"March Against Monsanto" protesters say they wanted to call attention to the dangers posed by genetically modified food and the food giants that produce it. Founder and organizer Tami Canal said protests were held in 436 cities in 52 countries.
Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But some say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment. The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe.
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.
As far as I know, genetically modified foods are as safe as the original. In some cases, they could even reduce sickness and benefit the environment. Insect-resistance modifications can reduce pesticide use, which is can help the environment and people. Removing allergen genes from plants can help reduce allergies.
Genetic modifications are tested in lab to ensure they achieved the desired effect. As for side-effects, to my knowledge these are minimal, in that most studies on this matter (on animals) don't seem to have statistically significant results of negative effects. Of course, there are unknown unknowns perhaps that may be cause for worry (after all there are few/no long-term studies on humans), but current evidence seems to indicate that they are safe.
Spoiler:
I want to note that direct genetic modification has been around for a long time, and is used in a ton of different applications. I inserted genes into bacteria to make them glow at a summer camp when I was young. So we have quite some experience in this area. People have been indirectly modifying the genes of our food for longer through artificial selection, i.e. saving the prettiest, tastiest, and/or largest plants for replanting and selling/discarding the rest. The modern banana is a nice example of this. I mean, take a look at wild bananas (from Wikipedia):
Very different, and quite ugly and unappetizing. Today's banana's are the product of generations of artificial selection, producing a plant with genes that produce much nicer bananas (though as a side-effect our bananas are vulnerable to disease, which was/is a significant challenge). It's not exactly the same as modern genetic modifications, but it's the same concept.
That said, I wouldn't mind labelling on GMOs, especially if I could see what kind of modifications were made. Not all genetic modifications are made equal; I would be quite happy to see an insect-resident GMO, less enthused by a "glowing" GMO (hypothetically). I think the resistance to labelling occurs because the general public is rather anxious/fearful about GMOs, compared to scientists. I don't blame them too much for it, since it is true that marvels of science, like DDT, did turn out pretty sour for us in the past. But GMOs look fine, for now.
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.
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.
This is kinda like asking "science: safe or not?" Because how safe or beneficial any GM food is depends on the process in which it was developed and how it's used.
All of our food is genetically modified. Previously it was through artificial selection. More recently we've begun genetic engineering techniques.
Over and above the usual luddite attitudes of some critics, there are attempts at trade protectionism by importer nations. To generate domestic fear is a government's tricky way arround international free trade rules prohibiting protectionism and tarriffs.
That having been said, new technologies will certainly have some effect on the environment and our quality of life. More food is a major positive, and would require significant negatives to overcome it. Decades of genetically modified foods being consumed in modern countries like the US have produced no such negatives (thus far).
It's honestly a question of what the change is. The words "genetically modified" themselves don't give you any information. You have nothing to work with. Did they make the plant capable of producing an anti-insect toxin? Did they adapt the genes to make the plants more water hardy? Did they eliminate the plant's susceptibility to a poison?
These are not equivalent changes. Diet-wise, they're not even similar
The word GMO often evokes Monsanto, which is bad, and makes GMO automatically evil as well. It has no rational basis really.
The problem is not really the genetic modification itself but the intellectual property issues that surround it. However, that is more of a result of regulatory failure in regards to intellectual property than GMO use by evil megacorporations(!!!111!1!).
Nearly 300 people have died from BSE most in Europe.
The arguments about BSE causing no harm to people are the same as that now used for GM.
People were caught out before and do not want to be caught out again.
[YOUTUBE-OLD]?v=QobuvWX_Grc[/YOUTUBE-OLD]
From the UK Food Standards Agency.
Cattle, sheep and goats are susceptible to a group of brain diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). The best known of these diseases is bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, it is also known as BSE or mad cow disease.
Imports of GM to the EU are not banned they just has to be labelled.
In the EU, if a food contains or consists of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or contains ingredients produced from GMOs, this must be indicated on the label. For GM products sold 'loose', information must be displayed immediately next to the food to indicate that it is GM.
On 18 April 2004, new rules for GM labelling came into force in all EU Member States.
The GM Food and Feed Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 lays down rules to cover all GM food and animal feed, regardless of the presence of any GM material in the final product.
This means products such as flour, oils and glucose syrups have to be labelled as GM if they are from a GM source.
Products produced with GM technology (cheese produced with GM enzymes, for example) do not have to be labelled.
The problem is that we don't know if they are safe. The tests that have been done are inadequate to see if they are safe. They are assumed to be as good as the original, but that is an assumption. The fact the FDA is basically a Monsanto Old Boy's club, is rather disturbing.
The problem is that we don't know if they are safe. The tests that have been done are inadequate to see if they are safe. They are assumed to be as good as the original, but that is an assumption. The fact the FDA is basically a Monsanto Old Boy's club, is rather disturbing.
If you wanted to, it probably wouldn't be much effort to create GMO food that is harmful to humans. So I wouldn't say that GMO food is inherently safe. But I see no reason that GMO food is inherently unsafe.
I think a label that just shows that the food somehow contains GMOs would be useless and only serve to induce fear. But at some level, there has to be some labeling when the contents are changed. So if a plant that usually doesn't contain substance X, but is genetically modified so that it now contains X, any consumer who is allergic to X should be able to easily figure out whether he can safely consume a particular product.
If all trials have not shown any inherent harmful effects of GMO food, at one point we have to move forward and allow the distribution of such food. Otherwise we will always be stuck in the past.
Intellectual property issues are a real concern, though. Do we really want to give the control of our food supply to a few companies?
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.
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.
Well big corporations do like to spend a lot of money to stop labeling.
From Forbes
California’s Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of all food products containing genetically modified organisms within two years, was narrowly defeated last week (53 to 47). The result has largely been credited to the $45 million spent by a coalition including Monsanto, Du Pont, and many others on No on 37 ads depicting farmers, Democrats, and scientists claiming GMO labeling would be detrimental to business, confusing and costly to consumers, and counterproductive to research. Despite the defeat of the bill, GMO labeling advocates are calling the California campaign a victory given that it was outspent 5 to 1 and still managed to get over 4 million votes.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
