# Are Americans worried by genetically modified foods?



## AlexR (Jan 14, 2008)

The French government just suspended authorization to grow genetically modified corn (Mosanto).

This is a real political hot potato.

Much of the discussion is not actually based on scientific facts, but fear.

The French people are opposed to "Frankenfood" and domination by an American multinational.

Putting aside the political context, and concentrating on the health issue alone, do Americans by and large accept genetically modified food without any problem?

Best regards,
Alex R.


----------



## jpmcgrew (Jan 14, 2008)

AlexR said:


> The French government just suspended authorization to grow genetically modified corn (Mosanto).
> 
> This is a real political hot potato.
> 
> ...


 
 I have a problem with it but we Americans have no way of knowing if it is GMO as they dont tell us. We can get products that tell you that they are non GMO. I guess we would hafto do some research on who grow GMOs I believe the company Con Agra grows GMOs not positive though.


----------



## jpmcgrew (Jan 14, 2008)

This might help
PCC Sound Consumer | Non-GMO Project: A campaign for healthier eating


----------



## bethzaring (Jan 14, 2008)

I personally do not accept GM foods.  I have serious concerns regarding genetically modified foods.


----------



## Andy M. (Jan 14, 2008)

We have all been eating genetically modified foods for hundreds of years.  The produce, meats and poultry we eat today are not nearly the same as what our ancesters ate.

Say thank you to Luther Burbank.


----------



## bethzaring (Jan 14, 2008)

_in my opinion, this is completely different from what Luther did._


----------



## Andy M. (Jan 14, 2008)

bethzaring said:


> _in my opinion, this is completely different from what Luther did._


 

Only in method, not in end result.


----------



## auntdot (Jan 14, 2008)

Andy I am not particularly worried about GM foods but there is a difference between hybridization ala Luther Burbank and genetic engineering.  In hybridization there is mixing of the genome but if we are dealing with corn hybridizing the result is still a corn.

One method of genetic engineering is to insert a gene into a, oh corn, that comes from an entirely different organism.  May be a very different organism.  Then that gene directs the production of a protein (which is all genes do - everything elso our body makes is directed by those proteins) that is not usually made in a corn.  The worry is that the resulting protein may result in unforseen consequences when ingested and once in the environment may be difficult or impossible to get rid of.

There are examples of GM products that have been tried and research stopped due to such unanticipated consequences.

GM foods have the promise of feeding the vast millions in areas many foods will not grow, improving the taste and nutrition of the foods we eat.  Wonderful aims.

But it has only been 55 years siince Watson and Crick figured out the double helix of DNA.  And although we have learned a lot very rapidly since then, genetic manipulation is still in its infancy. 

Although I am more on the side of go for it,  I fully understand those who are hesitant.


----------



## BBQ Mikey (Jan 14, 2008)

I accept it.  If anything I feel highly evolved.  I would prefer that the animals are not hopped up on chemicals, but when in Rome...


----------



## GrillingFool (Jan 14, 2008)

My wife is about 6 months away from her Phd in botanical genetic engineering. She is 
not involved in the "frankenfood" area of genetics at all, but is VERY interested in it.
Therefore, she is pretty savvy and knowledgeable in the field.

She isn't worried about it, therefore I am not either. 

Knowledge is key.


----------



## Andy M. (Jan 14, 2008)

GrillingFool said:


> My wife is about 6 months away from her Phd in botanical genetic engineering. She is
> not involved in the "frankenfood" area of genetics at all, but is VERY interested in it.
> Therefore, she is pretty savvy and knowledgeable in the field.
> 
> ...


 

Invite her to join us and share any expertise.


----------



## flukx (Jan 15, 2008)

I think, at the very least, any GM food that is sold should have a label so those opposed can avoid it. If people don't want it, they don't have to buy it. In this way, the market will decide if it is something that is accepted or rejected by consumers.


----------



## bethzaring (Jan 15, 2008)

flukx said:


> I think, at the very least, any GM food that is sold should have a label so those opposed can avoid it. If people don't want it, they don't have to buy it. In this way, the market will decide if it is something that is accepted or rejected by consumers.


 
My objections with GM foods is not with eating them. I have not given one thought to eating the stuff.  My concerns lay with the environment.  What are/will these crops do to the air, water, soil, birds, worms, microbes, neighbors, etc.

I do not think it is realistic to think people will reject/avoid buying GM products based on the environmental issues.  Have you even known anyone who purchases beef or eggs at a grocery store?  Do they take into account the conditions of feed lot finished beef or the life of cage layer chickens?  I would say the vast majority of food purchasers do not.

Here is a quote from an organic food source:

"Organic farmers continue to report problems with "genetic trespass" from genetically modified crops. Some say the problem is getting worse, but no one knows how bad it is. Research is needed to determine the extent of the problem and to alert stakeholders.


