Genetically Modified Food Products: Safe or not?

[Lord Baal]

I was under the assumption that the primary sensible complaint against GMOs is their potential to spread outside of the farming area. To use an example, if genetically modified wheat resistant to pests were introduced to an area, its seeds might spread, via wind, to areas it isn't meant to be, thus creating a feral plant that is resistant to anything that might try to kill it, thus strangling the native plant populations. I don't know the odds of something like this actually occurring, but this is an argument we had when I was back in high school, and it does seem perfectly sensible.

The solution to this issue that Monsanto has found, namely inventing plants that don't have seeds, is a good work-around for this, but has the unfortunate side-effect of being typical Monsanto hyper-capitalist evil in action. it was also designed purely for their own profit, rather than to actually address the issue I've raised; if a plant doesn't have seeds, you need to buy more of it from Monsanto after the harvest. Smart, on Monsanto's part. No wonder they control the Moon in the Year 3000.

 

[areon]

Thank you Baal, someone else knows about the economic consequences other than the scare tactics. Considering how many growth hormones, pesticides, and medical byproducts that are used in farming I wouldn't worry too much at this point about our food being "pure" or "natural." I'm very worried about these tendencies to maximize profit on the other hand. Farmers around the world have already felt much displacement in the past decades, bringing something like this along will not be good. It would be nice if the issue wasn't about labeling but actually reigning back corporate abuse, ha like that will happen. /sarcasm

 

[classical_hero]

Non-GMO food has been tested by use.
Certain Non-GMO foods have been found to be unhealthy.

GMO food is now being tested by use

The last bit is not good since they should have beentested long before entering the market.

People have been eating non-GMO food for years. Most of them died.

Then we should ban all foods then

Labels can only show a limited amount of information. The most that you would get would be something like the EU E numbers for food additives; so Monsanto soya would be GM100 etc. So you could look it up if you wished.

But Monsanto etc would be against this as it would allow foods containing their products to be specifically boycotted.

If people think they are safe, then they will consume them and if not then it should be allowed for them to not consume what they don't want to consume. Now that wold be very interesting to see what happened if that was allowed to occur. It would be an interesting experiment indeed.

 

[peter grimes]

Canola oil is GMO.

without the genetic manipulations, it's poisonous.

It's been in the food supply here for at least 30 years.

If there were a problem I think someone would have found it by now

 

[Lord Baal]

If people think they are safe, then they will consume them and if not then it should be allowed for them to not consume what they don't want to consume. Now that wold be very interesting to see what happened if that was allowed to occur. It would be an interesting experiment indeed.

That seems eminently sensible. Now tell me; how long has it been since you've interacted with the human race? Did they strike you as sensible?

We once had a guy on CFC who started multiple threads about the lethality of folic acid, and the anti-flouride and anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists are always out in force. People, as a whole, aren't known for being sensible. So what possible reason do you have to believe that simple labelling will actually affect the majority's response to food consumption? You're Australian, like myself. When was the last time you even noticed a "Made in Australia" or "Heart Foundation Approved" label when shopping?

 

[Eukaryote]

What exactly are the dangers of genetically modified food plants? Do they cause sickness in humans? Do they destroy the environment? I've never heard of any dangers until now so I'm curious.

Thanks.

Genetically altered crops are potentially as genetically diverse as conventional crops. This is something most people miss. To imply that all genetically modified food has similar health effects would be like arguing that eating any eukaryotic organism has similar health effects.

Furthermore, GMOs have a track record of environmental and humanitarian benefits:
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/default.asp

 

[Eukaryote]

The issue of intellectual property on GMOs though is pretty controversial. Corporations (like Monsanto) developing genetically modified crops "own" the gene modification, and are allowed to dictate how they are used. Such as forcing farmers to buy their seeds every season, disallowing reuse of ones from the crops the farmers planted. Pretty annoying when you realize the full extent of power these companies have with their GMOs.

Legally, no corporation is allowed to "force" anyone to buy anything. That's stealing not selling.

 

[Samez]

In theory genetically modified plants should be more resistant to diseases, parasites and so on. This should result either in higher yields or in a lower amount of pesticides and herbicides for the same yield.

Monsanto is the best example how genetic modification of food should not work. They modified the soy so it can withstand huge amounts of pesticides and herbicides. The farmers are forced to buy more and more pesticides and herbicides to kill anything else on the fields to get same/higher yields. The increased amount of pesticides and herbicides will contaminate the ground and water and in the end the humans.
So even if the genetic modifications themselves should not do any harm the whole system will.

