem then they need to assure the public that the product is safe. This they have not done, or even pretended to do.
Besides, from your own question begging, ad hoc false dichotomy:
Therefore, if the options are A)create new and better-growing foods, or B)change the course of human nature... which seems the more realistic an option?
Isn't creating "new and better growing foods" really a change to the course of nature itself? How is that more realistic than changing human nature?
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:21 AM on May 22, 2005
Right. That is why there is poverty and starvation. GM crops aren't being engineered to solve the problems of poverty, but to create new markets. Monsanto et all are interested in selling a product for money. Period.
In their search for profits they've thrown social and safety concerns aside. If they are going to release experimental food into the ecosystem then they need to assure the public that the product is safe. This they have not done, or even pretended to do.
Besides, from your own question begging, ad hoc false dichotomy:
Therefore, if the options are A)create new and better-growing foods, or B)change the course of human nature... which seems the more realistic an option?
Isn't creating "new and better growing foods" really a change to the course of nature itself? How is that more realistic than changing human nature?
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:21 AM on May 22, 2005
At least they provide a decent reason to fund public research institutions well: they at least provide the pretense of working in our best interests, as opposed to Monsanto, which has no truly vested interest in expending more in research than they expect to pay out on legal fees proving that you probably got cancer somewhere else anyway.
Not to derail with conspiracy theories, but it is interesting to me that agricultural corporations work very closely with pharmaceutical corporations. Some of them are subsidiaries of each other. One company makes a product to give you cancer, while its subsidiary sells you a product to manage (not cure) it.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:22 AM on May 22, 2005
Not to derail with conspiracy theories, but it is interesting to me that agricultural corporations work very closely with pharmaceutical corporations. Some of them are subsidiaries of each other. One company makes a product to give you cancer, while its subsidiary sells you a product to manage (not cure) it.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:22 AM on May 22, 2005
It's interesting, when looking at debates over GMOs that the positions taken are a lot like those in a lot of stem cell debates: motivated by a personal sense of what's icky and what's not.
Exactly.
That said, I don't see why the foods shouldn't be labled, I mean, if people are grossed out by something they should be able to tell if they're eating it...
posted by delmoi at 11:24 AM on May 22, 2005
Exactly.
That said, I don't see why the foods shouldn't be labled, I mean, if people are grossed out by something they should be able to tell if they're eating it...
posted by delmoi at 11:24 AM on May 22, 2005
fshgrl - Just a few examples drought-resistant GM plants. Yes, these modified plants aren't necessarily crops (a couple are) - but there are crop plants genetically modified for drought/salt resistance in the pipeline. There's also a lot of successful research in identifying drought resistance genes (genes that transcribe proteins that help the plant cope with or make do with less water).
As for not encouraging people to use less-than-ideal farm lands, what if they're there already? What if formerly arable land has gone bad - where will those people go?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 11:31 AM on May 22, 2005
As for not encouraging people to use less-than-ideal farm lands, what if they're there already? What if formerly arable land has gone bad - where will those people go?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 11:31 AM on May 22, 2005
few examples OF drought...
posted by PurplePorpoise at 11:32 AM on May 22, 2005
posted by PurplePorpoise at 11:32 AM on May 22, 2005
InnocentBystander: Therefore, if the options are A)create new and better-growing foods, or B)change the course of human nature... which seems the more realistic an option?
You seem very convinced of the way things work... Of course you must realize that creating new better-growing foods will in itself change the course of human nature. The only question is what the change will be.
It is an absurd discussion anyway, fshgrl has already pointed out that GM foods are not intended to solve any of the problems you speak of anyway.
The real question, as klangklangston's points imply, is how we manage the issue. I am pretty scared of the ways things are going on that score right now.
posted by Chuckles at 11:37 AM on May 22, 2005
You seem very convinced of the way things work... Of course you must realize that creating new better-growing foods will in itself change the course of human nature. The only question is what the change will be.
It is an absurd discussion anyway, fshgrl has already pointed out that GM foods are not intended to solve any of the problems you speak of anyway.
The real question, as klangklangston's points imply, is how we manage the issue. I am pretty scared of the ways things are going on that score right now.
posted by Chuckles at 11:37 AM on May 22, 2005
For those who think that GM foods haven't solved "any of those problems", I direct you to Norman Borlaug. He has saved hundreds of millions of lives through both selective breeding and genetic engineering.
A bunch of people not starving to death trumps a few rats getting tumours.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:00 PM on May 22, 2005
A bunch of people not starving to death trumps a few rats getting tumours.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:00 PM on May 22, 2005
saving them from starvation doesnt help too much if they have fucking TUMOURS
posted by ackeber at 12:20 PM on May 22, 2005
posted by ackeber at 12:20 PM on May 22, 2005
Genetic modification is not evil. It is not harmful. That said, it is not good, either, nor helpful.
It is a tool - and a new one at that.
I personally don't yet trust entirely the food produced by Monsanto et al. I think that since the science is young there is much left to discover and hone until we reach a stage where the food is totally inoffensive to our systems. It is foolish to, at this early stage, attempt to arrest any further progress by totally condemning GM food.
So, assuming the worst from this study (of which I am not sure of the methods), too much of this one strain of corn causes "smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of [one's] blood." Well, take it off the market. It never should have gotten there - that's why we have the FDA, to watch out for these things. But don't blame the corn's genes. In all likelihood they power-fed these poor rats this corn their entire lives, and they developed smaller kidneys. What if I told you there was a food on the market which, if you ate too much of it, increased your body's size by as much as 300%? Oh, that's right - it's MCDONALDS. And a HUNDRED other foods that mess up your metabolism, give you diabetes, shrink your glands, and shorten your life in general. I don't see any high-profile campaigns against those.
Now let me tell you about a few crops - wheat, corn, rice, which are impervious to disease and insects (except those which we choose so as to control growth), contain extra vital nutrients which many lack in their diet, take longer to spoil, taste better, and grow larger and faster than our current crops? Where is this miracle food, you ask? Why, it's 10 years down the road, if we stop freaking out about nothing. Label it "GM" if you want, but eventually people will be avoiding the "Organic" sticker.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:50 PM on May 22, 2005
It is a tool - and a new one at that.
I personally don't yet trust entirely the food produced by Monsanto et al. I think that since the science is young there is much left to discover and hone until we reach a stage where the food is totally inoffensive to our systems. It is foolish to, at this early stage, attempt to arrest any further progress by totally condemning GM food.
So, assuming the worst from this study (of which I am not sure of the methods), too much of this one strain of corn causes "smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of [one's] blood." Well, take it off the market. It never should have gotten there - that's why we have the FDA, to watch out for these things. But don't blame the corn's genes. In all likelihood they power-fed these poor rats this corn their entire lives, and they developed smaller kidneys. What if I told you there was a food on the market which, if you ate too much of it, increased your body's size by as much as 300%? Oh, that's right - it's MCDONALDS. And a HUNDRED other foods that mess up your metabolism, give you diabetes, shrink your glands, and shorten your life in general. I don't see any high-profile campaigns against those.
