|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
 Posted - 07/03/2003 : 12:01:18
|
VAST sums of money must be flowing into the re-election coffers of politicians from the Genetically Modified Food ("Frankenfood") industry. 
Health and ecologial concerns are tossed aside in the face of shrinking profits. Now the Europeans, having staved off the jackels for years, will have to eat the stuff too--UNKNOWN to them--so long as it contains less than one percent of GM materials.
From CBSNews ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/tech/main560287.shtml )quote:
Backed by Canada and Australia, the United States says the EU's cautious approach is based on unfounded health fears. The three have filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization to force Europe to lift the moratorium.
EU OKs Clearly Labeled Bio-Food
BRUSSELS, Belgium, July 2, 2003
(AP) The European Parliament passed tough new laws Wednesday on genetically modified products, opening the way for biotech foods in Europe as long as they are clearly labeled.
The United States has long pushed the EU to drop its biotech ban, but the new rules were unlikely to satisfy Washington, which has said mandatory labeling of biotech products will be too costly for exporters.
The 626-member assembly backed two proposals that would allow European countries to lift a seven-year freeze on the introduction of new biotech foods.
The regulations require producers to trace genetically modified organisms at all stages of production and oblige supermarkets to label products containing more than 0.9 percent biotech material to say: "This product is produced from GMOs."
(More at the link above)
As the pregnant Police Chief said at the end of the movie Fargo: "And all for a little bit of money."
Is there no stopping these PSEUDO-scientists who seem to have no interest than profits for the results of their questionable genetic tinkering?
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 07/03/2003 : 17:11:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Is there no stopping these PSEUDO-scientists who seem to have no interest than profits for the results of their questionable genetic tinkering?
What about those scientists who are trying to feed more people with the same amount of farmland? Or those scientists who are trying to make crops that can grow in previously non-arable land?
Because of people like you, the Zambian government denied the offer of American corn because it might be corrupted with GM crops. Do you think a starving person would forsake food because it might be genetically modified? I guess what I am getting at is this: do you have any idea what you're saying or are you just trying to slander scientists? |
 |
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 20:24:53 [Permalink]
|
I am always amused when people cry about GM food. YOu have to be ignorant of what man has been doing with farming the last ten thousand years with both crops and cattle to even claim that such tampering is unnatural. Humans have been selectivily breeding, crossbreeding, etc. If you have seen wild corn or rice, or many other staple foods, you would see a vast difference from the "natural" species, and the "moddified" species humans grow. GM is just a way of doing things faster and more effeciently. The fact that GM food have also been around the US for over 15 years seems to go without notice. OF course, like most panics, they are founded on fear, not facts.
I also find it highly ironic that people who cry about GM foods were the ones who helped in their creation by crying about pesticides . I fully aggree that many pesticides are dangerous, and that GM food allows a much less toxic method for raising crops. The true irony is that the "healthy" and "organic" foods that people are touting in comparision to GM are the very same breeds that were (and still are) drenched in pesticides. Hehe. Oh the beautiful irony. (Hey, don't put poison on my food, find a better way to grow crops. Wait, you made plants that grow better and are safer. Wait, I want those old "organic" plants with all that tasty bug poison.)
Of course, you also don't hear much about the fact that Europe's farms are protected industries, and that banning GM crops is a form of protection from competition. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 20:57:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
I am always amused when people cry about GM food. YOu have to be ignorant of what man has been doing with farming the last ten thousand years with both crops and cattle to even claim that such tampering is unnatural
And that's why it tastes like shit.
Although I don't like the idea of Man tampering with nature that's not the only reason I try not to eat 'store bought' foods. If you've ever eaten an orange or strawberry and especially tomatos from your own garden you would never want to eat the crap they sell in the major supper markets. The taste is so different or should I say there IS a taste to home grown foods.
The thing that makes me angery about it is that the fruit of the seeds now can't be reproduced. You have to keep buying seeds instead of using some from the fruit you've grown. I wouldn't trust vegies from seeds like that either.
AND I don't care if it's 'safe' or that 'they've' been doing it for years, proof or no proof. It just doesn't sound right. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 22:26:50 [Permalink]
|
Snake, if the tomatoes or other produce you've grown yourself is of what most people would consider to be an 'okay' size, it is guaranteed to have been tampered with through some form of artificial selection, at the very least. Typically, fruits and veggies aren't at all "natural" unless they look pathetic. Plants left to themselves would only create as large a fruit as necessary for the seeds. Anything extra is wasted energy. From what I've seen, the exceptions to this rule are considered to be of such poor nutritional quality or taste that they are categorized as "famine foods," typically in Africa (the "sausage tree" springs to mind).