In the Midwest, where millions of acres of GM corn and soybeans are grown, the impacts were much greater with up to 80% of organic farmers reporting direct costs or damages. "If this trend continues, what we're seeing now will prove tobe just the tip of the iceberg," said Bob Scowcroft, OFRF executive director"

Here is a link to some scientific research regarding the organic movements concerns.
Links to Recent Outstanding Research on the Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jan 15, 2008)

Grillingfool I would also like to hear what your wife has to say on the matter. This subject is way over my pay grade, so I would be interested in any comments she can add. Right now I am following the $$$$ Money. There seems to be two distinct $$$$ paths to explore.


----------



## jpmcgrew (Jan 15, 2008)

While we are at it let me open another can of worms.
Final U.S. decision expected on food from clones - Yahoo! News


----------



## jpmcgrew (Jan 15, 2008)

FDA says food from cloned animals safe to eat - Yahoo! News


----------



## Constance (Jan 15, 2008)

People used to be afraid of vitamin enriched flour, too. 

If corn can be engineered to resist corn worms without being sprayed with chemicals, therefore feeding many more hungry people from the same acreage, is that not a good thing?
If rice can be bred to have more protein in it, making it more nutritious for the millions who depend on it for the mainstay of their diets, is that not a good thing, too?
In my opinion, the answer is yes. 

Here is an informative article about genetic engineering.

Agriculture


----------



## bethzaring (Jan 15, 2008)

jpmcgrew said:


> While we are at it let me open another can of worms.
> Final U.S. decision expected on food from clones - Yahoo! News


 
thread drift/hijack

not a can of worms here. We've had this discussion before and the scientific concensus was that there are no problems eating cloned meat. But due to the extremely high costs of cloning animals, we will not be faced with that option any time soon.

Now, may we please hear from the few folks who actually seem to know what they are talking about regarding GM foods?


----------



## Andy M. (Jan 15, 2008)

bethzaring said:


> ...Now, may we please hear from the few folks who actually seem to know what they are talking about regarding GM foods?


 

...and from anyone who just wants to express an opinion


----------



## Caine (Jan 15, 2008)

jpmcgrew said:


> While we are at it let me open another can of worms.


Were these worms genetically engineered to fit inside that can?



Constance said:


> People used to be afraid of vitamin enriched flour, too.


 Some of them are STILL afraid of flouridated water, no matter how many cavities they didn't get because of it.


----------



## Michelemarie (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm jumping on board because I would like to learn more about this too.....


----------



## GrillingFool (Jan 15, 2008)

My wife is home from her trip now, and said she would either register here and comment
or send me an email with information about plants and genetic modification.

It might be a day or two, so hang in there.


----------



## jpmcgrew (Jan 15, 2008)

Caine said:


> Were these worms genetically engineered to fit inside that can?
> No, but they were preserved in a lead lined can.


----------



## Claire (Jan 16, 2008)

I'm not worried.  We've been breeding animals and plants for years -- make that hundreds of years.  I just don't see that much of a difference.  Yes, I love it when I can grow my own veggies in my own garden.  I'm an omnivore, though, and I like to be able to eat good food year-round.  Given where I live, that means I'd never eat a vegetable for months, and I sure as heck don't want to slaughter my own cows, pigs and chickens.  So the fact that they're trying to make a fruit or veg that can stand up to transportation just means that I can have lettuce now.  Otherwise I wouldn't get anything but canned goods until .... September?  So genetic finagling works for me.


----------



## GrillingFool (Jan 20, 2008)

Sorry it took so long, but my plant genetic Phd seeking wife is in the middle of grant writing time... no grant, no money, no 
research...

Here are her comments, slightly edited for clarity. She has a tendency to break into multisyllabic words.. 

One type of cloning includes cloning a gene (making copies of it) and inserting it into something else to produce a certain substance. For example, insulin. The gene(s) used to make insulin were cloned into bacteria, providing a cheaper, safer, more readily available insulin to diabetics than had previously been available from pig pancreas. This is an example of perfectly safe and widely used genetic engineering today.
(Grilling Fool says: most insulin used today is this type.)


Regarding issues of safety in plant cloning: Genetically engineed plants that produce vegetables are often referred to as "Frankenfoods" by those who would want to scare the general public. This is just more sensationalist journalism that does nothing to further the discussion of the topic, but is designed to inflame fear and worry in a generally uneducated public.

If someone handed me a genetically engineered tomato and told me to eat it, I would, no problem. That's because your body doesn't have an alert system that blinks off and on alerting your body that it is genetically altered... your body digests it just as it does any other tomato. It doesn't recognize specific genes as foreign to the tomato. Likewise, proteins and carbohydrates are subject to the same digestive processing. (GF says: this means that on a chemical, protein, molecular, sugar, carbohydrate, etc level, the 
cloned item is no different from any other.. the building blocks are identical to naturally produced blocks.)

