Genetically Engineered/Modified Foods

[Stile]

With a couple of threads recently concerning over-population and starving people in under-developed countries, I was wondering what the average fan of Civilization felt about genetically engineered foods? (Let's call them GE foods from now on in this thread.)

It concerns me that groups such as Green Peace have pressured starving countries, such as those in Africa, to refuse GE corn, wheat, or soybeans sent from America. I personally think their fear is unfounded and cruel to those without food, but I want to present the opposing view and any real numbers I can find about it and start some discussion on it.

For starters, here is a list of hazards of GE foods:

A. Hazards of GM Foods

1. Numerous experts assert that recombinant DNA technology differs from
conventional breeding and entails a distinct set of risks. Among these risks
is the potential for generating new toxins, carcinogens and allergens.

2. Because such harmful substances can be novel and never before seen in any
of the species involved in the gene transfer, they are essentially
unpredictable and cannot be adequately detected by the compositional
analyses currently in use.

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) files reveal that its own staff
scientists also recognised the unique hazards of GM foods, warned about them
in numerous memos to administrators, and asserted the need for toxicological
feeding tests using the whole food to screen for the presence of unexpected
harmful substances. (Photocopies of memos by FDA experts are posted at
www.biointegrity.org )

4. Renowned experts have submitted declarations to a U.S. federal court that
GM foods could be dangerous and that there is no reliable evidence showing
any have been demonstrated safe through appropriate tests. The tests
currently relied on in the EU do not adequately screen for the range of
potential negative effects identified by these and many other experts
(including those at the FDA).

5. The inadequacy of the current tests is evident from the failure of the
OECD conference on GM foods in February, 2000 to meet a formal challenge to
provide evidence that even one GM food has been demonstrated safe.

6. Besides unique risks to humans, GM foods pose unique risks to the
environment: creation of super weeds and super viruses, destruction of
biodiversity, pollution of soil, and many others.

 

[napoleon526]

I voted the shrimp option.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

If it's proven to be safe, I'll eat it. Which is the crux of the whole matter...

I think the obsession with GE food is a farce; considering just about every agricultural farm produce is hardly 'natural'. Though these are the results of thousands of years of unintended engineering by farmers...

But I'll agree tests are needed to ascertain the safety factor of the modern scientifically and consciously engineered GE food.

 

[Stile]

Science vs. Hysteria
European environmentalists' tactic against biotech: Starve Africans.

BY NORMAN E. BORLAUG
Saturday, January 25, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

MEXICO CITY--In 2000, I served on a joint U.S.-European Union Biotechnology Consultative Forum--appointed by President Clinton and Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission--to look at the full range of issues that have polarized thinking about biotechnology, especially in food and agriculture, on both sides of the Atlantic.

While significant differences of opinion existed--mainly related to the regulatory structure on certifying agri-biotech products--most of the 20 U.S. and European experts on the panel agreed that agricultural biotechnology holds great promise to make dramatic and useful advances during the 21st century. The most prestigious national academies of science in North America and Europe (including the Vatican) also have come out in support of genetic engineering to improve the quantity, quality and availability of food supplies.

Unfortunately, the debate about the safety and utility of genetically modified crops continues to grow, and now looks to be heating up further. The U.S. is considering filing a challenge at the World Trade Organization to break the European Union's four-year moratorium on importing genetically modified crops. Although the European Commission agrees that the ban needs to be lifted, various member states refuse to do so until more stringent labeling regulations are put in place.

The U.S. is contemplating a WTO suit because European resistance to genetically modified foods is increasingly influencing the trade policies of other nations, to the point where some African governments recently have turned down American genetically modified grain intended for starving people. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick says he has information that several European countries are threatening to make economic aid to developing countries contingent on whether they prohibit biotech crops. If this is true, it would be tragic and grossly irresponsible.

Although there have always been those in society who resist change, the intensity of the attacks against genetically modified crops from some quarters is unprecedented and, in certain cases, even surprising, given the potential environmental benefits that such technology can bring by reducing the use of pesticides. Genetic engineering of crops--plant breeding at the molecular level--is not some kind of witchcraft, but rather the progressive harnessing of the forces of nature to the benefit of feeding the human race. The idea that a new technology should be barred until proven conclusively that it can do no harm is unrealistic and unwise. Scientific advance always involves some risk of unintended outcomes. Indeed, "zero biological risk" is not even attainable.
Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa says he's been told by anti-biotechnology groups that donated American corn is "poison" because it contains genetically modified kernels. Based on such misinformation, he is willing to risk thousands of additional starvation deaths rather than distribute the same corn Americans have been eating for years with no ill effects.