Now let me tell you about a few crops - wheat, corn, rice, which are impervious to disease and insects (except those which we choose so as to control growth), contain extra vital nutrients which many lack in their diet, take longer to spoil, taste better, and grow larger and faster than our current crops? Where is this miracle food, you ask? Why, it's 10 years down the road, if we stop freaking out about nothing. Label it "GM" if you want, but eventually people will be avoiding the "Organic" sticker.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:50 PM on May 22, 2005
what cleardawn said. It's so scary that we don't know whether what we're eating is safe or not (altho that was really true even before this). The FDA is useless and has been shown to be completely under the thumb of corporations (and/or religious freaks), and they accept and look at corporations' research and testing without doing their own independent testing.
posted by amberglow at 1:00 PM on May 22, 2005
posted by amberglow at 1:00 PM on May 22, 2005
I'm going to side with BlackLeotardFront here. That view is a lot like my own, which is how I justify my ability to continue working where I do -- at a company that outsells Monsanto's seed corn in the US. Interestingly, this trait (among others) has been licensed out to other companies.
Monsanto does play a little more fast and loose, so they get sued a lot more. The fact that I've never seen my employer mentioned by name, despite the fact we're a larger supplier of seed corn, says a lot to me.
posted by mikeh at 1:10 PM on May 22, 2005
Monsanto does play a little more fast and loose, so they get sued a lot more. The fact that I've never seen my employer mentioned by name, despite the fact we're a larger supplier of seed corn, says a lot to me.
posted by mikeh at 1:10 PM on May 22, 2005
At least in Europe the food is labelled. In the US that corn, or whatever, you are eating may be GM, or not, but you will never know.
The reason it's not labelled is not that companies fear people will turn up their noses and not buy it. The reason it's not labelled is to limit corporate liability. If the humans eating this shit ever develop the same abnormalities as the rats, there will be no way to trace the cause back to its source without labelling. We know what these fucking lab rats have been eating but we don't have any idea what we, ourselves, are eating. The Japanese offical policy on this is "We're going to watch American children for the next 10 years and see what happens."
US law demands that blue coloring agent #4 be listed on a food label, even though it's been in use for 50 years and no one has died from it. Why in the hell does the law allow GM-foods to go unlabelled?
I highly recommend anyone interested in this subject watch the film The Future of Food. There's not a single tinfoil hat in the movie, and it raises some incredibly important questions and offers some great alternatives. Basically: BUY ORGANIC. If you find the organic goods at your supermarket too expensive, then GO TO A LOCAL FARMERS MARKET, where you can get organic, delicious food for cheap, by cutting the agri-giants out of the loop commercially.
Incidentally I went to the Farmer's Market in downtown Berkeley yesterday and I gotta say: I haven't seen such a localized concentration of hot babes in quite a while. Just an added bonus.
posted by scarabic at 1:36 PM on May 22, 2005
The reason it's not labelled is not that companies fear people will turn up their noses and not buy it. The reason it's not labelled is to limit corporate liability. If the humans eating this shit ever develop the same abnormalities as the rats, there will be no way to trace the cause back to its source without labelling. We know what these fucking lab rats have been eating but we don't have any idea what we, ourselves, are eating. The Japanese offical policy on this is "We're going to watch American children for the next 10 years and see what happens."
US law demands that blue coloring agent #4 be listed on a food label, even though it's been in use for 50 years and no one has died from it. Why in the hell does the law allow GM-foods to go unlabelled?
I highly recommend anyone interested in this subject watch the film The Future of Food. There's not a single tinfoil hat in the movie, and it raises some incredibly important questions and offers some great alternatives. Basically: BUY ORGANIC. If you find the organic goods at your supermarket too expensive, then GO TO A LOCAL FARMERS MARKET, where you can get organic, delicious food for cheap, by cutting the agri-giants out of the loop commercially.
Incidentally I went to the Farmer's Market in downtown Berkeley yesterday and I gotta say: I haven't seen such a localized concentration of hot babes in quite a while. Just an added bonus.
posted by scarabic at 1:36 PM on May 22, 2005
I don't see why public safety should prevent Mosanto from making a buck. I can't wait for the next thalidomide.
posted by fleacircus at 1:45 PM on May 22, 2005
posted by fleacircus at 1:45 PM on May 22, 2005
Genetic modification is not evil. It is not harmful. That said, it is not good, either, nor helpful.
I'd like to support the scientifically-minded souls in this thread who have argued against condemning the technology itself. This is a valid point, but don't let it overwhelm the issue at hand, which is that our application of this technology has proceeded in a completely unsafe manner. The "Roundup-Ready" crops developed by Monsanto are a perfect example. They simply perpetuate an already-dangerous and unsustainable pesticide-supported farming methodology.
Also, I would point out that there is, in fact, one intrinsic danger in genetic modication: that the lifeform you create can escape in to the wild and have an inherently unpredictible impact on the ecosystem. Since there is no way to test what that will be, this danger will always present an unknown risk, possibly a catastrophic one. This "going wild" has already happened with GM corn and "Roundup-Ready" soybeans all over North America and we have no idea where it's going to take us.
Did you know that Monsanto can sue a farmer if they find some of their patented "Roundup-Ready" soybeans have blown in from a neighbor's farm and begun growing in his own field? That's right. You're violating their patent - growing their patented crop without a license. Monsanto has been busy suing and shutting down small farmers this way in recent years, as detailed in The Future of Food.
The real ecological catastrophe waiting to happen in this is that small farmers have traditionally saved their own seed to replant, and served as the guardians of genetic diversity in the food ecosystem. 100 thousand small farmers all planting different heirloom strains of a crop preserves the genetic storehouse of crop diversity, and gives us greater ability to bounce back from new ecological pressures that may arise, including pests, climate change, etc. Monsanto's campaign to wipe out this heritage and get everyone using their single GM product takes us closer to a continent-wide monoculture, and we don't need to debate the danger monocultures present.
Can you say "potato-blight? It hit Ireland hard as hell because they only used one type of potato. Other countries that were also hit - but had different varieties to fall back on - survived with relative ease.
posted by scarabic at 1:48 PM on May 22, 2005
I'd like to support the scientifically-minded souls in this thread who have argued against condemning the technology itself. This is a valid point, but don't let it overwhelm the issue at hand, which is that our application of this technology has proceeded in a completely unsafe manner. The "Roundup-Ready" crops developed by Monsanto are a perfect example. They simply perpetuate an already-dangerous and unsustainable pesticide-supported farming methodology.
Also, I would point out that there is, in fact, one intrinsic danger in genetic modication: that the lifeform you create can escape in to the wild and have an inherently unpredictible impact on the ecosystem. Since there is no way to test what that will be, this danger will always present an unknown risk, possibly a catastrophic one. This "going wild" has already happened with GM corn and "Roundup-Ready" soybeans all over North America and we have no idea where it's going to take us.
Did you know that Monsanto can sue a farmer if they find some of their patented "Roundup-Ready" soybeans have blown in from a neighbor's farm and begun growing in his own field? That's right. You're violating their patent - growing their patented crop without a license. Monsanto has been busy suing and shutting down small farmers this way in recent years, as detailed in The Future of Food.