Genetically engineered foods are strenuously tested to ensure that they are the "same" as their "natural" counterparts. The metabolites are extracted from these foods and studied by mass spectrometry to ensure that there are no new compounds popping out that might be dangerous. Any changes are characterized as the intentioned changes, and otherwise, the plants are exactly the same. Otherwise, there is too much of a risk to human health and safety... and the company's litigation fund, that these products just would not make it out of research and development.

Methods of inserting and propagating genes are getting better, with many of the plants actually being sterile. There would be no chance of the genes escaping into already existing populations. Other techniques have been developed that allow the plants to propagate, but would also keep the genes from escaping by some clever genetic tricks. At this point, I wouldn't worry at all about it. These issues have been well sorted out in response to public concern.

Biodiversity and insect/pathogen disease may be an issue, but with the safeguards preventing genetic escape, biodiversity of already existing populations should not be affected. There are crops being developed resistant to insects, different pathogens, weed killers, frost, etc, that are successfully used. Again, the chances of these traits escaping to the general population of plants is virtually nil.

At this time, I think that one of the most pressing ethical issues of genetically engineered or modified foods is that of power and big corporations. One of the main reasons why these genes are not getting out into the environment is because the plants have been engineered so as not to be able to produce fertile seed. That way, the farmers can't keep part of the harvest and plant it next year... they have to go and rebuy the seed from Monsanto, or whoever is selling it to them. This does give the big corporations like Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science a steel hand in the market. Unfortunately, given the current governmental atmosphere, this is unlikely to change. Funds for research by public institutions such as universities are so low that really very famous scientists are not able to get research funding. The money simply isn't there. This allows private corporations to get ahead, and as they get ahead, they get a wider corner on the market. Without investing in scientific research at our public institutions, we are not going to be able to combat large agri-pharma monopolies.

What I would like to emphasize is that genetic crop engineering has been occurring for thousands and thousands of years in the form of plant breeding. Doing so by "modern" methods speeds up the process, but it isn't any more un-natural than breeding traits into or out of crops.  (GF says... say you select plants that are hardy and survive frost, and eventually create a wheat that grows in snow... you have selected GENES when you select traits. Science is inserting genes to achieve the same result.... much faster.)

I was at the dog park one day, and someone was giving me a lecture on why they wouldn't eat some food that had been engineered to have more omega-3 fatty acids. Evidently a fish gene had been inserted into the plant, which allowed it to make these nutrient rich oils. I was told that they didn't want to eat it because they were scared they were going to get gills. As if the fish gene would pop out and mysteriously be able to incorporate itself somehow into every cell of the human's body and then change the entire metabolism and morph the human into a fish. A lot of these horror stories are based on lack of knowledge and misunderstanding, as well as sensationalist journalism to scare the masses.

On the contrary, the plants with the fish gene in them are actually quite beneficial. With all of the medical research going on, extending our lifespans beyond what they would normally be, we are going to need better, more nutritious, more plentiful crops. We aren't going to get those by traditional crop breeding... that can take hundreds of years to get what you want. As far as I am concerned, the benefits of GMO's (especially those of plants) far outweigh the risks, especially now that there are better ways of containing the "foreign" genes and preventing "escape."

So there you have it. Like I said.... if she isn't worried, neither am I.
(Back to the insulin... our dog was diabetic, and we had to buy insulin at WalMart to use. On the boxes it says the insulin is
from the genetically engineered source.. and was MUCH MUCH less expensive!)


----------



## Maverick2272 (Jan 20, 2008)

I dont think it can all be lumped in as good or bad, seems like more of a mixed bag to me. For instance, with the growing world population and shortage of land, wouldnt being able to grow more crops on less land be a good thing? And being able to grow crops that produced the same yield but with less of a leaching effect on the soil also be good? Then there are the crops that are engineered with a greater resistance to pests, thus diminishing the need for petsicides, thus diminishing thier use, and isnt that good for the environment?
I think I am more worried about the chemicals being used on and in foods than the engineering that went into growing and producing it. I once saw an ear of 'maze' layed next to an ear of 'corn', they barely looked simular.
In most instances, I think engineering is doing in the lab what was once done in the field just faster and more efficient. I also think that as long as we take the time to run our tests and complete our studies before leaping ahead, we shouldn't be running into any significant problems.
But then again, only time will realy tell.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jan 21, 2008)

Thanks GF, and my thanks to Miss GF for the very informative information!!!!

Thanks!!!


----------



## licia (Jan 21, 2008)

I'm don't have knowledge on the ins and outs of the engineering of different foods, but the problem I have is that when cloned meats are available, they won't have information stating the fact.  I think that is wrong!!!


----------



## GrillingFool (Jan 21, 2008)

just think of cloned meat as coming from an identical twin cow or pig or chicken.
If eating that wouldn't bother you, then neither should cloned meat.