Some other African leaders whose people also are facing hunger and starvation say they're afraid to accept genetically modified corn because its pollen will "contaminate" local corn varieties with dire environmental consequences. Also, they say that they hope to export corn to Europe in the future and fear that their products would be rejected if genetically modified foods were allowed to enter their countries.

These concerns are unfounded. Temperate-zone corn (either genetically modified or normal) will not grow well in tropical African ecologies and, moreover, it has yellow grain while Africans prefer white grain. Thus, even if a curious farmer were to plant some genetically modified grain received as food aid, its continued presence in the field is unlikely. Certainly in the case of Zambia, a landlocked country with poor transportation and low agricultural productivity, the prospects for exporting corn to Europe in the foreseeable future are almost zero.

If low-income, food-deficit nations--which desperately need access to the benefits of science and technology--are being advised by governments and pressure groups in privileged nations to reject biotechnology, based on ideologically inspired pseudo-science, there is reason for serious concern. Of course, proper safeguards need to be put in place in Africa and elsewhere to regulate biotechnology research and the release of genetically modified products. But to attempt to deny such benefits would be unconscionable.
Current genetically modified crop varieties that help to control insects and weeds are lowering production costs and increasing harvests--a great potential benefit to all Third World farmers. Future products are likely to carry traits that will improve nutrition and health. All of these technologies have more benefits to offer poor farmers and consumers than rich ones.

For example, Kenya is ready to field-test virus-resistant sweet potatoes that should yield 30% to 50% more of this important food staple. Virus-resistant bananas and potatoes have already been bred, but are being barred in African countries where people urgently need their higher yields. Indian researchers are developing a vaccine against the epidemic livestock disease, rinderpest, which can be genetically engineered into peanut plants. African farmers would be able to protect their draft animals simply by feeding them the peanut plants--again if biotech is allowed.

The needless confrontation of consumers against the use of transgenic crop technology in Europe and elsewhere might have been avoided had more people received a better education in biological science. This educational gap--which has resulted in a growing and worrisome ignorance about the challenges and complexities of agricultural and food systems--needs to be addressed without delay. Privileged societies have the luxury of adopting a very low-risk position on the issue of genetically modified crops, even if this action later turns out to be unnecessary. But the vast majority of humankind does not have such a luxury, and certainly not the hungry victims of wars, natural disasters, and economic crises.

Without adequate food supplies at affordable prices, we cannot expect world health, prosperity, and peace. Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is.

Mr. Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace laureate, is a professor of international agriculture at Texas A&M University.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by napoleon526
I voted the shrimp option.

Yeah, I did too. But what I really want is a flying unicorn so I can prove the moon landings to the hoax theorists B-).

As for GE foods...prove them safe, feed the world, tackle the next problem.

 

[philippe]

hmm im ok with genetic food if its proven to be safe

 

[Skullbones]

I voted for the 3rd option.

LEAVE THE ANIMALS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!

:rocket2:
^
|
people who experiment
on animals

 

[Akka]

No GE stuff.
For several reasons.

1) Corporations would be able to put patents on them. It means they would be able to sell and buy the life itself. A bit excessive for me.

2) These things need to be tested in the long term before you can pretend they are harmless. Long term means 20 years at the minimum.

3) I'm not at all convinced about the innocuity of GMO. The father of my best friend is what can be called a specialist in this domain (his name is Jean-François Narbonne, you can check online his work and see I'm not bullsh*tting you). His opinion is that GMO are potentially very dangerous (partly because of the possibility that some DNA part "jump" from a specie to another, just like they do in bacterias).
I'm trusting him on this one, and I hardly call his opinion "pseudo-science", especially considering his past record of predicting troubles in the food and toxicology area (mad cow disease and dioxin anyone ?)...

4) The ones who develop these GMO often actively try to make them unable to be planted again, so the people have to buy them each year, rather than using the past harvesting of the previous year. The infamous "Terminator" seed from Monsanto was this kind of product (the seeds were very productive during the first generation, but if you panted them, the second generation would rotten while growing).
Not only this can be incredibly dangerous if the "DNA jump" happens on normal vegetation, but it also make the buyer totally dependant of the company.

 

[Xiahou-Dun]

I picked option 3.

As to the people who don't want it, I'm not going to force them (I also will not back giving them money to buy food/guns/savings accounts in other countries ).


Just don't come running complaining when your hungry.