GM Food: Scientific Evidence of Health Risks

[Tony]

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/Briefing_Sheets10042001


Is this junk science? Or are there real concerns about the risks of GM foods?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/Briefing_Sheets10042001


Is this junk science? Or are there real concerns about the risks of GM foods?

I wouldn't call it junk science. I think that the overall statement of that source is correct, i.e. the biological engineers do not yet fully understand all the effects their experiments cause. I don't expect to see people drop dead because they had GM cereal for breakfast but a rise in allergic reactions doesn't seem too far fetched. If I'm allercic against peanuts, I abstain from peanuts, no problem. But if some peanut genes are GMed into soybeans I could suddenly become allergic to soy as well and soy is used in a vast variety of products.
OTOH the evidence for GM food actually harming people seems pretty thin right now. I'm not an expert on this and personally I avoid GM food but I don't demonise the idea of it either. GM crops that are resistant to certain parasites or are less sensitive to drought etc. could help to solve the problem of hunger in the 3rd world.

Zee

[Tony]

Why do you avoid GM foods?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

.............they had GM cereal for breakfast but a rise in allergic reactions doesn't seem too far fetched. If I'm allercic against peanuts, I abstain from peanuts, no problem. But if some peanut genes are GMed into soybeans I could suddenly become allergic to soy as well and soy .................
Zee

You are refering to

· Allergenicity to novel proteins: genetic engineering results in novel proteins being present in GM food. Allergic reactions to these have been forecast by many scientists, including several in the US Food and Drugs Agency. The accidental contamination of many US food products with GM StarLink maize in 2000 is believed have caused allergic reactions in over 50 Americans, some serious

Starlink maize!! hohoho!!! yes there was accidental contamination with Starlink because this variety expresses BT at higher levels than other varieties so it was only cleared for use as fodder. Not that there was actually anything wrong with it but as a precaution...

News of this leaked out and of course loads of muppets started complaining that they had allergic reactions to it. Many of these people were examined for antibodies to the BT and guess what!?!? they didnt have any!!! so how can you have an allergic rxn to something that you dont have an immune response to?
YOU CANT!! so, either they were mistaken or they were liars.
Probably the latter.

All transgenes are carefully screened for allergenicity before being banged into a crop. So this is really all just a pile of sweaty bollocks. Its amazing how much doom and gloom has been predicted by groups like this. Yet with all the millions of people eating GM food, arent you a tad suprised that we arent all dead yet?

[Jon_in_london]

Also Im confident I can debunk each and every point brought up there.

Where would you like me to start?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Also Im confident I can debunk each and every point brought up there.

Where would you like me to start?
At "2. Current Scientific Understanding of the Risks" onwards please? Btw, I'm not trying to set you up for a scrap, but I am interested in how bunkable the claims on that web page are.
Cheers!

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


You are refering to



Starlink maize!! hohoho!!! yes there was accidental contamination with Starlink because this variety expresses BT at higher levels than other varieties so it was only cleared for use as fodder. Not that there was actually anything wrong with it but as a precaution...

News of this leaked out and of course loads of muppets started complaining that they had allergic reactions to it. Many of these people were examined for antibodies to the BT and guess what!?!? they didnt have any!!! so how can you have an allergic rxn to something that you dont have an immune response to?
YOU CANT!! so, either they were mistaken or they were liars.
Probably the latter.

All transgenes are carefully screened for allergenicity before being banged into a crop. So this is really all just a pile of sweaty bollocks. Its amazing how much doom and gloom has been predicted by groups like this. Yet with all the millions of people eating GM food, arent you a tad suprised that we arent all dead yet?

Actually, I wasn't referring to anything. The peanut-soy example just came to mind. As I said, evidence that GM food actually harmed humans seems pretty thin.

@Tony
The only reason I avoid GM food is that I'm uneasy with it, just a gut feeling.
Sort of like the uneasiness that would prevent me from bying a house in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant although I think that most of them are pretty safe.

I also try to avoid food that has artificial flavors or colors added, just because it makes me feel better (for me and my kids as well).

Zee

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Also Im confident I can debunk each and every point brought up there.

Where would you like me to start?

Oh and Jon, deflate a little willya, it's just a discussion about food :D

Zee

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


Oh and Jon, deflate a little willya, it's just a discussion about food :D

Zee

Sorry, its my hobby horse :D

But seriously- food is a life and death matter to around 800 million people right now. And I dont mean in the McD's obesity sense ;)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK

At "2. Current Scientific Understanding of the Risks" onwards please? Btw, I'm not trying to set you up for a scrap, but I am interested in how bunkable the claims on that web page are.
Cheers!

Billy- I dont mind taking the whole thing on point by pint but I cant just debunk the whole site! just dont have the time.

plus Im too lazy

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Billy- I dont mind taking the whole thing on point by pint but I cant just debunk the whole site! just dont have the time.
Well, you did offer...! ;). But seriously, how about the first four points of Section 2. Current Scientific Understanding of the Risks (Random location of the inserted genes; Lack of normal control over the genes; Most genes have several functions; Horizontal gene transfer) 'cos them's the bits I find particularly freaky? Btw, just some general pointers on how accurate these claims are would help!
plus Im too lazy
Me too, that's why I grab any chance to get others to explain stuff I don't understand! :D

[Jon_in_london]

1. Random gene insertion: Quite true- its not at the moment possible to direct the transgene into a specific place in the genome (although it may now be possible with mitochondrial insertions). However, we can locate where the transgene is after the event- which is almost as good. True- this can lead to unpredicatble results ex. by insering in the middle of another gene but extensive phenotypical and metabbolic testing means that even though they cant be predicted, they can be assessed- ie. the cotton bol drop- yes it occurs but it still more advantageous for the farmer to grow the GM variety or he wouldnt be growing it now would he?

2. I fail to see the problem. Most transgenes are controlled by strong promoters that are on the whole time full-blast. Big deal. Newer promoters are being used now that are more conditional ie. tissue specific etc... but really. What the big safety wank here?

3. Several function for each gene- This is actually the true cause of the cotton bol-drop mentioned above. Yes each gene p[roduct may have more than one function but again, extensive and exhaustive phenotypic and metabolic testing asseses these factors quite well thanks very much.

4. Horizontal gene transfer- happens with non-GM organisms too. In both cases a rather rare event though. If it wasnt a rare event- the bioshpere would be just one organism with a big soup of genes from everything already.
'Genetic constructs' as they are called in the site are no more mobile than any other piece of DNA.

[BillyTK]

Cool! Thanks Jon!

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london



All transgenes are carefully screened for allergenicity before being banged into a crop.

I wonder how this is done... I'm neither a micro biologist nor a physician and I don't see how one asures in a labaratory that a new protein will not cause allergies when it is released into the food chain.

Zee

[BillyTK]

My (admittedly limited) understanding of allergic response is that it's the result of being exposed to proteins before the immune system is adequately primed, and inadequate priming of the immune systems as a result of increasing levels of hygiene (see Mum, you were wrong to stop me playng in the mud1) and use of bottle-feeding instead of breast-feeding.

So release of a new protein into the food chain wouldn't necessarily cause new allergies, but exposure to that protein at at too early an age, or exposure of people with an allergic response to similar proteins could be a problem.

Of course, I'm probably wrong on this... ;)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


I wonder how this is done... I'm neither a micro biologist nor a physician and I don't see how one asures in a labaratory that a new protein will not cause allergies when it is released into the food chain.

Zee

Gaahh!! if you had asked me a year ago I would have been able to give you a good answer.

Basically though you compare the protein to known allergens and also examine it for traits that may make it allergenic.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Gaahh!! if you had asked me a year ago I would have been able to give you a good answer.


See, there U are. Your uncritical consumption of genetically manufactured junk food has already erased major parts of your memory!

:D

Zee

[Shane Costello]

I must get back to this later. In the meantime I'd just point out that this briefing paper doesn't cite a single scientific study, not one, to support it's assertions.

The whole issue of GM food has been discussed before. For the time being it's important to point out that thee's no such thing as totally safe food (www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/nature.pdf)

[Quasi]

Also that all of our current foods have been modified through hybridization etc. Basically we are eating massively genetically modified food already, the argument is semantics; is direct modification any different than hybridization? When it comes down to it, GM is much faster, and will save large tracts of wilderness and forest because it will take less and less room to grow our food.

[headscratcher4]

Besides, claims that "organic" foods are healthier, better for the environment, tastier, better for farmers, etc. are just that: "claims".

There is no good, documented evidence demonstrating that "organic" is any safer or better for you than "GMO" based foods. Instead, a "aura" has been manufactured around alternatives to modern farming methods. And, it must be re-emphasized there is no evidence todate of anyone suffering because of exposure to a GMO foodstuff. Period. No one dying of unexplained deseases. No dead butterflies in the field traceable to GMOs, etc. THere are just phantom allegations, for the most part. This is not to suggest, as with all scientific advancements, that caution should not be strictly exercised -- and I would contend, for the most part (in the US at least) it is.

Nothing is cleared for the market unless it is done so by the government. While you may quibble with that -- believing that governments fail (and they do) -- heretofor, genetically modified and hybred plants were released into the environment with little or no thought as to their effect, damage to other species, etc.

They system is imperfect, but it is significantly better than it has ever been and getting better all of the time.

Finally, as the world's population moves toward 8.5 billion by 2525, anyone who thinks that the yeilds from conventional farming methods and organic farming are going to feed the world and not significantly degrade the environment are selling illusion. THis is not to say that GMOs solve the problem...they may not. However, if GMOs and better yields from less land isn't attempted, than the result under current agricultural technologies isn't a potential disaster, it is a predictable one.

[Shane Costello]

Let's take a closer look at the Soil Association's claims

production only to the natural capacity of the crop, livestock and environment

Now this does skirt the realms of junkscience. I shudder to think where civilization would have been if the soil association had been around the Fertile Crescent a coule of millenia ago. A wild relative of wheat acquired a whole set of chromosomes (www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/chromnumber/number7.htm). This genetic modification transformed wheat into a viable foodstuff. At the same time the inhabitants of the region were making the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers, began living in collective settlements and generally laid the foundation for modern civilization. But according to the soil association this genetic modification would have gone over the "natural capacity of the crop" and must be judged a deliterious development.