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 22:31:12 [Permalink]
|
| The issue with supermarket tomatoes is that they are picked unripened; then have benzyne gas forced through them to make them red. So they don't develop flavor and taste like, well nothing. Has nothing to do with them being engineered. |
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 22:46:35 [Permalink]
|
Well, the reason that garden-grown fruits and veggies tend to taste better than commercially-grown versions is probably that seed companies catering to the home-growing market can breed the varieties they offer to optimize properties that appeal to that market- like flavor, while serving the commercial grower market means optimizing things that help maximize the grower's profits- stuff like withstanding machine picking and handling, uniformity of growth and ripening periods, yield per unit of planted area, pest resistance, etc.
And, as with any other design activity, there are trade-offs. A tomato that tastes wonderful when you hand-pick it in your garden might also be likely to get mushed by commercial handling.
At least, Snake, you and I live in California. You've probably never experienced the hard, pale, cardboard variety of tomato you'll find in supermarkets back East during the winter- a travesty that could be used as a form of torture...
The thing that I find bothersome about the GM foods trend is that the corporate ethos of forcing the farmer to buy seed from the same source every year, instead of being able to plant seed from a successful crop, already a major impetus in promoting the use of hybrids, is reinforced even more by GM seed. Monsanto actually sued a Canadian farmer for planting seeds from his own non-GMoilseed crop because pollen blown from nearby fields had introduced some of their precious patented genes into his next generation of seed. That is, their stuff contaminated his crop, and they sucessfully sued him for doing something that involved no intent to defraud or to violate their patent, and which he had no reasonable way of knowing might involve their precious "intellectual property".
Ironically, their GM "Roundup-Ready" variety has become a weed, and since its herbicide resistance makes it difficult to eradicate from fields it has infiltrated, Monsanto will actually send crews out gratis to hand-remove the intruding plants. Funny that they can't correlate the new nuisance nature of their product with what they did to ol' Percy.
This isn't about feeding the hungry. It's about corporate power and profit, and the people pushing it are a lot less concerned with the good of humanity than with their own pocketbooks and privilege.
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 23:38:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Snake, if the tomatoes or other produce you've grown yourself is of what most people would consider to be an 'okay' size, it is guaranteed to have been tampered with through some form of artificial selection, at the very least. Typically, fruits and veggies aren't at all "natural" unless they look pathetic.
Dave, did you sneak into my garden? How did you know what my stuff looks like.
I have 5 tomatos that I can see that are about to start turning red on two different plants, from the same seeds and each one is a different size. Not something I could sell commercialy. And I do leave things on the tree or plant until the last moment of rippness.
I'm so angry, this year my appricot tree gave so many fruits and I was 'counting my chickens', waiting for the best time to pick them. Those &$#%^# squirrels. I don't mind them eating some but they take one bite and the rest is wasted. DAMN! I only mangaged to save a few but I'll be ready for them next season. he he he!
Some years ago I tried growing corn but it was, as you said, so small and strange looking I haven't tried since.
I thought maybe because I don't cultivate the soil, so the roots didn't grow enough.
My orange tree was here when I moved in and it is well estlablished. Some years it's sooooo sweet, others almost not worth picking. I have the most wonderful Loguats (sp.) though. They grow like a weed too. Have to keep pulling up sprouts.
Whoops, sorry. Getting carried away, I love nature.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 23:40:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofEntropy
The issue with supermarket tomatoes is that they are picked unripened; then have benzyne gas forced through them to make them red. So they don't develop flavor and taste like, well nothing. Has nothing to do with them being engineered.
I was just comparing good (tasting) food with bad. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 23:56:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
At least, Snake, you and I live in California. You've probably never experienced the hard, pale, cardboard variety of tomato you'll find in supermarkets back East during the winter- a travesty that could be used as a form of torture...
Back East? Well, they must be sending them here because that's what I think of the ones I've TRIED to eat.
quote:
The thing that I find bothersome about the GM foods trend is that the corporate ethos of forcing the farmer to buy seed from the same source every year, instead of being able to plant seed from a successful crop, already a major impetus in promoting the use of hybrids, is reinforced even more by GM seed.
That's what I said. Perhaps not so thoroughly.
quote:
Ironically, their GM "Roundup-Ready" variety has become a weed, and since its herbicide resistance makes it difficult to eradicate from fields it has infiltrated, Monsanto will actually send crews out gratis to hand-remove the intruding plants. Funny that they can't correlate the new nuisance nature of their product with what they did to ol' Percy.
That is funny. Sounds like a plot for a Sci-fi movie.
quote:
This isn't about feeding the hungry. It's about corporate power and profit, and the people pushing it are a lot less concerned with the good of humanity than with their own pocketbooks and privilege.