----------



## Dodi (Jan 22, 2008)

As we eat genetically altered food and read about new safety tests, we may start to realize that we are the unwitting and unwilling guinea pigs in the largest experiment in human history, involving our entire planet's ecosystem, food supply, and the health and very genetic makeup of its inhabitants. Worse yet, results coming in from the first objective tests are not encouraging. Scientists issue cautionary statements almost weekly, ranging from problems with monarch butterflies dying from genetically modified corn pollen to the danger of violent allergic reactions to genes introduced into soy products, as well as experiments showing a variety of actual and suspected health problems for cows fed genetically engineered hormones and the humans who drink their milk. And this doesn't even consider slow-acting problems that might not show up for years or decades. Who decided this was an acceptable risk?

 Read the article here

And do not forget "we are what we eat"
Are You Eating Frankenfood?


----------



## DrThunder88 (Jan 22, 2008)

I've got no problem with it.  Whether it's modified or cloned, as the latest buzz seemed to be about, the food's not being modified any more than the difference between any two other non-modified specimens.

Now, what if they could combine animal DNA to create super-animals?  Think of it.  Meat with the health neutralness of chicken with the delicious flavor and cook-to-temperature ability of beef...call it "Cheef" or "Beecken."  Eh, leave naming up to marketing.


----------



## GotGarlic (Jan 22, 2008)

Dodi said:


> Read the article here
> 
> And do not forget "we are what we eat"
> Are You Eating Frankenfood?



Personally, I don't have great confidence in a Web site that doesn't describe the credentials its contributors and sponsors. Anyone and everyone can publish whatever they want on the Internet; that doesn't make it all equally valid.


----------



## GotGarlic (Jan 22, 2008)

Dodi said:


> ... as well as experiments showing a variety of actual and suspected health problems for cows fed genetically engineered hormones and the humans who drink their milk. And this doesn't even consider slow-acting problems that might not show up for years or decades. Who decided this was an acceptable risk?
> 
> Read the article here
> 
> ...



Scientists and the government agency charged with ensuring the safety of food decided this.

From Cornel University - BST Fact Sheet :

What is bST?

bST is an abbreviation for bovine somatotropin or what is also called bovine growth hormone.  The term rbST has been used to refer to bST that is produced using fermentation technology and injected into dairy cows to increase efficiency of milk production.

Is bST a hormone?

Yes.  However, there are two types of hormones: steroids and proteins.  bST is a protein hormone.  Protein hormones have no activity when taken by mouth, while steroid hormones do have activity. For example, insulin is a protein hormone. Insulin has no activity if taken orally.  Therefore, a diabetic has to have injections of insulin.  Like insulin, the protein hormone bST has no activity when taken by mouth.  In contrast, hormones used in birth control pills are steroids and therefore are effective when taken by mouth.  Again, bST has no effect when taken by mouth.

Furthermore, studies were conducted in the 1950's to determine  if children suffering from dwarfism could be given direct injections of high levels of bST to stimulate growth.  The conclusion of the study was that somatotropin from cows is  not active in humans even if injected.  Why?  The structure of human somatotropin is so different from bovine somatotropin, that  injections of high levels of bovine somatotropin into children have no influence on growth and development.


----------



## GrillingFool (Jan 22, 2008)

I left this part of my wife's comments out, but they are now relevant...



> Regarding issues of safety: Genetically engineed plants that produce vegetables are often referred to as "Frankenfoods" by those who would want to scare the general public. This is just more sensationalist journalism that does nothing to further the discussion of the topic, but is designed to inflame fear and worry in a generally uneducated public.


----------



## sage™ (Jan 22, 2008)

Corn as we know it, would not exist today if it were not genetically modified. My husband saw a show about corn and said it is modified every year. It use to be tiny seeds on top of a few tassels. Its probably true of a lot of vegetables.


----------



## Dodi (Jan 22, 2008)

If this is not a credential, what is?

 About the Author

Martin Teitel, Ph.D., the author of Rain Forest in Your Kitchen, is Executive Director of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a national nonprofit organization of concerned scientists, doctors, and activists founded in 1983 to foster public debate about the social, ethical, health, economic, and environmental implications of genetic technology. He lives in Boston. Visit the Council for Responsible Genetics's website at Council for Responsible Genetics
Kimberly A. Wilson, former director of the council's program on Commercial Biotechnology and the Environment, works with the Greenpeace biotechnology campaign and lives in San Francisco.


----------



## GotGarlic (Jan 22, 2008)

Dodi said:


> If this is not a credential, what is?
> 
> About the Author
> 
> ...



Sorry, I don't know how I missed that, although it would be more impressive if it was a degree in biology or some kind of science, rather than philosophy: http://www.stanford.edu/~boas/other_projects/gene_conf/program_one_side.pdf

I was also looking for who sponsors or created and edits the site itself and couldn't find it. Do you know?