The real ecological catastrophe waiting to happen in this is that small farmers have traditionally saved their own seed to replant, and served as the guardians of genetic diversity in the food ecosystem. 100 thousand small farmers all planting different heirloom strains of a crop preserves the genetic storehouse of crop diversity, and gives us greater ability to bounce back from new ecological pressures that may arise, including pests, climate change, etc. Monsanto's campaign to wipe out this heritage and get everyone using their single GM product takes us closer to a continent-wide monoculture, and we don't need to debate the danger monocultures present.
Can you say "potato-blight? It hit Ireland hard as hell because they only used one type of potato. Other countries that were also hit - but had different varieties to fall back on - survived with relative ease.
posted by scarabic at 1:48 PM on May 22, 2005
There's also a lot of successful research in identifying drought resistance genes (genes that transcribe proteins that help the plant cope with or make do with less water).
Yes but this is part of the danger is our using this technology at our current level of understanding. We know now that there is not a simple 1-to-1 mapping of gene-to-trait, and that any single gene is expressed in combination with many others in the chromosome. When we change a single gene that we know increases drought resistance, we may also be coding for a trace level of a carcinogenic protein as well - we simply don't understand enough about gene expression mapping to make that determination safely. We can barely find the one gene that will have the one impact we want when we change it.
Scientists are like kids with a chemistry set. They're so damn happy with themselves for being able to accomplish the short term goal, which is getting the trait they want out of a plant. But they don't have control over all the side-effects this will have, particularly when released wild in the ecosystem or eaten by humans for decades and decades.
We are literally participating in one of the largest human trials of a new technology ever. Remember that the next time you put that food in your child's mouth. They're the ones I feel sorry for. We adults can take a deep breath, wrap our cloak of science around ourselves with confidence and brave the risks unafraid, but what about all the poor little pumpkins who open their mouths for something tasty every day and have no clue about any of this? They still have to grow, go through hormonal changes, the whole nine yards. It's absolutely reckless what we're subjecting them to, and the oblivious trust with which a child eats what he's given always makes me want to cry when I see it.
posted by scarabic at 2:03 PM on May 22, 2005
Yes but this is part of the danger is our using this technology at our current level of understanding. We know now that there is not a simple 1-to-1 mapping of gene-to-trait, and that any single gene is expressed in combination with many others in the chromosome. When we change a single gene that we know increases drought resistance, we may also be coding for a trace level of a carcinogenic protein as well - we simply don't understand enough about gene expression mapping to make that determination safely. We can barely find the one gene that will have the one impact we want when we change it.
Scientists are like kids with a chemistry set. They're so damn happy with themselves for being able to accomplish the short term goal, which is getting the trait they want out of a plant. But they don't have control over all the side-effects this will have, particularly when released wild in the ecosystem or eaten by humans for decades and decades.
We are literally participating in one of the largest human trials of a new technology ever. Remember that the next time you put that food in your child's mouth. They're the ones I feel sorry for. We adults can take a deep breath, wrap our cloak of science around ourselves with confidence and brave the risks unafraid, but what about all the poor little pumpkins who open their mouths for something tasty every day and have no clue about any of this? They still have to grow, go through hormonal changes, the whole nine yards. It's absolutely reckless what we're subjecting them to, and the oblivious trust with which a child eats what he's given always makes me want to cry when I see it.
posted by scarabic at 2:03 PM on May 22, 2005
Jesus H Christ, I'm glad Metafilter went down around noon and I didn't continue this discussion. To all of you who SERIOUSLY believe we are going to solve the problem of poverty in general before we solve the problem of the food source - that's a nice little fantasy world you live in, and I wish I could share it.
But no... because of spectres of fears of POSSIBLE diseases that might one day come... you would condemn untold thousands to die NOW when there is the technology to save them.
So congratulations. I hope you feel nice and righteous.
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:08 PM on May 22, 2005
But no... because of spectres of fears of POSSIBLE diseases that might one day come... you would condemn untold thousands to die NOW when there is the technology to save them.
So congratulations. I hope you feel nice and righteous.
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:08 PM on May 22, 2005
difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding ? Well, let's make a programer's equivalent. It's just like hand patching a unknown software by hand rather than applying the official service packs. The problem here, is that the programer of this stuff is Evolution. when we get the true meaning of life I'm ok with messing with genes. But before that, we're playing with fire.
Not to mention that these GM don't grow under glass dome. Being in open air, plant's pollen can travel miles, so those GM new tweaked genes has already contaminated surrounding crops.
posted by denpo at 2:24 PM on May 22, 2005
Not to mention that these GM don't grow under glass dome. Being in open air, plant's pollen can travel miles, so those GM new tweaked genes has already contaminated surrounding crops.
posted by denpo at 2:24 PM on May 22, 2005
So congratulations. I hope you feel nice and righteous.
Thank you. I hope the same for yourself.
because of spectres of fears of POSSIBLE diseases that might one day come... you would condemn untold thousands to die NOW when there is the technology to save them.
this is only half right. There is technology to save people from starvation, but it isn't GMO's, it's the system of resource distribution. I don't see how supporting a system that was built on exploitation and profit motivation is going to solve the same problems that system has been partly responsible for. I don't put all the blame on the corporations, but they can't be trusted to have our best interests in mind. I don't believe for a moment that the CEO of monsanto is thinking about feeding starving children - he is thinking about profit. The point has been made all over the thread that GMO's could possibly lead to the kinds of benefits the corporate propaganda is selling. The problem involves developing these technologies. When we let monsanto do it we eliminate any oversight or community input in a process that could change the face of agriculture, if not nature itself, forever. I, for one, just don't trust some suits in a boardroom to make those kinds of decisions.
Thanks for splashing blood on my hands though
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:01 PM on May 22, 2005
Thank you. I hope the same for yourself.
because of spectres of fears of POSSIBLE diseases that might one day come... you would condemn untold thousands to die NOW when there is the technology to save them.
this is only half right. There is technology to save people from starvation, but it isn't GMO's, it's the system of resource distribution. I don't see how supporting a system that was built on exploitation and profit motivation is going to solve the same problems that system has been partly responsible for. I don't put all the blame on the corporations, but they can't be trusted to have our best interests in mind. I don't believe for a moment that the CEO of monsanto is thinking about feeding starving children - he is thinking about profit. The point has been made all over the thread that GMO's could possibly lead to the kinds of benefits the corporate propaganda is selling. The problem involves developing these technologies. When we let monsanto do it we eliminate any oversight or community input in a process that could change the face of agriculture, if not nature itself, forever. I, for one, just don't trust some suits in a boardroom to make those kinds of decisions.
Thanks for splashing blood on my hands though
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:01 PM on May 22, 2005
Rats fed GM corn develop abnormalities
good. i farking hate rats.
dump it in the sewers and lets rid our cities of them.
posted by tsarfan at 3:10 PM on May 22, 2005
good. i farking hate rats.
dump it in the sewers and lets rid our cities of them.
posted by tsarfan at 3:10 PM on May 22, 2005
So congratulations. I hope you feel nice and righteous.