More recently we had The Green Revolution (www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/borlaug.html). In 1950 world production of wheat stood at 692 million tonnes. Forty years later the figure had increased 170% to 1.9 billion tonnes. However, by increasing "the natural2 capacity of wheat, the amount of land required to grow the increased crop was proportionately much less.

Contrary to the public statements by the biotechnology companies that genetic engineering is a precise technique and simply an extension of traditional breeding methods, the process is actually significantly different. The outcome is inherently random and introduces many novel risks:

I have yet to see this demonstrated scientifically.

This control is believed to be from a mixture of the other genetic material (only a small part of the genetic material of an organism comprises functional genes) and the gene’s local environment in the organism. However, little is known about this, so GMOs have no equivalent control.

Neither do foodstuffs produced by "conventional" technologies. In fact a report by the EU (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2001/pr0810en.html) has concluded that "Research on the GM plants and derived products so far developed and marketed, following usual risk assessment procedures, has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding. Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods; and if there are unforeseen environmental effects - none have appeared as yet - these should be rapidly detected by our monitoring requirements. On the other hand, the benefits of these plants and products for human health and the environment become increasingly clear.

Genetic engineering is based on a false assumption, that each genes has only a single function.
Unsubstantiated junk. To suggest that plant breeders and geneticists are ignorant of the fact genes can code for multiple proteins is a lie.

However, this feature also means the genes can move out of the GMO and enter other micro-organisms, “horizontal gene transfer”. As genetic constructs are highly mobile, gene transfers from GMOs are expected to occur much more frequently than would occur from natural non-GM organisms. The concern is that this could result in GM characteristics being taken up from GM food by our gut bacteria, or taken up by micro-organisms and result in the creation of new diseases.

This is also true of conventional food bred for specific vigorous traits.

No reduction in pesticide use
If true then this has nothing to do with GM technology and everything to do with decisions made by the farmer.

However, a study (October 2000) by the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs revealed that “DNA fragments large enough to contain potentially functioning genes" survived the processing of GM food for animal feed. This increases the concerns over horizontal gene transfer.

Let's see how those fragments of DNA (which would also be present in conventional food) survive the concentrated hydrochloric acid in the stomach.

Significant nutritional differences can result from the modification process, presumably due to the random, uncontrolled effects.

"Random, uncontrolled effects" would occur at a proportionately greater level as a result of conventional breeding, which involves the transfer of whole genomes between organisms.

Any risks from the growing of GM crops will apply to a large area around the crop. A review of the scientific literature by the National Pollen Research Unit concluded that, to protect biodiversity and non GM food from contamination by GM pollen, separation distances of several kilometres are needed.

I'll have to search for the reference, but at least one study has demonstrated that GM pollen doesn't survive outside the controlled conditions it originates from.

Moreover, negative health effects in the few safety animal trials and the one human trial carried out have been ignored. Dr Pusztai’s research on GM potatoes was the only Government work on the health effects for many years. His study found negative effects, but it was heavily attacked by the biotechnology industry and consequently ignored. However, while the company studies used to approve GMOs are rarely peer reviewed or published, his paper had been - for the Lancet, a prestigious medical journal.

www.fumento.com/biotechsixty.html

CBS also relied on Arpad Pustzai, a scientist formerly employed in a Scottish lab who hit the lecture circuit after publicizing a highly controversial test in which he fed a small number of rats potatoes containing a gene spliced into them from a poisonous flower.

"Pustzai says the rats that ate the genetically engineered potatoes suffered unusual thickening of the lining of the stomach and intestine and a weakening of the immune system," said the CBS narrator. "Part of his work was published by [highly-respected medical journal] The Lancet."

Indeed, it was – over the vociferous objections of two of The Lancet’s reviewers.

Even Pustzai hasn’t been consistent on interpreting his data.

On a British TV program in 1998 he claimed that "the effect [of feeding the transgenic potatoes to rats] was slight growth retardation and an effect on the immune system." Yet he told a committee of Britain’s Parliament that "no differences between parent and GM potatoes could be found."

It's rather apt, I think, that a pressure group for organic food spout a load of BS. Terribly cost effective.

[spoonhandler]

Nice post Shane.

As genetic constructs are highly mobile, gene transfers from GMOs are expected to occur much more frequently than would occur from natural non-GM organisms. What the? I am aware that a major problem with inserting new genes that they are often deleted/rejected from the genome/plasmid, but I am not aware that they suddenly acquire viral properties and begin inserting themselves into any old genome they come across? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

However, a study (October 2000) by the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs revealed that “DNA fragments large enough to contain potentially functioning genes" survived the processing of GM food for animal feed. This increases the concerns over horizontal gene transfer. What are they suggesting? Infectious DNA? This gets back to the mysterious viral properties mentioned above I suppose.

It's frustrating that any legitimate scientific or ethical concerns associated with GMOs are swamped by arguments of this sort.

[DogB]

Originally posted by spoonhandler
........What are they suggesting? Infectious DNA? This gets back to the mysterious viral properties mentioned above I suppose.
Spoon, spoon ,spoon (shakes head).

You just don't get it yet.
You sit there in your well equiped molecular biology laboratory and yet you still don't get it...

[woo-woo]DNA=BAD, NASTY, POO POOs[\woo-woo]


Seriously, if you want to get an insight into this mind set I suggest slamming your head in a car door 3 or 4 times. Gives you a whole new insight.

P.

[Jon_in_london]

No reduction in pesticide use

Lies.

[Shane Costello]

Bjorn Lomborg devotes some space to GM technology and it's opponents in "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He cites one study (and gives an online reference) done by the EU which asked people whether it was true to say that conventional food didn't contain genes. Slightly under half agreed with this statement.

[Ove]

Bjorn Lomborg devotes some space to GM technology and it's opponents in "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He cites one study (and gives an online reference) done by the EU which asked people whether it was true to say that conventional food didn't contain genes. Slightly under half agreed with this statement.

And when he says someting it has to be true.:rolleyes:

Seriously though, i think the problem has been reversed. It seems to me that the GMO business are saying "Hey you folks gotta proove that Gene manipulated food are unsafe otherwise we'll keep on turning out the stuff". IMHO it should be the other way round. They have got to proove that their product is safe (i know nothing is 100% safe but let's say beyound reasonable doubt).

Another thing that's bugging me. If they are so d***** sure that GM food is good why oh why not let people get the choice?. Make a label that says "This product contains Gene manipulated whatever and stick it on the product and let the customer decide.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Ove
I think the problem has been reversed. It seems to me that the GMO business are saying "Hey you folks gotta proove that Gene manipulated food are unsafe otherwise we'll keep on turning out the stuff". IMHO it should be the other way round. They have got to proove that their product is safe.Don't you think there comes a point where the onus falls on the opponents.
The proponents of GMO do initially have the onus of proof. As GMO stands the test of time, the onus starts to fall on the opponents of GMO.
(I'm not necessarily saying that this time has come)

Originally posted by Ove
Another thing that's bugging me. If they are so d***** sure that GM food is good why oh why not let people get the choice?. Make a label that says "This product contains Gene manipulated whatever and stick it on the product and let the customer decide. It seems to me that if "they are so d***** sure that GM food is good" what would they think it necessary to label the food as such. As it stands in present climate the label would look like a warning not a promotion of the product.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ove
Another thing that's bugging me. If they are so d***** sure that GM food is good why oh why not let people get the choice?. Make a label that says "This product contains Gene manipulated whatever and stick it on the product and let the customer decide.

Yes, give us the choice. It would be nice if the EU would give us a choice instead of banning them wouldnt it? cant eat GM food even though I want to.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Ove:
And when he says someting it has to be true. :rolleyes:

What he did was cite a study done by the EU. He didn't opine on the subject directly. Once I get the link, why don't you take a look at it and then criticize it.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yes, give us the choice. It would be nice if the EU would give us a choice instead of banning them wouldnt it? cant eat GM food even though I want to.
I agree! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3025217.stm) Even though my choice at the moment, whether rightly or wrongly, would be to not eat the stuff! Let's just label it and be damned:
In 2000, the US and the EU signed an agreement, the Montreal bio-safety protocol, which agreed that this "precautionary principle" should apply to the export of GM foods.

It also agreed to the voluntary labelling of GM foods in order to give consumers a choice.

However, talks over how to implement a voluntary labelling agreement have stalled, despite a deadline of 31 December 2002.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2534179.stm)
Edited to add:
Of course, the irony is that products which declare themselves to be gm-free may not be because of ingredients used in processing (which don't have to be declared) which might be or contain stuff of gm origin. Ummm...

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Ove:
Another thing that's bugging me. If they are so d***** sure that GM food is good why oh why not let people get the choice?. Make a label that says "This product contains Gene manipulated whatever and stick it on the product and let the customer decide.

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Even though my choice at the moment, whether rightly or wrongly, would be to not eat the stuff! Let's just label it and be damned:

OK then, let's for arguments sake call for labelling of GM foods, since the consumer has a right not to consume foods that contain GM components. But then isn't it only right and proper that the consumer be alerted to food containing carcinogens and mutagens. (www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/nature.pdf)

The following organic foodstuffs (among others) should be labelled as potentially carcinogenic and mutagenic.

Turnips and cabbage: Contain nitrate, which may be converted to nitrosamines by the digestive system. Nitrosamines have been shown to be highly carcinogenic by animal tests.

Peanuts and grain: May contain aflatoxins, which have shown to be carcinogenic in a variety of mammals. Aflatoxins are produced by the Aspergillus fungi. Aspergillus contamination can result from poor post-harvest handling. Do you trust the organic food industry to maintain the highest standards in their production processes? And if they didn't, how confident are you they'd tell you about it?

Mushrooms: Contain hydrazines.

Celery, parsnips and parsley: Contain psoralens, which are mutagenic when activated by sunlight.

Coffee: You probably wouldn't want to know! :eek:

So there we have it. Surely it's only reasonable to demand that organic produce is labelled "potentially carcinogenic and mutagenic", since that's what it is. I'm sure the organic food industry won't have any objections, since uniquely among industries they have no interest whatsoever in profit, and won't be too put out by it's absence. Not like the evil multinational conglomerates. :rolleyes:

[headscratcher4]

In the US, at least, labeling has always been about health consequences and nutritional content. IF there is NO health impact from the inclusion of GM products -- and, todate, NOT ONE has ever been demonstrated -- and there is NO nutritional impact -- i.e. there is no nutritional or even taste distinction that can be made between GM and non-gm products -- why label?