----------



## GrillingFool (Jan 22, 2008)

So I read the article in question.
Where is the science? Where are the facts?
All I see is hype and "OH MY GOD IT'S FRANKENFOOD!!!!"

Hype, calculated to play on emotions. 
1." There are changes that could never happen in nature"...
  Uhhh, in SOME genetically modified foods, yes. What about all the
others that CAN occur naturally?  hmmmm?
2. "..the food is owned." This can also be achieved by using more common
methods of genetic manipulation. I do, however, agree that it could present
a problem should, for example, all but one company's strain of corn were to die off...
3. "the new technology is 'globalized'... Whaaaat? Somehow the genetically modified
plants are being forced by "trade agreements" "worldwide" into use? I don't think so...

See, hype, calculated to inflame, frighten and further an agenda, rather than present
the truth. 

Off my soapbox, sorry for the rant.


----------



## Caine (Jan 22, 2008)

Dodi said:


> Kimberly A. Wilson, former director of the council's program on Commercial Biotechnology and the Environment, works with the Greenpeace biotechnology campaign and lives in San Francisco.


Well, there's two strikes against her right there. So, what, exactly are her credentials? Does she have an advanced degree in anything related to biology or health? Does she have any degree in anything? Does she have a high school diploma? GED?


----------



## Hawkeye16 (Jan 22, 2008)

If you take any form of medication that is not herbal you are putting human made substances in your body. I don't see GM foods as any worse than this.

I would rather eat GM foods than take most of the medications that are FDA approved these days.


----------



## Treklady (Jan 22, 2008)

I don't know all the ins and outs about genetically altered food, but I do know if you keep messing with Mother Nature, she will come back and bite you in the backside. It may not be today or tomorrow, and we may not even see it in our grandchildren, but it will show up sooner or later.

Check this out: The Future of Food


----------



## Dodi (Jan 23, 2008)

History is littered with the victims of stuff either the government, scientists or big business told us was safe. Asbestos was the greatest thing, thalidamyde was great for pregnant women, of course it is safe to feed ground up animals to the normally vegitarian cattle, oops BSE. The government agencies that are meant to police our food are not immune to the lobbying groups of the multi-nationals. (Stevia is not allowed to be sold as a sweetener only a food suppliment) 

The possible problems with GM is that they wont show up for 20, 30, 50 years or more and by that time it will be too late. Also, maybe the things that are being altered right at this moment may be fine, but once allowed, who knows what is next.

GM crops cannot be contained, so anybody who prefers their fruit and vegetables organic will soon not be able get them due to cross contamination.

It is not just France that is against GM, the EU will not allow it. Britain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany and a few others are strongly against it, although the British government is under strong pressure to allow more GM trials.

In the end it is down to personal choice to eat or to eat, the problem is, once the genie is out of the bottle will the individual still have that choice?


----------



## GotGarlic (Jan 23, 2008)

Dodi said:


> ... GM crops cannot be contained, so anybody who prefers their fruit and vegetables organic will soon not be able get them due to cross contamination.
> 
> It is not just France that is against GM, the EU will not allow it. Britain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Germany and a few others are strongly against it, although the British government is under strong pressure to allow more GM trials.
> 
> In the end it is down to personal choice to eat or to eat, the problem is, once the genie is out of the bottle will the individual still have that choice?



Maybe you neglected to read GrillingFool's long, informative post from his wife, who is working on a Ph.D. in this subject. Here's part of it: 



			
				GrillingFool said:
			
		

> If someone handed me a genetically engineered tomato and told me to eat it, I would, no problem. That's because *your body doesn't have an alert system that blinks off and on alerting your body that it is genetically altered*... your body digests it just as it does any other tomato. It doesn't recognize specific genes as foreign to the tomato. Likewise, proteins and carbohydrates are subject to the same digestive processing. (GF says: this means that on a chemical, protein, molecular, sugar, carbohydrate, etc level, the cloned item is no different from any other.. the building blocks are identical to naturally produced blocks.)
> 
> Genetically engineered foods are strenuously tested to ensure that they are the "same" as their "natural" counterparts. The metabolites are extracted from these foods and studied by mass spectrometry to ensure that there are no new compounds popping out that might be dangerous. Any changes are characterized as the intentioned changes, and otherwise, the plants are exactly the same. Otherwise, *there is too much of a risk to human health and safety... and the company's litigation fund*, that these products just would not make it out of research and development.
> 
> Methods of inserting and propagating genes are getting better, *with many of the plants actually being sterile. There would be no chance of the genes escaping into already existing populations.* Other techniques have been developed that allow the plants to propagate, but would also keep the genes from escaping by some clever genetic tricks. At this point, I wouldn't worry at all about it. These issues have been well sorted out in response to public concern.



