Comments on: Food, Modified Food

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:58:06 +0000

Genetic Engineering of food is basically a technology looking for a problem to solve. The talking points of the biotechnology lobby sound sensible: feed the people, increase production yields, more nutritive food. However, the majority of GE crops in the US are “RoundUp ready” allowing Monsanto to sell their seeds and the herbicide RoundUp as a bundle. RoundUp ready plants are immune to RoundUp. Now farmers can spray RoundUp by the bucket and not kill the crop. That sounds great if you are Monsanto or a farmer trying to kill weeds. But what is the consumer getting out of it? Certainly no more nutrition and a lot more RoundUp in the crops. If this stuff is safe then label it and let people make informed decisions.

By: andy

andy — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 18:17:45 +0000

The current GM methods are simply the state of science. Good or bad the fruit and vegetable industry has been GMing for years.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:04:05 +0000

When I hear of all the wondrous advances in genetic manipulation my only thought is “what will be the unintended consequences?”. Pick a period in time, any one, and take a look at what the best and the brightest accomplished. Good things, absolutely, great things, without a doubt, horrifically stupid things, yes indeed.
We look back on history, at the wisdom of the enlightened and the acceptance of that wisdom by the masses, and think ‘my god, how could they have been so ignorant?’. We have reached a point in our abilities that now one horrifically stupid thing could just possibly leave just a very small human population to look back and marvel at our ignorance.
I’m not concerned about our planets ability to survive, the earth will carry on just fine with or without the human race. My concern is our current ability to make changes that hamper, severely degrade, or eliminate our species ability to live on it.
Genetic engineering, among other scientific advances, hold great possibilities, but the downside of any one could be just as great. I’m not against science or technology or advancement of our knowledge. I am very much against ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time’. Our advanced abilities demand forethought and caution.
Safety studies that show no ill effects in the short term, no ‘predicted’ long term effects, and in the case of GMO foods carried out by those who will profit from their proliferation, do not ease my concern.
Are you old enough to remember thalidomide? Imagine a similar ‘oops’ that affects the world’s corn crop, or rice crop, for even a couple of years until we recognize the error and hopefully correct it. Remember, we’re now a global civilization. The next modern miracle could be implemented worldwide in a matter of a couple of years, the effects not necessarily confined to a single geographical area as was my example, and not necessarily as quickly apparent. If it works as intended it’s a magnificent achievement, if it doesn’t, . . .

By: Pavan

Pavan — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:12:09 +0000

I think even if GM foods have some theoretical health risks i see it as the only choice to increase yield and protect even a fraction of wilderness areas.

By: Randy Rieland

Randy Rieland — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:23:32 +0000

Appreciate your point of view, but don’t exactly think that I was guilty of regurgitating corporate talking points. To quote from Greenwire:

“Many scientists have said that if the fast-growing fish allows salmon to be profitably grown away from the ocean, where fish farms cause heavy environmental damage through their waste and escaped charges, the AquaBounty salmon could be a theoretical win for the environment. But knowing if that theory translates into practice may require additional research confirming that the modified salmon would not thrive in wild conditions if it escaped.

AquaBounty’s salmon grow twice as fast as conventional salmon, their DNA spliced with an always-on growth hormone gene from the chinook salmon. While fast-growing, they do not ultimately grow larger than their Atlantic salmon cousins. AquaBounty will also induce sterility into its all-female populations of the fish, though the firm’s own assessments agree that these sterility controls could leave up to 5 percent of the fish sterile.”

By: Unskeptical

Unskeptical — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:38:30 +0000

Randy Rieland’s cavalier and unskeptical assessment of GE food production represents an affront to science and common sense. The GE salmon that Rieland says grow twice as fast as non-GE salmon? There has never been an empirical study demonstrating this, and two of the largest commercial salmon growers in the world, Marine Harvest and SalmoBreed, have condemned GE salmon as a dangerous dud with disingenuous growth rates. Salmobreed’s data shows that GE salmon actually grows SLOWER than non-GE salmon already in commercial production. It’s not just consumers who don’t want GE; producers, too, are unimpressed.

GE salmon is but one example of the false promises and hyped benefits of GE. The reality is genetic engineering has been a net loss to producers and consumers–but a major gain to the small number of corporations who own the technology and profit enormously from it. GE does not help the environment, farmer livelihoods, or nutrition. It is very troubling that Rieland would choose to regurgitate the talking the points of the corporations that profit from this these products rather than consult the now substantial body of evidence that casts doubt on the safety, efficacy and benefits of GE products.

By: johnwerneken

johnwerneken — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:06:03 +0000

There is something wrong with a society that debates things like GM food or that has institutions capable of regulating it. Make it like the bags at the store: where CUSTOMERS prefer paper to plastic, that’s what you see, even if only a few customers have that preference, as those without that preference rarely have ANY preference on the question. On the other hand, where the LAW presumes to require paper only, usually that’s what you see in the larger and chain operations, but non-compliance is widespread.

The will of the vast majority and the community’s law have NO LEGITIMACY. On the other hand, the willingness of a small minority to voluntarily spend for their preferences can move mountains.

By: Kip Hansen

Kip Hansen — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:00 +0000

Europe, in its anti-science, anti-human, non-reproducing isolation is likely to become irrelevant in regards to food production. They are not major producers, and, bluntly, compared to India-China-Malaysia, South America, and rising Africa, getting to be such a small percentage of the planet’s population that they may well just find themselves ignored.

By: Nearsited

Nearsited — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:14:16 +0000

GM products are not good or bad, per se. In a different universe, it would be appropriate to proceed with caution; however, in THIS hyper-political universe, “proceed with caution” is tantamount to a death sentence for otherwise viable technology (see “food irradiation”).

Presented with a black and white choice, I say,”Feed the people.”

By: Hominid

Hominid — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:08:35 +0000

Stupid, ignorant, new-agers are against GM foods. Statists want silly labeling.