Outside of satisfying food fears generated by the "organic" industry -- intended to differentiate product, but not based on any real as yet distinguishable differences between products -- what would that label tell you?

Here in the US, at least, it would establish a false system: GM foods (unsafe, because of a whispering campaign...note that Organic products in the US can not claim to be safer, better tasting or healthier without proof -- which they don't have), and organic products that the marketers would, by a wink of the eye, suggest are better.

Labeling differentiation based on science makes sense, but I don't think that is what you are talking about...and, todate, in the US, there hasn't been a scientifically valid case made that GM products are anymore unsafe, unhealthy, environmentally distructive, etc. than other conventional and organic products.

In short, under these conditions, labeling tells the consumer nothing useful while making the consumer think that there must be something wrong with it -- otherwise, why would you label it?

[Ove]

What he did was cite a study done by the EU. He didn't opine on the subject directly. Once I get the link, why don't you take a look at it and then criticize it.

Yep, you're right, it is just that every time some one mentions him i go into quickfire mode. Old habits die hard.;)

OK then, let's for arguments sake call for labelling of GM foods, since the consumer has a right not to consume foods that contain GM components. But then isn't it only right and proper that the consumer be alerted to food containing carcinogens and mutagens.

Definitely i'm all for correct labelling. What makes me angry is when someone is trying to "sneek" something into me. The first time i (and a lot of other Danes) became aware of the situation was when an American supplier of fodder tried to send a ship to Denmark with a cargo of soy-beans, some of which was GM without telling anyone. Somehow the story leaked though but the supplier refused to tell how much of the stuff was GM (there WAS a contract). In the end he had to take the fodder back.

I am not saying that GM food is bad or even unsafe, i am just saying "Give me a choice)

Some years ago there was a lot of debate over eggs over here. Most eggs back then was produced by chickens in cages. it meant stuffing 5 chickens into a cage roughly 20 X 30mm. A lot of Danes was quite upset over this but the poultry industry came up with the usual excuse "The customers demand it, they won't pay higher prices, yada yada, yada...."

Well, they GAVE people the choice eventually and today more than half the eggs sold in Denmark is from "free" chickens. And mind yoy, the labelling was NOT "Cage Eggs" or similar scare tactic, the cage eggs are simply labelled "Eggs", but the other eggs are labled "eggs from Free roaming Chickens" (or something similar), and off course "Organic" but mind you it is NOT the "Organic" that sells the most.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Ove
I am not saying that GM food is bad or even unsafe, i am just saying "Give me a choice". But do you have any answer to headscratcher's excellent post?...........


IF there is NO health impact from the inclusion of GM products -- and, todate, NOT ONE has ever been demonstrated -- and there is NO nutritional impact -- i.e. there is no nutritional or even taste distinction that can be made between GM and non-gm products -- why label?

Labeling differentiation based on science makes sense, but I don't think that is what you are talking about...and, to date, in the US, there hasn't been a scientifically valid case made that GM products are anymore unsafe, unhealthy, environmentally distructive, etc. than other conventional and organic products.


Case closed on that one I think.

[Soubrette]

BillyJoe

Simple economics. In a market system the consumer has the right to buy what he wishes and for whatever reason he wishes within the contraints of supply and demand.

If a company can sell more by labelling his product as GM free then he is within his rights to do so.

If consumers want to search out products that don't contain GM food - even if to some people that attitude is ludicrous - then if enough of them do so then the labels will prolificate.

People in general are suspicious of new things - good survival trait :p I personally get even more suspicious when someone wants to take away my choice no matter how foolish it appears to them. They are going to have to work a lot harder to overcome my natural scepticism in that instance.

I was unaware that the EU had banned products containing GM foodstuffs. I don't agree with that at all - it seems thats the other side of the same coin of not labelling foods - taking away my choices :mad:

Sou

[BillyJoe]

Sou,

Originally posted by Soubrette
Simple economics.......If a company can sell more by labelling his product as GM free then he is within his rights to do so.What about responsibility?
Promoting "GM Free" as something favourable when the evidence is against it is abusing the rights our democratic society has conferred upon us.

Originally posted by Soubrette
If consumers want to search out products that don't contain GM food - even if to some people that attitude is ludicrous - then if enough of them do so then the labels will prolificate.Well it won't be the first time truth has lost out to popularity.
But should we not protect the less fortunate members of our democracy against the clever entrepreneurs?

Originally posted by Soubrette
People in general are suspicious of new things - good survival trait :p I agree but it depends on what you regard as "new". And perhaps instead of "suspicious" we should say "sceptical". Then we might be led to gathering the evidence that makes our choices informed.

Originally posted by Soubrette
I personally get even more suspicious when someone wants to take away my choice no matter how foolish it appears to them. They are going to have to work a lot harder to overcome my natural scepticism in that instance. An informed choice has to be more than knowing which foods are GM and which are not GM.
Such a choice is meaningless if there is no difference between the two.

BillyJoe.

[Soubrette]

The trouble is, BillyJoe that an informed choice is nothing to do with market dynamics - that's up to the relevent company to get across and I don't believe Montana (?) are doing it very well.

Any reason to make a choice is valid - even if it's I don't like the ethos of America (whatever that may be) so I choose not to buy American products.

It is up to the person selling GM foods to persuade me to buy if I am inclined not to - they are a huge multinational with millions of dollars, they should be educating and not trying to force their product on me by the back door - which I feel is counter productive.

I prefer suspicious in this instance - sceptical implies that research has been done by the consumer on GM food - it certainly hasn't by me and I choose to avoid it until I know more. Not very sceptical but certainly suspicious :p

Sou

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Soubrette
they should be educating and not trying to force their product on me by the back door - which I feel is counter productive.

Nobody is trying to force anything on you! au contraire the EU and Uk supermarkets are forcing me NOT o eat GM. Thats what I resent.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Nobody is trying to force anything on you! au contraire the EU and Uk supermarkets are forcing me NOT o eat GM. Thats what I resent.

I don't agree with that either Jon but now I'm confused - which is it?

Has the EU banned GM food? or are supermarkets refusing to stock it?

Sou

[Bearguin]

I agree with Sou's supsicious label.

And right or wrong, the lack of labelling causes distrust.

My personal view is a simple one. I don't trust that the correct studies have been done, that the gov't has a good enough track record on these types of technologies and would choose not to buy GM foods. The lack of labelling supports my irrational fear of them (they are hiding something, there must be a problem).

I know that labelling would be a death-blow to the industry, but I still reserve the right to choose and demand the information to allow me to choose whether or not that decision is based on rational thought or irrational fears. It is up to the industry to convince me that the foods are not dangerous and that proof had better be very persuasive.

Not labelling festers the distrust and leads to wholesale bans (such as in the EU). Labelling and better education by the industry is the ony solution I will be happy with.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
OK then, let's for arguments sake call for labelling of GM foods, since the consumer has a right not to consume foods that contain GM components. But then isn't it only right and proper that the consumer be alerted to [URL=www.acsh.org/publications/booklets/nature.pdf]food containing carcinogens and mutagens

The following organic foodstuffs (among others) should be labelled as potentially carcinogenic and mutagenic.

Turnips and cabbage: Contain nitrate, which may be converted to nitrosamines by the digestive system. Nitrosamines have been shown to be highly carcinogenic by animal tests.

Peanuts and grain: May contain aflatoxins, which have shown to be carcinogenic in a variety of mammals. Aflatoxins are produced by the Aspergillus fungi. Aspergillus contamination can result from poor post-harvest handling. Do you trust the organic food industry to maintain the highest standards in their production processes? And if they didn't, how confident are you they'd tell you about it?
Isn't Aspergillus the fungus associated with the Salem Witch trials? One theory I read was that people ate contaminated wheat, hallucinated their heads off and believed those hallucinations to be real and evidence of witch craft... but I digress. I'd expect the organic food industry to have at least the same level of food handling standards as traditional industry, if not greater. And if I was going to eat the stuff, I'd check first

Mushrooms: Contain hydrazines.

Celery, parsnips and parsley: Contain psoralens, which are mutagenic when activated by sunlight.

Coffee: You probably wouldn't want to know! :eek:

So there we have it. Surely it's only reasonable to demand that organic produce is labelled "potentially carcinogenic and mutagenic", since that's what it is. I'm sure the organic food industry won't have any objections, since uniquely among industries they have no interest whatsoever in profit, and won't be too put out by it's absence. Not like the evil multinational conglomerates. :rolleyes:

You haven't told me anything I don't know in re: "deadly vegetables" (btw, could you put a warning if you're linking to a pdf rather than a web page, please? Cheers! :) ). We should also cover the dangers of cooking as well. But I don't see why only the organic industry should label their produce such, surely all vegetables should be labelled so, regardless of agricultural method used? Which is the whole point about informing consumers and letting them decide, regardless of how idiosyncratic their choices might be?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Isn't Aspergillus the fungus associated with the Salem Witch trials? One theory I read was that people ate contaminated wheat, hallucinated their heads off and believed those hallucinations to be real and evidence of witch craft... but I digress.

AFAIK yes.

I'd expect the organic food industry to have at least the same level of food handling standards as traditional industry, if not greater.

Why is there this presumption that the organic food industry is somehow more virtuous than conventional food producers. (BTW I'm not accusing you of holding that position, it's just one that appears to have general acceptance).

But I don't see why only the organic industry should label their produce such, surely all vegetables should be labelled so, regardless of agricultural method used? Which is the whole point about informing consumers and letting them decide, regardless of how idiosyncratic their choices might be?

I was being ironic. The goal of the organic industry seems to be to whip up unfounded hysteria against GM food. I've posted enough evidence to show that there no evidence exists to suggest that GM foods that have passed through the regulatory process are anything other than safe. The same applies to organic produce. Labelling any foodstuff with "Contains mutagens and carcinogens" would be simplistic and misleading, and would hinder rather than enhance the ability of the consumer to make informed decisions. Similarly labelling food that contains GM ingredients isn't a correct course to take IMO, since the hysteria being whipped up against GM technology is impinging on the ability of people to make informed decisions on the technology.