Emphasis added by me.


----------



## Maverick2272 (Jan 23, 2008)

Call me paranoid, but the last places I consider to provide accurate and unbiased are first the government and second the manufacturer. I have never know a manufacturer to put out a product and say "yea, there maybe some problems with this, but hey buy it anyway and dont worry". If manufacturers didnt lie there wouldnt be so many lawsuits currently pending against them for covering up problems with thier products.
And governments? Well, money buys influence and the manufacturers sure have plenty of that to throw around. The word lobyist comes to mind.
Case in point: If these plants are sterile, then why is Monsanto still involved in lawsuits against neighboring farmers because *Monsantos GM, and supposedly sterile crop, drifted into neighboring farmers land and Monsanto is suing THEM for not removing the crop from thier now contaminated fields.* That takes aweful big cahunas (pardon my french) to do.


----------



## GotGarlic (Jan 24, 2008)

Maverick2272 said:


> Case in point: If these plants are sterile, then why is Monsanto still involved in lawsuits against neighboring farmers because *Monsantos GM, and supposedly sterile crop, drifted into neighboring farmers land and Monsanto is suing THEM for not removing the crop from thier now contaminated fields.* That takes aweful big cahunas (pardon my french) to do.



I don't know. Do you have a source for this info?


----------



## GrillingFool (Jan 24, 2008)

I think my wife mentioned something about this as being from a while ago, before 
safeguards were improved.... but could be wrong about this...


----------



## GotGarlic (Jan 24, 2008)

Maverick2272 said:


> Call me paranoid, but the last places I consider to provide accurate and unbiased are first the government and second the manufacturer. I have never know a manufacturer to put out a product and say "yea, there maybe some problems with this, but hey buy it anyway and dont worry". If manufacturers didnt lie there wouldnt be so many lawsuits currently pending against them for covering up problems with thier products.
> And governments? Well, money buys influence and the manufacturers sure have plenty of that to throw around. The word lobyist comes to mind ...



I didn't say to rely on manufacturers; I said the government and institutions of higher education. Lobbyists lobby politicians, not scientists. I'm not so naive as to think the system is perfect, but I think it's better than listening to people who have products to sell based on scaring the public, which in general is not very well education in science.


----------



## Maverick2272 (Jan 24, 2008)

It was on the news awhile back. Do a Google search Monsanto + lawsuits and Monsanto + Canada + lawsuits and you come up with a list of lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers in Canada and the US. They started in the mid 90's and continue to this day and are in two categories: Farmers saving seed from their crop to use the following year and organic farmers having their crops contaminated by Monsanto's GM crops. Are either possible if the GM seed is sterile? I don't know, that is what I am hoping someone can answer in a definitive way.
Also if you go to the Wikipedia web site and look up Monsanto, then go to references, you can find a list there of sources on the following subjects concerning Monsanto and GM crops:

Monsanto being sued for dumping toxic chemicals (relates to their product Roundup).
Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity.
Monsanto fined for false herbicide ads in France.
Monsanto sued for illegally importing GM seed to France.
Monsanto fined for bribing an Indonesia government official to not do environmental studies on their GM cotton crop (if its so safe, why are they afraid of having an environmental study done?).
A list of Monsanto's lobbying expenses.
And several references debating how to contain and control GM crops from spreading and contaminating neighboring fields.

The news reports I read on Monsanto and the problems with US farmers and Canadian farmers was on PBS and BBC Canada, but I cannot find a direct link to either on this subject, just references to their programs.

You can read the Wikipedia entry as well, but I take that with a grain of salt, some of the verbiage used suggested to me the writer was perhaps slanted in their views and therefore not objective.

I also did a Google search on sterile + GM + crops and got several articled debating  how best to contain GM crops, but nothing that said they were sterile. And again, if they are sterile, how are farmers able to re-use seed from their crop the next year, and how is it contaminating the organic farmers fields? I can't seem to find an answer from either side that lays this question to rest. And it seems to be of large concern to the EU, and listed by them as one reason for not allowing GM crops in. So if they, after reading all available information and scientific studies, see no conclusive proof that GM crops are sterile and can be contained, why should I?

As for trusting the government, you said it yourself lobbyists lobby politicians, IE the Government. Therefore they cant be trusted to be objective. Want re-elected? limit laws designed to protect consumers and limit what we can do. Hey, I gave you tons of money to get you elected, no go over to that government watchdog agency and get them off by back.
As for scientists, ever wonder who pays for much of their research? While I am sure most are on the level, many are often funded by special interest groups. So no, just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean I should immediately assume everything they say is true.
Take for example the scientific study done by a Scottish scientist in which 33 out of 40 lab rats developed stomach lesions and died after consuming GM food. Another group of scientists then came out and reputed the first set as having been biased and influencing. So what, does that mean scientists really can be biased??? But I thought... so which set of scientist is really biased then? The first set or the second set. Both are scientists, so who do I believe now?
See, my point is nothing should ever be taken as gospel. Sometimes the best thing to do is follow the money, then see who is really calling the shots.

