GM foods - Feeding the hungry or population control

[BSW]

I found this article rather interesting. It just seems rather elementary that if we genetically modify the food those that eat it will become modified as well. I guess we'll see in a couple of generations.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april262010/gm-food-as.php

[Dr. Rich]

Yes BSW--I totally agree. There is truth to what we put into our bodies must be done with care, but this is just overboard. Take the seedless watermelon for instance. What would we do without it?

[BSW]

have children?

[SivartM]

My main problem with GM is the idea of patenting organisms. Sorry, but you're not going to convince me that you invented it because you switched a few genes around.

And I doubt that GM is, for the most part, harmful physically, but I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

[phkrause]

I found this article rather interesting. It just seems rather elementary that if we genetically modify the food those that eat it will become modified as well. I guess we'll see in a couple of generations.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april262010/gm-food-as.php

Thanks for the link. Not sure what they are talking about, but it sure doesn't seem like its very good. At least the results don't paint a pretty picture.

pk

[Bravus]

Say hello to my little friend, Mr CluStik™...

Whap1: Consider the source. When looking for science news, a 'newspaper' web site with a Paypal link in the corner so people can donate to it is... not at the top of the list.

Whap2: Science by press conference. An extensive search reveals no published, peer reviewed paper on this work. That's the gold standard in science: without it, there has been no rigorous check for systematic errors or bias in the work.

Whap3: Guilt by association. Not definitive by itself, of course, but as part of an overall pattern... google this article and look at who is trumpeting the result, and the other things they're concerned with. Lots of tinfoil hats...

I'll be delighted if someone can point me to some peer reviewed science. In the meantime, this is nothing more than "Some bloke down the pub reckons...."

[BSW]

Quote:

Whap1: Consider the source. When looking for science news, a 'newspaper' web site with a Paypal link in the corner so people can donate to it is... not at the top of the list.

Just because it isn't alphabet media means little to nothing in regard to reporting. If you had noted, there were at least 3 sources of information. To slam a site because it excepts paypal is like saying only those sites that have no advertising are to be trusted. As a matter of fact one that relies on its readership for funding may be more ethical than one that is manipulated via. advertising; one could argue.

Russian National Association for Gene Security

Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems

"Seeds of destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation" Review of F. William Engdahl's book

Quote:

Whap2: Science by press conference. An extensive search reveals no published, peer reviewed paper on this work. That's the gold standard in science: without it, there has been no rigorous check for systematic errors or bias in the work.

Please research above sourses in regard to manipulation of our seed banks. Peer review is not the end all of science. Science continues to change, and what might be believed yesterday may change today. The evidence is clear if you are willing to see. If you manipulate to the point of patent, it no longer is a food issue, it's a money issue. One doesn't have to think too deep here. I think of Mercedes Benz, not one safety advancement that they have made has ever been patented, ever. Monsanto is making seeds to patent. Those seeds are starting to show serious problems in hampsters as well as other mammels....hhhmmmmmmmmm

Quote:

Whap3: Guilt by association. Not definitive by itself, of course, but as part of an overall pattern... google this article and look at who is trumpeting the result, and the other things they're concerned with. Lots of tinfoil hats...

Guilt by association? Really? Look who the Mansanto's of the world associate with... Do you really want to go there?

I will.

[Bravus]

If you look a little closer at the '3 sources of information' you will note that 2 of them are self-cites: same author, same 'newspaper', same topic. The third is to a book review on a similar web site.

Point is, zero references to any scientific paper. Apparently the paper is to be published next month, so I guess we'll see then.

At the moment, the report is junior high science fair science at best. No particular mechanism by which the foods could have this effect is described: it's a pure correlational study, and quite a small one.

I have no particular love for GM foods, and I *know* Monsanto has some extremely dodgy business practices. What I'm about (as ever) is good science and good evidence: and this ain't it.