On the other hand nearly all plants we use today are genetically modified. Since the 50's nuclear radiation is used to mutate seeds to increase their performance. One of the more ironic examples for this is e.g. the jute which was used by the green movement as a replacement for plastic (bags).

In the end I prefer controlled genetic engineering to uncontrolled one but my first choice would be unaltered food.

 

[emzie]

Canola oil is GMO.

without the genetic manipulations, it's poisonous.

It's been in the food supply here for at least 30 years.

If there were a problem I think someone would have found it by now

http://www.frugalvillage.com/forums/health-beauty/49910-canola-trash-oil.html

I hope you're not type to bang your head on your desk.

Most anti-GMO literature reads just like that post.

 

[Antilogic]

I have serious issues with how intellectual property is "claimed" in biochemical fields, and Monsanto is a big reason why. Let's put that aside for a second, though, to talk about GMO crops more generally.

The claim that GMO crops are not significantly different than traditionally-modified crops and that they are equally safe dates back to a statement released by an executive in a hearing with the regulatory authorities. It is not backed by any long-term, rigorous study, epidemiological or otherwise. In fact, given that companies own the patents to their GMO crops, they can forbid research from being conducted on them.

GMO crops are regulated, at least in the United States, not by the FDA (as a food, which you might expect) but under the far less rigorous TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) which has different regulatory language that weakens what actions the EPA can take to investigate these crops. Yes, GMO crops are regulated by the EPA and not by the FDA (unless Congress has changed the regulatory language in the last couple years, and to my knowledge it hasn't happened), and about the only action the EPA can take is to slow down the introduction of GMO crops if there is a significant risk of ecological damage by their introduction.

There is good reasoning to call for the labeling of GMO crops, if only to aid people with miscellaneous allergies to alert them as to the content of what they are buying. If someone has a peanut allergy, they are allergic to particular proteins generated by peanut genes. If those genes are extracted and inserted into another crop, then the same proteins could be replicated in that new crop and it may trigger a reaction. This is a different situation from classic genetic modification techniques (i.e. selection of preferential crops) because a peanut grown through traditional selective processes is still obviously a peanut plant--a person in the supermarket knows that this special type of peanut is still a peanut and thus might trigger their allergy. They don't know that this GMO tomato might have peanut genes in it. I'm just using peanuts as an example because it's a common allergy, insert whatever other allergen in food and you get the point.

Canola oil is GMO.

without the genetic manipulations, it's poisonous.

It's been in the food supply here for at least 30 years.

If there were a problem I think someone would have found it by now

There are several items formerly on the GRAS list that were found to be unsafe, especially in the 1950s and onwards. In particular, I'm thinking of several artificial sweeteners that were discovered in the 19th century and thought to be safe (the testing consisted of giving a worker a mouthful, and if he didn't drop dead on the spot and it tasted sweet it went to market). Studies showed them to be carcinogenic in the 1950s and they were taken off the market. Stuff like dulcin was on the shelves for 70 years before it was yanked for causing cancer.

http://www.frugalvillage.com/forums/health-beauty/49910-canola-trash-oil.html

I hope you're not type to bang your head on your desk.

Most anti-GMO literature reads just like that post.

Hahahahaha good old rape oil.

 

[warpus]

The anti-GMO crowd worries me a bit, mostly because there is a valid social issue there (or issues) that we should be talking about..

However, by groupling all GMOs under one umbrella term and rallying against that, their protests are not going to lead anything good.. It villifies all GMO products, methods, and science, which is not warranted at all.

My best friend has joined the cause.. It's impossible talking to him about this stuff. He thinks that all GMO products, no matter what they might be, have less nutrients than the "organic" counterparts, and that some of these products are dangerous. I really try to stay away from this subject when he's around, because I know that we'll just argue about it..

 

[Antilogic]

It really frustrates me because I get lumped in with the crazy anti-GMO crowd when my recommendations are far more mild (i.e. treat GMO food as, ya know, food for regulatory purposes--seems like a no-brainer, or maybe label the products appropriately in case people have allergies). And I end up more obsessed with the particulars on the IP front anyway, which is usually not the top concern amongst the anti-GMO all-natural super-hippies.