[headscratcher4]

It is up to the industry to convince me that the foods are not dangerous and that proof had better be very persuasive.
-- Godsadvocate

It seems to me, that you aren't really interested in proof...regardless where it comes from. The government isn't good enough. The industry, surely, can't be trusted. Every independent study that shows no harm is, likely, in your mind, tainted. Only those who scream "conspiracy" get your attention, and you choose to be "irrational".

My point earlier still stands, at least in the US, the label is supposed to provide you with safety or nutrition information. If there is not real, rational safety question, and the material is not any different "nutritionally" than othe conventional/organic material, what will labeling tell you? Nothing, I think.

Are you comfortable with your irrationality? I know we all have our blind spots, but it would seem that you wouldn't want to embrace that....

Just a thought -- more people have died from badly handled organic food -- via ecoli -- than have even ever claimed any problem with GM food. In addition, the limitations of organic food are so great that if it were the norm, rather than producing too much food with a bad distribution system, the world would be starving today. Further, we in the US, at least, are blessed with cheap food...it may be distorted, but there is nothing cheap about organic...it is premium food for no dicernable health, nutrition or environmental benefit...

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Headscratcher4:
It seems to me, that you aren't really interested in proof...regardless where it comes from. The government isn't good enough. The industry, surely, can't be trusted. Every independent study that shows no harm is, likely, in your mind, tainted. Only those who scream "conspiracy" get your attention, and you choose to be "irrational".

Not forgetting that some of us on this thread just punched a lot of holes in the Soil association case. Again, why do some people not applie the same standards of critical thinking to the organic food industry and pressure groups that they do to multinationals and government agencies?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Not forgetting that some of us on this thread just punched a lot of holes in the Soil association case. Again, why do some people not applie the same standards of critical thinking to the organic food industry and pressure groups that they do to multinationals and government agencies?

Because organic food is 'natural'

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Jon_in_london
Because organic food is 'natural'

So too are hemlock, deadly nightshade and poison ivy, lol.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


So too are hemlock, deadly nightshade and poison ivy, lol.

But at least they dont have any chemicals in them! ;)

[headscratcher4]

Ah, but modern "organic" rice, corn, wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, etc. -- most food grown in the developed world regardless of "organic" or "natural" label -- are not natural. THey are the product of human interference with their DNA. It may have taken thousands of years, in some cases, to develop, but they've been dramatically changed by man...as have been horses, dogs, cows, sheep, etc.

So, what is "natural" in agriculture? Only those things humans don't eat or grow, it seems to me. :)

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Soubrette
The trouble is, BillyJoe that an informed choice is nothing to do with market dynamics..... I don't know. Surely, if our choice was informed, it would affect market dynamics?

Originally posted by Soubrette
[informed choice] is up to the relevent company to get across and I don't believe Montana (?) are doing it very well. Maybe they are fighting an uphill battle by an organized religion ( ;) ). And, perhaps, independent scientists would have more credibility than the vested interest of Montana reps.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Any reason to make a choice is valid - even if it's I don't like the ethos of America (whatever that may be) so I choose not to buy American products. Did you really mean to say "valid"?

Originally posted by Soubrette
It is up to the person selling GM foods to persuade me to buy if I am inclined not to - they are a huge multinational with millions of dollars, they should be educating and not trying to force their product on me by the back door - which I feel is counter productive.Again, if there is no difference between GM and non GM food, why advertise the fact of it being GM food. If the non GM food advocates think there is a difference let them put labels on their food. And let the ?FDA decide whether their claims constitute false advertising.

Originally posted by Soubrette
I prefer suspicious in this instance - sceptical implies that research has been done by the consumer on GM food - it certainly hasn't by me and I choose to avoid it until I know more. Not very sceptical but certainly suspicious :pWell, sceptical means waiting for evidence before deciding an issue; and I don't think the average consumer can really be expected to do the research to provide this evidence.
And if you prefer "suspicious" you still need evidence, rather than gut instinct, on which to base those suspicions.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Isn't Aspergillus the fungus associated with the Salem Witch trials? One theory I read was that people ate contaminated wheat, hallucinated their heads off and believed those hallucinations to be real and evidence of witch craft...

It is one theory, but it is a totally unneeded, much like using semi-magical "vortexes" to explain missing ships in the Bermuda Triangle.

You hardly have a need for any hallucinagetic fungus to explain the cries of witchcraft, all you need is the oppressive, stifling, paranoid atmosphere the Puritans placed on their world, then double it for women, and double it again for yougn girls.

A teensy bit of imagination from stories told by Tituba and you've got all the elements you need.

Who needs fungus, we had Puritans.

[Trollbane]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


But at least they dont have any chemicals in them! ;)

Apart from the dangerous DHMO that is.

[Shane Costello]

The latest offering from Michael Fumento (www.fumento.com/pest/soil.html) raises some interesting points as to why large scale organic farming simply isn't viable. Eschewing herbicides means extensive tilling is required to control weeds, but this has led to extensive soil erosion, something the soil association neglected to mention. This method of weed control is also much more expensive.

Replacing herbicides with manual forms of weed control would require 70 million workers. The work would be pretty harsh and depending on the type of hoe used could result in serious back problems. Organic crops would therefore cause infinitely more health problems than GM food. The soil association also forgot to tell us that extensive organic farming requires the exploitaitve use of cheap, and probably immigrant, labour.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I don't know. Surely, if our choice was informed, it would affect market dynamics?

Sure it would as do uninformed choices :) What shouldn't happen for someone to espouse a capitalistic ideal of a free market and then lobby for for those choices to be taken away from me.

If a company wants to sell me their products then they have to "sell" the idea to me - not try and slip it in while I'm not looking.

Hence education and advertising.

Maybe they are fighting an uphill battle by an organized religion ( ;) ). And, perhaps, independent scientists would have more credibility than the vested interest of Montana reps.

Did you really mean to say "valid"?

Valid as in any choices can be exercised. I think it very arrogant of anyone to say "I know better than you thus I am abridging your choice" It irritates me when elected government does it - it infuriates me when unelected companies do it (while claiming to espouse free market ideals:rolleyes: )

And they may be fighting an uphill battle but why do you think that is? Look at this thread? we have people sat on the fence saying honestly - I'm suspicious, I'm not wanting to eat GM foods until I know a little more about it etc and then we have some GM advocates saying that they can't be bothered to refute one website but here's another to peruse (as someone who has no knowledge - how can I choose which one to put my trust in?) then it degenerates into pompous and self indulgent name calling by said proponents and the lovely technique of defending their own position by dissing organic food :rolleyes: I have nothing against a thread dissing organic food - but this is supposed to be about supporting GM food - again I instinctively feel if a person can't argue their own position then it must be weak in some way.

So why do you think these opponents to GM food have such a big influence? I personally think it is a combination of people being suspicious of new things and the arrogance of Montana.

Again, if there is no difference between GM and non GM food, why advertise the fact of it being GM food. If the non GM food advocates think there is a difference let them put labels on their food. And let the ?FDA decide whether their claims constitute false advertising.

But there is a difference - one is genetically modified using certain technologies that I'm not sure I want to support. I am also unsure whether I want to support Montana as a company at this time. Now many people will see this as pointless but here in Europe (as compared to the US:)) I feel consumers shop more politically. And it's something I feel comfortable with - whether I make a blind bit of difference overall or not.

However I think you make a good point - it should be non GM foods which are labelled unless companies want to label their products as containing it. And simply claiming something is GM free can't be false advertising if it's true - can it??

Well, sceptical means waiting for evidence before deciding an issue; and I don't think the average consumer can really be expected to do the research to provide this evidence.
And if you prefer "suspicious" you still need evidence, rather than gut instinct, on which to base those suspicions.

As I've said - I think suspicious of newness is actually a very valid reason to be initial suspicious. Added to that the paternalistic patronising attitude of the producers - we don't care if you want it or not - we're gonna slip it anyway - that makes me suspicious too :)

So no research needed for that - just a nasty taste in my mouth :)

So now I'm doubly suspicious and neither side has even presented an argument. And I don't need to say which side I am going to be instinctively more antagonistic to now do I?

It's nice to read your posts though BillyJoe - keeping to the discussion in hand etc :)

I was hoping to learn a lot about GM foods on this thread from the pro GM people :(

Sou

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Soubrette
I think it very arrogant of anyone to say "I know better than you thus I am abridging your choice" It irritates me when elected government does it - it infuriates me when unelected companies do it (while claiming to espouse free market ideals )

There is a major difference, though. When elected governmnent does it, then it's law and you are obliged to comply. However when unelected companies do it then your are under no obligation to purchase their product or service.

And they may be fighting an uphill battle but why do you think that is?

The battle (www.fumento.com/biodevastation.html) is (www.fumento.com/biotech.html) being (www.fumento.com/biotechcrops.html) won (www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=23281400).

I'm not wanting to eat GM foods until I know a little more about it etc and then we have some GM advocates saying that they can't be bothered to refute one website but here's another to peruse (as someone who has no knowledge - how can I choose which one to put my trust in?) then it degenerates into pompous and self indulgent name calling by said proponents and the lovely technique of defending their own position by dissing organic food I have nothing against a thread dissing organic food - but this is supposed to be about supporting GM food - again I instinctively feel if a person can't argue their own position then it must be weak in some way.

Excuse me, but I posted at length detailing the shortcomings and fallacies in the Soil Associations arguments. Since the soil association is a pressure group for organic food, it's imperative IMO to outline the shortcomings of the organic food industry, lest the impression be created that organic farming can provide food as safely, cheaply and abundantly as conventional farming. If you think that's "dissing", then so be it. Neither am I going to pretend that BS is anything other than BS, and I'll label it thus where I see it. Call that "namecalling" if you will.

Neither is knowledge in this specific area required to make a decision on which is the more reliable viewpoint. A smidgen of critical thinking is what's needed. Re-examine the claims made by the soil association. The title of their briefing sheet is "GM food: Scientific evidence of health risks". The problem is they don't provide any. What they furnish in abundance are claims, and unsubstantiated claims at that. The very first point I made was that the Soil association did not provide a single reference to back up their claims.

So why do you think these opponents to GM food have such a big influence? I personally think it is a combination of people being suspicious of new things and the arrogance of Montana.

If your going to cite the arrogance of multinationals, than at least get the name of said multinationals correct. The fact that you've confused "Monsanto" with an American state suggests that your knowledge of the issues is vague, to say the least. And as I've just pointed out, the influence of the anti-GM brigade is more apparent than real, except perhaps in Europe.

