What's your position on GMO's??

What's your position on genetically modified organisms? his topic is hardly ever mentioned on DU so I wanted to see what people here think. Do you believe they should be: labeled, gotten rid of, or supported?

Personally I think they should be labeled for three good reasons:
1. People have a right to know what they eat, and should be informed about things the want to know.

2. It's a health hazard to some people. Example: Jim is allergic to walnuts. He goes to the store and buys four apples, which unknown to him have a walnut gene in them. Next day Jim eats an apple. He has a violent reaction and dies. (btw. Some people can die if the eat a certain food.

3. It hurts the US economically if we can't export our crops because countries don't want it because it's genetically modified.

:) :) :)

n/t

I was being restrained on my position.

It sunk like 6 rows down 2 seconds later!:kick:

:grr: :kick: :kick: :kick:

these threads are moving fast tonight in GD!!

I agree that GMO foods need to be labeled. I try and shop at stores that are "healthier" then most grocery stores, Wild Oats, Whole Foods, etc. And I look for the labels on everything I buy. So labeling is very important to me as a consumer.

They polute our environment by sharing their fudged dna with native plants and natural food crops. GMO's could essentially destroy our natural environment. This is an area where we need to tread carefully and greedy corporations are not the ones to do it.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about genetically modified orgasms. Personally, I don't see any need to modify orgasms, though the wife might disagree.

they do have some benefits and banning them is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I used to work in the dairy industry in Wisconsin where genetic engineering is absolute king. There was a really big flap a few years ago about BGH or bovine growth hormone used to make cows produce incredible quantities of milk. It can't be detected in the milk and there are no known risks to humans. Because of the outcry by the public, thousands of farmers signed pledges that they wouldn't use BGH, but damned near all of them cheated that pledge (it can't be detected in the milk remember?) So, it's been in use a few years now. No side effects that anybody has detected but an interesting thing is happening. Cows are "burning out" after about two years of milking (sometimes 3 shifts a day) The end result is a higher turnover of milking stock and a hugh price increase in replacement cows.

The point is, there are unforseen effects of GMO and genetic engineering in general. So if a butterfly flaps its wings in China, it may cause a flood in Europe. Chaos theory. What effect will natural cross polonation of crops do? What will happen if a strain of genetically engineered (say) corn becomes susceptable to a blight and the entire corn crop os endangered? The answer is nobody knows one way or the other.

Labeling is an answer to only one part of the puzzle. We don't even know what the other parts look like.

It is not even a discipline any more. That is very old news.

The GMO paranoia is silly. Chicken Little to the max.

Come on folks. We've been modifying various plants and animals for centuries now. All we've done here is find a more efficient way to do so. Label if you must, but for God's sake we need to start getting these crops out to the areas where they can do some good.

I have a hard time seeing where I'm wrong. I think this is what it's all about. Yet, I've never ONCE heard a GM-defender address this...and I've listened to hours of coverage, eg, on Archer Daniels Midland sponsored NPR programs, and this never comes up. So strange.

but I honestly have never even considered your argument before. Or heard it for that matter. It just always seemed obvious to me that GMOs were a good thing. Allow me some time to research this particular twist on the subject and I'll do my best to oblige though.

I think their credibility and bias will form part of my rebuttal.

It's nice to see an "Edwards" logo. I like him a lot. I support DK, but like a lot of the candidates, including Edwards.

business plan has worked - they want those who oppose GM foods to be regarded as luddites, chicken littles, stupid.
But when you look into this issue, you will realize that there are many unknowns and high risks involved. Frankly, opur knowldge of proteins is not sufficient to allow use of these product, much less flooding the market with them.

GM crops aren't being GM'ed to grow MORE food (more means cheap, and nobody who makes money selling food wants cheaper, lower profit-margin food, and nobody is starving in the world because there are inherrent inefficiencies in how food grows, they're starving because they can't afford to buy already cheap food). GM crops are being GM'ed to make them MORE EXPENSIVE. Crops reproduce themselves cheaply. They grow seeds, the seeds grow into plants. It's an endless cycle.

GM'ers have a couple strategies to deal with this problem of cheaply self-reproducing food. Monsanto, et al, are: (1) modifying crops so they don't reseed, (2) they're modifying crops that cross-pollinate with other crops, and then suing the growers of those crops for patent-infringement, and (3) they're growing crops which depend on some patented and trade marked chemical product, like Round-Up, which the company also sells (and they're hoping they get a little of number 2 in the deal) -- which is sort of like the IBM punch-card strategy from the old days; even after the punch machine patent ran out, you still had to buy the punch cards from IBM).

None of these three strategies is good for anyone. People will starve and die because of these economic marketing strategies. It is evil what these companies want to do.

Like I said, I think this is the central issue, and I've NEVER heard a GM defender address this. I think it's probably because it's indefensible.

People are starving now because they don't have money to buy food. There is enough food right now.

Corporate control over all the seed means small farmers in the Third World driven off their land, as agribusiness takes over, and MORE people starving.

Monsanto, ADM, and others advertising fluff about feeding the world is PURE BULLSHIT. They could care less.

A whole world planted with these little monstrosities and nothing to reseed naturally? Not bright. Forests are experimenting with GM trees too, so they'll grow faster.

Just more me me me short-sighted instant gratification propaganda for the masses... of Americans at least.

I agree with you!

It's about controlling and selling the food chain.

Personally I'm sure Tony Blair is behind it all ;)

in the UK (not in media, but in government papers), and I understand that Labour is very worried about it. This is why the EU doesn't want US GM food used anywhere outside the US.