Listen dinghus, the hunger that plagues millions in this world hasn't been a TECHNOLOGICAL shortcoming for fucking centuries, so come down off your highhorse.
Besides, you're setting up a false dillema. I don't have to choose between saving starving people abroad and having safe labelling in the US. If people have NOTHING to eat elsewhere, perhaps UNSAFE food is a better alternative. But we already have better alternatives than UNSAFE here.
And besides, the point is not that it causes a few paltry diseases. THE POINT IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW SAFE IT IS.
Jesus H Christ I hope that over time people who don't give a shit about what they're eating die off in a consequent attrition.
posted by scarabic at 3:11 PM on May 22, 2005
Listen dinghus, the hunger that plagues millions in this world hasn't been a TECHNOLOGICAL shortcoming for fucking centuries, so come down off your highhorse.
Besides, you're setting up a false dillema. I don't have to choose between saving starving people abroad and having safe labelling in the US. If people have NOTHING to eat elsewhere, perhaps UNSAFE food is a better alternative. But we already have better alternatives than UNSAFE here.
And besides, the point is not that it causes a few paltry diseases. THE POINT IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW SAFE IT IS.
Jesus H Christ I hope that over time people who don't give a shit about what they're eating die off in a consequent attrition.
posted by scarabic at 3:11 PM on May 22, 2005
Why is the report confidential? ... I'm serious. When I read that, I *immediately* wanted to check out the methodology.
...
I don't want to sound like a cheerleader, but there is not enough farmland left on earth to provide "natural" food for our ever-growing population. We NEED enhanced food of some sort or another, unless we just want another die-off and Darwin to take his toll.
Please publish the methodolgy by which you came to this conclusion. You don't sound like a cheerleader, you sound like someone who's suspect of results that go against your intuition, who meanwhile likes to generalize wildly without any supporting data.
I know you're not that kind of person. You just sound like one.
I'll get off your back now and just comment that we have been "enhancing" our food through selective breeding for a long time. There is no empirical evidence to support the claim that the world requires Monsanto technology to stave off starvation. The technology itself shows immense promise and I am sure that, in time, it can and will contribute to solving the problems we face on this little blue ball.
The only issues here are: too fast, not enough information, no labelling, secrecy, and the profit motive. When this technology is actually serving us in a safe and sustainable way, I'll embrace it wholehearedly.
posted by scarabic at 4:01 PM on May 22, 2005
...
I don't want to sound like a cheerleader, but there is not enough farmland left on earth to provide "natural" food for our ever-growing population. We NEED enhanced food of some sort or another, unless we just want another die-off and Darwin to take his toll.
Please publish the methodolgy by which you came to this conclusion. You don't sound like a cheerleader, you sound like someone who's suspect of results that go against your intuition, who meanwhile likes to generalize wildly without any supporting data.
I know you're not that kind of person. You just sound like one.
I'll get off your back now and just comment that we have been "enhancing" our food through selective breeding for a long time. There is no empirical evidence to support the claim that the world requires Monsanto technology to stave off starvation. The technology itself shows immense promise and I am sure that, in time, it can and will contribute to solving the problems we face on this little blue ball.
The only issues here are: too fast, not enough information, no labelling, secrecy, and the profit motive. When this technology is actually serving us in a safe and sustainable way, I'll embrace it wholehearedly.
posted by scarabic at 4:01 PM on May 22, 2005
The only issues here are: too fast, not enough information, no labelling, secrecy, and the profit motive. When this technology is actually serving us in a safe and sustainable way, I'll embrace it wholehearedly.
I'd just like to signal my agreement to that.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:39 PM on May 22, 2005
I'd just like to signal my agreement to that.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:39 PM on May 22, 2005
Thanks for backing me up, Scarabic, though I do object that the threat of cross-pollination via wind or whatever is an intrinsic threat. It's simply a threat, like toxicity of cross-bred organisms, that needs to be addressed. It'd be quite easy to make the corn it's own species effectively by changing a few particular genes to be incompatible with natural corn. There are numerous ways to deal with this, none of which are science fiction, and many of which we have the ability to apply now. And good sum-up there, here are my suggestions for the problems we both see with the stuff.
@Too fast - so let's slow it down, regulate it, but not stop it.
@Not enough info - split blame btwn companies for being secretive and obscure, and people who just yell frankenfood while biting into a huge peach genetically modified over thousands of years.
@No labelling - so label them! If a company doesn't want to label its food, they can't put it on the market. People have a right to know and if they demand it, it will become law; that's how this country is supposed to work.
@Profit - well, nothing to say here. But we can make clear that cancer (or more accurately, small kidneys) are not profitable.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 6:25 PM on May 22, 2005
@Too fast - so let's slow it down, regulate it, but not stop it.
@Not enough info - split blame btwn companies for being secretive and obscure, and people who just yell frankenfood while biting into a huge peach genetically modified over thousands of years.
@No labelling - so label them! If a company doesn't want to label its food, they can't put it on the market. People have a right to know and if they demand it, it will become law; that's how this country is supposed to work.
@Profit - well, nothing to say here. But we can make clear that cancer (or more accurately, small kidneys) are not profitable.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 6:25 PM on May 22, 2005
The only issue here is this: The burden should be on proving it is safe, not on proving that it isn't safe.
That is why InnocentBystander and such people are completely out to lunch: problematic cause-and-effect can take decades to show itself.
We do not need a GM equivalent to the prionic beef problem we're already facing. It'll be a full decade before we can be sure we nipped that particular problem in the bud.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:28 PM on May 22, 2005
That is why InnocentBystander and such people are completely out to lunch: problematic cause-and-effect can take decades to show itself.
We do not need a GM equivalent to the prionic beef problem we're already facing. It'll be a full decade before we can be sure we nipped that particular problem in the bud.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:28 PM on May 22, 2005
Just something else to worry about. Nearly every day we find that SOMETHING we have eaten, breathed, bathed with...whatever, is dangerous to our health.
posted by PrincessLara at 6:45 PM on May 22, 2005
posted by PrincessLara at 6:45 PM on May 22, 2005
BlackLeotardFront, everything you've said is eminently reasonable, in a reasonable and therefore fictitious world. To say that "we can make clear that cancer (or more accurately, small kidneys) are not profitable" is ludicrous. The cancer (or more accurately, small kidneys) are long-term. Profits are strictly short-term. Unless consumers are dropping dead after one bite, the people in charge don't give a shit. As far as they're concerned, cancer (or more accurately, small kidneys) most definitely are profitable.
Also, in the era of tort reform, who's to say there will be any financial penalty, ever, for causing—much less simply increasing the likelihood of—cancer (or more accurately, small kidneys)?
posted by vetiver at 6:57 PM on May 22, 2005
Also, in the era of tort reform, who's to say there will be any financial penalty, ever, for causing—much less simply increasing the likelihood of—cancer (or more accurately, small kidneys)?
posted by vetiver at 6:57 PM on May 22, 2005
You have to assume that 10% of the population are going to be greedy pigs, no matter what the situation is.