Here! Here! I think you've hit on something. I agree.
And remember I'm a stock holder in some fairly large companies too. You should hear what goes on at a GM stock holder meeting. (GM as in the car company General Motors as opposed to the food being talked about in this folder.)
ps. Hey, Ktesibios, you are East of me but if you ever get over west of Coldwater, let me know, you can come pick some Loquats. (they are only around for one month about March)
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2003 : 14:01:33 [Permalink]
|
I thought I'd add a few thoughts about genetic hybrids. I am not going to quote any specific posts. Just thought I would ramble a bit and touch on some of what I read here.
Frankenfoods my ass. As has been pointed out here, hybridization has gone on since the dawn of civilization. The moment we stopped hunting and gathering and began controlling our food source by growing or raising it ourselves we began tampering with nature. Right from the git-go we started experimenting with ways to get better crops and animals. At first we probably just chose to seed from the varieties that worked best. But soon we were cross pollinating varieties and creating new and better crops. We also crossbred animals to produced the most meat or milk or eggs or what have you, thereby purposely selecting out animals that did not make the cut. At least, for our consumption.
The methods for doing this has improved over the years. The species of crops and animals that have became the mainstay of agriculture do not exist in nature. Nature did not select for a Holstein cow, we did. Beefsteak tomatoes? We did that. Before our tampering, there was no such thing as a beefsteak tomato or any of the other varieties we like.
So when I hear someone bitching about hybridization at the genetic level I cringe. They say it isn't natural. There are very few foods that you can buy or grow that is not the result of our "tampering" with nature.
What is natural anyway? Should we stay away from boysenberry jam because boysenberries did not exist before the last century? Should we stay away from them because they are not a direct result of natural selection?
Yes, tomatoes were messed with to give them a longer shelf life. Unfortunately, taste was sacrificed in the process. But even that is changing. Lately I can go to my market and buy great tasting tomatoes almost all year round. Vine ripened tomatoes at that. How do they get those to market before they become too soft? My guess is they have been genetically modified to give them a longer shelf life. I'm not sure about that but I can say that many varieties of tomatoes that I can and do buy off the shelf are far superior to what I could get only a few years ago. I heard that they were working on taste as well as shelf life. I'm inclined to believe that since scientists probably like good tasting tomatoes too.
I have yet to hear of anyone keeling over or even getting sick from eating GM foods. I can not understand how it serves a starving person to not have access to food because some well fed fear mongering asshole from the Greenpeace objects to ill defined uncertainties about the safety of GM food including the corn we sent to Africa. I guess since the effects of starvation are better defined, starvation is more expectable to these nitwits.
(My reason for targeting Greenpeace, a group I supported before they went crazy, is they, along with Friends of the Earth, are responsible for creating much of the hysteria about the dangers of GM foods. They had a lot of influence on the EU.)
www.greenpeace.org.uk/gp_gm_food/genetically_modified_food.cfm
Much of the EUs concerns are the result of fear mongering. Not the result of good science. Yes, there are issues that need to be considered. Issues like a possible negative impact GM crops may have on surrounding areas or the effects they may have on indigenous species. Who profits. Who will be hurt by a new technology. Trade and economic impact. But when is that not the case? It seems to me that the politics of GM food and the science of GM food are really different issues. Issues that need to be worked out. Not everyone is going to be happy. Again, when is this not the case?
A great site to explore both sides of the GM food controversie can be found at SCOP, or Science Controversies On-line: Partnerships in Education at:
http://scope.educ.washington.edu/
http://scope.educ.washington.edu/gmfood/
By the way, I like growing tomatoes too. I have several plants going. There is something very satisfying about eating and cooking with food I grew myself. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2003 : 14:15:13 [Permalink]
|
My issue with GM foods is not the food itself but what happens when the seeds escape the fields they are meant for and could potentially ruin ecosystems they are not meant for. I have read that normal salm populations could be in danger if GM salmon make it into the wild.
So, it's not the food itself but what that food could do to everything else that I think needs to be considered.
I read about a study that showed how seeds are transported out of the fields by falling off of farm workers miles from the fields the started in. This sort of thing is the real danger.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2003 : 16:21:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
@tomic: My issue with GM foods is not the food itself but what happens when the seeds escape the fields they are meant for and could potentially ruin ecosystems they are not meant for. I have read that normal salm populations could be in danger if GM salmon make it into the wild.
So, it's not the food itself but what that food could do to everything else that I think needs to be considered.