Chaos theory is crap? Could you provide some proof as to where/when/how/by whom it has been discredited? I know of some conservatives who would like to believe all of science and logic has been discredited, but that isn't reality. I worked with a brilliant physicist for 4 years and that is bunk.

As for GMO's, yes, we've modified crops before, but never on this scale. We don't know how they'll behave in the natural environment over time just yet. It's probably best to not release a vast amount of genetically modified material into the natural environment until a lot more research is done, and we can be reasonably sure we're not going to endanger what has taken nature millions of years to modify up to this point.

As for GMO's, yes, we've modified crops before, but never on this scale. We don't know how they'll behave in the natural environment over time just yet

This is sort of the whole point. There is so much we don't know.

I don't mind some genetic tweaking, but for God's sake don't cross species, let alone biological kingdoms. That's a Pandora's Box I don't think should be opened.

If these things are so good for us, label them and let people decide for themselved.

Before widespread use, they should be studied for unintended ecological consequences.

addresses the economic issue.

If GM'ing is being done to make food more expensive, then how does labelling solve the problem? Are you willing to accept a world in which people can't grow food unless they have an IP license and lots of money?

Controlling food this way is not unlike the private water companies in South America making it against the law to collect rainwater in buckets on your roof.

because people, given a clear choice, won't buy the stuff. Most people anyhow. That's why Monsanto et al. won't allow the US government to allow labeling, and fights like hell to prevent any state regulations. (Just shot one down in Oregon with big money).

Labeling is the camel's nose under the tent for these guys. Would be a small victory.

As far as protecting your own farmers from corporate control, governments of other countries have to resist this stuff to the very last breath. The US gov't is bought already. Too late.

economic incentive to produce the foods which would outweigh the fact that maybe 10% fewer people would buy the foods in the first ten years. As soon as you control the production, people won't have any choice.

Will that mean that I have to take my tomato out for a walk?

They spliced a flounder (fish) gene into the tomato genes that in effect gave it a longer shelf life. However, you are combining plant and animal kingdom here. I don't know of any ecological damage done, however I wouldn't want to see a practice of this. Also, the tomatoes didn't sell because consumers were leery of them.

I think the more prosaic example of let's say someone who could be allergic to peanuts and if a peanut gene were spliced into some other species food, it could have deadly consequences. Therefore labeling is essential.

I think I'll do some reading on the matter though, so thanks for the info. Now I just need to get over the thought of my veggies cowering in terror in the back of the crisper every time I open the fridge door.

The new DNA is "shot" into cells using something simialr to a 22 calibar gun. It is a rather crude process. The viable cells are harvested and the rest thrown away.

......be informed.

http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu//gmo.html

<snip> Genetic Engineering
Controversial topic.
Depending on whom you ask, the technology will either end world hunger or damage health and environment. Maybe neither... or both?

The GEO-PIE Project was developed to create objective educational materials exploring the complex scientific and social issues associated with genetic engineering, to help readers consider those issues for themselves


much more.....

but please do not underestimate the influence this industry has on research institution $$$$$
Careers are ruined for people who dare to safety test this stuff and publish negative results.

The revovling doors of industry and government has government administrators approving industry documents the same person prepared and an employee of industry.

This is not just an issue of science but one of corruption of the scientific method by a powerful corporation.

So glad you asked the question - it may turn out that this is the most important issue facing us - but as a society we are blind.

Monsanto consulted with Arthur Anderson to develop a business plan that would have Monsanto in control of the world's seed's in 20 years. Their intention is to flood the market with these products before people can mount an effective resistance. They have quietly been buying up seed companies over the last several years. They call it the "life sciences" industry.

First - GM foods should not be sold to the public -much less fed to our children. They are not being tested for safety in humans. It is only required to be tested for its ability to live up to its claim, i.e., is the plant manufacturing its own pesticide as claimed etc. The US government agencies - AG and FDA have taken the postion that GE foods are identical to their natural counterparts but they are not.

Genetically engineered foods are not the same as selective breeding. It is taking DNA from another species and forcing it into the plant or animal. Example - to make strawberries that would not freeze, a protein that inhibits freezing is taken from fish and is forced into the strawberry plant.

Feeding studies are not required to prove the safety of these products but the ones that have been done by other than industry should scare the pants off of us all.
After 10 days of feeding rats GE potatoes, the rats showed damage to the immunes systems - thymus and spleen. They had smaller less developed brains, livers and testicles. Enlarged pancreas and intestines. Structural changes and cell proliferation in stomachs and intestines.
If this happens in humans - ?

The human body has evolved over thousands of years. The proteins introduced to the human body through GE foods are novel. They have not existed before and we do not know how our bodies will react. We are just learning about the behavior of proteins and the systems that assist them. Ex., Some proteins need the assistance of other proteins to fold properly. We do not know if these manufactured proteins will need assistance, and if they do, whether there are proteins that can assist.

I urge all to read the book "Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating"" by Jeffrey Smith, Available in September.
Monsanto posted higher earnings last quarter based in its increased sales of GE seeds. Their business plan is succeeding and we are the guinea pigs!

genetically engineered food now in our supermarkets that isn't even being labeled. I think we should demand this so we know what we are eating.

to be sure - eat organic - even though they have been sold GE corn against their request.

If I had kids I would let them eat only organic.

and strict controls over how and where GM crops are grown to prevent contaminating our entire food supply (through unintentional cross-pollination).

Since the Industrial Revolution, we have been POISONED, condemned to slow deaths, by corporate financial interests. In my mind's eye this is a completely different and new manifestation.

Privatization? NO.
GMO? NO.
Nuclear power? NO.
"Super Powers?" NO.

In all of the above cases, monied interests have become able to evade ACCOUNTABILITY. But who the hell cares what I think?