But there is a difference - one is genetically modified using certain technologies that I'm not sure I want to support.

Why not? Are you sure you want to support organic producers, considering that the methods they use result in physical injury?

Added to that the paternalistic patronising attitude of the producers - we don't care if you want it or not - we're gonna slip it anyway - that makes me suspicious too

What about the paternalistic patronising attitude of the EU, for instance? Despite publishing a study (I've provided the link) that states GM foods pose no health risks and are probably safer than conventional ones it still maintains a moratorium on the sale of GM food. It is impinging on your ability to "shop politically". Does that make you suspicious?

So now I'm doubly suspicious and neither side has even presented an argument. And I don't need to say which side I am going to be instinctively more antagonistic to now do I?

How exactly have I not presented an argument? Have you read any of the links I posted?

I was hoping to learn a lot about GM foods on this thread from the pro GM people

Please explain.

[arcticpenguin]

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2003/516/1
(subscription required)

Genetic engineering to the rescue: Cyanide-free cassava

Starchy roots of the cassava plant are the world's fourth most important tropical crop, providing the majority of calories for 500 million people. However, if it's not processed properly, the plant packs a poisonous punch. Now, geneticists have developed a potential boon for the health of African subsistence farmers who rely on the crop: transgenic plants with roots practically free of cyanide-forming chemicals.

The roots and leaves of fresh cassava are loaded with a chemical called linamarin, which wards off herbivores. But human enzymes convert linamarin to cyanide in doses that can be lethal. Crushing, soaking, rinsing, and baking the root neutralizes the chemical and renders cassava safe for human consumption. However, the lengthy process often isn't done properly. This can lead to chronic cyanide poisoning and ultimately swelling of the thyroid gland and nerve-damaging disorders.

Perhaps these ill-effects could be prevented if there were less cyanide to process, pondered Richard Sayre and Dimuth Siritunga of Ohio State University in Columbus. The pair disrupted two leaf-specific genes that produce enzymes active in the first step of making linamarin. This yielded transgenic cassavas with 60% to 94% less linamarin in their leaves. Even better, the roots contained as little as 1% of original linamarin levels.

[Beausoleil]

I thought there was no problem selling GM food in the EU if it was labelled as such. The problem is that people won't buy it. Surely this is their right, whatever you think about their reasons. Even the Royal Society has a sign in its restaurant assuring customers the food does not contain GM produce.

The "labelling for safety only" assertion is factually incorrect. Country of origin is on the label of foodstuffs though it does not impact safety of the food. I use this to avoid buying food from states I wish not to support. Are you saying I shouldn't have this right because it doesn't accord with what you think is rational? Israeli dates are just as safe as Turkish dates, so one shouldn't be told where the food came from? Ridiculous.

There is also something of a straw man here. Who says most people choose not to eat GM food because they fear for their health? Perhaps they choose not to eat it on other grounds, because they are concerned about the policies of biotechnology companies, for instance.

Of course genetic modification and the introduction of new species has been going on for millenia. There's also a long list of instances where this has had bad consequences - rats in New Zealand, rabbits in Australia, mink in the UK, for instance. One thing we have learnt is that introducing new species or varieties often has unintended consequences. And that once the genie - no pun intended - is out of the bottle it's hard to put back.

Ultimately, some people want, for a variety of reasons, to buy food that is not produced using GM technology. Why shouldn't they so choose?

[BillyJoe]

Sou,

Originally posted by Soubrette
Sure it [informed choice] would [affect market dynamics] as do uninformed choices :) Sorry Sou, I thought you said.....Trouble is, BillyJoe that an informed choice is nothing to do with market dynamics..Originally posted by Soubrette
What shouldn't happen for someone to espouse a capitalistic ideal of a free market and then lobby for for those choices to be taken away from me.But I still don't see why a GM label should be legally required to appear on food if it makes no real difference.

If the company producing the it felt GM food had an advantage over non GM food and, if they thought the public was not prejudiced against it by the false claims of the opposition, they would certainly advertise the fact that the food is GM. But, unless it had been demonstrated that there is harm in GM food, I cannot see why the label should be legally required.

Originally posted by Soubrette
If a company wants to sell me their products then they have to "sell" the idea to me - not try and slip it in while I'm not looking......Hence education and advertising.If they thought education and advertising (are they not opposites :D ), would help sell their food, don't you think they would educate and advertise. Perhaps they realize that the switch to GM food is inevitable and they will bide their time until the opposition dies a natural death or runs out of puff. Perhaps they are selling as much as they can produce at present. Perhaps they think it wasted effort totry to counteract the dogma of an established religion (only half joking here ;) )

Originally posted by Soubrette
Valid as in any choices can be exercised. I think it very arrogant of anyone to say "I know better than you thus I am abridging your choice" It irritates me when elected government does it - it infuriates me when unelected companies do it (while claiming to espouse free market ideals:rolleyes: ) Sorry , Sou, I thought you meant "valid" choice as in "legitimate/rational/evidence-based' choice.
Well. I guess we must allow people to make their choice, rational of irrational, but do we really have to legitimize the irrational choices?

Originally posted by Soubrette
And they may be fighting an uphill battle........again I instinctively feel if a person can't argue their own position then it must be weak in some way.This is Shanes battle so I'll leave it to him.

Originally posted by Soubrette
So why do you think these opponents to GM food have such a big influence? I personally think it is a combination of people being suspicious of new things and the arrogance of Montana.
Or perhaps the exploitation of people's natural suspicions and fears by groups with a particular political or philosophical axe to grind.

Originally posted by Soubrette
But there is a difference - one is genetically modified using certain technologies that I'm not sure I want to support.But it has been around for a long time now without any evidence of any detrimental effects and even some evidence of benefits, so what is it that would tip your balance in favour of GM food?

Originally posted by Soubrette
I am also unsure whether I want to support Montana as a company at this time. Now many people will see this as pointless but here in Europe (as compared to the US:)) I feel consumers shop more politically. And it's something I feel comfortable with - whether I make a blind bit of difference overall or not.Well, this would be demanding labelling so that you can boycott a particular multinational company's products. I'm just wondering why that particular multinational company should be legally required to assist you in boycotting them just because they are a multinational company.

Originally posted by Soubrette
As I've said - I think suspicious of newness is actually a very valid reason to be initial suspicious. Added to that the paternalistic patronising attitude of the producers - we don't care if you want it or not - we're gonna slip it anyway - that makes me suspicious too :)......So no research needed for that - just a nasty taste in my mouth :)Well, I'm not particularly enamoured of large multinational companies either. Sometimes, however, the enormous cost of research and development means that only these sort of companies can afford to do it properly. As long as we have independent scientist ensuring that the R & D is being done properly and that the product is indeed safe.

Originally posted by Soubrette
So now I'm doubly suspicious and neither side has even presented an argument. And I don't need to say which side I am going to be instinctively more antagonistic to now do I?Sou, if it is your distrust of large multinational companies that makes you instinstively antagonistic towards GM food, then I think that is all the more reason for you to look at GM food from a more independent scientific viewpoint don't you think?

regards,
BillyJoe
(nice to hear from you again also :) )

[BillyJoe]

Mr. Verschueren describes the two viewponts.

On the one hand.....

Europeans have a view of culture and tradition concerning food that equates to 'naturalness,' traditional production methods and rules of origin. Americans must respect that.....But on the other hand.....

.....but at the same time Europeans must respect the rights and needs of persons in the developing world with populations that are both growing in size and affluence, both of which result in pressure to grow more food on the limited amount of land available for cultivation. I think everybody agrees we need to move toward a more sustainable world.How does this read with you, Sou?

[BillyJoe]

And a couple of quotes demonstrating the effect of anti GM activists......

"We can't sell them because companies like McCain Foods, the world's largest potato processor, won't sell them". Why? "We think genetically modified material is very good science," says Chairman Harrison McCain, but "at the moment, very bad public relations."

"They're also holding back other vital crops like Bt sweet corn. "We don't want people dressing up like potatoes and butterflies near our restaurants," says Sears from McDonald's Restaurants.

[Soubrette]

Shane I knew that post would piss you off :D

I think our two styles of debate are basically incompatible. I want to explore issues. If I wanted to read up on loads of links giving conflicting advice then I'd google it.

Here on a message board I'm looking for something a little different - more personal where I can say hang on what about this? I don't understand this and basically ask all the dumbass questions I want to without feeling the person I'm asking is thinking "what a dumbass"

And I thought I'd made it very clear - I have done no investigation either pro or anti GM stuffs.

BillyJoe.

As to the informed/uninformed choices - I was trying to convey (obviously very poorly:p) that it was choices that impact a market whether they be informed or totally ignorant is irrelevant.

I agree with you - a company should not be required to label its product as GM if they don't want to. Do you agree with me that a company should be able to label their product GM free if they do want to?

Well now we have two opposing views here - Shane has said that GM foods are winning the war of education and you say they are not. What do you think in light of Shane's pronouncement?

And if you think they are biding their time - then why not stop trying to slip it in. Let me explain what I mean here. I eat a lot of soya products. I want to eat non GM soya but I can't - because the soya crop in the US (our main importer) is all mixed up so I won't get the choice of buying the non GM stuff. This is what I mean by taking away my choice - I'm not bothered about the labelling part, if I feel that strongly then I will search out the stuff labelled non GM :)

How do you mean legitimize irrational choices? Both GodsAdvocate and myself have said that we wouldn't even call our decisions sceptical more suspicious precisely because they are relatively irrational choices. But no I meant all choices are valid in a free market - even if some people don't buy French because they buy into the French stereotype.

And I think you're right - for me time is probably the thing that would bring me round - that plus an honourable attitude from the companies that produce it. Something along the lines of "hey you don't want to buy our stuff - that's fine but you're the one missing out" :) I'm not saying that I think GM food is evil and bad, I'm saying I want to see it's impact first before I decide whether to buy into it or not.

As to boycotting companies - I boycott Nestlé :) If I want to boycott Monsanto (thanks Shane:)) then that is entirely my business. I don't agree with them being forced to label their foods as containing GM foods if they don't want to but I have no problem with there being enough information on the packaging so that if I do a little research of my own I can boycott whichever companies I chose for whatever reason I choose.

