A sincere question about GM foods

[Orrex]

What, in particular, are the basic fears about gene-modified foods?

The reason I ask is that, in a manner of speaking, humans have been gene-modifying food ever since they chose to plant this kind of wheat over that kind. Any attempt to achieve an improved breed of tomato or apple tree or grapevine is a form of gene modification, though at a slower pace, of course.

I realize that GM foods entail combinations not likely to occur in nature, like animal/vegetable hybridization, but is there an additional concern?

If I had the choice, for example, of dying of starvation sometime in the next week or of dying from cancer fifteen years from now due to GM food ingestion, I have to admit that I'd probably choose the latter.


Thoughts?

[400Years]

1. there is a very big difference between cross breeding plants and

injecting genes from a spider into a tomato, this is very uncharted territory that nature would never engage in.

The idea that GM foods are necessary to stop starvation is a bogus claim put forth by Monsanto.

Now to me the biggest threat is control of seed stock. Google "terminator seed" and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[400Years]

2. You also might want to look at one of the first actions Bremer took

He was trying, and they probably still are, to keep Iraqi farmers from saving their own seeds.
Ask yourself why.

[firefox]

3. Lot's of problems

They can change DNA for one thing. It is an example of corporate power how they made it to market so extensively and without anything resembling decent research. There were 30,000 GM food products on the market before I found out about their existance by seeing it on the NOW program with Bill Moyers maybe 3 to 4 years ago.

This is a good place to start reading- http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/smith011906.cfm

[arissa]

4. Luckily you don't have to make that choice

GM foods will not solve world hunger, and it's just as unlikely that you'll starve to death whether or not GM foods continue to proliferate.

The health concerns are unknown, because very few studies have been done on the effects of GM foods on humans, and since this technology is still new, no long term studies exist. So the idea that GM foods can be proclaimed safe is extremely premature. Preliminary research, however, does suggest that GM foods may harm your lungs, liver and could be harmful to unborn babies (there was an LBN thread about this recently). Basically, none of these foods have been proven safe, and until they've been proven safe (rather than proven unsafe), in my opinion, they should be removed from the market.

Comparing GM foods to hybrid crops is not a good comparison. It's akin to comparing a lion to domesticated housecat. Many GM crops are engineered to contain pesticides, or like you said, cross animal and plant DNA, etc - this is a completely different beast than just picking the healthiest and juiciest tomatoes for replanting next season.

Further, health concerns aside, there are plenty of environmental and economic concerns regarding GM crops. For example, the companies that create these crops own the patent to them. That means that Monsanto and other corporate giants could literally own the food chain in as little as a few years. Farmers who buy their GM seeds have to sign contracts that make it illegal for them to save seeds for next year's crops, meaning they have to keep coming back every year to buy more and more seeds. The companies that hold these patents also aggressively attack farmers who they accuse of violating their intellectual property rights to the seeds.

For example, many farmers who steadfastly refused to use GM crops have been sued after pollination from their neighbors' fields contaminated their fields with GM crops. Which provides a segway into some of the environmental concerns.

What's going to happen if these GM crops overpower their natural counterparts? There are already massive fields of GM crops all over the world, and contamination to strictly non-GM fields is rampant. If this continues on unchecked, there may not be any natural, non-GM varieties left. There are "rules" in place that are supposed to stop this, but they're ridiculously inadequate. They don't account for wind-blown pollen or provide enough distance to stop bees from cross-pollination.

GM crops make giant corporation rich and allow them to patent your food, at the expense of your health, the environment, and small farmers. They provide no other benefit once you get past the corporate spin about feeding the world.

If you want a much better, more in-depth discussion of GM crops with sources and everything, I suggest reading the very, very good book, "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey M. Smith.

[400Years]

6. Also there is a really good film called The Future of Food

In it they go over one of those cases where the farmer was sued after the cross pollination problem.
Monsanto is out to control the food market.
You can get it on DVD.

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/

[Trillo]

5. Don't know that it's a fear, as much as an anger....

I suspect that such a severe alteration in the code our food feeds our bodies will result in animal genetic adaptations for the purpose of survival. Survival in the darwinian sense. This implies many deaths and additional sufferings until adaptations occur. How fast will adaptations occur?