Like I said before, I am way more concerned about the chemicals going on and in my food, IE pesticides herbicides etc. One of the biggest problems we had growing up was having to treat our well water due to the fact that in the late 80's it became undrinkable. Why? The ground water and soil were _that_ contaminated by all the pesticides and herbicides used by the farmers in their fields, not to mention all those chemical fertilizers. And yet, its still not illegal to use them, and they are not liable for contaminating the drinking water either.


----------



## GotGarlic (Jan 25, 2008)

I did a quick search on Google and most of what I found was either Monsanto being sued, or cases from 10 or more years ago. I don't really have time to sift through thousands of results, sorry. And I don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source for something like this, since anyone can change anything they want on that site.

Yes, I said lobbyists lobby politicians, but they don't lobby scientists, that I'm aware of. And articles on scientific topics that appear in respected professional journals are vetted by people in the same field - the study design and analysis of results are carefully reviewed to make sure they end up with valid conclusions. It's not easy to slip something past this system. And no, I don't wonder who pays for scientific research - I work at a medical school, so I have a good idea of how it gets funded 

If a bunch of scientists criticize the results of one scientist, I would take the word of the bunch. Of course scientists can be biased, just like anyone else. The good ones strive not to be, and the scientific method was developed to eliminate bias as much as possible. As I said, no system is perfect, but unless one wants to just ignore the whole issue and hope it will go away, we have to set our own criteria for who and what we will believe. Different people will choose different "experts" to rely on, and that's just the way things go


----------



## Maverick2272 (Jan 25, 2008)

AGGG!!!! I had the computer on an unstable surface blocking the processor fan, it shut down on me and I lost my entire post!! Ugg.

Anyway,
I was not trying to start an argument, so I hope I have not offended anyone. If I have, I apologize. My point was simply that there is no case of one scientist saying bad while the rest say good, same with the governments and thier agencies.
Instead, I see pretty evenly divided lines between scientists, governments, manufacturers, and institutions of higher learning. So, when it is a group on one side and a group on the other, how do you judge then? Which ones do you beleive or put stock in and which ones do you choose to write off? It is easy to say "all credible scientific evidence points to this and only crackpots point to that". But this isn't the case here, and it wouldn't be the first time the scientists were wrong and the crackpots were right either.
I was also trying to just state my own opinion, which is that I do not give any more or any less weight to what governements, watchdog groups, regulartory agencies, scientists, or institutes of higher learning say over what others who have done thier own research say. IE I take ALL with a grain of salt, not just some.
One can choose to agree with what the US government, Monsanto, US scientists, and US institutes of higher learning say, or one can choose to agree with thier European counterparts. How does one choose? Myself, I also take into account other factors such as pending lawsuits, previous lawsuits, personal experience, the experience of the farmers, watchdog groups, environmental groups, Dr.s, etc.
This raises, for me, additional questions not addressed by mainstream scientists and government regulatory agencies (which again can be just as easily influences by money and special interest as anyone else).
I also do not have the time to suft thru thousands of results either, but what other choice do I have when so many are so divided on the issue? I feel the more I sift, the more I read, the more I see the better picture I get. I never said take Wikipedia at face value, I said take a look at the reference section. Big difference, and in fact I did point out that I felt the entry itself was biased. But just because the entry was not made by the USDA or a scientist or an institute of higher learning doesn't mean we should just dismiss it off-hand either. That is reckless.
And my opinion is that while I despise Monsanto for thier business practises, and do question their ability to conain thier GM crops, I cannot find any evidence that GM crops or bad health wise.
I do apologize for not referencing each and every source I read and came across on my multi-day searches, I wasn't aware it would be necessary, or that anyone else was doing it, and quite frankly would prefer each person to do as much themselves and make up thier own minds in the matter instead of relying just on the work I have done.
After all, my point was never to 'resolve' the issue of provide concrete proof either way but rather explore the methods by which we were making our decisions.


----------



## GotGarlic (Jan 25, 2008)

Hey, Maverick. I'm not offended and I don't think this is really an argument - rather, it's a spirited discussion, which I really get into. If I only talked about stuff with people who agree with me on everything, I'd never learn anything new  So no worries about that. I appreciate you explaining your point of view. I agree with GB, though - I do try to get info from several sources and see where the consensus is. Sometimes it's harder to find in some areas, but we just have to do the best we can.

As a rule, I am pretty skeptical of sites/groups/people who stand to make a profit from whatever they're saying. And since I know a fair number of medical researchers personally, I tend to trust them. The ones I've met, at least, are honestly at their core very curious people who want to understand the disease process, what causes it, and how it can be treated and/or prevented.