[karl]

The terminator gene is a specific genetic sequence inserted into a seed's DNA. Once activated by a synthetic chemical catalyst of the manufacturer's choosing, the sequence renders the seed and crop it produces sterile. Patented by the USDA and Delta and Pine Land Co., now owned by Monsanto, this terminator technology has no agricultural or economic benefits for farmers or consumers. The only motivation is to protect intellectual property rights, according to owners of the technology. They claim that it allows them to be able to recover investments on research, and produce profits from their technology, as planters must re-purchase seeds every year. Opponents claim that corporations will only use this to squeeze more money out of dependent farmers, and begin a monopoly of chemically saturated suicide seeds.

Possibility of Transfer.

Transgenic plants have already been shown to transfer certain genes to wild relatives or bacteria. The possibility that the terminator gene could be transferred is not denied by anyone. In fact, the tendency of genetically manipulated plants to "leak" traits is greater than others. "They learned that the transgenic plants were 20 times more likely to outcross than the mutants-they were "promiscuous," as a headline in the journal Nature put it. "Nobody knows why," Bergelson says. "We're still trying to find the mechanism that drives the pattern we saw. There's a lot we don't understand, including how common it is." "It's inevitable that they will get out," says ecologist Joy Bergelson of the University of Chicago. "That doesn't necessarily mean that there will be negative repercussions. But there could be some. And right now we don't know enough about what they could be and when they could occur."'

[SivartM]

Ah, so GM promotes immorality among plants. I can see how that's a problem.

[Bravus]

The terminator gene does actually have environmental benefits, and they are precisely what the second para karl quoted relates to: it helps to stop the GM plants breeding with the non-GM populations. Sure, that helps with the intellectual property protection, and sure there are some abuses around that, but it also helps to deal with the concern that the GM will spread to all canola, for example, and therefore make it impossible to source non-GM canola. I'm all in favour of labeling schemes and informed consumer choice: if people don't want to eat GM foods they should absolutely be able to opt out. And the infertility of GM crops helps with that.

As to the notion that the infertility can spread from plants to the animals that eat the plants... notice yourself going green with chlorophyll? Or exhibiting any other plant-like qualities from the plants you eat? No reason why those genes should be taken up any more enthusiastically than the infertility genes... gene transfer is just not that simple.

It has already been pointed out by critics of the original article cited that different pesticides are typically used, in different amounts, on GM and non-GM versions of the same crop. Without a proposed mechanism for the observed infertility, it's at least as likely that it's related to pesticides, or some other systematic difference between the crops, as to the genetic modification. And the specific modification is not mentioned: if the soy was modified to include more of a particular nutrient, for example, that could be a factor.

As I said, there are a heap of questions around this study, and it shouldn't be taken as gospel until some of them are answered.

[Amelia]

Quote:

Whap1: Consider the source. When looking for science news, a 'newspaper' web site with a Paypal link in the corner so people can donate to it is... not at the top of the list.

[karl]

Just before stepping down from office, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman admitted the following:

Quote:

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked... And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on... You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"

Contrast this with the warning by the editors of Nature Biotechnology:

Quote:

"The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or foolhardy behavior."

[karl]

I find it hilarious that we have liberals going to bat for GM foods. But I guess faith in government must somehow translate to faith in Monsanto.

The only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that genetically engineered genes from soy transferred to the bacteria inside the digestive tract. (The biotech industry had previously said that such a transfer was impossible.)

The World Health Organization, the British and American Medical Associations, and several other groups have expressed concern that if the "antibiotic resistant marker genes" used in GM foods got transferred to bacteria, it could create super-diseases that are immune to antibiotics.

More worrisome is that the "promoter" used inside GM foods could get transferred to bacteria or internal organs. Promoters act like light switches, permanently turning on genes that might otherwise be switched off. Scientists believe that this might create unpredictable health effects, including the potentially pre-cancerous cell growth found in animal feeding studies.