Yep. And seeing as we don't know the long term effects, if any, on humans, am I to trust that the companies (who only do things for profit) will do the right thing and do long-term tests? Hmm maybe.
Or, is it more likely they would be perfectly happy releasing something that is known/not-known to be harmful to make more money? That sounds familiar.
Are companies willing to risk your health by taking short cuts, cutting down cost, increasing profits and so on? There should be plenty examples of that already.
Personally, I should have a choice. It should be labelled. Some people won't care, pick it for being cheaper, or, tastier... or more colourful. Some will opt not to buy it and see how it goes after a few years.
posted by lundman at 7:35 PM on May 22, 2005
Yep. And seeing as we don't know the long term effects, if any, on humans, am I to trust that the companies (who only do things for profit) will do the right thing and do long-term tests? Hmm maybe.
Or, is it more likely they would be perfectly happy releasing something that is known/not-known to be harmful to make more money? That sounds familiar.
Are companies willing to risk your health by taking short cuts, cutting down cost, increasing profits and so on? There should be plenty examples of that already.
Personally, I should have a choice. It should be labelled. Some people won't care, pick it for being cheaper, or, tastier... or more colourful. Some will opt not to buy it and see how it goes after a few years.
posted by lundman at 7:35 PM on May 22, 2005
It's true, vetiver - profits lie in the short term. But you may have overlooked the long-term prospects they face: a billion dollar gain now for Monsanto (by pushing unsafe products out) will reflect extremely poorly on them in the near future, whereas a billion dollars spent on recall and R&D would be a worthy investment to keep GM food on the market and in good favor.
I don't know anything about tort reform, but in the era of instantaneous transmission of free information, a single study (like this) can undermine the agenda of a huge corporation (like Monsanto) - and they must do what they can to keep themselves afloat, even if it means taking a bullet now so they won't have to take a cannonball later.
And anyway, this is not the first, last, or most important instance of a possibly harmful product being put onto the market. I hope that Monsanto et al. will not follow the path of Big Tobacco and lie until they are found out to great displeasure, but I can't guarantee it. Thus, oversight, regulation, and transparency (fantasy world again.)
Why do you make fun of my "(small kidneys)"? The article mentions the kidneys were smaller than usual, and people start talking about cancer and death. Thought I'd have both in my sentence.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:37 PM on May 22, 2005
I don't know anything about tort reform, but in the era of instantaneous transmission of free information, a single study (like this) can undermine the agenda of a huge corporation (like Monsanto) - and they must do what they can to keep themselves afloat, even if it means taking a bullet now so they won't have to take a cannonball later.
And anyway, this is not the first, last, or most important instance of a possibly harmful product being put onto the market. I hope that Monsanto et al. will not follow the path of Big Tobacco and lie until they are found out to great displeasure, but I can't guarantee it. Thus, oversight, regulation, and transparency (fantasy world again.)
Why do you make fun of my "(small kidneys)"? The article mentions the kidneys were smaller than usual, and people start talking about cancer and death. Thought I'd have both in my sentence.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:37 PM on May 22, 2005
I used to work for an organisation (in india) that promoted natural/ selected varieties of crops that were suitable for certain areas. For example Dry land paddy. This is a variety of rice that grows in dry areas, ie they don't need large amounts of water to grow. Unfortunately knowledge of this variety and access to seed is slowly disappearing, and farmers were switching to monsanto-type seeds. I really think these sorts of varieties should be encouraged more and more.
posted by dhruva at 8:38 PM on May 22, 2005
posted by dhruva at 8:38 PM on May 22, 2005
Certainly, GM foods are a tool, not an inherent evil, though they should be studied for safety.
But the most immediate dangers have been identified in this thread:
a) monoculture. Bad bad bad, for all sorts of reasons, the biggest being that they are much more susceptible to the same disease.
b) (related) the loss of hereditary strains, such as the huge variety of corn in Mexico, or the varieties of rice dhruva mentions. Where do you think many of the genes being modified are coming from?
c) the current economic model, which drives the direction of a lot of GM research and undermines the usefulness of GM crops to the developing world, thus undermining the main justification for GM in this thread.
There have been some crops developed for their hardiness, their ability to grow under harsher conditions, without pesticide, etc. Cotton production in the third world has been especially helped by reducing the need for harsh chemical pesticides.
However, maize breeding, for example, is often driven by completely different interests. A lot of GM maize produces more per acre under the ideal conditions of Western industrial agriculture (heavily fertilized, irrigated etc) It does not produce a good crop the next year (worse than the non-GM corn), which is essential for farmers who recycle their crop for seed. For the needs of many small Mexican farmers, it is really inferior - it doesn't produce what they need at all. (I heard a talk on maize in Mexico, from some people who were very open to GM, but wanted to talk about its strengths and weaknesses). This is leaving alone the huge problems with crops which require liscenses from the corporations that develop them (ie the huge problem with Monsanto and soy), whether you want to plant them or not (either by accident or because it's your only option), which is a social problem rather than a scientific one.
Now, the dichotemy between the different GM crops may come down to who is developing them and for what traits. Corporation developed crops, I would imagine, are largely developed for capitalist industrial agriculture, not to better serve small and subsistence farmers in the developing world. Governments, universities and non-profit agencies, however, have been very interested in other applications of GM, though also wary of potential problems (such as the loss of the diversity of traditional strains).
So we should stop and talk about them. We should talk about why we are GMing, for what traits, what unexpected side effects in the species might appear, what social and economic effects GM could have, including eroding the economic independence of small farmers in the developing world. It could also threaten their stability; traditionally many peasant or subsistence farmers go for a mixed farming situation, as much as possible - different kinds of crops, some animals, etc - so that in the event of one crop failure, they have some thing else to rely on to get them by. GM crops move them more and more into a specialised capitalist model, which could leave them very vulnerable to the vagaries of the market. These are things we have to think about.
Personally, I like to buy organic when I can for environmental reasons - I don't like what industrial agriculture has done to our soil, land or water. I would buy GMd rice, if it were non-sprayed or fertilized with chemicals. But how many GM crops in North America are GM'd to be like this?
Of course, an agrarian historian once told me that he wondered whether you could call any agriculture ever practiced "sustainable" - he thought of agriculture as a 14, 000 year experiment which hasn't finished yet. It could work, it could come all crashing down on top of us.
posted by jb at 9:15 PM on May 22, 2005
But the most immediate dangers have been identified in this thread:
a) monoculture. Bad bad bad, for all sorts of reasons, the biggest being that they are much more susceptible to the same disease.
b) (related) the loss of hereditary strains, such as the huge variety of corn in Mexico, or the varieties of rice dhruva mentions. Where do you think many of the genes being modified are coming from?
c) the current economic model, which drives the direction of a lot of GM research and undermines the usefulness of GM crops to the developing world, thus undermining the main justification for GM in this thread.
There have been some crops developed for their hardiness, their ability to grow under harsher conditions, without pesticide, etc. Cotton production in the third world has been especially helped by reducing the need for harsh chemical pesticides.