It's a fascinating, complex topic, to be sure


----------



## Maverick2272 (Jan 25, 2008)

Whew I am glad. I love the more spirited discussions, but am always afraid (since people can't see what you are saying only what you type) that it will get taken the wrong way or I will offend someone. I really didn't want to get too much into comparing or refuting information as I didn't want to seem like I was pointing fingers or calling someone a liar or anything, but I understand the need to provide references as well. In the future I will bookmark more so I have them ready at hand to reference.
And just so you know, it was the information and questions posted by yourself, GrillingFool, and his wife that got me searching the Internet these last few days for more information on the subject. So I thank you for that, it has gotten the wife and I looking more into this subject, and that is always a good thing in my opinion.
Until now I really hadn't given it much though outside of the flurry of lawsuits being passed back and forth between Monsanto, farmers, and organic farmers. The only frustration I had was much of the information was very confusing and often _seemed_ to contradict each other. I am sure alot of that stems from the fact that some of what they are talking about is pretty technical, to say the least, LOL.
Some interesting things I did read are that crops currently in testing include ones that could potentionally reduce greenhouse gases? I also know they were planning ones that were naturally resistant to pesticides, but not sure if they have already released them or if it is still in trials. Hey anything that reduces reliance on pesticides and herbicides is a good thing in my book!
One thing that did kinda strike me was just how different are GM crops from none GM crops in regards to disease resistance? I thought I had heard that for the most part they were much more hardy than none GM crops and could even withstand more variances in climate than non GM crops. Is this true?
I was doing a search on that, but am having difficulty finding information specifically regarding that issue. Call me silly, but I was just having thoughts of "what would happen if a disease struck effecting only GM crops kinda along the lines of Dutch Elm Disease?"
For instance, if all the genetic modifications accidently took out a little known but very necessary resistance  that caused the GM crops to die off.
How likely an event could this be? And how easily, if at all, could we bounce back from it?
Anyway, good discussion, really got my brain thinking these last couple of days, it needed the exercise anyway


----------



## Wart (Jan 26, 2008)

flukx said:


> I think, at the very least, any GM food that is sold should have a label so those opposed can avoid it. If people don't want it, they don't have to buy it. In this way, the market will decide if it is something that is accepted or rejected by consumers.




I use to do that with stuff marked Made in China. Use to be easy.

Avoiding Made in China is not so easy anymore.

Maybe it's already too late, but lets say all foods with direct genetic modification are marked as such. At this time we MAY be able to avoid them.

There will come a time, like came with China, that avoiding GM foods will not be so easy.


----------



## ErikC (Jan 27, 2008)

This may seem like a trivial point in comparison to the other issues that have been brought up, but does anyone have any opinions about how GM food tastes? Is there any improvement, is it bland, or can you even tell a difference?

I started reading Julia Child's masterpiece "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" and she had some interesting points that argued against the use of growth hormones, but these points were _entirely_ about how it affects the flavor of the animal. She mentioned that it takes time for the meat to mature and that an animal that reaches a marketable size in a shorter time would simply not taste as good.

Obviously, a nation that has trouble feeding its population will care far less about flavor than with preventing starvation, but for those societies that have more food than survival requires food takes on a different significance. 

Anyone have an objective facts, educated opinions, or wild conjecture about this?


----------



## Maverick2272 (Jan 28, 2008)

I honestly don't know. I would imagine most of what I eat is GM, so I don't know how I would attempt to go about setting up a 'taste' test. I know that some of the best sweet corn I have had comes from the organic farmer at the farmers market we go to, but that doesn't mean it isn't GM, just a better tasting variety and I like that he didn't use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides to grow it.
He does put one caveat into his display: That while he does not use chemicals, they are bound to be present in the soil and water and therefore in trace amounts in his crops.
That is my wifes main concern on this issue, that GM crops (mainly corn she is speaking about here) due to their higher yield per plant have a greater leaching effect on the soil thus making them more dependent on chemical fertilizers. In other words her stance is not about health or taste directly but environmental impact minded. She is also very concerned about increasing mono crop practices (growing only one type of crop instead of several and rotating them from field to field each year) and unsustainable farming .
We have been going back and forth for the last couple of days without finding anything definitive either way. Anyone else have any info about this? My understand was GM corn crops have no greater leaching effect on the soil and no greater dependency on chemical fertilizers than non GM corn does. And that regardless of whether or not its GM corn or not, crop rotation is still the best practice and best for the soil and environment.
IE seems to me she (and probably myself as well among others) is confusing organic, GM, sustainable farming practices, and healthy environmental practices. I know they are all connected but at the same time separate issues. IE I could be an organic farmer using no chemicals but that doesn't mean I used non GM seed.. etc. etc.

For an interesting bit of background info look up norman borlaug - Google Search


----------