The studies that have been reported in the news about smaller organs doesn't bode well for those who don't posses necessary adaptations. I would guess it is the beginning of deaths and die-offs that will occur when what used to work (food) doesn't anymore.

Your example of dying of starvation now versus 15 years from now of cancer, seems to be the classic over-emphsis on the immediate short term and a dismissing of the longer-term effects. Screw the future seems to be the attitude! I'd suggest thinking, instead of 15-years from now in one single generation or single life, to think of the effect on multiple generations over time, specifically including how new recombinations of animal DNA will allow adaptation.

Somewhere in a far distant future, biolife will likely rebalance, unless the planet itself dies. For now, the change in the food supply seems irreversible, the new pollen is blowing in the wind....

[CountAllVotes]

7. link

Ireland has banned all GM'd food. Here is a link w/much info. about GM'd food and why it is so bad and why they will not allow nor grow GM'd food in Ireland (well in the Free Republic anyway; not sure about northern Ireland). In Ireland, they do not feed GM'd food to any of their animals that are raised either fyi.

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/

In any event, check out the above link. It more or less says it all as to why NO GMO.

:kick:

[baldguy]

8. Literally anything can be done with gene-mods.

Remember the old Simpsons' ep with Homer growing Tomaccos? They grew like tomato's but had nicotine from tobacco, and were addictive. The corporate-employed mad scientists in this world have actually made them. Most of these cross-bred chimeras are single celled, and they're made only for research purposes; the problem comes because THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT EFFECTS GM CROPS WILL HAVE: on the parent strain, on the environment, on symbiotic plants & animals, or on the animals & humans who ingest them.

The corps have lobbied heavily to have the FDA have all GM products be declared "safe" without any expensive testing. If they succeed, then Monsanto could deliberately create an apple, for example, that's laced with heroin - then sell it to the general public.

Also, it allows non-governmental entities to own life itself. They can already patent organisms, but up until now the processes involved in creating these organism was costly & compacted. With GM, the plant or animal would do what plants & animals normally do - fuck - and any offspring of such a union would be the intellectual property of the patent holder.

Lastly, no matter what the supposed advantages of GM foods are - the corps marketing them want to obscure the fact that GM foods are GM foods. The very idea that your food may be "altered" or "impure" is extremely discomforting - its a deal killer.

[KT2000]

9. Big problems!

First of all, safety testing is not required because a decision was made that GM foods are the same as non-GM foods. This is not correct but we will all serve as guinea pigs.

What studies have been done have shown serious health effects in mice when eating GM foods.

We do not know enough about Proteins to be using this technology without adequate testing. What we know at this time is that there are several processes concerning proteins that are unpredictable, or rather, we do not know enough to make them predictable. GM is a process where proteins are manipulated but the outcome is not predictable.

Neurological illnesses such as Alzheimer's, Mad Cow Disease and Chronic fatigue Syndrome are showing abnormalities concerning proteins - misfolded, the presence of extra proteins and overgrowth of proteins. This should be a warning that we need to know everything there is to know about proteins before feeding foods made of manipulated proteins to people.

Read the book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith - he does have a web site for more information - google Seeds of deception

this is nothing more than corporate control of the food supply

[FloridaPat]

10. Your health is not important to the food people. Just their profit.

Modifying plants by hybrization is not the same as adding genes from other plants or species. We don't know what can happen. People have gotten sick from the modified corn. I would think as you look around America that we are not all that healthy. Yet, companies keep going for the profit and not the health. They want to irridate our food so they don't have to worry about keeping things clean from germs. Fruit and veggies loose 1/2 their vitamin value when irridated. Tomatoes are bred to be firm, so end up tasteless. Some government group came out with the vitimins and minerals in veggies and fruits and the amounts have dropped from 50 years ago. A report in congress during the 1920's said our farming soil was devoid of minerals. It's like feeding cows dead cow parts. It's against nature. Nature does get even.

[cliss]

11. What are the basic fears? only 1:

GM foods are made by corporations, not nature.

That's all I need to know. (we know how ethical corporations are)

[CountAllVotes]

12. starvation unlikely; cancer highly likely

Seems like an odd comparison. You are very unlikely to die of starvation I suspect, but highly likely to develop cancer. One in every 3 men will develop cancer during their lifetime.

I had a younger brother that lived on "junk" food basically. He died at the age of 40 years from cancer a few years ago - point of origin UNKNOWN.