However, maize breeding, for example, is often driven by completely different interests. A lot of GM maize produces more per acre under the ideal conditions of Western industrial agriculture (heavily fertilized, irrigated etc) It does not produce a good crop the next year (worse than the non-GM corn), which is essential for farmers who recycle their crop for seed. For the needs of many small Mexican farmers, it is really inferior - it doesn't produce what they need at all. (I heard a talk on maize in Mexico, from some people who were very open to GM, but wanted to talk about its strengths and weaknesses). This is leaving alone the huge problems with crops which require liscenses from the corporations that develop them (ie the huge problem with Monsanto and soy), whether you want to plant them or not (either by accident or because it's your only option), which is a social problem rather than a scientific one.
Now, the dichotemy between the different GM crops may come down to who is developing them and for what traits. Corporation developed crops, I would imagine, are largely developed for capitalist industrial agriculture, not to better serve small and subsistence farmers in the developing world. Governments, universities and non-profit agencies, however, have been very interested in other applications of GM, though also wary of potential problems (such as the loss of the diversity of traditional strains).
So we should stop and talk about them. We should talk about why we are GMing, for what traits, what unexpected side effects in the species might appear, what social and economic effects GM could have, including eroding the economic independence of small farmers in the developing world. It could also threaten their stability; traditionally many peasant or subsistence farmers go for a mixed farming situation, as much as possible - different kinds of crops, some animals, etc - so that in the event of one crop failure, they have some thing else to rely on to get them by. GM crops move them more and more into a specialised capitalist model, which could leave them very vulnerable to the vagaries of the market. These are things we have to think about.
Personally, I like to buy organic when I can for environmental reasons - I don't like what industrial agriculture has done to our soil, land or water. I would buy GMd rice, if it were non-sprayed or fertilized with chemicals. But how many GM crops in North America are GM'd to be like this?
Of course, an agrarian historian once told me that he wondered whether you could call any agriculture ever practiced "sustainable" - he thought of agriculture as a 14, 000 year experiment which hasn't finished yet. It could work, it could come all crashing down on top of us.
posted by jb at 9:15 PM on May 22, 2005
I think it's worth mentioning that the USDA organic standard does exclude GM foods, so, while GM foods are on the shelves unlabelled, you can be sure that what you're buying is not GM, as long as it's certified organic.
Certainly, GM foods are a tool, not an inherent evil
It's also worth mentioning that any one technologic achivement is not intrinsically good, either. I think most folks on MeFi regard science as a good thing, and so do I, but I am alarmed by the general lack of skepticism toward its products. If we see science as a worthy alternative to religion, then we see clearly. If we embrace everthing it creates, we are fools.
Science is neither good nor bad, it's actually frightening amoral, and its products must be evaluated carefully and conservatively in order to be useful to us. So while I lack respect for the alarmists who think everything that a big corporation does must automatically be bad, I have less and less patience for people who attempt to refute DOCUMENTED PROBLEMS like these with facile "don't hate on science" arguments.
Actually it's a blessing that we can see science as the bringer of good things. Consider the reaction of the world to the first nuclear bombs. In those days I think lots of peopel saw science as the path to destruction. Yet all the same fears about playing God, tampering with the fabric of reality, and unleashing powerful forces we may not be able to control - all of that applies here, too. If there's a beating heart in the scientific philosophy, it's skepticism. Being skeptical means putting the burden of proof where it belongs, as FFF pointed out.
posted by scarabic at 10:10 PM on May 22, 2005
Certainly, GM foods are a tool, not an inherent evil
It's also worth mentioning that any one technologic achivement is not intrinsically good, either. I think most folks on MeFi regard science as a good thing, and so do I, but I am alarmed by the general lack of skepticism toward its products. If we see science as a worthy alternative to religion, then we see clearly. If we embrace everthing it creates, we are fools.
Science is neither good nor bad, it's actually frightening amoral, and its products must be evaluated carefully and conservatively in order to be useful to us. So while I lack respect for the alarmists who think everything that a big corporation does must automatically be bad, I have less and less patience for people who attempt to refute DOCUMENTED PROBLEMS like these with facile "don't hate on science" arguments.
Actually it's a blessing that we can see science as the bringer of good things. Consider the reaction of the world to the first nuclear bombs. In those days I think lots of peopel saw science as the path to destruction. Yet all the same fears about playing God, tampering with the fabric of reality, and unleashing powerful forces we may not be able to control - all of that applies here, too. If there's a beating heart in the scientific philosophy, it's skepticism. Being skeptical means putting the burden of proof where it belongs, as FFF pointed out.
posted by scarabic at 10:10 PM on May 22, 2005
It'd be quite easy to make the corn it's own species effectively by changing a few particular genes to be incompatible with natural corn.
Forget compatibility. If they can survive in the wild at all they're a threat. For one thing, you can be fined for patent violation if GM crops are found on your land and you don't have a "license" to grow them. For another, if you're trying to grow organic and your field becomes contaminated, your certification is blown - and so is your business. And even if the strains don't cross breed, the GM crops will have some imprint on the ecosystem, perhaps by edging out natural strains, perhaps by affecting a pest in a new way, or contaminating water.... an ecosystem is a complex thing, which is why I say you can't ever test this.
Beyond incompatible strains, you could create "terminator" crops which you plant once - and which don't produce seeds. This is in fact a technology that Monsanto has developed, to keep farmers from saving their own seed, and to keep them coming back to buy Monsanto seed every time. Want that great resistance to Roundup so you can spray the shit out of your crops without killing them? No prob! But sorry Farmer John - there'll be no seeds in them thar crops, so you'll have to come back next year and buy again!
Ain't that great? There's nothing wrong with "the profit motive" itself, despite what I said above. But it's the pursuit of it to the exclusion of safety that's a problem. The fact that some of the genetic diddling that's going on is solely designed to protect Monsanto's market share - that makes me sick just thinking about it.
Perhaps "terminator" GM crops pose less risk of contaminating the ecosystem, but for myself, I don't want to eat any part of a plant that's been genetically castrated. Studies, health, safety and science aside: that there just ain't right.
posted by scarabic at 10:23 PM on May 22, 2005
Forget compatibility. If they can survive in the wild at all they're a threat. For one thing, you can be fined for patent violation if GM crops are found on your land and you don't have a "license" to grow them. For another, if you're trying to grow organic and your field becomes contaminated, your certification is blown - and so is your business. And even if the strains don't cross breed, the GM crops will have some imprint on the ecosystem, perhaps by edging out natural strains, perhaps by affecting a pest in a new way, or contaminating water.... an ecosystem is a complex thing, which is why I say you can't ever test this.
Beyond incompatible strains, you could create "terminator" crops which you plant once - and which don't produce seeds. This is in fact a technology that Monsanto has developed, to keep farmers from saving their own seed, and to keep them coming back to buy Monsanto seed every time. Want that great resistance to Roundup so you can spray the shit out of your crops without killing them? No prob! But sorry Farmer John - there'll be no seeds in them thar crops, so you'll have to come back next year and buy again!
Ain't that great? There's nothing wrong with "the profit motive" itself, despite what I said above. But it's the pursuit of it to the exclusion of safety that's a problem. The fact that some of the genetic diddling that's going on is solely designed to protect Monsanto's market share - that makes me sick just thinking about it.