I mentioned these concerns above. I'm suggesting that we avoid hysteria. Groups like Greenpeace want nothing less than the complete elimination of genetically modified crops and foods. There are GM foods that are already on the market and are demonstrably safe and improvements over previous hybrids.
quote:
I read about a study that showed how seeds are transported out of the fields by falling off of farm workers miles from the fields the started in. This sort of thing is the real danger.
Yes, also mentioned above. But let me ask you, just how does the introduction of GM crops differ from the introduction of a species created by any other method of hybridization? There is always some level of danger when introducing a new species to an area. There is no more "real danger" then there ever was. What's different is the level of concern about it. To an extent, that may be a good thing. But when the concern turns to the kind of hysteria that sends people off to markets carrying signs about "Frankenfoods" to protest a technology they know nothing about, it becomes absurd. And when that hysteria causes whole countries to turn down perfectly good food, even though their people are starving, it becomes tragically absurd.
When researching the pros and cons of this, make sure your sources are good. There is enough BS going around to fill a fleet of Rainbow Warriors... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 07:15:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
@tomic: My issue with GM foods is not the food itself but what happens when the seeds escape the fields they are meant for and could potentially ruin ecosystems they are not meant for. I have read that normal salm populations could be in danger if GM salmon make it into the wild.
So, it's not the food itself but what that food could do to everything else that I think needs to be considered.
Kil:
I mentioned these concerns above. I'm suggesting that we avoid hysteria. Groups like Greenpeace want nothing less than the complete elimination of genetically modified crops and foods. There are GM foods that are already on the market and are demonstrably safe and improvements over previous hybrids.
quote:
@tomic: I read about a study that showed how seeds are transported out of the fields by falling off of farm workers miles from the fields the started in. This sort of thing is the real danger.
Kil:
Yes, also mentioned above. But let me ask you, just how does the introduction of GM crops differ from the introduction of a species created by any other method of hybridization? There is always some level of danger when introducing a new species to an area. There is no more "real danger" then there ever was. What's different is the level of concern about it. To an extent, that may be a good thing. But when the concern turns to the kind of hysteria that sends people off to markets carrying signs about "Frankenfoods" to protest a technology they know nothing about, it becomes absurd. And when that hysteria causes whole countries to turn down perfectly good food, even though their people are starving, it becomes tragically absurd.
When researching the pros and cons of this, make sure your sources are good. There is enough BS going around to fill a fleet of Rainbow Warriors...
"GM"; or the even fuzzier "GMF" (for Genetically-modified Foods").
<Sarcasm on> What a warm, pleasant sound that has: Genetically-modified foods. <Sarcasm off> And you, Kil, decry the term "Frankenfoods": Propaganda is propaganda.
@tomic's worries are understated, at best. The (eventual) success of a new species which has advantages over the old guys is, as I understand things, what "evolutionary processes" are all about. There can be NO doubt that if a new species is introduced which, for example, carries around its own pesticide, it will survive much better than the old stuff. The new guys WILL dominate; they WILL survive; they WILL almost-certainly replace the old guys. (For better or for worse-----THAT'S the problem: will the replacement of the old by the "genetically modified" new be for the better or for the worse?)
You asked, Kil: "But let me ask you, just how does the introduction of GM crops differ from the introduction of a species created by any other method of hybridization?"
As far as I know, in all of Earthly history a shrimp has NEVER been crossed with a plant; yet that is EXACTLY the kind of thing that geneticists and molecular biologists do.
You wrote, Kil: "I have yet to hear of anyone keeling over or even getting sick from eating GM foods." Nor have I; nor do I ever expect to hear of such a thing.
Can anyone think that a large corporation (or government agency) would simply market GM produce without first subjecting it to extensive field testing? What a catastrophe were there to be a deadly reaction after the GM product were sent into the marketplace!
A consumer suddenly keeling over from eating a GMF is NOT the problem; what IS the problem is the long-term (--or short-term but subtle--) bad effects on the consumers of GM foodstuffs----whether those consumers are human or livestock. (Eat meat? Drink milk? Then you are a secondary consumer of GM soybeans----a standard food for cattle.)
But the REAL problems are even bigger, even MORE potentially devestating. Certainly, the cross-pollination of GM characteristics into the older crops is happening. (Mexico fears the eventual loss of ALL the varieties of ancient maize due to contamination from GM corn.) What happens IF the evolutionary-dominent crop, having replaced the older varieties, turns out to be long-term unsatisfactory (--either by causing long-term health problems or by having unsuitable nutritional characteristics)?
This problem----a combination of the two most-discussed problems----is the TRUE worry; one which might remove entire classes of foodstuffs (grains; legumes) from availability.
Sorry for the lengthy, verbose response.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
| Edited by - Computer Org on 07/24/2003 07:25:07 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