And now, the dog he had is DEAD FROM CANCER and it was fed a well-known, rather pricey GM'd dog food it's entire life. The dog developed a HUGE TUMOR unlike anything I'd ever seen on an animal in my entire life (supersized and freaky as hell!; even the veterinarian was a bit miffed as it literally appeared overnight). It was removed and recurred only to be twice as size it was the first time (we're talking the size of a head of lettuce!!). I had to have the dog put down as he was very sick from the cancer which had metastasized to his lungs and he could barely walk and was in horrific pain.

I cannot help but wonder if the consumption of genetically modified foods played a role in these deaths I mention.

So, the poster says, "I'd rather die of cancer in 15 years than starve to death. You could develop cancer tomorrow and be dead tomorrow too, as some cancers kill quickly!

Here is what this study says:

<<In this study: Most offspring died when mother rats ate GM Soy

New scientific evidence of the health risks of eating Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM soy beans was announced by the Russian Academy of Sciences in October 2005. The astounding result may threaten the multi-billion dollar biotech industry. Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing. Ermakova's first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other groups (see photo right).

more here at this link: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/

But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls. On October 27, 2005, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) board passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said, "Genetically modified soy, corn, canola (oilseed rape), and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk." >>
-------------------------------

My answer to this comparion you make is this: Maybe if you had not eaten GM'd foods you would not have developed cancer or some other avoidable health problem if you had not consumed the GM'd food.

And this is just the beginning. What is the real truth? Likely Monsanto knows! :grr: :grr: :grr: :argh:

What I find particularly annoying about this issue as that it seems to me that very few Americans know that they are eating GM'd foods nor even seem to know that these foods have been slowly dumped into the food chain here in America during the past 10 years or so! And sadly, almost ALL of the foods you buy are GM'd.

I would like to know the TRUTH regarding this issue. The whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH. Does it cause deformities/genetic abnormaties that are passed from parent to offspring? Does it cause cancer? What exactly are the long-term consequences of eating this crap? Why the hell won't someone in power address this issue!

WAKE THE FUCK UP BEFORE YOU ARE DEAD MY FELLOW CITIZENS! :patriot:

Just say NO to GMO - DEMAND ANSWERS!!!

[Angry Girl]

15. Defeating world hunger is just an EXCUSE for GM'ed food

It's sadly obvious that world hunger is nowhere near being solved and that the people who need food the most aren't getting it. In fact, burning crops to keep the prices high is still going on regularly. There is PLENTY of food to go around - it just isn't getting around....

Also, GM crops require fertilizers that pollute the local water and thereby damage the local crop diversity, which weakens the entire ecosystem.

The most successful programs involve educating people on how to create and use their own seed banks, in harmony with their native fauna and flora, how to treat the environment, how to use hydroponics and other simple, cost-effective technology, etc.

Here's a nice link about
Who benefits from genetically modified crops?
The introduction of GM crops has increased the biotech industry's control over the seed supply. Key facts about Monsanto's undesirable influence over agriculture and food policies in many countries.
http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_10603.html

[philb]

13. GM foods have been shown to have major adverse health effects & also

major environmental effects on other plants and animals.

an example:
GM: New study shows unborn babies could be harmed by genetically modified soy products

Mortality rate for new-born rats six times higher when mother was fed on a diet of modified soya
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 08 January 2006

Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies, startling new research suggests.
The study - carried out by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences - found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified soya died in the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets.
Six times as many were also severely underweight.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337253.ece

[OneBlueSky]

14. "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature" . . . and unhealthy, too . . . n/t

.

[Odin2005]

16. It's mostly fearmongering.

Just because corporations are abusing the technology does not make the technology bad. Insulin for diabetics comes from genetically engineered bacteria, should we ban those because they are "unatural" in the eyes of technophobes? I am a Biology major and the You are right Orrex, the only difference between this and traditional methods is that we can use traits already found in nature in other organisms and not wait for a lucky mutant (This actually happens naturally at a verry low rate in nature because of virus-caused lateral gene transfer if host DNA gets stuch in a virus casule insead of viral DNA), and therefore much faster and can allow us to eventually create supper crops that will trive in very poor enviroments (whether corporation will rip people off in the process is totally beside the point, hopefully we can get the biotech industry nationalized, though).