The thing is BillyJoe - there are lots of new products coming onto the market all the time. I often don't buy into them for a while either. I don't have time to research every single one so I pick and choose - like the Nestlé example. I'm not sure you could even say I was "boycotting" GM foods - I'm just hanging back and waiting and seeing :)

Now to food supply :)

If you have an increased food supply a population tends to expand. It is also a fact that much starvation in the world is actually due to war rather than natural causes.

I'm not saying that increasing food production isn't a laudable aim - I'm just saying things are never as simple as we have starving people - here's enough food to feed them.

Here is a story that was reported here some time ago - I'd be interested in hearing your views on whether it's one of these urban legends that have grown up.

Certain seeds which are more hardy have been developed which are more drought resistant than before but to protect its profits Monsanto have developed them to be sterile. This means that a farmer has to pay for a new stock of seeds every year. Which may be fine for us but not so fine for someone with limited income such as a third world farmer.

Also there is actually an article in New Scientist on the subject of GM crops. Unfortunately it's not online at the moment but should be in about a weeks time.

http://www.newscientist.com/inprint/ipcontents.jsp#hnature

Sou

[BillyJoe]

And "the little man" can win as well.....

IT'S not what campaigners against genetically modified crops want to hear. Not only are GM plants taking over China's rice paddies and cotton fields, but millions of poor farmers are benefiting as a result.....the country has already introduced more than 120 genes into about 50 plant species.....target[ing] insect and disease resistance [and] reducing the need for expensive and dangerous pesticides.

[The big success story is] Bt cotton, which carries a gene for a toxin that kills insects..... Around 2 million Chinese cotton farmers now grow Bt cotton, in fields covering 7000 square kilometres. Farmers' production costs have dropped by 28 per cent and the average income has gone up by more than $150 per year. Use of toxic pesticides such as organophosphates has plummeted by 80 per cent and pesticide poisonings have gone down.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Soubrette
As to the informed/uninformed choices - I was trying to convey (obviously very poorly:p) that it was choices that impact a market whether they be informed or totally ignorant is irrelevant.?Okay, perhaps it was me misunderstanding your eloquently stated point. :)

Originally posted by Soubrette
I agree with you - a company should not be required to label its product as GM if they don't want to. Do you agree with me that a company should be able to label their product GM free if they do want to?Yes. But if they make any claims about non GM being superior or safer than GM food, they would need to back up those claims or be taken to task for false advertising.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Well now we have two opposing views here - Shane has said that GM foods are winning the war of education and you say they are not. What do you think in light of Shane's pronouncement? I have read his links which seem to suggest that the pendulum is swinging. I guess time will tell.


Originally posted by Soubrette
And if you think they are biding their time - then why not stop trying to slip it in. I meant that they might be biding their time for the irrational opposition to go fade away and for commonsense to prevail. Attacking the opposition might actually help keep them alive a while longer.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Let me explain what I mean here. I eat a lot of soya products. I want to eat non GM soya but I can't - because the soya crop in the US (our main importer) is all mixed up so I won't get the choice of buying the non GM stuff. This is what I mean by taking away my choice - I'm not bothered about the labelling part, if I feel that strongly then I will search out the stuff labelled non GM :)Well I guess it wouldn't be too hard to keep the crops apart. But, of course, from their point of view, this would be totally unnecessary and any cost would not be justified.
Isn't it possible to get non GM soya beans at all?

Originally posted by Soubrette
How do you mean legitimize irrational choices? I meant that requiring food to be labelled as GM tends to lend credence to the irrational view that Gm food is something to be feared.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Both GodsAdvocate and myself have said that we wouldn't even call our decisions sceptical more suspicious precisely because they are relatively irrational choices. But no I meant all choices are valid in a free market - even if some people don't buy French because they buy into the French stereotype.Yes, I see now that by "valid" you mean that the choice has an effect on the market.

Originally posted by Soubrette
And I think you're right - for me time is probably the thing that would bring me round - that plus an honourable attitude from the companies that produce it. Something along the lines of "hey you don't want to buy our stuff - that's fine but you're the one missing out" :)That sounds reasonable in your particular case but, perhaps they are more concerned about the anti GM activists who would now have a visible target to hit and to encourage others, through fear tactics, to hit.

Originally posted by Soubrette
I'm not saying that I think GM food is evil and bad, I'm saying I want to see it's impact first before I decide whether to buy into it or not.But they have been on the market for quite a long time now and still no impact has been seen. How long do you wait?

Originally posted by Soubrette
As to boycotting companies - I boycott Nestle. If I want to boycott Monsanto (thanks Shane:)) then that is entirely my business. I don't agree with them being forced to label their foods as containing GM foods if they don't want to but I have no problem with there being enough information on the packaging so that if I do a little research of my own I can boycott whichever companies I chose for whatever reason I choose.Fine, but why should they provide the information that would enable you to boycott them especially if, in their view (and in the scientific view) there is no basis for the view that causes you to boycott them.

Originally posted by Soubrette
The thing is BillyJoe - there are lots of new products coming onto the market all the time. I often don't buy into them for a while either. I don't have time to research every single one so I pick and choose - like the Nestl韥xample. I'm not sure you could even say I was "boycotting" GM foods - I'm just hanging back and waiting and seeing :)In the mean time, for the past five years, the general population has been eating these foods without realizing it and are not suffering any adverse consequences. So how long do you wait? Eventually there may no longer be any non GM food (except, perhaps, for what you can grow yourself in your own back yard).

Originally posted by Soubrette
If you have an increased food supply a population tends to expand......I'm not saying that increasing food production isn't a laudable aim - I'm just saying things are never as simple as we have starving people - here's enough food to feed them.Maybe we'd better educate as well about contraception ;)
Also I don't think the solution is to hand them some food. The solution is more along the lines of those Chinese farmers in the quote above.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Here is a story that was reported here some time ago - I'd be interested in hearing your views on whether it's one of these urban legends that have grown up.

Certain seeds which are more hardy have been developed which are more drought resistant than before but to protect its profits Monsanto have developed them to be sterile. This means that a farmer has to pay for a new stock of seeds every year. Which may be fine for us but not so fine for someone with limited income such as a third world farmer.I've heard it as well and I don't know whether or not it is an urban legend.
But consider this possibility....
Monsanto must make a profit to justify its R&D expenditure. If it cannot continue to sell the seed every year, it must realize its profit in the first year. Which farmer could then afford to buy it? Would they rather pay the equivalent of ten or twenty years seed up front in the first year or a bit each year as they need it?

regards,
BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

The Monsanto Sterile Seed is not an Urban Legend (http://old.smh.com.au/news/specials/natl/gmfood/gene40.html)

But plans to commercialise the sterile seed have been shelved....

Public pressure had forced the company to shelve plans to commercialise sterile seed technologies, such as the one dubbed "terminator", the chief executive of Monsanto, Mr Bob Shapiro, said.But he explains why the sterile seed was developed....

"The need for companies to protect and gain a return on their investments in agricultural innovation is real. Without this return, we would no longer be able to continue developing new products growers have said they want," Mr Shapiro wrote in an open letter to the United States-based charity the Rockefeller Foundation.A representative of the charitable Rockefellar Foundation responded with.....

But the foundation recently criticised scientists and agribusiness groups for their arrogance, saying they had done too little to inform the public of their plans.Hmmm....

regards,
BilyJoe
[Giving Sou a little ammunition ]

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Soubrette:
Shane I knew that post would piss you off :D

Nah, I just felt honour bound to give a vigorous reply! :)

I think our two styles of debate are basically incompatible. I want to explore issues. If I wanted to read up on loads of links giving conflicting advice then I'd google it.

But how can you explore the issues while ignoring a lot of the facts?

Here on a message board I'm looking for something a little different - more personal where I can say hang on what about this? I don't understand this and basically ask all the dumbass questions I want to without feeling the person I'm asking is thinking "what a dumbass"

Asking questions is brilliant, because in my line of work I need all the practice I can get answering them. I felt that I did an OK job providing some of the answers and pointing out the gaps and misrepresentations in the anti-GM point of view. If I may be so bold to say it but I felt that you'd made upo your mind regardless.

If you have an increased food supply a population tends to expand. It is also a fact that much starvation in the world is actually due to war rather than natural causes.

This was discussed on the politics forum very recently. Famines nearly always have political causes. Lack of food is rarely a factor.

I'm not saying that increasing food production isn't a laudable aim - I'm just saying things are never as simple as we have starving people - here's enough food to feed them.

Actually the world is producing sufficient food, and starvation is in continuous decline, hence famine has political, rather than nutritional causes. The argument for GM technolgy isn't that it will eliminate hunger by raising yields, rather that it will decrease costs and increase profits for the farmer.

[Goryus]

I'm all for labels...we just have to use the right ones. Wouldn't do to go around confusing people with big red warning labels on genetically engineered produce and happy little smilies on allegedly 'natural' food. ...Which it certainly seems to me is what most of the nay-sayers seem to want. (Please note that I am not accusing any of the people on this board of this, but rather addressing the group of people who are actively seeking the removal of - or at least, the strict regulation of - genetically engineered foods on the market).

I propose we use the following labels:

Notice:
This food has been genetically engineered to be more resistant to common diseases, as well as common pests. It produces a larger yield than 'traditional' fare, and has been through the toughest and most demanding tests in the current food market to ensure that it is safe for public consumption.

and...

Notice:
This food has not been genetically engineered. It is known to be both susceptible to and a carrier of various common diseases and pests. To combat this issue, chemical sprays - primarily pesticides - were applied to this product before shipping. It has passed the basic requirements to be considered 'safe for public consumption'; the manufacturer makes no further warranty as to the fitness of the product.

:rolleyes:

Alright, so I'm being a little unfair here. I admit it, regular old good fashioned home grown unaltered food ain't that bad. I'm a big fan of it, in fact. But I'm also a big fan of having enough food to eat in the first place - and without genetically engineered crops, whether or not I would is in serious question.

[jj]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


AFAIK yes.



Was it aspergillus or ergot?

I could see Ergot creating quite a mistaken impression.

[Jon_in_london]

Ummm.. Its ergot that causes hallucination. LSD is actually derived from an ergot metabolite.

Aspergillus? dunno. The whole thing is that once for example a corn kernel has been muched a bit by an insect, the kernel can be infected by a fungus (might be aspergillus). This fungus produces aflatoxins that are highly toxic and a major cause of oesophageal cancer in Africa.