Perhaps "terminator" GM crops pose less risk of contaminating the ecosystem, but for myself, I don't want to eat any part of a plant that's been genetically castrated. Studies, health, safety and science aside: that there just ain't right.
posted by scarabic at 10:23 PM on May 22, 2005
will you stupid hippied shut up already? there is NOTHING WRONG with Monsanto's ice-9!! it's just for getting troops out of the muck. although it might have some profitable applications as well. i for one welcome Monsanto Ice 9!!
posted by muppetboy at 11:14 PM on May 22, 2005
posted by muppetboy at 11:14 PM on May 22, 2005
uh typo. i meant "hippies" not "hippied". i plan on having some Ice-9 ice cream tonight for desert.
posted by muppetboy at 11:16 PM on May 22, 2005
posted by muppetboy at 11:16 PM on May 22, 2005
Science is neither good nor bad, it's actually frightening amoral.
Yes, certainly. That's why we're here talking about how it should be used.
posted by jb at 11:27 PM on May 22, 2005
Yes, certainly. That's why we're here talking about how it should be used.
posted by jb at 11:27 PM on May 22, 2005
i think the saddest part of this is that most of america 1. has no clue 2. doesn't care
posted by ackeber at 11:44 PM on May 22, 2005
posted by ackeber at 11:44 PM on May 22, 2005
I think it's scaremongering to lump all GM into a single debate. Introducing a gene into a plant species that helps it provide a greater yield per plant is not the same risk necessarily as for instance a recent laboratory experiment in which human liver genes were introduced into a plant because they can detoxify a number of different pesticides. The great risk with the latter example is that a germ or insect might possibly incorporate the detoxifying genes into the very pests that frequent change of pesticide is meant to eradicate. That would be a bit frightening.
But I generally side with the view that has it that genetic modifications are merely more precise enhancements than the selective breeding we have engaged in for centuries. We need testing and legal/labelling/moral safeguards and trials and stocking of original strain seeds etc. but none of this should stand in the way of smart genetic work.
I don't belive fshgirl's headache comes from an introduced gene in the corn. It's one thing to write down a list of ingested products, but it's another to compile a detailed list of constituent parts for each product. Where did the water come from? What preservative(s) were in each variety & food additives/colourings/pesticides etc -- and this ought to go with each product ingested and then interactions and associations could be seen a bit better. I think you're looking for something to hang your hat on and GM is a convenient (and probably coincidental) explanation. I guess it could be true but not if you ever ingest a natural product in which the introduced gene occurs in the wild. In which case it just means you're sensitive to a gene product - a protein; it doesn't negate the efficacy of GM for the majority.
posted by peacay at 3:13 AM on May 23, 2005
But I generally side with the view that has it that genetic modifications are merely more precise enhancements than the selective breeding we have engaged in for centuries. We need testing and legal/labelling/moral safeguards and trials and stocking of original strain seeds etc. but none of this should stand in the way of smart genetic work.
I don't belive fshgirl's headache comes from an introduced gene in the corn. It's one thing to write down a list of ingested products, but it's another to compile a detailed list of constituent parts for each product. Where did the water come from? What preservative(s) were in each variety & food additives/colourings/pesticides etc -- and this ought to go with each product ingested and then interactions and associations could be seen a bit better. I think you're looking for something to hang your hat on and GM is a convenient (and probably coincidental) explanation. I guess it could be true but not if you ever ingest a natural product in which the introduced gene occurs in the wild. In which case it just means you're sensitive to a gene product - a protein; it doesn't negate the efficacy of GM for the majority.
posted by peacay at 3:13 AM on May 23, 2005
I'm quite pro-science. I was originally quite enthusiastic about GM crops. Then I started reading. I'm surprised I've seen no mention of these fancy new genes crossing into other species. That is one of those things I find most alarming, as well as very fascinating.
Given that special genes are crossing from one GM crop to another unrelated plant, it shows we are rather clueless about what we're doing. The foundations of our science as regards plants is whacked. Fascinating, but damn!
Then this legal crap about Monsanto suing farmers because their crops were contaminated by an neighbors GM crops. Um, excuse me, but why can't these farmers sue Monsanto for contaminating their crops??? This puzzles me. Keep your pollen in your own damn field, thank you very much!
posted by Goofyy at 6:16 AM on May 23, 2005
Given that special genes are crossing from one GM crop to another unrelated plant, it shows we are rather clueless about what we're doing. The foundations of our science as regards plants is whacked. Fascinating, but damn!
Then this legal crap about Monsanto suing farmers because their crops were contaminated by an neighbors GM crops. Um, excuse me, but why can't these farmers sue Monsanto for contaminating their crops??? This puzzles me. Keep your pollen in your own damn field, thank you very much!
posted by Goofyy at 6:16 AM on May 23, 2005
But then Goofyy, there's transfer and incorporation of genetic material through life occurring naturally all the time. Between viral and bacterial vectors, there's a huge amount of 'sharing'. That it's 'natural' doesn't make it wonderful -- take cold sore virus for eg.
posted by peacay at 6:57 AM on May 23, 2005
posted by peacay at 6:57 AM on May 23, 2005
(This is a pretty neat debate, overall. Civil and interesting. Just saying.)
posted by klangklangston at 7:46 AM on May 23, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 7:46 AM on May 23, 2005
Introducing a gene into a plant species that helps it provide a greater yield per plant is not the same risk necessarily as for instance a recent laboratory experiment in which human liver genes were introduced into a plant because they can detoxify a number of different pesticides.
How can you assert this with confidence?
It was thought there was no risk in feeding animal by-products to cows. It's just protein, and cooked at such a high temperature that all pathogens are undoubtedly killed. It makes the cows bigger and heavier, increasing yields and with no risk factor at all!
Except for the prions. Turns out they don't denature at high temperature. Quite the surprise, that. Oh, and look, they can go on to infect humans and cause CJD! Oopsy! Hey, it takes a decade or more to manifest symptoms -- so our cause-effect gap is so big that millions of people have ample opportunity to contract the disease! Double-oopsy!
Thanks, but I think we've got enough trouble on our hands with mad cow disease. Let's feed GM foods to rats for a decade or two before we decide whether they're truly harmless.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:43 AM on May 23, 2005
How can you assert this with confidence?
It was thought there was no risk in feeding animal by-products to cows. It's just protein, and cooked at such a high temperature that all pathogens are undoubtedly killed. It makes the cows bigger and heavier, increasing yields and with no risk factor at all!
Except for the prions. Turns out they don't denature at high temperature. Quite the surprise, that. Oh, and look, they can go on to infect humans and cause CJD! Oopsy! Hey, it takes a decade or more to manifest symptoms -- so our cause-effect gap is so big that millions of people have ample opportunity to contract the disease! Double-oopsy!
Thanks, but I think we've got enough trouble on our hands with mad cow disease. Let's feed GM foods to rats for a decade or two before we decide whether they're truly harmless.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:43 AM on May 23, 2005
This is a pretty good overview of the pros and cons.