[Bravus]

Quote:

I find it hilarious that we have liberals going to bat for GM foods.

I think you mean 'people'. Or possibly 'scientists'.

And 'challenging bad science' does not equal 'going in to bad for GM'.

Not unless the end justifies the means, and it doesn't matter how bad the science is as long as it delivers the 'correct' conclusion.

[BSW]

Here is a study done. It is a dry read but if you can get through the "science-talk" I am sure that one can come to the conclusion that we are headed in a direction that can cause problems in mammels of which we are.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

In the conclusion section I found this sentence rather interesting and I think it should be considered before feeding GMO foods to our families.

Quote:

Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.

Please also note that the original story based on research (IMO) was done on hampsters. And it was noted that in hampsters there was a fertal issue.

[karl]

The Human Genome Project summarizes the controversies surrounding GM foods:

Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects

Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity

Domination of world food production by a few companies

Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries

Biopiracy – foreign exploitation of natural resources

Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species

Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa

Labeling not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)

Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts

New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

[karl]

Link????????

Thanks for demonstrating my point!

Oh, by the way...the rest of the quote,

The HGP is simply reporting all aspects listing both pros and cons...of course we wouln't want anyone to think there was a pro side...now would we???

Source

I was assuming you libs are just dying to eat this stuff. Just wanted you to know the potential downside. No use stoking your flame FOR it. You've already got that in spades.

[GreatLakesGramma]

I prefer the stance my doctor had when I was pregnant with my twin sons. He told me not to take ANY drugs, because while some had not been proven harmful, they also had not been proven to be harmless. Until & unless Monsanto proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no harmful effects from GMO organisms, I will assume there are. Tampering with nature in this way is dangerous because there is so much science does NOT know, about everything. They tend to assume that what they don't know won't hurt us. They have been wrong about that before, many times.

[Gerr]

Just tagging on.

I would be happy to serve as a guinea pig for these genetically altered foods. Digestive enzymes break down complex carbohydrates into simple sugars. Proteins into amino acids. Unless there is a gut defect, I don't see how one could incorporate food DNA into the human genome. Bacteria do not have the digestive enzymes that humans have, so I can see

how DNA from outside sources could possibly be incorporated into their DNA.

[aldona]

Quote:

I was assuming you libs are just dying to eat this stuff. Just wanted you to know the potential downside. No use stoking your flame FOR it. You've already got that in spades.

I don't know what things are like in your part of the world, but certainly around here, most of the folks who are against GM foods are what you would probably call "liberal".

You know, the left-wing, tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, tofu-eating, Greens-voting communist hippie types.

AJ

[Bravus]

All true, aldona, but there's also the right-wing antiscience libertarian crowd to deal with... and I'm guessing that's who we're running into here. Sadly, we seem to be past the days when we could just discuss the actual science of the issue, and have to resort to name-calling and labelling instead.

No-one has so far addressed *any* of my scientific critiques of this 'study' or its reporting...

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

I was assuming [from what you've been posting] you libs are just dying to eat this stuff. Just wanted you to know the potential downside. No use stoking your flame FOR it. You've already got that in spades.

I don't know what things are like in your part of the world, but certainly around here, most of the folks who are against GM foods are what you would probably call "liberal".

That's why I noted earlier in the thread it is hilarious to see libs lobbying FOR genetically modified foods here on CA.

Maybe I should burn all my Mother Jones magazines in protest.

[SivartM]

I'm personally not "for" GM foods; there's a lot we don't know about them and there are obvious ethical problems with "inventing" and "patenting" a plant. But I just doubt that they are going to KILL US ALL!!!! if we don't stop them.

[karl]

I'm personally not "for" GM foods; there's a lot we don't know about them and there are obvious ethical problems with "inventing" and "patenting" a plant. But I just doubt that they are going to KILL US ALL!!!! if we don't stop them.

Ah, the liberal way. "I don't object to your objection, it's just that I find it to be.... objectionably phrased."