GM maize is more resistant to predation so has lower levels of aflatoxin contamination and is therefore healthier.

So you 'greenies' can stick that in your organic pipe and smoke it!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Why is there this presumption that the organic food industry is somehow more virtuous than conventional food producers. (BTW I'm not accusing you of holding that position, it's just one that appears to have general acceptance).
I think you hit the nail on the head with the term "virtuous"; because organic doesn't use those "easy" chemical fertilisers and pesticides, is harder to produce and it's better for you (btw, I'm not suggesting that is (or isn't) the case, just illustrating the argument).

I was being ironic.
I sensed the hyperbole ;)
The goal of the organic industry seems to be to whip up unfounded hysteria against GM food. I've posted enough evidence to show that there no evidence exists to suggest that GM foods that have passed through the regulatory process are anything other than safe. The same applies to organic produce. Labelling any foodstuff with "Contains mutagens and carcinogens" would be simplistic and misleading, and would hinder rather than enhance the ability of the consumer to make informed decisions. Similarly labelling food that contains GM ingredients isn't a correct course to take IMO, since the hysteria being whipped up against GM technology is impinging on the ability of people to make informed decisions on the technology.
Well, we might have to agree to disagree over how many consumers actually make informed decisions (eg, the success of "too good to be true" "#% fat free" products), and although I broadly agree with your point, I don't see how allowing GM products to be sold unlabelled is going to address that hysteria (IMO it'll make it worse). And I better stop there before I go onto (not wholly relevant) rants about government food policies and restrictive practices by supermarkets :D

[Soubrette]

BillyJoe

Thanks for looking into the sterile seeds stuff :) The point I was trying to make with that was again that if it was true then the whole ideal of feeding the world with GM crops felt vaguely false - hitting my confidence in the companies again.

I totally understand the need to recoup expensive R&D however I do not appreciate being spun a story about feeding poor third world countries when actually it is the first which is the driving factor of the product decisions.

Here's a quote from the New Scientist - Comment and Analysis

originally posted by Colin Tudge
Promoters of GM crops believe that the future population of the world cannot be fed without them. That is untrue. The crops that really matter are wheat and rice and there is no GM research in the popeline that will seriously affect the yield of either. GM is used to make production cheaper and hence more profitable, which is an extremely questionable ambition

Now I don't altogether agree with that last statement - there are poor farmers who could do with an increase in profit and if the reduced production costs are passed on to consumers then that might not be a bad thing either. However I think that Shane and Colin Tudge, who are obviously on both sides of the fence here agree on one thing. GM food is not about feeding the world. That seems to be an emotive argument that's best left on the shelf maybe ;)

As to soya - some of my favourite products have gone :( I assume because of the EU ban or the supermarkets refusal to stock it (I'm still unsure which of Jon's statements to believe). You can still get soya sausages etc though I believe - it's just not as plentiful.

Onto boycotting. If you want to run a marketplace in as ideal conditions as possible then each consumer should have perfect knowledge of all the products. This is obviously logically impossible but the ideal should be as much information as possible. The other option is heavy goverment involvement. This is supposed to act as a brake on unscrupulous companies hiding their nefarious dealings, being able to sell to us unsuspecting consumers at supercheap prices and driving other more scrupulous companies to the wall. Now most if not all companies lobby against the latter. In my opinion they have to be more prepared for the former then. If I don't like Nike sweatshops or Nestlé selling formula milk to third world companies then I should have the choice to know what companies to avoid and which to pick in preference. If I don't want to buy Montsana because I can never spell their bloody name - then that's my choice too. Thus consumer pressure should drive the market. However I admit that that is partly my ideology :)

And of course third world families aren't big just because of lack of contraception. They have big families instead of pension plans :)

Shane

It's my impression that people rarely change their mind through an ephiphony on reading one article or discussing it with one person. I read you refutations but I am fully aware that someone from the Soil Association would probably be able to refute your refutations and so on and so forth (it's a shame we can't get some of those two expert kind of debates on here:))

So you may think you're wasting your time - but I say not. Next time I speak to some of my more militant friends I'll be able to ask them about the things that you've said. I'll be able to say that the sterile seed has been withdrawn and give the the chinese example of positive GM crops. Then I'll listen to what they say and when I get the opportunity I'll put their counter points to people who are pro GM.

Persuading someone is often an uphill battle precisely because it is often a drip drip situation rather than a torrent of knowledge :)

And as for me - I've made my position clear which means that I actually haven't made up my mind yet - but it does mean that I'm more inclined to "hear" the be cautious message than the "oh but it's relatively safe technology" It also means that the inconsistencies put out by the companies stick with me a little more.

But that doesn't mean I don't hear what you're saying at all :) I think often people think I'm attacking their position when I'm basically trying to understand it and how it works (and where it's weak:p)

And that's the bad bits along with the good bits :p

Sou

[headscratcher4]

A couple of thoughts...

First, if the only discernable difference between "gm" products and non-gm products is the inclusion of the gene...and to the consumer it poses no health risk, no nutritional differentiation, no taste differentiation, than what choice is being denied by lack of labeling? Again, I comment from the US position -- Which I know is different from the European popular position -- where labeling is done to deliver nutrition and health news. Because there is no health impact, no nutrition impact, no discernable taste differentiation, there is nothing to add to the label. Indeed, in the US, at least, because the system is designed to highlight, health and safety concerns, labeling by law would automatically suggest that there is something inherently "wrong" about the inclusion of GM products in a commodity.

Again, this is the system in the US, not Europe. Also, a producer can, in the US, note as a food claim that the product is "GM" free (all perfectly kosher so long as it can be proved to the Federal Trade Commission which monitors advertising/labeling). However, organic and "environmental" activists aren't satisfied with that, they want it on an "official" label, knowing full well that having it forced would "differentiate" the product in the minds of consumers who believe that if it is noted on the label people will be suspicious.

And again, note that in the US, the food labeling system was designed historically to protect consumers and provide pertinent health, nutrition and safety information, not to "promote" the food inside. In short, positive labels are ok, if claim is provable, but officially imposed labels are only to provide safety health information...like matters of alerginicity or components that may have a health impact (like salt, etc.). It is a very different approach. Consumers in the US, the ones that look, aren't looking for virtues, or hype (via the marketing of a brand) but for nutrition and health information. This gets back to the basic point...if there is no health/nutrition/safety impact then labeling will only -- oddly enough -- confuse consumers and imply something is wrong.

Second, both globally and in the US, there are two main forces driving anti-GM propaganda. First, there is the organic "industry". Make no mistake, it is an industry. It may be all the things it claims (debatable) -- healthy, environmentally friendly, family farm friendly, etc.), but it is there to sell product and make a profit. It isn't a bunch of hippie coops putting food out on a break-even basis; it is competing for dollars, just like evil multinationals.... To sell the product, they have to differentiate the material. As they legally can not differentiate the material based on health/safety or even environmental claims on federally imposed labels, they do so by vilifying the opposition. They can't say: It Organic Brand X...it is healthier for you and tastes better. The Federal Trade Commission would hit that claim hard. They can whisper...oooh, there is something wrong about "gm" it just isn't right...and natural is "better" (a claim that can't be proved or disproved so irrelevant to federal trade authorities, etc.).

Indeed, Organic is huge business. Clearly, not as big as traditional and conventional agriculture, but coming on fast. In 2000 it was a 6 to 10 $billion a year market, and growing at a fast pace every year. In the US, in California to be specific, small little multinational General Mills has a $400 million plus "organic" and "natural" food business alone. Keep in mind, this is not cheap food...and maybe, food shouldn't be so cheap? ... but poor people buying produce in the local supermarket would quickly go broke if they only bought "organic", as conventionally grown products are far more affordable...note, Organic markets (in the US) can be found in high-end neighborhoods selling to Volvo driving yuppies, there aren't many in the inner city. Why? Because the market is with Soccer moms who drive their gas guzzling SUVs to the organic market to buy safe food and "save the planet" (I know, it is an exaggeration, but people don't really think about the food they eat, who produce it, where it comes from, and the FACT that farmers need to make a profit...it, not prostitution, is the oldest business in the world).

In addition, and Point Two A, the other main opposition is political. Not based on science, but using "GM" as a club in the anti-globalization debate. GM is easy to vilify BECAUSE people don't understand the science or modern agriculture. Most US consumers think that food is still grown on small family farms by Uncle Bob (or some such creature). In fact, less than 2% of the US population works on the farm, and most people would never want that life. They are disconnected with the food chain, and thus easy to manipulate by political activists misusing the science.

For example, Monsanto didn't invent the "terminator" seed...in fact; the USDA invented it. It was never close to production or use in the commercial market place. The idea actually makes not only commercial sense but also environmental sense -- if the plant was a good food crop but you didn't want the beneficial gene to escape into the general environment (for example, it could cross over to weedy relatives -- BTW, this is all speculation), than the terminator gene would ensure that there was no "escape" for the modified crop into the environment (a major concern of environmental groups). The crop would die, and there would be no seed flow.

Another example might be a plant with a medicinal quality. Say you could grow Corn that contained proteins useful in a cancer treatment, but don't want that quality to be wild. To control it, you would use a terminator gene; thus the field that you grow your pharmaceutical quality crop would be sterile and not great threat to the general environment.

In addition, Shapiro's point (and he is no longer the CEO of Monsanto), wasn't invalid, though it sounds so "capitalist". His point was that if you create a crop that has additional attributes...grows well in salty soil, e.g. -- than as the inventor of that crop, you want to protect and get back your investment ... patents, BTW, do expire eventually. Not unlike a copy right law that protects the writing of anti-GM activists...they demand their royalties, most of them don't just put their creative products on the market and let everyone have a go at them.

The larger point was that the measure of control over the seed that a producer would get would, through profit, power more and more development of plants with beneficial characteristics, etc.

It might not be the best model, but consideration of it wasn't an act of corporate evil, it was trying to figure out how to make a profit on improved crops.

Many of the activists claimed that the object was to enslave poor subsistence farmers. Getting away from the point that everyone seems to forget -- subsistence farmers don't want to be subsistence farmers, they want to be rich farmers -- it really doesn't make much sense when you look at it. First, DuPont, Monsanto, etc. want to sell product. The only way they can sell product is if the farmers they sell to can survive and make a profit. Sure, the "terminator" seed would mean that farmers wouldn't save seed, but the theory was that farmers would reap great rewards and profits from reductions in the costs of chemical inputs, increased production, labor, etc. that farmers would willingly give up the right to save seed and embrace buying the modified seed.