Me personally? I'm with five fresh fish: Let's feed GM foods to rats for a decade or two before we decide whether they're truly harmless.
posted by Specklet at 10:58 AM on May 23, 2005
Me personally? I'm with five fresh fish: Let's feed GM foods to rats for a decade or two before we decide whether they're truly harmless.
posted by Specklet at 10:58 AM on May 23, 2005
Goofyy - If it's the case I'm thinking of, it was an Ontario farmer. I don't know if he countersued or not, but I believe he lost the original case. It was a bit of a he said - they said - they claimed he had gotten seed somewhere and conciously planted it, and he said he hadn't.
posted by jb at 11:01 AM on May 23, 2005
posted by jb at 11:01 AM on May 23, 2005
Thanks specklet. Here's the conclusion from the article you cited....
FFF: How can you assert this with confidence?
We've been genetically modifying beast and plant since we first started farming. We select the biggest bulls, the milkiest cows, the crops with the most yield. All of this is genetic modification. And how could you be certain that some prion disease or some other negative factor wasn't also being propagated? You can't be sure without there being adequate research.
My point is this: it's just not correct to assume that all GM work has or will have harmful effects. It's scaremongering and there's been a truckload of it in the GM debate (not here necessarily, but in the last 20 years out in general public land). I'm just against those who will naysay on the basis of 1/2 beliefs or spurious conclusions or simple ignorant fear of a term like Genetic Modification for no scientific or thought out reason.
I take the middle road. There's some worthwhile results that can come from GM - greater yields, herbicide and parasite resistance and even co-delivery of dietary elements lacking in some poorer parts of the world. As with everything, there's risks. These not only have to be balanced with the potential for positive outcomes but they also have to be researched adequately and safeguards need to be put in place.
I'm more in favour of a debate about the nature and extent of government control/intervention and the need for data generated by some corporation like Monsanto to be vetted by independent analysts and discussion about research parameters and the nature of safeguards that are needed.
But I think it's plainly stupid to lump all GM work in a devil basket and deny that there are potential benefits to be derived. Wear your tinfoil hats by all means but don't you be going eating those crops that have been modified by selection (Genetic modification by any other name) to give them nicer colours or better yield or more flavour and say that you are against GM.
posted by peacay at 8:37 AM on May 24, 2005
Genetically-modified foods have the potential to solve many of the world's hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides and herbicides. Yet there are many challenges ahead for governments, especially in the areas of safety testing, regulation, international policy and food labeling. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits. However, we must proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology.
FFF: How can you assert this with confidence?
We've been genetically modifying beast and plant since we first started farming. We select the biggest bulls, the milkiest cows, the crops with the most yield. All of this is genetic modification. And how could you be certain that some prion disease or some other negative factor wasn't also being propagated? You can't be sure without there being adequate research.
My point is this: it's just not correct to assume that all GM work has or will have harmful effects. It's scaremongering and there's been a truckload of it in the GM debate (not here necessarily, but in the last 20 years out in general public land). I'm just against those who will naysay on the basis of 1/2 beliefs or spurious conclusions or simple ignorant fear of a term like Genetic Modification for no scientific or thought out reason.
I take the middle road. There's some worthwhile results that can come from GM - greater yields, herbicide and parasite resistance and even co-delivery of dietary elements lacking in some poorer parts of the world. As with everything, there's risks. These not only have to be balanced with the potential for positive outcomes but they also have to be researched adequately and safeguards need to be put in place.
I'm more in favour of a debate about the nature and extent of government control/intervention and the need for data generated by some corporation like Monsanto to be vetted by independent analysts and discussion about research parameters and the nature of safeguards that are needed.
But I think it's plainly stupid to lump all GM work in a devil basket and deny that there are potential benefits to be derived. Wear your tinfoil hats by all means but don't you be going eating those crops that have been modified by selection (Genetic modification by any other name) to give them nicer colours or better yield or more flavour and say that you are against GM.
posted by peacay at 8:37 AM on May 24, 2005
We've been genetically modifying beast and plant since we first started farming. We select the biggest bulls, the milkiest cows, the crops with the most yield. All of this is genetic modification.
And to claim that selective breeding is comparable to combining DNA of two species is beyond disingenuous.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:19 AM on May 24, 2005
And to claim that selective breeding is comparable to combining DNA of two species is beyond disingenuous.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:19 AM on May 24, 2005
Look it's a little farfetched to say I'm being beyond disingenuous. I'm trying to be rational about this. I see what you're saying but you've somewhat misrepresented me. I didn't actually say it was comparable. I just said that selective breeding is the early type of GM. And dna being made up of 4 building blocks is not foreign to any species.
I think I get what you're saying. But it's only a known gene that's precisely introduced and not combining of 2 species dna, or at least not with the emphasis you seem to put on that. I agree that studies/safeguards etc etc etc need to be in place. But what's inherently (to coin a pun) wrong with introducing a foreign gene?? Why is the introduction of a gene from another species wrong? Why do you draw your line and what, other than prions, which came from eating as you mentioned, are your criteria for drawing the line?
Have a go at Monsanto or the government but don't just be lumping all of us in who consider that there's potential for good among all the strawmen arguments foisted on GM.
posted by peacay at 11:39 AM on May 24, 2005
I think I get what you're saying. But it's only a known gene that's precisely introduced and not combining of 2 species dna, or at least not with the emphasis you seem to put on that. I agree that studies/safeguards etc etc etc need to be in place. But what's inherently (to coin a pun) wrong with introducing a foreign gene?? Why is the introduction of a gene from another species wrong? Why do you draw your line and what, other than prions, which came from eating as you mentioned, are your criteria for drawing the line?
Have a go at Monsanto or the government but don't just be lumping all of us in who consider that there's potential for good among all the strawmen arguments foisted on GM.
posted by peacay at 11:39 AM on May 24, 2005
There is nothing intrinsically wrong about mixing genes. I don't believe I even alluded to such a thing.
There is something intrinsically wrong with releasing said GM food without adequate testing.
And that is what is being done: GM foods are not being tested to any reasonable standard, which means we are all guinea pigs for a disaster in the making.
All that has to happen is one cock-up that takes a decade to show itself and damn near the entire population would be adversely affected.
You have to be pretty thick, IMO, to not recognize the hazard. The only real question at hand is the magnitude of that hazard.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:27 PM on May 24, 2005
There is something intrinsically wrong with releasing said GM food without adequate testing.
And that is what is being done: GM foods are not being tested to any reasonable standard, which means we are all guinea pigs for a disaster in the making.
All that has to happen is one cock-up that takes a decade to show itself and damn near the entire population would be adversely affected.
You have to be pretty thick, IMO, to not recognize the hazard. The only real question at hand is the magnitude of that hazard.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:27 PM on May 24, 2005
You have to assume that 10% of the population are going to be greedy pigs, no matter what the situation is.
Think you missed a zero there.
posted by sophist at 1:47 PM on May 24, 2005
Think you missed a zero there.
posted by sophist at 1:47 PM on May 24, 2005
« Older Flame on! | Paul Ricoeur Dies Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Lanark at 2:13 AM on May 22, 2005