Besides, nothing in Terminator means that a farmer couldn't save seed, it is just that a farmer couldn't save a "terminator" seed. Anyone who didn't want to pay for the "benefits" of the GM seed, or didn't see benefits from GM seed, could continue farming the old fashioned way.

Anyway, this is all speculative, because it was never produced in a commercial format...however, if you go back and read the press, you would get the impression that the companies were moving it into the marketplace and that farmers across the globe were going to starve as a result. As an aside, seed companies (even multinationals) don't like farmers to starve, as it means that no one will buy their products (such are the wiley ways of capitalism).

Finally, assuming anyone stays with me this long, NO ONE WHO SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT OF GM AGRICULTURE CLAIMS IT WILL SAVE THE WORLD. Sure, exagerated claims have been made. However, GM must be part of the solution. Population growth is already outstripping the ability to produce, it is eating up the best land, and there is a need for higher production from less land. Organic and allegedly "natural" solutions will not fill the gap. 8.5 billion people by 205 must be feed, and agriculture today is producing just about to capcity...barely (but sufficient with better distribution) to feed the 6 billion people here. We have to find ways to feed an additional 2.5 billion people. GM helps get us there, but not all the way.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Soubrette:
Here's a quote from the New Scientist - Comment and Analysis

I'd like if you could provide a more precise reference. I don't disbelief you, it's just that I'd like to see the whole article. :)

I read you refutations but I am fully aware that someone from the Soil Association would probably be able to refute your refutations and so on and so forth (it's a shame we can't get some of those two expert kind of debates on here:))

I wouldn't be so sure. Again, I have to emphasise the soil association's failure to provide a list of references. If an undergrad wrote a review and faqiled to provide a bibliography, then that review would get a fat zero. It's just inexcusable.

BTW New Scientist did indeed feature the type of exchange you're looking for fairly recently. Can't give a reference of teh top of my head, I'm afraid.

So you may think you're wasting your time - but I say not. Next time I speak to some of my more militant friends I'll be able to ask them about the things that you've said. I'll be able to say that the sterile seed has been withdrawn and give the the chinese example of positive GM crops. Then I'll listen to what they say and when I get the opportunity I'll put their counter points to people who are pro GM.

Great! :) Be sure to get back to us when you do.

[Jon_in_london]

originally posted by Colin Tudge (Soubrette).
Promoters of GM crops believe that the future population of the world cannot be fed without them. That is untrue. The crops that really matter are wheat and rice and there is no GM research in the popeline that will seriously affect the yield of either. GM is used to make production cheaper and hence more profitable, which is an extremely questionable ambition

Wheat and rice? I guess maize (corn) doesnt figure at all? not to 40 million straving Africans whose main staple is....................mazie!!!

If production is cheaper and more profitable ie. more productive. More food for less cost. Whats wrong with that in the context of the 3rd world?!

[BillyJoe]

Sou,

Thanks for your reply.
I don't really have anything further to add (especially after reading headscratcher's last post).
It has been an interesting and informative discussion.

Shane,

Thanks for you helpful links.
I read them all except for one that did not work.

Headscratcher,

Thanks for you informative posts especially the last.
And you will be pleased to know that at least one poster stayed with you to the last paragraph :)

regards,
BillyJoe.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by headscratcher4:
Second, both globally and in the US, there are two main forces driving anti-GM propaganda. First, there is the organic "industry". Make no mistake, it is an industry. It may be all the things it claims (debatable) -- healthy, environmentally friendly, family farm friendly, etc.), but it is there to sell product and make a profit. It isn't a bunch of hippie coops putting food out on a break-even basis; it is competing for dollars, just like evil multinationals.... To sell the product, they have to differentiate the material. As they legally can not differentiate the material based on health/safety or even environmental claims on federally imposed labels, they do so by vilifying the opposition.

Agreed. This is exactly the point I was making about the presumption of virtue of the anti-GM movement. And the rest of your post was bang on the money too.

Wasn't there a proposal in Oregon a while back to label GM food, and wasn't it rejected by a sizeable majority of the voters in a referendum?

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
originally posted by Colin Tudge (Soubrette).
Promoters of GM crops believe that the future population of the world cannot be fed without them. That is untrue. The crops that really matter are wheat and rice and there is no GM research in the popeline that will seriously affect the yield of either. GM is used to make production cheaper and hence more profitable, which is an extremely questionable ambition

Wheat and rice? I guess maize (corn) doesnt figure at all? not to 40 million straving Africans whose main staple is....................mazie!!!

If production is cheaper and more profitable ie. more productive. More food for less cost. Whats wrong with that in the context of the 3rd world?!

Also, it isn't true. Both Wheat and Rice are the object of very serious GM research. There is still a ways to go before there is a product, but it is ongoing. One example is Vitamine A enhanced rice -- designed specifically to combate Vitamine A defficiencies in the 3rd world. Of course, anti-GM folks would rather see (an interesting term, as Vitamine A defficiency results in blindness) this crop kept off the market than explore ways that it could both help improve health and rice productivity....

[headscratcher4]

Wasn't there a proposal in Oregon a while back to label GM food, and wasn't it rejected by a sizeable majority of the voters in a referendum?

Indeed, and one reason is that farmers in Oregon -- a sizable portion of the population -- who use GM products not only understand that there isn't any provable health or safety concern, but that they are reaping better yields, experiencing fewer active cost inputs (i.e. they are using less chemicals), and are producing a quality product. The farmers, for the most part, understand, that "labeling" at least as called for by anti-GM activists is only designed to kill the product by creating a false differentiation. THe cost of seperating the product alone would impose a heavy burden on farmers (one of the groups that activists say they are trying to help).

I repeat, most anti GM activists, especially in the US, don't live on farms, work on farms, grow or sell food for a living. Anti-GM activism is an urban luxury, and they understand little about farm economy. THere is much wrong with modern farming -- concentrations of power, labor issues, environmental concerns, etc. -- however GM isn't really one of them...but for the activists with phrases like "Frankenstien" foods, it is the one that they can clearly charachterize in a negative way that will catch the attention of those who know little to nothing about farming and food production (either locally or globally).

PS -- Sorry for the length of my posts on this, I just have a lot to rant about...;)

[headscratcher4]

Sorry to keep harping on all of this, but this topic just lights my fires...I premise this story with "I am not a scientist" but at least I understand more than many of the anti-GM activists who try to speak with such authority.

I was in London a couple of years ago. I saw an anti-GM activist picketing a meeting where the government was trying to figure out how GM products would be tested in the UK.

Anyway, this protestor was dressed as a fish/tomato and decrying that fist genes from a GM product (there was a tomato developed using some genes from a fish to slow rotting and to allow it to survive in cold temperatures...it was a commercial failure). He told me that he didn't want to eat fish genes because he didn't know what they'd do to him.

I asked him if he ever ate fish -- as in fish and chips -- and whether that wasn't ingesting fish genes?

He didn't believe he was when he ate fish.

THis is the quality of the debate. And I would argue that it hasn't improved with time....

[Jon_in_london]

headscratcher4

This topic also gets me fired up.

The main reason being that the GM food debate is a symbol of how science and reason are struggling against psedo-science, supersition and quackery. It is the struggle of the light of wisdom and logic against the dangerous darkness of fear born out of ignorance.

PS- oops I forgot about golden rice :)

[Soubrette]

Shane

The article will be on the link I gave to BillyJoe but I'm afraid as it is in the latest issue it won't appear online for about a week.

Jon - could you please clarify if it is market forces that is preventing people from buying GM foods (the supermarkets giving in to consumer pressure) or governmental regulations in the form of an EU ban. You've said both and I am genuinely confused. If it is both then could you explain how.

And finally - we have Shane saying that GM food is primarily for reduced costs and we have Jon and Headscratcher saying that it is primarily to increase food production.

Would you three be prepared to defend your statements? Or because you are all in agreement on the effacity of the GM technology are we to see no disagreement at all?

That would be a shame because all three of you obviously are passionately interested in the subject and have a good deal of knowledge.

Sou

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by headscratcher4:
Indeed, and one reason is that farmers in Oregon -- a sizable portion of the population -- who use GM products not only understand that there isn't any provable health or safety concern, but that they are reaping better yields, experiencing fewer active cost inputs (i.e. they are using less chemicals), and are producing a quality product.

Hmm, I must do a google search on this. I'd be interested to see the actual result of the referendum, and judge whether farmers voting as a block swung, or if the electorate as a whole shared their sentiment.

Originally posted by Soubrette:
The article will be on the link I gave to BillyJoe but I'm afraid as it is in the latest issue it won't appear online for about a week.

That's fine. I buy the print edition of "New Scientist" religiously every week.

And finally - we have Shane saying that GM food is primarily for reduced costs and we have Jon and Headscratcher saying that it is primarily to increase food production.

Would you three be prepared to defend your statements? Or because you are all in agreement on the effacity of the GM technology are we to see no disagreement at all?


Well, my original point was "The argument for GM technolgy isn't that it will eliminate hunger by raising yields, rather that it will decrease costs and increase profits for the farmer."

I didn't make it very well, I'm afraid. :o

My point is that GM foods will not eliminate world hunger, because hunger and starvation have political rather than nutritional causes, and we're producing enough food as it is. Profit is a major driving force behind GM technology (as it is behind organic farming also). Increased yields can translate into increased profit, if more crops can be grown on the same acreage, coupled with decreased use of pesticide, which should in theory translate into cheaper food for the consumer.

Of course, GM technology should be evaluated on a case by case basis, as the motivations for it's use can differ i.e. the genetic modification of rice so that it contains vitamin D has nothing to do with increasing the yield of rice.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Soubrette
And finally - we have Shane saying that GM food is primarily for reduced costs and we have Jon and Headscratcher saying that it is primarily to increase food production.

Would you three be prepared to defend your statements? Or because you are all in agreement on the effacity of the GM technology are we to see no disagreement at all?


Sou- Reduced production costs and increased quantity/quality of production are not mutualy exclusive, and in some cases they are mutual! ie. Bt corn leads to increased yield dur to lower predation and decreased cost due to a reduction in the volume of agrochem required. Both are desirable in the context of developed world farming and third world farming.

Or